Policing and Crime Bill — After Clause 110 — Parity of Funding at Inquests — 10 Jan 2017 at 18:54

John Penrose MP, Weston-Super-Mare voted against introducing a system for providing families of deceased people with state funds to ensure parity of funding between parties at an inquest.

The majority of MPs voted against introducing a system for providing families of deceased people with state funds to ensure parity of funding between parties at an inquest. The rejected proposals would have given Police and Crime Commissioners a role in determining eligibility for the funding.

MPs were considering the Policing and Crime Bill[1].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs, and the majority of MPs representing English constituencies was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 96

The rejected amendment was sought to introduce a new clause titled Police and crime commissioners: parity of funding at inquests stating:

  • (1) Where the police force for which a police and crime commissioner is responsible is an interested person for the purposes of an inquest into—
  • (a) the death of a member of an individual family, or
  • (b) the deaths of members of a group of families, under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the commissioner has the duties set out in this section.
  • (2) The police and crime commissioner must make recommendations to the Secretary of State as to whether the individual family or the group of families at the inquest require financial support to ensure parity of legal representation between parties to the inquest.
  • (3) If a police and crime commissioner makes a recommendation for financial support under subsection (2), then the Secretary of State must provide financial assistance to the individual family or group of families to ensure parity of funding between the individual family or the group of families and the other party to the inquest.
  • (4) The individual family or group of families may use funding authorised under this section solely for the purpose of funding legal representation at the inquest.
  • (5) In this section, “interested person” has the same meaning as in section 47 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.”

==

Debate in Parliament |

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
Con291 (+2 tell) 2089.7%
DUP6 0075.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 1033.3%
Lab0 181 (+2 tell)078.9%
LDem0 90100.0%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 30100.0%
UUP0 20100.0%
Total:297 202085.3%

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
Julian LewisNew Forest EastCon (front bench)no
Charles WalkerBroxbourneCon (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