Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill — Evidence to Show Legal Aid Eligibility — Domestic Abuse — Child Abuse — 24 Apr 2012 at 17:40
The majority of MPs voted against including in law examples of what would count as evidence of domestic abuse and lead to eligibility for legal aid and against removing any time limit on providing evidence a child is at risk of abuse in connection with a legal aid application.
MPs were considering the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. The motion passed in this vote was:
- That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 2B and 196B
Amendment 2B sought to introduce a new definition of what counts as evidence of domestic abuse for the purposes of determination of eligibility for legal aid.
Amendment 196B sought to introduce an additional clause to the part of the bill setting out eligibility for legal aid where a child is at risk of abuse, stating:
- For the avoidance of doubt, no evidence supporting an application for civil legal services under this paragraph shall be deemed inadmissible on the basis of expiration where the general limitation period under the civil standard has not elapsed.”
-  Parliament's webpage on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (now an Act)
-  Lords Amendment Sheet containing amendments 2B and 196B
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||252 (+1 tell)||0||0||82.7%|
|Lab||0||215 (+2 tell)||0||84.4%|
|LDem||46 (+1 tell)||1||0||84.2%|
|Greg Mulholland||Leeds North West||LDem (front bench)||no|