Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — Schedule 1 — Seizure of Travel Documents from Terror Suspects — Opportunity to Appeal to Court — 6 Jan 2015 at 16:30
Anna Soubry MP, Broxtowe voted against a right for someone suspected of involvement in terrorism to appeal to a court if their travel documents are temporarily seized.
The majority of MPs voted against a right for someone suspected of involvement in terrorism to appeal to a court if their travel documents are temporarily seized.
MPs were considering the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill.
The amendment rejected in this vote stated:
- amendment 10, page 30, line 14, schedule 1, at end insert—
- “(c) the individual subject whose travel document has been removed may appeal against this decision in the courts over the evidence on which conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of this Schedule were met,
- (b) the Secretary of State must by regulations make provisions about
- (i) the relevant court;
- (ii) a time limit by which an appeal must have been heard;
- (c) the power to make regulations under this section—
- (i) is exercisable by statutory instrument;
- (ii) includes power to make transitional, transitory or saving provision;
- (d) a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Had it not been rejected this amendment would have affected Schedule 1 paragraph 4 of the Bill. The schedule set our the details of how the seizure and temporary retention of travel documents where a person is suspected of intending to leave Great Britain or the United Kingdom in connection with terrorism-related activity would operate. Without the amendment paragraph 4 dealt with authorisation from a senior police officer for the the retention of travel documents.
The MP proposing the amendment provided an explanation of its intended effect:
- This amendment would create the right for an appeal in court following a temporary seizure of a passport, and requires the Secretary of State to set out in regulations a relevant court and time limit by which an appeal must have been heard.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
-  Page of the Bill under consideration which the amendment would have affected
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
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||257 (+1 tell)||0||0||85.1%|
|Lab||0||216 (+2 tell)||0||84.5%|
|LDem||44 (+1 tell)||0||0||80.4%|