Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill — Requirement for Post-Qualification Experience — 12 Dec 2018 at 15:00
The majority of MPs voted against requiring court and tribunal staff authorised to give legal advice to judges to have three years' post-qualification experience.
MPs were considering the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill[1]
The amendment rejected in this vote was:
- Amendment 2, in the schedule, page 6, line 36, at end insert—
- “(aa) is a qualified solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive with more than three years’ experience post-qualification, and”.
The rejected amendment was accompanied by the following explanatory statement:
- This amendment would stipulate that the minimum legal qualifications for authorised persons should be three years’ experience post-qualification.
Had it not been rejected the amendment would have impacted paragraph 14 of the schedule to the Bill.
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.
Party | Majority (No) | Minority (Aye) | Both | Turnout |
Con | 299 (+2 tell) | 0 | 0 | 95.0% |
DUP | 9 | 0 | 0 | 90.0% |
Green | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
Independent | 0 | 4 | 0 | 57.1% |
Lab | 0 | 229 (+2 tell) | 0 | 89.9% |
LDem | 0 | 8 | 0 | 72.7% |
PC | 0 | 4 | 0 | 100.0% |
Total: | 308 | 246 | 0 | 91.9% |
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
Name | Constituency | Party | Vote | |
no rebellions |