Domestic Abuse Bill — After Clause 64 — Training for Judges and Magistrates — 15 Apr 2021 at 15:45

The majority of MPs voted not to require all judges and magistrates in the family courts undergo specialist training in relation to rape, sexual and domestic abuse, and coercive control.

MPs were considering the Domestic Abuse Bill.[1][2]

The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 33

Lords amendment 33[3] began:

  • Insert the following new Clause—
  • Training
  • (1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of the passing of this Act publish—
  • (a) a strategy for providing specialist training for all magistrates and judges hearing cases in family proceedings in the Family Courts concerning rape, sexual and domestic abuse and coercive control; and
  • (b) a timetable for the delivery of the training mentioned in paragraph (a), to include the training of all judges and magistrates who are already hearing or who are to be appointed to hear Family cases and to include continuing professional development training for all such judges and magistrates.
  • (2) The training mentioned in subsection (1)(a) must include but is not limited to training concerning—
  • (a) the impact upon victims and witnesses, both adults and children, of the trauma of rape, sexual and domestic abuse and coercive control;
  • (b) the risks and difficulties for victims and witnesses in giving evidence and taking part in proceedings concerning rape, sexual, domestic abuse and coercive control; and
  • (c) the risks and difficulties for victims and witnesses of being involved in proceedings where one or more other parties may be the perpetrators of rape, sexual and domestic abuse and coercive control or persons connected to such perpetrators

The explanatory notes to the Lords amendments[4] stated :

  • "Lords Amendment 33 would insert a new clause which would provide for a requirement that all judges and magistrates in the family courts undergo specialist training in relation to rape, sexual and domestic abuse, and coercive control in accordance with a strategy and timetable published by the Secretary of State."

--

Debate in Parliament |

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 (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con351 (+2 tell) 1097.3%
DUP8 00100.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 40100.0%
Lab0 195 (+2 tell)099.0%
LDem0 110100.0%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 20100.0%
Total:359 218098.0%

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

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Robert HalfonHarlowCon (front bench)no

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