Crime and Courts Bill — Schedule 13 — Diversity of Judicial appointments — 13 Mar 2013 at 18:30

John Baron MP, Basildon and Billericay voted against requiring, so far as is reasonably practicable, the diversity of those appointed to judicial office be reflective of the community.

The majority of MPs voted to require the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that those appointed to judicial office are reflective of the community and to ensure shortlists for consideration by the Judicial Appointments Commission include a range of persons reflective of the community.

MPs were considering the Crime and Courts Bill[1]. The amendment rejected in this vote was:

  • Amendment proposed: 100, page 224, line 42, at end insert
  • ‘Each of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice must at all times engage in a programme of action which is designed—
  • (a) to secure, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, that appointments to listed judicial offices are such that those holding such offices are reflective of the community in England and Wales;
  • (b) to require the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, to secure that a range of persons reflective of the community in England and Wales is available for consideration by the Judicial Appointments Commission whenever it is required to select a person to be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to a listed judicial office.’

The clause in Schedule 13 part 2[2] to which the above would have been added had the amendment not been rejected stated:

  • In Part 6 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (other provisions relating to the judiciary) after section 137 insert— “137A Encouragement of diversity
  • Each of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales must take such steps as that office-holder considers appropriate for the purpose of encouraging judicial diversity.”

Had the amendment not been rejected the above text would have been added to Schedule 13 of the Bill

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 (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con233 (+1 tell) 0076.7%
DUP1 2037.5%
Lab0 207 (+2 tell)081.0%
LDem38 (+1 tell) 0068.4%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 1033.3%
SNP0 2033.3%
Total:272 216076.8%

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
Sammy WilsonEast AntrimDUP (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.

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