text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Coroners and Justice Bill - Suspension of Coroner's Investivation Pending Inquiry - rejected
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  
  The majority of MPs voted to retain a provision in the bill enabling the Lord Chancellor to suspend a coroner's investigation and inquest and replace it with an "inquiry".  The Lord Chancellor is a government minister - currently Jack Straw. 
  
  The vote was on amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 216, that amendment stated :
  <blockquote>Page  115,  line  29,  leave out paragraph 3.[1]</blockquote> 
  
  Paragraph 3 is part of Schedule One of the act and is titled <b>Suspension pending inquiry under Inquiries Act 2005 </b>.
  This paragraph, which MPs were voting to either remove, or keep in the bill stated:[2]:
  <blockquote>
  <ul><li>(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), a senior coroner must suspend an investigation under this Part of this Act into a personâs death if the Lord Chancellor requests the coroner to do so on the ground that the cause of death is likely to be adequately investigated by an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005  (c. 12) that is being or is to be held.  </li>
  <li>(2) The coroner need not suspend the investigation if there appears to be an  exceptional reason for not doing so.  
  <li>(3) In the case of an investigation that is already suspended under paragraph  1â  (a) a reference above in this paragraph to suspending the investigation  is to be read as a reference to continuing the suspension of the  investigation;  (b) if the suspension of the investigation is continued under this  paragraph, the investigation is to be treated for the purposes of  paragraphs 1(4), 6 and 8 of this Schedule as suspended under this paragraph (and not as suspended under paragraph 1). </li></ul>
  </blockquote> 
  
  Due to a procedural farce Minister Jack Straw, the Lord Chancellor proposed amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 1, 2 and 216 but then went on to vote against it. The standing orders of the House of Commons and the procedural motion passed to determine the timetable for handling the bill meant that the opposition were unable to table the motion. 
  
  <p pid="a.74.2/2"><i> The House divided:</i> Ayes 266, Noes 274.</p>
  
  It was later claimed that this slim majority of only eight votes was in-fact slimmer than it appeared due to a number of Labour MPs voted the wrong way by mistake[3]. Denis MacShane has said he felt he voted the wrong way on this vote[4]. 
  
  <ul><li>[1] <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/160/amend/pbc1600911m.1543-1549.html">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/160/amend/pbc1600911m.1543-1549.html</a>, Amendment sheet. 
  
  </li><li>[2] <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldbills/033/2009033.pdf">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldbills/033/2009033.pdf</a>, Bill as brought from the Commons	26.03.09  See printed page 115 (PDF page 126).  (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldbills/033/09033.113-119.html">Direct link to Schedules</a> (HTML)) </li>
  <li>[3]<a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2009-11-12a.382.3">Andrew Dismore</a> House of Commons 12 November 2009</li>
  
  <li>[4]<a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2009-11-12a.382.4">Denis MacShane</a> House of Commons 12 November 2009</li>
  </ul> 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  