Policing and Crime Bill — After Clause 110 — Parity of Funding at Inquests — 10 Jan 2017 at 18:54
Dominic Grieve MP, Beaconsfield 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.
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.”
-  Parliament's webpage on the Policing and Crime Bill
-  Amendment sheet including Lords amendment 96
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.
|Party||Majority (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||291 (+2 tell)||2||0||89.7%|
|Lab||0||181 (+2 tell)||0||78.9%|
|Julian Lewis||New Forest East||Con (front bench)||no|
|Charles Walker||Broxbourne||Con (front bench)||no|