Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill — Schedule — Consultation and Assessment Prior to Amending Power of Arrest on Basis of Request from Another Country — 8 Sep 2020 at 16:45

The majority of MPs voted not to require consultations and assessments prior to amending a power for UK constables to arrest people on the basis of an approved request from an authority in another country.

MPs were considering the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill[1].

The amendment supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • Amendment 13, page 3, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 4.

An explanatory statement accompanying the amendment stated:

  • This amendment leaves out a provision inserted in the Lords imposing certain conditions relating to consultation, assessments and reports on the making of regulations under new section 74B(7).

The provision, which was to be inserted into the Extradition Act 2003 that was left out as a result of this vote stated:

  • The Secretary of State may only make regulations under subsection(7) if the following conditions are first met—
  • (a)the Secretary of State has consulted on the merits of the change with —
  • (i)each devolved administration, and
  • (ii)non-governmental organisations which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, have a relevant interest,
  • (b)the Secretary of State has laid an assessment before each House of Parliament on the risks of the change, and
  • (c)if the regulations are to add a reference to a territory to Schedule A1, the Secretary of State has laid a statement before each House of Parliament confirming that the territory does not abuse the Interpol Red Notices system

The regulations in question would amend the scope, and arrangements, relating to a power for UK constables to arrest people on the basis of a certificate issued by an authority designated by a UK Secretary of State following by a request from an authority in another country. The proposal at the time of the vote was for such a power to apply in respect of certain requests from Australia, Canada, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Switzerland and The United States of America.

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

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
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con327 (+2 tell) 0090.4%
DUP5 0062.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent1 10100.0%
Lab0 179 (+2 tell)089.6%
LDem0 10090.9%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 20100.0%
SNP0 42087.5%
Total:333 239089.7%

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
no rebellions

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.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive