Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations — Legal Aid In Cases With Borderline Prospect of Success — 22 Jan 2014 at 19:22
Julian Huppert MP, Cambridge voted in favour of legal aid only being provided in cases assessed to have a greater than "borderline" chance of success.
The majority of MPs voted in favour of legal aid only being provided in cases assessed to have a greater than "borderline" chance of success.
The motion approved in this vote was:
- That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 25 November, be approved.
The explanatory notes associated with the regulations explain their purpose as being to: "amend the merits criteria which the Director of Legal Aid Casework must apply when determining whether an applicant qualifies for civil legal aid under Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (“LASPO”). In cases where an application for full representation is subject to an assessment of its prospects of success, it will no longer be eligible for legal aid where it is assessed as having only a ‘borderline’ prospect of success."
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 (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Sammy Wilson||East Antrim||DUP (front bench)||aye|
|Sarah Teather||Brent Central||LDem||no|