Lords division · 3 Nov 2003 · No. 4

Anti-social Behaviour Bill

It was moved by the Lord Dixon-Smith, in Clause 64, page 49, line 32, to leave out subsection (2) and insert: “(2) In section 68 (offence of aggravated trespass) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (1) and (2)— “(1) A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land and, in relation to any lawful activity on or taking place on that or adjoining land does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect— (a) of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity, (b) of obstructing that activity, or (c) of disrupting that activity. (2) Activity on any occasion on the part of a person or persons on land is “lawful” for the purposes of this section if he or they may engage in the activity on the land without committing an offence or trespassing on the land, and for the purpose of subsection (1)(b) and (c) above, the offence may be committed whether or not the person or persons who may engage in the lawful activity are physically present on the land when a person does anything intended by him to have the effects referred to in those subsections.””; which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the House divided:

At a glance The Not Contents won by a margin of 75 votes. The Government's position was Not Content, and it won.

How the parties voted

The party breakdowns are our own analysis of the official voting records (recorded votes only; they do not describe the formal whip). How we work this out.

Peers attend divisions ad hoc, so there is no did-not-vote list. Tellers are counted in the Content and Not Content totals, unlike in the Commons.

Tellers: Lord Cope of Berkeley (Content), Baroness Seccombe (Content), Baroness Crawley (Not Content), Lord Grocott (Not Content).

Every vote

No members match your search.

Source: the official Lords division record.