Serious Crime Bill — New Clause 19 — Child Abduction Warning Notices and Orders — 23 Feb 2015 at 21:00
Zac Goldsmith MP, Richmond Park voted against introducing child abduction warning notices and orders which ban an individual from being in the company of a specified child.
The majority of MPs voted against introducing child abduction warning notices and orders which ban an individual from being in the company of a specified child.
MPs were considering the Serious Crime Bill.
The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was would have introduced child abduction warning notices and orders as well as related provisions including the power of arrest for the breach of such a notice / order. A notice would ban an individual from being in the company of a specific child.
An explanation of the intent of the rejected amendment was provided:
- This amendment establishes child abduction warning notices (CAWNs) on a statutory basis, addressing concerns raised in the House of Lords on the issue, by introducing a two-stage process providing judicial oversight, without compromising the ability of the police to issue a CAWN without delay. The proposed process is similar to that in place for Domestic Violence Prevention Notices/Domestic Violence Prevention Orders (DVPN/DVPO).
-  Parliament's webpage on the Serious Crime Bill
-  Official Record, House of Commons, 23 February 2015
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||262 (+1 tell)||0||0||86.8%|
|Lab||0||203 (+2 tell)||0||79.5%|
|LDem||43 (+1 tell)||0||0||78.6%|