Judicial Review and Courts Bill — Report — Amendment 4 — 31 Mar 2022 at 14:28

Moved by Lord Etherton

4: Clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 24 to 32Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would remove the presumption that where a suspended or prospective-only quashing order would offer adequate redress, such a quashing order should be made in preference to an ordinary quashing order.

Ayes 159, Noes 134.

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

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 is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Content)Minority (Not-Content)Turnout
Con0 12647.2%
Crossbench23 214.0%
DUP0 120.0%
Green2 0100.0%
Independent Labour1 0100.0%
Judge2 127.3%
Lab75 042.6%
LDem51 060.7%
Non-affiliated5 314.0%
UUP0 150.0%
Total:159 13437.4%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

Lords 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 lord who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Party | Vote

Lord Dannatt Crossbench (front bench)no
Baroness Deech Crossbench (front bench)no
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-HeywoodJudgeno
Lord Gadhia Non-affiliatedno
Baroness Stowell of BeestonNon-affiliated (front bench)no
Lord Tyrie Non-affiliated (front bench)no

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.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive