Protection of Freedoms Bill — Clause 66 — Alteration of Test for Barring Decisions — 11 Oct 2011 at 19:30
Iain Duncan Smith MP, Chingford and Woodford Green voted to stop automatically placing those convicted of serious offences against children on the Independent Barring Board's Barred lists which enable schools etc. to find out about their history.
The majority of MPs voted to stop automatically placing those convicted of serious offences against children on the Independent Barring Board's Barred lists. The barred lists enable those such as schools to find about about an individual's history. Other amendments to the proposed protocols for putting people on the barred lists were also rejected in this vote.
MPs were considering the Co-operative Protection of Freedoms Bill[1]. The amendment rejected in this vote was:
- Amendment proposed: 111, page 49, leave out from line 32 to line 5 on page 53 and insert—
- ‘(1) In sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act (inclusion subject to consideration of representations), after paragraph (b) insert—
- “(c) give the person the opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of a panel of at least two persons.”.
- (2) After sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3 of that Schedule (behaviour) insert—
- “(2A) The right to representation must include the right to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of at least two persons.”.
- (3) After sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule (risk of harm) insert—
- “(2A) The right to representation must include the right to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of at least two persons.”.
- (4) After sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 8 of that Schedule (inclusion subject to consideration of representations) after (b) insert—
- “(c) give the person the opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of a panel of at least two persons.”.
- (5) After sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 9 of that Schedule (behaviour) insert—
- “(2A) The right to representation must include the right to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of at least two persons.”.
- (6) After sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 of that Schedule (risk of harm) insert—
- “(2A) The right to representation must include the right to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of at least two persons.”.’
The amendment would have affected Clause 66 of the Bill[2] titled Alteration of test for barring decisions.
==
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 (No) | Minority (Aye) | Both | Turnout |
Con | 247 (+1 tell) | 0 | 0 | 81.0% |
DUP | 0 | 7 | 0 | 87.5% |
Lab | 0 | 210 (+2 tell) | 0 | 82.2% |
LDem | 43 (+1 tell) | 0 | 0 | 77.2% |
PC | 0 | 2 | 0 | 66.7% |
SDLP | 0 | 2 | 0 | 66.7% |
Total: | 290 | 221 | 0 | 81.1% |
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
Name | Constituency | Party | Vote | |
no rebellions |