Transposing European Union Criminal Justice and Data Protection Measures into UK Law — If to make Decision — 10 Nov 2014 at 20:01

The majority of MPs voted to move straight to a decision on if the UK should actually opt-out of eleven European Union criminal justice and data protection measures. The majority of MPs were voting to reject the alternative option before them which was to stop considering the matter completely, without taking a decision on it.

The motion rejected by the majority of MPs taking part in this vote was:

  • That the Question be not now put.

Once that motion was moved the choice before MPs was to either cease debating, and not decide on, if the UK should actually opt-out of eleven European Union criminal justice and data protection measures or to move straight to a decision.

Just by moving the motion one MP had ruled out the possibility of the debate continuing as the previously approved timetable motion would have permitted.

The rejection of the proposal the question be not now put was interpreted by the Speaker, according to precedent and inline with statements the Speaker had made on the consequences of such a vote[1][2], as MPs expressing a wish that the question be put straight away.

The motion under consideration when the motion which was the subject of this vote was moved was

The regulations would transpose eleven European Union criminal justice and data protection measures into UK law. These measures were among those the UK had earlier in the year decided to opt out of by 1 December 2014.

The eleven measures the regulations transpose relate to the following schemes[3]:

  • Confiscation and Freezing Orders
  • "ECRIS" which requires Member States to inform each other about convictions of EU nationals in another Member State
  • European Supervision Order - which enables a suspect or defendant subject to a pre-trial non-custodial supervision measure (such as supervised bail) in a Member State in which they are not resident, to be supervised in their home, or other, Member State un til such time as their trial takes place.
  • Joint Investigation Teams (“JITs”) - to prevent and combat crime (especially drug trafficking, people trafficking and terrorism) by providing for closer cooperation between police forces, customs authorities and other competent authorities in Member States.
  • Mutual Recognition of Financial Penalties scheme which requires Member States to collect financial penalties (of over £55.31 or €70) transferred by other Member States, as they would a domestic financial penalty.
  • Prisoner Transfer Framework which provides for the compulsory transfer of foreign national offenders between Member States without the consent of the prisoner
  • Swedish Initiative which seeks to simplify the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities in Member States for the purposes of conducting criminal investigations or criminal intelligence operations.
  • Trials in absentia several measures relate to this scheme which deals with the issue of judgements in absentia and require mutual recognition of such judgements.
  • Data Protection Framework Decision which establishes a common level of protection and an appropriate level of security when Member States exchange personal data within the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.


Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

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 (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con229 (+1 tell) 25184.5%
DUP0 1012.5%
Independent2 00100.0%
Lab0 191 (+2 tell)074.8%
LDem40 (+1 tell) 1075.0%
PC0 1033.3%
SDLP0 2066.7%
SNP0 60100.0%
UKIP0 10100.0%
Total:271 228178.8%

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

Richard BaconSouth NorfolkCon (front bench)aye
Steven BakerWycombeCon (front bench)aye
John BaronBasildon and BillericayCon (front bench)aye
Peter BoneWellingboroughCon (front bench)aye
Andrew BridgenNorth West LeicestershireCon (front bench)aye
Bill CashStoneCon (front bench)aye
David DavisHaltemprice and HowdenConaye
Richard DraxSouth DorsetCon (front bench)aye
Philip HolloboneKetteringCon (front bench)aye
Bernard JenkinHarwich and North EssexCon (front bench)aye
Chris KellyDudley SouthCon (front bench)aye
Edward LeighGainsboroughCon (front bench)aye
Julian LewisNew Forest EastCon (front bench)aye
Peter LilleyHitchin and HarpendenCon (front bench)aye
Anne MainSt AlbansCon (front bench)aye
Nigel MillsAmber ValleyCon (front bench)aye
David NuttallBury NorthCon (front bench)aye
Dominic RaabEsher and WaltonCon (front bench)aye
John RedwoodWokinghamConaye
Jacob Rees-MoggNorth East SomersetCon (front bench)aye
Simon ReevellDewsburyCon (front bench)aye
Richard ShepherdAldridge-BrownhillsConaye
Bob StewartBeckenhamCon (front bench)aye
Andrew TurnerIsle of WightCon (front bench)aye
Sarah WollastonTotnesCon (front bench)aye
Anne Marie MorrisNewton AbbotCon (front bench)both
Adrian SandersTorbayLDem (front bench)aye

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.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive