Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill — Short-term prisoners: release subject to curfew conditions — 14 Nov 2000

Mr Paul Murphy MP, Torfaen voted with the majority (No).

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 40 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 41, in page 8, line 37, leave out paragraph (b)

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

Madam Deputy Speaker:

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 42, 43, 135, 137 and 138 and the Government motions to disagree thereto.

We [the Government] are convinced, however, that there are sound reasons for concentrating ownership and overall management of the Probation estate in the national directorate.

accounting responsibility will be placed squarely on the Government--

there will be better opportunity to control investment procurement and development so as to make the best of all the assets of the National Probation Service.

It is also clear that the existing arrangements have worked far from well.

concluded that there was inadequate management of the estate despite excessive staffing and that a fair proportion of it was unsuitable for purpose and in poor repair.

Far from relieving local probation boards of concern and worry, the proposals--

are likely to add to them. Nothing can be more frustrating than having relatively modest property matters dealt with via Whitehall, with the distancing and bureaucracy that that can and often does mean.

I know from experience on quangos that it is a great boon to be able to handle one's own property matters. It invariably leads to quicker, more effective, more efficient and, in the end, cheaper property arrangements.

My Lords, sometimes I believe that the noble Baroness does not understand that crime is a national and international phenomenon.--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 31 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 818-821.]

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 42 to 44 disagreed to.

Amendments (a) and (b) to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 45 and 46 disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 47 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 48 to 50 disagreed to.

Amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 51 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 52, to insert the following new clause-- Provision for the protection of children --

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

Madam Deputy Speaker:

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 57 to 66, 71 and 72.

I suggest that the way in which the noble Baroness seeks to reintroduce a disqualification order is not workable. We want to see a workable scheme. I believe that the scheme we have offered is workable. I believe that the explanation I have given for ways in which a ban could be reintroduced is coherent. We do not think that it is necessary to do what the noble Baroness seeks.--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 4 October 2000; Vol. 616, c. 1538.]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. As noble Lords will have noticed, another amendment has been tabled covering the same area of concern--

I have had throughout the passage of the Bill. I am deeply grateful to the Government for their Amendment No. 30. I shall now sit down and wait for the noble Lord to introduce that amendment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is quite right. I listened to the way in which she deployed her argument on the point of--I believe that I paraphrase it accurately--the restoration of a disqualification to a previously disqualified individual, and, if I may say so, I believe that her argument had substantial merit.--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 8 November 2000; Vol. 618, c. 1536-37.]

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 66 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 67, to insert the following new clause-- Extension of offence: conduct towards 14 and 15 year olds --

. In section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (indecent conduct towards young child), for "fourteen" there is substituted "sixteen".")

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

Madam Deputy Speaker:

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 68 and 69.

Lords amendment agreed to .

Lords amendments Nos. 68 to 72 agreed to .

Lords amendment: No. 73, in page 21, line 7, after ("orders)") insert ("whenever made")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.-- [Mr. Boateng.]

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos 74 and 75 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 76, in page 24, leave out lines 31 to line 38

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

Madam Deputy Speaker:

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu thereof, Government amendments (d) and (e) to the words so restored to the Bill, Lords amendment No. 79 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) and (b) to the words so restored to the Bill, Lords amendment No. 80 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof, and Government amendments (c) and (d) to the words to restored to the Bill.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 76 agreed to.

Government amendments (d) and (e) to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 77, in page 26, line 2, after ("(2)") insert (", (3A)")

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 87 to 94, 107 to 118, 125, 155 to 244 and 249 to 329.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 78 and consequential amendments (a) and (b) agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 79 disagreed to

Amendments (a) and (b) to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 80 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 81, in page 32, line 45, at end insert

("and

( ) where one of those orders is a curfew order that fact shall be disregarded for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) above")

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

Mr. Speaker:

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 82.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 82 to 99 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 100, in page 41, line 34, leave out from ("subsection") to end of line 37 and insert

("(2)(d) there is inserted--

"(da) the prisoner is subject to the notification requirements of Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997;"")

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

Mr. Speaker:

With this it will be convenient to take amendments (b) to (f) to the Lords amendment, and amendment (a) in lieu thereof.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords amendments stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

Lords amendments again considered.

Question again proposed, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (b), in line 4, at end insert--

Question put, That the amendment be made:--

The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 386.

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 (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 106 (+2 tell)067.5%
Lab344 (+2 tell) 0083.8%
LDem40 0085.1%
PC2 0050.0%
UUP0 3033.3%
Total:386 109078.8%

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