Crime and Courts Bill — Clause 24 — Protect Basic Level of Subsistance When Setting Installement Levels for Paying Fines — 18 Mar 2013 at 23:00
John Penrose MP, Weston-Super-Mare voted not to require courts to protect a reasonable financial subsistence level for an individual when setting schedules for the payment of fines by installments.
The majority of MPs voted not to require courts to protect a reasonable financial subsistence level for an individual when setting schedules for the payment of fines by installments.
The amendment rejected in this vote was:
- Amendment 1, in clause 24, page 21, line 22, at end insert—
‘(6A) In fixing such an amount, and subsequent additions, account must be taken of the person’s relevant weekly income, excluding housing benefit and child related benefits, and allowance must be made for the protection of a reasonable financial subsistence level, in the manner used to determine the initial fine.’.
Had the amendment not been rejected this text would have been added to Clause 24 of the Bill titled Payment of fines and other sums
-  Parliament's webpage on the Crime and Courts Bill (now an Act)
-  Clause 24 of the Crime and Courts Bill as at the time of the vote
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||260 (+1 tell)||0||0||85.6%|
|Lab||1||200 (+2 tell)||0||78.7%|
|LDem||46 (+1 tell)||1||0||84.2%|
|Alan Whitehead||Southampton, Test||Lab (minister)||no|
|Sarah Teather||Brent Central||LDem||aye|