Protection of Freedoms Bill — Third Reading — DNA Retention, Clamping, CCTV, FOI Datasets — 11 Oct 2011 at 21:53

Jamie Reed MP, Copeland voted against a series of measures including requiring the police to destroy fingerprints and DNA taken in certain circumstances; against introducing a CCTV code of practice; against banning wheel clamping on private land and against new Freedom of Information provisions for datasets.

The majority of MPs voted in favour of the Protection of Freedoms Bill[1] at its third reading, approving the Bill as it stood and allowing it to continue on its path towards becoming law.

Key areas of the Bill as listed on Parliament's website include:

  • brings in a new framework for police retention of fingerprints and DNA data, and requires schools to get parents’ consent before processing children’s biometric information
  • introduces a code of practice for surveillance camera systems and provides for judicial approval of certain surveillance activities by local authorities
  • provides for a code of practice to cover officials’ powers of entry, with these powers being subject to review and repeal
  • outlaws wheel-clamping on private land
  • introduces a new regime for police stops and searches under the Terrorism Act 2000 and reduces the maximum pre-charge detention period under that Act from 28 to 14 days
  • restricts the scope of the 'vetting and barring' scheme for protecting vulnerable groups and makes changes to the system of criminal records checks
  • enables those with convictions for consensual sexual relations between men aged 16 or over (which have since been decriminalised) to apply to have them disregarded
  • extends Freedom of Information rights by requiring datasets to be available in a re-usable format
  • repeals provisions (never brought into force) which would have allowed trial without a jury in complex fraud cases
  • removes time restrictions on when marriage or civil partnership ceremonies may take place.

==

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

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.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con261 (+1 tell) 0085.6%
DUP1 5075.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Ind0 10100.0%
Lab0 218 (+2 tell)085.3%
LDem50 (+1 tell) 0089.5%
PC3 00100.0%
SDLP0 2066.7%
SNP5 0083.3%
Total:320 227085.7%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Sammy WilsonEast AntrimDUPaye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive