text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Defamation Bill -  Recognised Arbitration Services for Defamation Cases - Incentives
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  @ MP voted aye not to introduce certified arbitration services for defamation cases and to provide incentives for using them.
  @ MP voted no to introduce certified arbitration services for defamation cases and to provide incentives for using them.
  
  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[1]. The motion passed in this vote was:
  
  :That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2
  
  Lords amendment 2[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.
  
  * [1] [http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/defamation.html Parliament's webpage on the Defamation Bill (now an Act)]
  * [2] [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0139/20130139.1-4.html Lords amendments to the Defamation Bill]
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  