Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill — Clause 1 — Authorisation of Criminal Conduct — Compensation — 27 Jan 2021 at 18:15
The majority of MPs voted against a right to compensation in respect of injuries arising from authorised criminal conduct by undercover officers and covert sources.
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 3.
Lords amendment 3[3] stated:
- Page 3, line 16, at end insert—
- “( ) Notwithstanding section 27, injury sustained by any person shall not be excluded from the scope of the Schemes provided for by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1985 and the Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 by virtue of the fact that the conduct causing such injury was authorised under this section.”
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.
Section 27 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 provides for an exemption from civil liability in respect of authorised conduct.
The rejected amendment sought to give a right to compensation in respect of injuries arising from authorised criminal conduct by undercover officers and covert sources.
--
- [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 | 195 (+2 tell) | 0 | 98.5% |
| 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 | 264 | 0 | 98.9% |
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
| Name | Constituency | Party | Vote | |
| no rebellions | ||||