Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders Bill — Lords amendments — Exceptions in respiratory (industrial disease or illness) cases — 17 Apr 2012 at 22:00
Rehman Chishti MP, Gillingham and Rainham did not vote.
The majority of MPs voted not to allow "no win no fee" success fees and related legal insurance premiums to be included in costs awarded in cases relating to damages for respiratory health impacts due to industrial exposure to harmful substances. The Bill included provisions to generally stop the award of costs to cover such success fees and insurance premiums.
MPs were considering the Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders Bill. The motion passed in this vote was:
- That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 31
Lords amendment 31 was:
- Insert the following new Clause—
- “Exception in respiratory (industrial disease or illness) cases
- The changes made by sections 43, 45 and 46 of this Act do not apply in relation to proceedings which include a claim for damages for respiratory disease or illness (whether or not resulting in death) arising from industrial exposure to harmful substance.”
The changes made by sections 43, 45 and 46 relate to:
- Stopping the losing party in cases being required to pay "success fees" to lawyers engaged under "no win no fee" arrangements. (Fees can be recovered from clients in a manner to be regulated).
- Regulation of "no-win no fee" agreements requiring the success fee to be capped at a proportion of certain damages awarded to a client.
- Preventing the inclusion of insurance premiums for legal insurance in allocations of costs; even when those are paid by trade unions or other membership bodies.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders Bill (now an Act)
-  Lords amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders Bill
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||253 (+1 tell)||5||0||84.6%|
|Lab||0||232 (+2 tell)||0||91.1%|
|LDem||39 (+1 tell)||2||0||73.7%|
|Andrew Bingham||High Peak||Con (front bench)||no|
|Tracey Crouch||Chatham and Aylesford||Con||no|
|Jeremy Lefroy||Stafford||Con (front bench)||no|
|David Nuttall||Bury North||Con (front bench)||no|
|Andrew Percy||Brigg and Goole||Con (front bench)||no|
|Mike Hancock||Portsmouth South||whilst LDem (front bench)||no|
|John Leech||Manchester, Withington||LDem (front bench)||no|