Immigration Bill — Require Appointment of Child Trafficking Guardians for Children Suspected to Have been Trafficked — 7 May 2014 at 17:53
John Penrose MP, Weston-Super-Mare voted not to require the appointment of an independent child trafficking guardian to represent the best interests children suspected to have been brought to the UK as part of a trade in human beings.
The majority of MPs voted not to require the appointment of an independent child trafficking guardian to represent the best interests children suspected to have been brought to the UK as part of a trade in human beings.
Human trafficking can involve forced labour or commercial sexual exploitation.
MPs were considering the Immigration Bill. The motion accepted in this vote was:
- That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 16.
Amendment 16 introduced a new clause titled: "Child trafficking guardians for all potential child victims of trafficking in human beings". The new clause stated:
- If a relevant child has arrived in the United Kingdom and is a potential victim of trafficking in human beings, an independent child trafficking guardian shall be appointed to represent the best interests of that child
The clause goes on to set out the detailed responsibilities of the child trafficking guardian.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Immigration Bill
-  Lords' Amendments to the Immigration Bill - 9 April 2014
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|
|Con||268 (+1 tell)||0||0||88.5%|
|Lab||0||223 (+2 tell)||0||87.2%|
|LDem||39 (+1 tell)||1||0||73.2%|
|Sarah Teather||Brent Central||LDem (front bench)||no|