Comparison of Divisions: Opposition Day — [14th Allotted Day] — Sentencing Policy — 17 Jun 2008 at 21:51 with Division No. 104 on 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49

(Swap the two divisions around).

Vote (a) (unedited): Opposition Day — [14th Allotted Day] — Sentencing Policy - 17 Jun 2008 at 21:51 - Division No. 224

I beg to move,

That this House is concerned that a failure to plan adequate prison capacity has led to the End of Custody Licence scheme and the early release of 26,000 prisoners; notes that the current rate of prisoner release is running ahead of initial projections so that an additional 5,000 prisoners will be released early in a full year; expresses grave concern that no decision on whether to suspend this scheme will be taken until 2009, at the earliest, when prison capacity reaches 86,000 due to the Government's delayed prison building programme; agrees with the Lord Chief Justice that early release schemes erode the sentences originally handed down; further notes the low levels of public confidence in community sentences; recognises the objections of local communities that prisoners released early on home detention curfew are being housed in over 150 residential areas, without consultation, under the Bail Accommodation and Support Service scheme managed by ClearSprings; further notes criticism of the Youth Justice Board for failing to meet targets on youth crime; further expresses concern over plans to link resources to sentencing through the creation of a Sentencing Commission; and calls upon the Government to introduce honesty in sentencing, cancel the End of Custody Licence scheme, suspend the Bail Accommodation and Support Service policy and take immediate steps to ensure adequate prison capacity in the interests of public safety.

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

"welcomes the Government's record in cutting crime by a third, its provision of 23,000 more prison places since 1997, and its commitment to create a total of 96,000 prison places by 2014, demonstrating that public protection is at the heart of its strategy; further welcomes the Government's commitment to remove the End of Custody Licence Scheme when headroom allows; notes that the use of police cells is much lower than under the previous administration; further welcomes the tough and effective community sentences that have been introduced and the work done to increase public awareness of their role and effectiveness, and the further investment in intensive alternatives to custody to continue to build the confidence of sentencers in their effectiveness, as demonstrated by significantly reduced re-offending rates; notes in respect of the Bail Accommodation and Support Service that ClearSprings is required to consult the police, local authorities and probation to avoid inappropriate property locations; considers that there should be greater consistency in sentencing and the opportunity for a focused and informed debate on sentencing provided by the work of the Sentencing Commission Working Group on the potential for a structured sentencing framework; and further welcomes the reforms which have been made to the youth justice system including the strengthening of alternatives to custody".

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:-

The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 320.

Vote (b) : Gurkha Settlement Rights — Government defeat - 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49 - Division No. 104

The majority of MPs voted in favour of the motion:[1]

  • This House
  • regrets the Government's recent statement[2] outlining the eligibility criteria for Gurkhas to reside in the United Kingdom;
  • recognises the contribution the Gurkhas have made to the safety and freedom of the United Kingdom for the past 200 years;
  • notes that more Gurkhas have laid down their lives for the United Kingdom than are estimated to want to live here;
  • believes that Gurkhas who retired before 1997 should be treated fairly and in the same way as those who have retired since;
  • is concerned that the Government's new guidelines will permit only a small minority of Gurkhas and their families to settle whilst preventing the vast majority;
  • further believes that people who are prepared to fight and die for the United Kingdom should be entitled to live in the country; and
  • calls upon the Government to withdraw its new guidelines immediately and bring forward revised proposals that extend an equal right of residence to all Gurkhas.

As a consequence, the alternative Government motion, which read:[3]

  • This House
  • recognises that this Government is the only one since the Second World War to allow Gurkhas and their families settlement rights to the United Kingdom;
  • notes that in 2004 the Government permitted settlement rights to Gurkhas discharged since 1997, following the transfer of the Brigade HQ from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom;
  • further notes that under these rules around 6,000 Gurkhas and family members have been welcomed to the UK;
  • acknowledges that the court judgement of September 2008 determined that the 1997 cut-off date was fair and rational, while seeking clarification of the criteria for settlement rights for those who retired before 1997;
  • further notes that on 24 April the Government published new and more generous guidelines for the settlement applications of Gurkhas who retired before 1997;
  • supports this revised guidance, which will make around 10,000 Gurkhas and family members eligible to settle in the UK;
  • further notes that the Government undertakes actively to inform those who may be eligible in Nepal of these changes and to review the impact of the new guidance within 12 months;
  • further notes that the contribution Gurkhas have made is already recognised by pensions paid to around 25,000 Gurkhas or their widows in Nepal that allow for a good standard of living there; and
  • further notes that in the year 2000 Gurkha pensions were doubled and that, earlier in April 2009, in addition to an inflationary uplift of 14 per cent., those over 80 years old received a 20 per cent. increase in their pension.

... was never voted upon.

Although this extremely rare Government defeat in an opposition day motion is not binding (has no legal force)[4] a Government minister made a statement later in the day to bring "forward the date for the determination of the outstanding applications to the end of May."[5]

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.

Opposite in Votes - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote on Motion (a) was opposite to their vote on Motion (b). You can also see all differing votes between these two divisions, or simply all the votes.

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote (a) | Vote (b)

NameConstituencyPartyVote (a)Vote (b)
Dai DaviesBlaenau GwentIndependentno aye
Diane AbbottHackney North and Stoke NewingtonLabno aye
Ian CawseyBrigg and GooleLab (minister)no aye
Harry CohenLeyton and WansteadLab (minister)no aye
Jeremy CorbynIslington NorthLabno aye
Paul FarrellyNewcastle-under-LymeLab (minister)no aye
Mark FisherStoke-on-Trent CentralLabno aye
Kate HoeyVauxhallLab (minister)no aye
Kelvin HopkinsLuton NorthLab (minister)no aye
Joan HumbleBlackpool North and FleetwoodLab (minister)no aye
Andrew MacKinlayThurrockLab (minister)no aye
Gordon MarsdenBlackpool SouthLabno aye
John Martin McDonnellHayes and HarlingtonLabno aye
Shona McIsaacCleethorpesLabno aye
Julie MorganCardiff NorthLab (minister)no aye
Nick PalmerBroxtoweLab (minister)no aye
Steve PoundEaling NorthLab (minister)no aye
Nick RaynsfordGreenwich and WoolwichLabno aye
Andy ReedLoughboroughLab (minister)no aye
Linda RiordanHalifaxLab (minister)no aye
Andrew SmithOxford EastLabno aye
John BarrettEdinburgh WestLDem (front bench)no aye
Alan BeithBerwick-upon-TweedLDem (front bench)no aye
Tom BrakeCarshalton and WallingtonLDem (front bench)no aye
Jeremy BrowneTauntonLDem (front bench)no aye
Lorely BurtSolihullLDem (front bench)no aye
Menzies CampbellNorth East FifeLDem (front bench)no aye
Edward DaveyKingston and SurbitonLDem (front bench)no aye
Tim FarronWestmorland and LonsdaleLDem (front bench)no aye
Lynne FeatherstoneHornsey and Wood GreenLDemno aye
Andrew GeorgeSt IvesLDem (front bench)no aye
Nick HarveyNorth DevonLDem (front bench)no aye
David HeathSomerton and FromeLDem (front bench)no aye
John HemmingBirmingham, YardleyLDem (front bench)no aye
Martin HorwoodCheltenhamLDem (front bench)no aye
David HowarthCambridgeLDem (front bench)no aye
Simon HughesNorth Southwark and BermondseyLDem (front bench)no aye
Mark HunterCheadleLDem (front bench)no aye
David LawsYeovilLDem (front bench)no aye
John LeechManchester, WithingtonLDem (front bench)no aye
Greg MulhollandLeeds North WestLDem (front bench)no aye
Alan ReidArgyll and ButeLDem (front bench)no tellaye
Willie RennieDunfermline and West FifeLDem (front bench)no aye
Dan RogersonNorth CornwallLDem (front bench)no tellaye
Bob RussellColchesterLDem (front bench)no aye
Adrian SandersTorbayLDem (front bench)no aye
Andrew StunellHazel GroveLDemno aye
Sarah TeatherBrent EastLDem (front bench)no aye
Steve WebbNorthavonLDem (front bench)no aye
Stephen WilliamsBristol WestLDem (front bench)no aye
Phil WillisHarrogate and KnaresboroughLDem (front bench)no aye
Jennifer WillottCardiff CentralLDem (front bench)no aye
Richard Younger-RossTeignbridgeLDem (front bench)no aye
Elfyn LlwydMeirionnydd Nant ConwyPC (front bench)no aye
Adam PriceCarmarthen East and DinefwrPC (front bench)no aye
Alasdair McDonnellBelfast SouthSDLP (front bench)no aye

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