Judicial Review and Courts Bill — After Clause 42 — Publicly Funded Legal Representation for Bereaved People at Certain Inquests — 26 Apr 2022 at 14:15
The majority of MPs voted against providing publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people at inquests where a public body has a connection to the case.
to continue to allow the High Court, (or the Court of Session in Scotland) to review decisions by the Upper Tribunal to refuse to consider an appeal, but to prevent further appeals to the Court of Appeal, and to only allow the Supreme Court to consider appeals where a point of law of general importance is involved and the Supreme Court decides it should consider it.
MPs were considering the Judicial Review and Courts Bill.[1][2][3]
The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:
- That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.
Lords amendment 11 began:[4]
- Insert the following new Clause—
- “Publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people at inquests
The rejected new clause provided for legal aid in connection with advocacy at an inquest for those with a relationship to the deceased in cases where a public authority is, or is likely to be, an interested party.
The Explanatory Notes to the amendment stated:[5]
- This amendment would seek to amend the Exceptional Case Funding Scheme, as defined in section 10 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to provide legal aid for representation for bereaved people at inquests where public bodies (for example the police or an NHS trust) are legally represented.
--
- [1] Parliament's webpage on the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, Parliament.uk
- [2] Judicial Review and Courts Bill as brought from the Commons on 26 January 2022, Parliament.uk
- [3] Explanatory notes to the Judicial Review and Courts Bill as brought from the Commons on 26 January 2022, Parliament.uk
- [4] Lords amendments to the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, 7 April 2022, Parliament.uk
- [5] Explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, 8 April 2022, Parliament.uk
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 (Aye) | Minority (No) | Both | Turnout |
| Alliance | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Con | 295 (+2 tell) | 1 | 0 | 82.3% |
| DUP | 0 | 5 | 0 | 62.5% |
| Green | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Independent | 1 | 1 | 0 | 40.0% |
| Lab | 0 | 146 (+2 tell) | 0 | 74.0% |
| LDem | 0 | 9 | 0 | 69.2% |
| PC | 0 | 3 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Total: | 296 | 167 | 0 | 78.8% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by name
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 |
| Bob Neill | Bromley and Chislehurst | Con (front bench) | no |