Prevention of Terrorism Bill — 8 Mar 2005 at 16:08
Baroness Prosser voted in the minority (Not-Content).
moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause-
:TITLE3:CONTROL ORDERS: SUPPLEMENTARY
(1) If, as a consequence of the obligations imposed by a control order, a person becomes unemployed, arrangements shall be made for that person to receive any social security benefits or unemployment benefits to which he may be entitled.
(2) If a control order is made in respect of a person already in receipt of social security benefits or unemployment benefits, arrangements shall be made to ensure that the person shall continue to receive those benefits.
(3) In any case where a control order is made, appropriate arrangements shall be made to ensure that the person in respect of whom the order is made, and his household, shall have access to, or shall continue to have access to, supplies of food, household and personal necessities.
(4) In any case where a control order is made, appropriate arrangements shall be made to ensure that the person in respect of whom the order is made shall have access to such health care as may be necessary."
The noble Lady said: My Lords, I was not satisfied with the answers that I got from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when I raised this matter last Thursday in Committee.
There is no history of putting people under house arrest in this country, and so no mechanism for looking after them and managing the house arrest. Possibly the Government intend to remedy this. I imagine that they intend to do something, on account of their dear friend the European Convention on Human Rights, to which they made this country sign up and in which I have no faith at all. In fact, if I were to say what I thought of it, I should probably find myself using thoroughly unparliamentary language.
I want to be sure that these suspects, whether innocent or guilty-they have not been tried in a court of law and therefore cannot be said with any certainty to be guilty-are treated in a manner compatible with traditional British decency and not in the kind of way in which some countries, such as Burma and the United States, which have house arrest, may or may not choose to treat people. House arrest should not just be a cheap alternative to imprisonment.
It is very important not only that we treat suspects subject to derogating orders with humanity, but that we are seen to be doing so. We are not degraded by what is done to us; we are degraded by how we ourselves behave and how we ourselves treat others. That is why this provision should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 241; Not-Contents, 139.
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.
|Party||Majority (Content)||Minority (Not-Content)||Turnout|
|Con||133 (+1 tell)||0||64.7%|
|Crossbench||36 (+1 tell)||12||28.0%|
|Lab||4||125 (+2 tell)||65.2%|
|Lord Cameron of Lochbroom||Crossbench||no|
|Baroness D'Souza||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Baroness Greengross||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Baroness Howarth of Breckland||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|The Earl of Listowel||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Lord Walton of Detchant||Crossbench||no|
|Lord Wilson of Tillyorn||Crossbench||no|
|Lord Judd||Lab (minister)||aye|
|Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws||Lab||aye|
|Lord Wedderburn of Charlton||Lab||aye|