Justice and Security Bill — Clause 6 — Closed Material Proceedings Only If Fair Determination Not Possible By Other Means — 4 Mar 2013 at 19:45
Greg Mulholland MP, Leeds North West voted to permit closed material proceedings only if a fair determination of the case would not be possible by other means.
The majority of MPs voted to permit closed material proceedings only if a fair determination of the case would not be possible by other means.
"Closed material proceedings" allow relevant national security-sensitive material held by a party to civil court proceedings to be taken into account through disclosure of the material to both the court and a special advocate representing the other party or parties' interests as they are not themselves permitted to see the material.
MPs were considering the Justice and Security Bill. The amendment rejected in this vote was:
- amendment 26, page 4, line 39, leave out ‘two’ and insert ‘three’.
Had it not been rejected this would have taken effect on Clause 6 subclause (3) of the Bill which stated:
- The court may make such a declaration if it considers that the following two conditions are met
This refers to declarations that the proceedings are proceedings in which a closed material application may be made to the court.
Clearly alone the amendment which was the subject of this vote just makes the Bill nonsensical as it introduces a reference to a third condition for making such a declaration which is not present in the Bill. The third condition referred to is presumably that proposed in amendment 31 which stated:
- Page 5, line 37 [Clause 6], at end insert—
- ‘(6A) The third condition is that a fair determination of the proceedings is not possible by any other means.’.
The amendment voted on is known as a "paving" amendment as it relies upon a further, more substantive, consequential amendment to have any effect beyond making the Bill internally inconsistent.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Justice and Security Bill
-  Clause 6 of the Justice and Security Bill as at the time of the vote
-  Amendment sheet containing amendment 31
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|
|Con||254 (+1 tell)||4||0||84.9%|
|Lab||4||205 (+2 tell)||0||81.8%|
|LDem||37 (+1 tell)||7||0||78.9%|
|Steven Baker||Wycombe||Con (front bench)||aye|
|David Davis||Haltemprice and Howden||Con||aye|
|Richard Fuller||Bedford||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Andrew Tyrie||Chichester||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Hazel Blears||Salford and Eccles||Lab (minister)||no|
|Paul Goggins||Wythenshawe and Sale East||Lab||no|
|George Howarth||Knowsley||Lab (minister)||no|
|Michael Crockart||Edinburgh West||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Tim Farron||Westmorland and Lonsdale||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|John Hemming||Birmingham, Yardley||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Simon Hughes||Bermondsey and Old Southwark||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Julian Huppert||Cambridge||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Greg Mulholland||Leeds North West||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Sarah Teather||Brent Central||LDem||aye|