Counter-Terrorism Bill — Control orders: meaning of support of terrorism-related individuals — retrospective amendment — 10 Jun 2008 at 18:15

Jamie Reed MP, Copeland voted with the majority (No).

The majority of MPs voted that a slight change to the wording of the of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 defining "terrorist-related activity" for the purpose of making control orders shall be deemed always to have had effect.[1]

This is a way to instruct the courts to pretend the law has always been this way, even though it originally wasn't.[2]

The change in the wording is to deal with a never-ending transitive definition in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which reads:[3]

  • For the purposes of this Act involvement in terrorism-related activity is any one or more of the following -
  • (a) the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism;
  • (b) conduct which facilitates the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts, or which is intended to do so;
  • (c) conduct which gives encouragement to the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts, or which is intended to do so;
  • (d) conduct which gives support or assistance to individuals who are known or believed to be involved in terrorism-related activity;
  • and for the purposes of this subsection it is immaterial whether the acts of terrorism in question are specific acts of terrorism or acts of terrorism generally.

According to part (d), someone who assists an individual involved in a terrorism-related activity is involved in a terrorism-related activity. And anyone who assists them is also involved in a terrorism-related activity, and so on ad infinitum.

The amendment is to change the words

  • "to be involved in terrorism-related activity"

in part (d) to:

  • "involved in conduct falling within paragraphs (a) to (c)"

so that the recursion could not happen.[1]

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
Con0 160 (+2 tell)084.4%
DUP0 5055.6%
Ind1 1040.0%
Lab318 (+2 tell) 4092.3%
LDem0 48076.2%
PC0 30100.0%
Res0 10100.0%
SDLP3 00100.0%
SNP0 4066.7%
UKIP0 10100.0%
Total:322 227087.2%

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
Jeremy CorbynIslington NorthLabaye
Lynne JonesBirmingham, Selly OakLabaye
John McDonnellHayes and HarlingtonLabaye
Alan SimpsonNottingham SouthLabaye

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