Serious Crime Bill — New Clause 2 — Official Secrets Act 1989 — Defence of Disclosure to Historic Child Abuse Inquiry — 23 Feb 2015 at 21:00
The majority of MPs voted against creating a defence to an offence under the Official Secrets Act where a disclosure has been made to an investigation or inquiry relating to historic child abuse.
MPs were considering the Serious Crime Bill.
The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was:
- (1) The Official Secrets Act 1989 is amended as follows—
- (2) After section 8, insert—
- “(8A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under any provision of this Act to prove that he knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article disclosed was—
- (a) germane to an official investigation of, or inquiry into, historic child abuse, and
- (b) provided only to an officer of such an investigation or inquiry.
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)||8||0||86.8%|
|Lab||0||207 (+2 tell)||0||81.0%|
|LDem||40 (+1 tell)||3||0||78.6%|
|Guto Bebb||Aberconwy||Con (front bench)||aye|
|John Baron||Basildon and Billericay||Con (front bench)||aye|
|John Hemming||Birmingham, Yardley||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Charlotte Leslie||Bristol North West||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Duncan Hames||Chippenham||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Philip Hollobone||Kettering||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Zac Goldsmith||Richmond Park||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Jeremy Lefroy||Stafford||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Peter Bone||Wellingborough||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Tessa Munt||Wells||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Peter Bottomley||Worthing West||Con (front bench)||aye|