Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill — New Clause 2 — Report on Funding of Enforcement Agencies — 7 Mar 2022 at 21:34
The majority of MPs voted against requiring a report on the funding of enforcement agencies in connection with powers which can be used to require people to explain the origin of assets.
MPs were considering the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill.[1][2][3]
The proposed new clause rejected by a majority of MPs in this vote was titled: Report on funding of enforcement agencies and stated:
- Within 28 days of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the funding of enforcement agencies in connection with the provisions of Part 2 of this Act.
The rejected new clause was accompanied by the following explanatory statement from its proposer:
- This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a report on the funding of enforcement agencies in connection with the reforms to unexplained wealth orders, as provided for in Part 2 of the Bill.
Part 2 of the Bill[2][3] provided for an expansion in the scope of the "Unexplained Wealth Orders" to: cover requests for information made to officers of an organisation; enable orders to be used in cases where it is suspected that the property in question has been obtained through unlawful conduct. On the subject of Unexplained Wealth Orders the Bill also seeks to: extend the period for which interim freezing order has effect and limit an enforcement authority’s costs liability.
The explanatory notes[3] state:
- An Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO) requires a person who is a PEP or reasonably suspected of involvement in, or of being connected to a person involved in, serious crime to explain the origin of assets (minimum combined value of £50,000) that appear to be disproportionate to their known lawfully obtained income
--
- [1] Parliament's webpage on the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill, Parliament.uk
- [2] Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill, as introduced 1 March 2022, Parliament.uk
- [3] Explanatory notes to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill, as introduced 1 March 2022, 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 (No) | Minority (Aye) | Both | Turnout |
| Alba | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50.0% |
| Alliance | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Con | 303 (+2 tell) | 4 | 0 | 85.4% |
| DUP | 0 | 6 | 0 | 75.0% |
| Green | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Independent | 0 | 3 | 0 | 60.0% |
| Lab | 0 | 164 (+2 tell) | 0 | 83.0% |
| LDem | 0 | 10 | 0 | 76.9% |
| PC | 0 | 3 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SDLP | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50.0% |
| SNP | 0 | 36 | 0 | 80.0% |
| Total: | 303 | 230 | 0 | 83.6% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by constituency
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 |
| John Baron | Basildon and Billericay | Con | aye |
| Philip Hollobone | Kettering | Con (front bench) | aye |
| Julian Lewis | New Forest East | whilst Con (front bench) | aye |
| Thomas Tugendhat | Tonbridge and Malling | Con (front bench) | aye |