Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill — Definitions — 14 Nov 2000

Oliver Letwin MP, West Dorset did not vote.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 30 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 6, line 8, leave out ("13(1)") and insert ("13(2)")

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 32 to 38, 55 and 56.

It is also horribly easy to slip from saying "CAFCASS" into saying "Kafkaesque", a connotation which would be unfortunate in the extreme.

I am told that magistrates and those working in the new service believe that, far from enhancing its stature, the acronym will bring it and them into disrepute. The full title of the new service is also cumbersome, even if it is not abbreviated.

which is well understood and respected. At least the letters FCCWS cannot be shortened into anything other. There is much in a name--pride, identification, professionalism.

It may be that the noble Lords will feel that to have "welfare" in the title is a mistake.--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 31 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 849.]

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 32 to 38 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 8, line 28, leave out

("(other than a chief probation officer)")

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 44 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) and (b), Lords amendments Nos. 45 and 46 and the Government motions to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 47 to 50 and the Government motions to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill, Lords amendments Nos. 51 and 121 to 124 and the Government motions to disagree thereto, Lords amendment No. 130 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, and Government amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill.

When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.

What benefit . . . is there in one individual being contracted to a different employer? It makes no sense. The Secretary of State's powers are not impeded one iota, but what is important is that the chief officer . . . has a clear management line.

Baroness Blatch went on to say:

The Secretary of State will still retain the right of approval over the appointment of chief officers. He will still be able to appoint and remove boards. He will have control of 100 per cent. of funding and allocation of funding. He will set overall objectives for the service. He will receive reports from the inspectorate and will be given regular statistical and financial information, audit reports and annual reports from each board. He will also have power of direction and default. For goodness sake, those are sufficient powers!--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 2 October 2000; Vol. 616, c. 1154-61.]

The relationship of the chief officer to other staff and to the board is also critical. For the employer of the chief officer to be the Secretary of State and the employers of all other staff to be the boards will create difficulties and possibly at times divided loyalties.--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 31 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 801.]

The Home Office consultations on the Prisons/Probations Review and "Joining Forces to Protect the Public" set out various options for the future governance of the probation service, including a national service with "local reference groups or advisory boards". The government did not choose that option. Instead, local probation boards retaining the full duties of employers of probation staff were decided upon.

It is important to recognise the corporate status of the new boards and the responsibilities placed on them, not only by the Home Office, employment law, financial regulation, health and safety regulations, the Better Quality Services initiatives and the Human Rights Act.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:--

The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 142.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

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.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con0 100062.5%
Independent0 1033.3%
Lab324 (+2 tell) 0078.9%
LDem0 37 (+2 tell)083.0%
PC0 2050.0%
UUP0 2022.2%
Total:324 142073.9%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

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

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

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.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive