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

Zac Goldsmith MP, Richmond Park 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[1].

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[2] 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.

===

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
Con257 (+1 tell) 0085.1%
DUP6 0075.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 1050.0%
Lab0 216 (+2 tell)084.5%
LDem44 (+1 tell) 0080.4%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 2066.7%
SNP0 4066.7%
Total:307 227084.1%

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
no rebellions

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