Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill — Clause 3 — Generally Responsible Approach — 20 Oct 2014 at 16:30
Julian Huppert MP, Cambridge voted to require courts to consider if someone was acting responsibly when considering allegations of negligence or breach of statutory duty.
The majority of MPs voted to require courts to consider if someone was demonstrating a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others in cases of alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty.
The amendment rejected in this vote was:
- Amendment 5, page 1, line 9, leave out Clause 3.
The Bill sought to set out considerations a court must make when considering a claim that a person was negligent or in breach of statutory duty and is determining the steps that the person was required to take to meet a standard of care.
Clause 3, which was supported in this vote, was titled Responsibility and stated:
- The court must have regard to whether the person, in carrying out the activity in the course of which the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred, demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill 2014-15
-  [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2014-2015/0009/cbill_2014-20150009_en_2.htm Text of the
Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism 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||218 (+1 tell)||0||0||72.3%|
|Lab||0||143 (+2 tell)||0||56.2%|
|LDem||41 (+1 tell)||0||0||75.0%|