Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill — Clause 1 — Authorisation of Criminal Conduct — 27 Jan 2021 at 18:15
The majority of MPs voted against requiring those issuing authorisations for criminal conduct by undercover officers and covert sources to "reasonably believe", rather than merely "believe", the required conditions are met.
MPs were considering the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill.[1][2]
The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:
- That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Lords amendment 1[3] stated:
- Page 2, line 17, after “person” insert “reasonably”
The rejected amendment would have impacted Clause 1 of the Bill[4] which provided for a new section of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 titled Covert human intelligence sources: criminal conduct authorisations. The section provided for authorisation for criminal conduct in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of a covert human intelligence source. The rejected amendment sought to increase the threshold for such authorisations from merely believing the required conditions were met, to reasonably believing they were met.
The conditions were that the authorisation is necessary:
- in the interests of national security;
- for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder; or
- in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.
and
- that the authorised conduct is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct; and
- that arrangements exist that satisfy such requirements as may be imposed by order made by the Secretary of State
--
- [1] Parliament's webpage on the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill, Parliament.uk
- [2] Explanatory notes to the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill, 21 January 2020, Parliament.uk
- [3] Lords amendments to the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill, 21 January 2020, Parliament.uk
- [4] Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill, as introduced in the House of Lords, Parliament.uk
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.
| Party | Majority (Aye) | Minority (No) | Both | Turnout |
| Alliance | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Con | 359 (+2 tell) | 0 | 0 | 98.9% |
| DUP | 8 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Green | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Independent | 0 | 4 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Lab | 0 | 196 (+2 tell) | 0 | 99.0% |
| LDem | 0 | 11 | 0 | 100.0% |
| PC | 0 | 3 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SDLP | 0 | 2 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SNP | 0 | 47 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Total: | 367 | 265 | 0 | 99.1% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by name
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
| Name | Constituency | Party | Vote | |
| no rebellions | ||||