Protection of Freedoms Bill — Amendment to Programme Motion — 10 Oct 2011 at 18:58
Patrick McLoughlin MP, Derbyshire Dales voted against more time to consider amendments to the Public Order Act, including reducing the scope of offence of causing harassment, alarm or distress.
The majority of MPs voted against spending more time considering amendments to the Public Order Act, including reducing the scope of offence of causing harassment, alarm or distress.
MPs were considering their timetable for consideration of the Protection of Freedoms Bill.
The amendment rejected in this vote was:
- after “Proceedings” on the first day insert—
- ‘New Clauses relating to the Public Order Act 1986; and’
Had this rejected amendment been passed it would have ensured that amendments to the Bill, including proposals to restrict the scope of Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 were considered during the first day's debate on the Bill, from the start of the main business until 8.30pm, rather than being dealt with alongside many other matters on in the last hour allocated to the consideration of the Bill.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Protection of Freedoms Bill (now an Act)
-  Notices of Amendments including New Clause 1 "Causing harassment, alarm and distress: restriction of scope"
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||199 (+2 tell)||39 (+2 tell)||1||79.4%|