Wales Bill — Clause 1 — Continual Review of Separation of the Legal Systems of England and Wales — Annual Report on Welsh Justice — 5 Jul 2016 at 14:30

The majority of MPs voted against continually keeping the question of separating the legal systems for England and Wales under review and against requiring annual reports on the functioning of the justice system in Wales.

MPs were considering the Wales Bill.[1]

The amendment rejected in this vote was:

  • Amendment 7, page 2, line 3, at end insert-
  • “(2) The Lord Chancellor and the Welsh Ministers must keep the functioning of the justice system in relation to Wales under review with a view to its development and reform, including keeping under review the question of whether the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales should be divided into a jurisdiction for Wales and a jurisdiction for England.
  • (3) In exercising their duty in subsection (2) the Lord Chancellor and the Welsh Ministers must have regard to—
  • (a) divergence in the law and its administration as between England and Wales,
  • (b) the need to treat the Welsh and English languages on the basis of equality, and
  • (c) any other circumstances in Wales affecting operation of the justice system.
  • (4) The Lord Chancellor and the Welsh Ministers may appoint a panel to advise them on the exercise of their functions in this section.
  • (5) The Lord Chancellor must make an annual report on the functioning of the justice system in relation to Wales to the Welsh Ministers.
  • (6) The Welsh Ministers must lay the report before the Assembly.
  • (7) The Lord Chancellor must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament.”

The rejected amendment was accompanied by an explanatory note stating:

  • The provision in the Bill recognises the existence of a body of Welsh law made by the Assembly and the Welsh Ministers. The new subsections to be inserted after that provision by this amendment require the Secretary of State to keep the justice system as it applies in relation to Wales under review with a view to its development and reform, having regard in particular to divergence in the law as between England and Wales.

Had it not been rejected the text in the amendment would have been added within Clause 1[2] of the Bill.

The question rejected in this vote was:

  • That the amendment be made.


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
Con271 (+2 tell) 0082.7%
DUP2 0025.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 2066.7%
Lab0 167 (+2 tell)073.2%
LDem0 6075.0%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 1033.3%
SNP0 37068.5%
UUP1 0050.0%
Total:274 217077.0%

Rebel Voters - sorted by constituency

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