Protection of Freedoms Bill — Stalking — 19 Mar 2012 at 17:45
Rehman Chishti MP, Gillingham and Rainham did not vote.
The majority of MPs voted against broadening the definition of stalking to include acting in any way that would cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm.
MPs were considering the Protection of Freedoms Bill. The motion rejected in this vote was:
- That amendment (b) to Lords amendment 51 be made.
Amendment (b) stated:
- Line 31, [Inserted section 2A(3)(g)] at end insert—
- "(h) or acting in any other way that would cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm.
- (3A) The Secretary of State may by regulation add further forms of conduct to subsection (3).’.
the line (h) above would have been added to the list of "examples of acts or omissions which, in particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking"; and the further new subclause would have enabled the Secretary of State to add to that list via regulations.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Protection of Freedoms Bill (now an Act)
-  Lords amendments to the Protection of Freedoms Bill 13 March 2012
-  Page of Lords amendments to the Protection of Freedoms Bill 13 March 2012 containing amendment 51
-  Amendment paper for consideration of Lords Amendments 19 March 2012
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.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||242 (+1 tell)||0||0||79.4%|
|Lab||0||199 (+2 tell)||0||78.2%|
|LDem||43 (+1 tell)||0||0||77.2%|