Defamation Bill — Recognised Arbitration Services for Defamation Cases — Incentives — 16 Apr 2013 at 19:13
The majority of MPs voted not to introduce certified arbitration services for defamation cases and to provide incentives for using them.
MPs were considering the Defamation Bill. The motion passed in this vote was:
- That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2
Lords amendment 2 sought to add a new clause to the Bill titled Arbitration Service for defamation and related civil claims against members of Independent Regulatory Board.
The clause would have set up a Defamation Recognition Commission with the role of certifying bodies as Independent Regulatory Boards to provide arbitration in defamation cases. Courts would have taken into account if an available arbitration mechanism had not been used. Courts would have been able to order a successful party to pay all the costs of proceedings if such party has unreasonably refused to use an available recognised arbitration service.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Defamation Bill (now an Act)
-  Lords amendments to the Defamation 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||250 (+2 tell)||3||0||83.6%|
|Lab||0||217 (+2 tell)||0||85.2%|
|John Hemming||Birmingham, Yardley||LDem (front bench)||both|
|Philip Hollobone||Kettering||Con (front bench)||no|
|Greg Mulholland||Leeds North West||LDem||no|
|John Leech||Manchester, Withington||LDem||no|
|Adrian Sanders||Torbay||LDem (front bench)||no|
|Sarah Wollaston||Totnes||Con (front bench)||no|
|Tim Farron||Westmorland and Lonsdale||LDem (front bench)||both|
|Peter Bottomley||Worthing West||Con (front bench)||no|