(Lords Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 40) — 10 Mar 2005 at 36:42

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall voted in the minority (Not-Content).

:TITLE3:MOTION A

rose to move, Motion A, that this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1A and 1B to Lords Amendment No. 1; do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 37Q to 37T in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 8; do not insist on its insistence on Lords Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 37 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37A to 37C and 37E to 37O in lieu of those Lords amendments; do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17H to 17M to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons insistence on their disagreement to Lords Amendment No. 17; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37X in lieu.

rose to move Amendment A1, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1A and 1B to Lords Amendment No. 1; do insist on its Amendments Nos. 37Q, 37S and 37T in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 8; do insist on its insistence on Lords Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 37 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement and do insist on their disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37A to 37C and 37E to 370 in lieu of those Lords amendments; do insist on their disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments No. 17H to 17M to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons insistence on their disagreement to Lords Amendment No. 17; do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37X in lieu; do not insist on its Amendment No. 37R and do propose Amendment No. 37Y in lieu thereof:

After Clause 3
37Y Insert the following new Clause-
"Power of court to make control orders

(1) On an application to the court by the Secretary of State for the making of a control order against an individual, it shall be the duty of the court-

(a) to hold an immediate preliminary hearing to determine whether to make a control order imposing obligations against that individual; and

(b) if it does make such an order against that individual, to give directions for the holding of a full hearing to determine whether to confirm the order (with or without modifications).

(2) The preliminary hearing under subsection (1)(a) maybe held-

(a) in the absence of the individual in question;

(b) without his having had notice of the application for the order; and

(c) without his having been given an opportunity (if he was aware of the application) of making any representations to the court;

but this subsection is not to be construed as limiting the matters about which rules of court may be made in relation to that hearing.

(3) At the preliminary hearing, the court may make a control order against the individual in question if it appears to the court-

(a) that there is material which (if not disproved) is capable of being relied on by the court as establishing that the individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity;

(b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the imposition of obligations on that individual is necessary for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism.

(4) The obligations that may be imposed by a control order in the period between-

(a) the time when the order is made; and

(b) the time when a final determination is made by the court whether to confirm it;

include any obligations which the court has reasonable grounds for considering are necessary as mentioned in section 1(1C).

(5) At the full hearing under subsection (1)(b), the court may-

(a) confirm the control order made by the court; or

(b) revoke the order;

and where the court revokes the order, it may (if it thinks fit) direct that this Act is to have effect as if the order had been quashed.

(6) In confirming a control order, the court-

(a) may modify the obligations imposed by the order; and

(b) where a modification made by the court removed an obligation, may (if it thinks fit) direct that this Act is to have effect as if the removed obligation had been quashed.

(7) At the full hearing, the court may confirm the control order (with or without modifications) only if-

(a) it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the controlled person is an individual who is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity; and

(b) it considers that the imposition of obligations on the controlled person is necessary for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism.

(8) A control order ceases to have effect at the end of a period of 6 months beginning with the day on which it is made unless-

(a) it is previously revoked (whether at the hearing under subsection (1)(b) or otherwise under this Act);

(b) it ceases to have effect under section 4; or

(c) it is renewed.

(9) The court, on an application by the Secretary of State, may renew a control order (with or without modifications) for a period of 6 months from whichever is the earlier of-

(a) the time when the order would otherwise have ceased to have effect; and

(b) the beginning of the seventh day after the date of renewal.

(10) The power of the court to renew a control order is exercisable on as many occasions as the court thinks fit; but, on each occasion, it is exercisable only if-

(a) the court considers that it is necessary, for the purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, for a control order to continue in force against the controlled person; and

(b) the court considers that the obligations to be imposed by the renewed order are necessary for the purposes connected with preventing or restricting involvement by that person in terrorism-related activity.

(11) Where, on an application for the renewal of a control order, it appears to court-

(a) that the proceedings on the application are unlikely to be completed before the time when the order is due to cease to have effect if not renewed, and

(b) that that is not attributable to an unreasonable delay on the part of the Secretary of State in the making or conduct of the application,

the court may (on one or more occasions) extend the period for which the order is to remain in force for the purpose of keeping it in force until the conclusion of the proceedings.

(12) Where the court exercises its power under subsection (11) and subsequently renews the control order in question, the period of any renewal still runs from the time when the order would have ceased to have effect apart from that subsection.

(13) It shall be immaterial, for the purposes of determining what obligations may be imposed by a control order made by the court, whether the involvement in terrorism-related activity to be prevented or restricted by the obligations is connected with matters in relation to which the requirements of subsection (3)(a) or (7)(a) were satisfied."

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. A1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 176; Not-Contents, 128.

Debate in Parliament | Historical Hansard | 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 is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Content)Minority (Not-Content)Turnout
Bishop1 03.8%
Con104 (+1 tell) 050.5%
Green1 0100.0%
Ind Lab1 0100.0%
Lab2 115 (+2 tell)58.0%
LDem52 (+1 tell) 076.8%
Other0 110.0%
UUP2 066.7%
Crossbench11 1012.0%
Total:174 12643.6%

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
Lord Ahmed Labaye
Baroness Kennedy of The ShawsLabaye

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