Protection of Vulnerable Children — 3 Mar 2004 at 18:50
Kelvin Hopkins MP, Luton North voted with the majority (No).
I beg to move,
That this House notes that it is now more than 13 months since Lord Laming's Report on Victoria Climbié and that 25th February 2004 marked the fourth anniversary of her tragic death; regrets that the Government has wasted too much time before bringing forward practical measures to make vulnerable children safer despite Laming's contention that 84 of his recommendations could be implemented within six months and even now social services departments are in limbo awaiting Government recommendations in the Children's Bill; is alarmed at the Government's complete inability to clarify the position on data sharing between agencies, which is crucial to child protection measures; condemns the Government's failure to address the crisis in recruitment of child protection social workers without whom the necessary improvements will not be achievable; is gravely concerned at their response to the recent Appeal Court judgements involving children taken away from parents on questionable expert witness testimonies, which has failed to take account of potentially thousands of other miscarriages of justice in the family courts; notes the additional pressures that this is adding on already overstretched social services departments; further notes the continued failure of the Government to produce the long promised National Service Framework for Children; condemns recent moves to cut already committed grants to important Children's Fund projects working with vulnerable children; and calls upon the Government to give vulnerable children the priority they need and deserve.
I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof:
"welcomes the fact that this Government acknowledged the importance of children's issues by appointing the first ever Minister with responsibility for children and young people; congratulates the Government's commitment to Lord Laming's report on safeguarding children, shown in the Green Paper Every Child Matters, and its determination to turn words into action by publishing the Children's Bill in the other place today; acknowledges that the £885 million Quality Protects Programme is already improving the life chances of vulnerable children; commends the Government for the 8.7% increase in funding for children's social services in the next financial year; and is alarmed by the Opposition's proposals to freeze spending on children's services."
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:-
The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 329.
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 | 0 | 135 (+2 tell) | 0 | 84.6% |
DUP | 0 | 1 | 0 | 16.7% |
Independent Conservative | 0 | 2 | 0 | 100.0% |
Lab | 329 (+2 tell) | 0 | 0 | 81.1% |
LDem | 0 | 42 | 0 | 77.8% |
PC | 0 | 2 | 0 | 50.0% |
SNP | 0 | 4 | 0 | 80.0% |
UUP | 0 | 3 | 0 | 60.0% |
Total: | 329 | 189 | 0 | 80.8% |
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
Name | Constituency | Party | Vote | |
no rebellions |