Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill — New Clause 1 — Communications Intercepts — Overseas Requests — Death Sentence Cases — 30 Jan 2019 at 15:30

The majority of MPs voted to require a written assurance that communications intercepted on behalf of another country, or territory, will not be used in proceedings which could result in a defendant being sentenced to death.

MPs were considering the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill[1].

The proposed new clause accepted in this vote was titled: Designation of international agreements for purposes of section 52 of Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and stated:

  • ‘(1) Section 52 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (interception of communications in accordance with overseas requests) is amended as follows.
  • (2) In subsection (3), at the end insert “(see further subsections (6) and (7))”.
  • (3) After subsection (5) insert—
  • “(6) Subsection (7) applies where an international agreement provides for requests for the interception of a communication to be made by the competent authorities of a country or territory, or of more than one country or territory, in which a person found guilty of a criminal offence may be sentenced to death for the offence under the general criminal law of the country or territory concerned.
  • Such an offence is referred to in subsection (7) as a “death penalty offence”.
  • (7) Where this subsection applies, the Secretary of State may not designate the agreement as a relevant international agreement unless the Secretary of State has sought, in respect of each country or territory referred to in subsection (6), a written assurance, or written assurances, relating to the non-use of information obtained by virtue of the agreement in connection with proceedings for a death penalty offence in the country or territory.’

The accepted new clause was accompanied by an explanatory statement saying:

  • This new clause amends section 52 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 to set out the assurances that must be sought before the Secretary of State may designate, for the purposes of that section, an international agreement that provides for the making of interception requests by countries or territories which have the death penalty.
  • [1] Parliament's webpage on the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL 2017-19,]

Debate in Parliament |

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 (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con292 (+2 tell) 0092.7%
DUP10 00100.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent1 3050.0%
Lab6 206 (+2 tell)083.6%
LDem0 10090.9%
PC0 40100.0%
SNP0 33094.3%
Total:309 257088.8%

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

Luciana BergerLiverpool, Wavertreewhilst Lab (front bench)aye
Ann CoffeyStockportwhilst Labaye
Mike GapesIlford Southwhilst Lab (front bench)aye
Chris LeslieNottingham Eastwhilst Lab (front bench)aye
Gavin ShukerLuton Southwhilst Lab (front bench)aye
Angela SmithPenistone and Stocksbridgewhilst Lab (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