Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill — 28 Nov 2000 at 17:15

LORDS AMENDMENT

121 Schedule 1, page 46, line 10, at end insert?

("( ) The chief officer is to be appointed by the Board with the approval of the Secretary of State.")

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--

121A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation board are not appropriate.

rose to move, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 121 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 121A, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof--

121BSchedule 1, page 46, line 15, at end insert--

("( ) Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) and coming into force on or after the coming into force of section 4 must make provision--

(a) for the selection procedure for the chairman, the chief officer and the other members of the board who are to be appointed by the Secretary of State to include selection panels,

(b) in the case of the chief officer, for the board to be represented on any selection panel making a final recommendation to the Secretary of State.")

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 121, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 121A, but propose Amendment No. 121B in lieu thereof.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 121, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 121A, and do agree to Amendment No. 121B in lieu thereof--

121CLeave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 121".

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 121C) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 139.

Debate in Parliament | Historical Hansard | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

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 is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Not-Content)Minority (Content)Turnout
Con0 63 (+1 tell)28.4%
Crossbench8 1011.3%
Independent Labour1 0100.0%
Lab127 (+2 tell) 066.5%
LDem0 40 (+1 tell)66.1%
Other1 05.3%
Total:137 11338.4%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

Lords 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 lord who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Party | Vote

NamePartyVote
Viscount Allenby of MegiddoCrossbench (front bench)no
Lord Briggs Crossbenchno
The Earl of CarnarvonCrossbenchno
Lord Craig of RadleyCrossbench (front bench)no
Lord Powell of BayswaterCrossbenchno
Baroness Richardson of CalowCrossbench (front bench)no
Baroness Strange Crossbenchno
Lord Weatherill Crossbenchno

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.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive