Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders Bill — Lords amendments — Exceptions in respiratory (industrial disease or illness) cases — 17 Apr 2012 at 22:00

Nigel Adams MP, Selby and Ainsty voted not to allow "no win no fee" success fees and related legal insurance premiums to be included in costs awarded in cases relating to damages for respiratory health impacts due to industrial exposure to harmful substances.

The majority of MPs voted not to allow "no win no fee" success fees and related legal insurance premiums to be included in costs awarded in cases relating to damages for respiratory health impacts due to industrial exposure to harmful substances. The Bill included provisions to generally stop the award of costs to cover such success fees and insurance premiums.

MPs were considering the Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders Bill[1]. The motion passed in this vote was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 31

Lords amendment 31 was[2]:

  • Insert the following new Clause—
  • “Exception in respiratory (industrial disease or illness) cases
  • The changes made by sections 43, 45 and 46 of this Act do not apply in relation to proceedings which include a claim for damages for respiratory disease or illness (whether or not resulting in death) arising from industrial exposure to harmful substance.”

The changes made by sections 43, 45 and 46 relate to:

  • Stopping the losing party in cases being required to pay "success fees" to lawyers engaged under "no win no fee" arrangements. (Fees can be recovered from clients in a manner to be regulated).
  • Regulation of "no-win no fee" agreements requiring the success fee to be capped at a proportion of certain damages awarded to a client.
  • Preventing the inclusion of insurance premiums for legal insurance in allocations of costs; even when those are paid by trade unions or other membership bodies.

==

Debate in Parliament | Source |

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%
Con253 (+1 tell) 5084.6%
DUP0 80100.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Ind0 10100.0%
Lab0 232 (+2 tell)091.1%
LDem39 (+1 tell) 2073.7%
PC0 30100.0%
Res0 10100.0%
SDLP0 2066.7%
Total:292 256086.5%

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

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Andrew BinghamHigh PeakConno
Tracey CrouchChatham and AylesfordConno
Jeremy LefroyStaffordConno
David NuttallBury NorthConno
Andrew PercyBrigg and GooleConno
Mike HancockPortsmouth SouthLDemno
John LeechManchester, WithingtonLDemno

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.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive