Justice and Security Bill — Clause 6 — Closed Material Proceedings Only If Fair Determination Not Possible By Other Means — 4 Mar 2013 at 19:45

The majority of MPs voted to permit closed material proceedings only if a fair determination of the case would not be possible by other means.

"Closed material proceedings" allow relevant national security-sensitive material held by a party to civil court proceedings to be taken into account through disclosure of the material to both the court and a special advocate representing the other party or parties' interests as they are not themselves permitted to see the material.

MPs were considering the Justice and Security Bill[1]. The amendment rejected in this vote was:

  • amendment 26, page 4, line 39, leave out ‘two’ and insert ‘three’.

Had it not been rejected this would have taken effect on Clause 6 subclause (3) of the Bill which stated:

  • The court may make such a declaration if it considers that the following two conditions are met

This refers to declarations that the proceedings are proceedings in which a closed material application may be made to the court.

Clearly alone the amendment which was the subject of this vote just makes the Bill nonsensical as it introduces a reference to a third condition for making such a declaration which is not present in the Bill. The third condition referred to is presumably that proposed in amendment 31[3] which stated:

  • Page 5, line 37 [Clause 6], at end insert—
  • ‘(6A) The third condition is that a fair determination of the proceedings is not possible by any other means.’.

The amendment voted on is known as a "paving" amendment as it relies upon a further, more substantive, consequential amendment to have any effect beyond making the Bill internally inconsistent.


Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

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.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con254 (+1 tell) 4084.9%
DUP3 0037.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab4 205 (+2 tell)081.8%
LDem37 (+1 tell) 7078.9%
PC0 2066.7%
SDLP0 2066.7%
SNP0 4066.7%
Total:298 225082.2%

Rebel Voters - sorted by name

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

Steven BakerWycombeConaye
Hazel BlearsSalford and EcclesLabno
Michael CrockartEdinburgh WestLDemaye
David DavisHaltemprice and HowdenConaye
Tim FarronWestmorland and LonsdaleLDemaye
Richard FullerBedfordConaye
Paul GogginsWythenshawe and Sale EastLabno
John HemmingBirmingham, YardleyLDemaye
George HowarthKnowsleyLabno
Simon HughesBermondsey and Old SouthwarkLDemaye
Julian HuppertCambridgeLDemaye
Greg MulhollandLeeds North WestLDemaye
Jack StrawBlackburnLabno
Sarah TeatherBrent CentralLDemaye
Andrew TyrieChichesterConaye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive