Policing and Crime Bill — Parity of Funding Between Police and Families at Inquests — 13 Jun 2016 at 19:00

The majority of MPs voted for funding of legal representation for families of deceased people in inquests where the police are an interested person such that there is parity of legal representation.

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

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled Police and Crime Commissioners: parity of funding between police and families at inquests and stated:

  • “(1) A police and crime commissioner has the duties set out in this section when the police force they are responsible for is a Properly Interested Person for the purposes of—
  • (a) an inquest into the death of a member of an individual’s family, or
  • (b) an inquest into the deaths of members of a group of families, under the Coroners Act 1988.
  • (2) The police and crime commissioner must make recommendations to the Secretary of State as to whether the individual’s 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 under subsection (2) then the Secretary of State must provide financial assistance to the individual’s family or the group of families to ensure parity of funding between families and the police.
  • (4) The individual’s family or the group of families may use funding authorised under this section solely for the purpose of funding legal representation at the inquest.”

The rejected new clause was accompanies by the following explanatory statement:

  • This new clause would put into law the principle of parity of funding between police and families at inquests. It would ensure that funding to a bereaved family, or a group of bereaved families, for purposes of legal representation during an inquest is an amount broadly equal to the level of funding that the police force receives. This new clause seeks to place an obligation on the PCC to recommend to the Home Secretary as to whether a bereaved family, or a group of bereaved families requires funding to support their legal representation at the inquest. The Home Secretary must provide such funding if it is recommended.


Debate in Parliament |

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
Con262 (+2 tell) 0080.0%
DUP0 3037.5%
Independent1 0033.3%
Lab0 140 (+2 tell)061.5%
LDem0 5062.5%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 2066.7%
UUP0 02100.0%
Total:263 153271.8%

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

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