Public Order Bill — Report (1st Day) — Amendment 1 — 30 Jan 2023 at 17:00
Moved by Lord Coaker
1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause-“Meaning of “serious disruption”(1) In this Act, “serious disruption” means disruption causing significant harm to persons, organisations or the life of the community, in particular where-(a) it may result in a significant delay to the delivery of a time-sensitive product to consumers of that product, or(b) it may result in a prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or any essential service, including access to-(i) the supply of money, food, water, energy, or fuel,(ii) a system of communication,(iii) a place of worship,(iv) a transport facility,(v) an educational institution, or(vi) a service relating to health.(2) In subsection (1)(a), “time-sensitive product” means a product whose value or use to its consumers may be significantly reduced by a delay in the supply of the product to them.”Member’s explanatory statementThis new Clause defines the concept of “serious disruption” for the purposes of this Bill, which is the trigger for several new offences and powers.
Ayes 243, Noes 221.
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 is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.Party | Majority (Content) | Minority (Not-Content) | Turnout |
Bishop | 3 | 0 | 12.0% |
Con | 1 | 182 (+2 tell) | 66.8% |
Crossbench | 39 | 21 | 33.7% |
DUP | 0 | 5 | 83.3% |
Green | 2 | 0 | 100.0% |
Independent Labour | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
Judge | 1 | 1 | 18.2% |
Lab | 117 (+2 tell) | 0 | 65.7% |
LDem | 66 | 0 | 78.6% |
Non-affiliated | 10 | 9 | 34.5% |
PC | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
UUP | 0 | 1 | 50.0% |
Total: | 241 | 219 | 56.4% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by party
Lords 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 lord who could have voted in this division
Name | Party | Vote |
Lord Ranger | Con | aye |
Lord Anderson of Ipswich | Crossbench | no |
Lord Butler of Brockwell | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
Viscount Colville of Culross | Crossbench | no |
Lord Craig of Radley | Crossbench | no |
Lord Curry of Kirkharle | Crossbench | no |
Lord Dannatt | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
Baroness Falkner of Margravine | Crossbench | no |
Lord Grabiner | Crossbench | no |
Lord Greenway | Crossbench | no |
Lord Hoffmann | Crossbench | no |
Lord Hogan-Howe | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
Lord Krebs | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
Lord Laming | Crossbench | no |
Lord Mawson | Crossbench | no |
Lord Mountevans | Crossbench | no |
Lord Pannick | Crossbench | no |
Lord Peach | Crossbench | no |
Lord St John of Bletso | Crossbench | no |
Lord Turnbull | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
Lord Vaux of Harrowden | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
The Duke of Wellington | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
Lord Faulks | Non-affiliated (front bench) | no |
Lord Gadhia | Non-affiliated | no |
Baroness Hoey | Non-affiliated | no |
Lord Moore of Etchingham | Non-affiliated | no |
Baroness Stowell of Beeston | Non-affiliated (front bench) | no |
Lord Truscott | Non-affiliated | no |
Lord Tyrie | Non-affiliated (front bench) | no |
Lord Verdirame | Non-affiliated | no |
Lord Walney | Non-affiliated | no |