Crime and Courts Bill — Clause 24 — Protect Basic Level of Subsistance When Setting Installement Levels for Paying Fines — 18 Mar 2013 at 23:00
The majority of MPs voted not to require courts to protect a reasonable financial subsistence level for an individual when setting schedules for the payment of fines by installments.
The amendment rejected in this vote was:
- Amendment 1, in clause 24, page 21, line 22, at end insert—
‘(6A) In fixing such an amount, and subsequent additions, account must be taken of the person’s relevant weekly income, excluding housing benefit and child related benefits, and allowance must be made for the protection of a reasonable financial subsistence level, in the manner used to determine the initial fine.’.
Had the amendment not been rejected this text would have been added to Clause 24 of the Bill[2] titled Payment of fines and other sums
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.
Party | Majority (No) | Minority (Aye) | Both | Turnout |
Con | 260 (+1 tell) | 0 | 0 | 85.6% |
DUP | 0 | 6 | 0 | 75.0% |
Green | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
Independent | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
Lab | 1 | 200 (+2 tell) | 0 | 78.7% |
LDem | 46 (+1 tell) | 1 | 0 | 84.2% |
PC | 0 | 3 | 0 | 100.0% |
SDLP | 0 | 2 | 0 | 66.7% |
Total: | 307 | 214 | 0 | 82.5% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by party
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
Name | Constituency | Party | Vote |
Alan Whitehead | Southampton, Test | Lab (minister) | no |
Sarah Teather | Brent Central | LDem | aye |