Offender Rehabilitation Bill — Decline Second Reading — 11 Nov 2013 at 21:50

Rehman Chishti MP, Gillingham and Rainham voted in favour of Government policies aimed at reducing re-offending, including drug appointments conditions for those released from prison and more supervision following prison sentences.

The majority of MPs voted in support of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill[1].

The Bill implements Government policies aimed at reducing re-offending. Many of the provisions are technical changes to probation arrangements. Notable provisions include[2]:

  • A new drug appointments condition for the licence or supervision period for offenders released from custody and an expansion of the existing drug testing requirement for licences to include Class B drugs.
  • New arrangements for the designation of “responsible officers” in relation to the supervision of offenders as well as making it clear that the responsibility for bringing breach action lies with the public sector.
  • New arrangements for offenders serving community orders or suspended sentence orders to obtain permission from the responsible officer or the court before changing their place of residence.
  • Greater periods of supervision by probation services after release from prison.

The text of the rejected motion, the operative element of which is the "declines to give a second reading" line, was:

  • That this House
  • declines to give a Second Reading to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] because the implementation of the proposals in the Bill depends on the Government’s proposed restructuring of the Probation Service;
  • believes that this proposed restructuring will see the abolition of local Probation Trusts, the fragmentation of supervision of offenders on the basis of their risk level and the commissioning of services direct from Whitehall;
  • further believes that the Government has failed to provide any costings for their proposals;
  • notes reports that suggest the Ministry of Justice’s own internal risk register warns that the Government’s proposals could result in a high risk of an unacceptable drop in operational performance; and
  • further declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill on the grounds that none of the Government’s proposals has been piloted nor independently evaluated, potentially resulting in an unnecessary risk to the public’s safety.

==

Debate in Parliament | Source |

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
Con226 (+1 tell) 0074.4%
DUP1 2037.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 203 (+2 tell)079.5%
LDem42 (+1 tell) 3082.1%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 1033.3%
Total:269 213076.7%

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
Nigel DoddsBelfast NorthDUP (front bench)no
John LeechManchester, WithingtonLDem (front bench)aye
Greg MulhollandLeeds North WestLDem (front bench)aye
Ian SwalesRedcarLDem (front bench)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.

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