Deregulation Bill — Clause 35 — Duty to Re-Open Marine Accident Investigations — 23 Jun 2014 at 19:10

The majority of MPs voted against requiring the re-opening of marine accident investigations where "secondary investigations have enabled more new, significant, or important evidence to become available", rather than only permitting the reopening of investigations if the Secretary of State has grounds to suspect a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.

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

  • Amendment 1, page 26, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
  • “in paragraph (a) leave out from “if new and important evidence” to “discovered” and insert “where secondary investigations have enabled more new, significant, or important evidence to become available, having particular regard to—
  • (i) enhancing and preserving the rights of those affected by a maritime accident to learn from the proceedings of such reinvestigations and conclusions drawn from them; and
  • (ii) future safety issues and measures.”

This would have affected Clause 35 of the Bill titled Removal of duty to order re-hearing of marine accident investigations which following the rejected amendment continued to state:

  • In section 269(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (power to order re-hearing of investigation into marine accident and duty to do so in certain cases)—
  • (a) omit paragraph (a) (duty to order re-hearing where new and important evidence discovered), and the “or” following it;
  • (b) in paragraph (b), omit “other”.

Subclause 269(1) stated:

  • (1)Where a formal investigation has been held under section 268 the Secretary of State may order the whole or part of the case to be re-heard, and shall do so—
  • (a)if new and important evidence which could not be produced at the investigation has been discovered; or
  • (b)if there appear to the Secretary of State to be other grounds for suspecting that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.

The Deregulation Bill as it remained, unamended, sought to only allow a a marine accident investigation ought to be re-opened if the Secretary of State has grounds to suspect a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.


Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

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
Con243 (+1 tell) 0080.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 202 (+2 tell)079.1%
LDem41 (+1 tell) 0075.0%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 2066.7%
SNP0 3050.0%
Total:284 211079.0%

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

no rebellions

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.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive