The Aye-voters agreed with the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, as first presented to ths House. It now passes on to the committee stage for review.

In the next vote the MPs voted for the committee stage to take place in the House, rather than in a separate Standing Committee.

There was, however, a report published by the Home Affairs Committee about this bill on 15 November 2001.

The Aye-voters decided that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill should be reviewed by the "Committee of the whole House", rather than by a Standing Committee, for at most two full days, before it gets passed to the House of Lords.

This is the procedure used to rush a Bill into Law more quickly than is normal practice.

The Aye-voters set a detailed timetable for the scrutiny of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill over a period of two allotted days, in accordance with their earlier vote at the end of the "second reading".

A summary of the timetable would be:

First day (2001-11-21): Clauses relating to the duration of the Act, Clauses 123, 1-35 and 106-119, and Schedules 1-4

Second day (2001-11-26): Clauses 36-105, 120-122, 124-125, Schedules 5-8, and remaining new Clauses and Schedules.

The Aye-voters failed to add three new clauses to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill which would have limited the duration of the Act that this Bill would become once it passed into law, and would have required the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the parts of the Act relating to terrorism.

This proposal is called a "Sunset Clause", and it listed which parts of the Bill would last for one, two, and five years once it became law. This is an important device that ensures that legislation passed in the in the heat of a crisis is reviewed after a cooling off period. Otherwise it is liable to remain part of the law forever, for there is rarely an equal and opposite crisis that requires the Act to be removed.

The majority of MPs voted in favour of a scheme whereby the Home Secretary could issue a certificate against a person whose presence in the United Kingdom he reasonably believes is a risk to national security, and whom he reasonably suspects is a terrorist.^[1]

A "terrorist" is defined as someone who is or was concerned in the preparation or instigation of acts of international terrorism, or has links to an international terrorist group.^[1]

A late government amendment had inserted the word "reasonably" into the above sentence.^[2]

A later vote established the powers of indefinite detention against someone who is subject to such a certificate.^[3]

Only subsections (1)-(5) and (7) of clause 21 appeared in this version of the Bill at this stage.^[4]

• [1] Suspected international terrorist: certification, Clause 21, Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, 2001
• [2] David Blunkett MP, House of Commons, 21 November 2001.
• [3] Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill - Indefinite detention of certified terrorists, House of Commons, 21 November 2001
• [4] Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, Bill 49, 2001.

The majority of MPs voted in favour of setting up a scheme which allowed for the indefinite detention without charge of a "suspected international terrorist".^[1][2]

(This vote followed one which set up a scheme whereby the Home Secretary could issue a certificate that someone is an international terrorist.)^[3]

Specifically, these powers were exercised under the laws enabling the arrest and detention of non-UK citizens pending deportation^[4] despite the fact that removal or departure from the United Kingdom is prevented by international law (eg they would be tortured or killed in the country they were sent to).

In practice up to 20 suspects were held in secret in Belmarsh without access to the evidence against them.^[5]

As this breached the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Kingdom applied a derogation by declaring that there was a public emergency threatening the existence of the nation.^[6] This declaration was approved by a vote of MPs two days later.^[7]

Owing to a Sunset Clause in the Act, these powers had to be renewed approximately annually until 2006.^[8]

The 2003 renewal by Parliament followed a debate without a vote.^[8] The 2004 renewal of the powers was voted on without a debate.^[9]

In December 2004 the Law Lords ruled that the application of these laws violated the Human Rights Act because it discriminated against non-citizens (UK citizens could just as well be terrorists, but would not be subject to this law) and that there was in fact no evident threat to the life of the nation. Furthermore, they added that such a threat -- in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values -- "comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these."^[10]

The state of public emergency was accordingly lifted in 2005,^[11] and the suspects were released to serve under a regime of Control orders.

• [1] Deportation, Removal and Detention, Clauses 22 and 23, Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, 2001
• [2] Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Part 4, Wikipedia
• [3] Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill - Terrorist certification by Home Secretary, House of Commons, 21 November 2001
• [4] Immigration Act 1971, Schedule 3
• [5] No names, no charges, no explanations: the plight of Britain's interned 'terrorists', The Guardian, 9 September, 2002
• [6] The Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001, Statutory Instrument, 11 November 2001
• [7] Public emergency threatening the life of the nation - approved, House of Commons Division, 21 November 2001
• [8] Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism, House of Commons, 2003
• [9] Renewal of Part 4, House of Commons, 3 March 2004.
• [10] Judgments - A (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent), House of Lords, 16 December 2004
• [11] The Human Rights Act 1998 (Amendment) Order 2005, 3 April 2005

The majority of MPs voted for clauses 27-35 to stand part of the the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.

These clauses were:

• Clause 27 - To establish that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission was the place to review the terrorist certifications
• Clause 28 - To appoint a person to review the operations of sections 21-23 (indefinite detention of foreign nationals)
• Clause 29 - Require Parliament to renew these powers after 15 months, which they did.
• Clause 30 - Put the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in charge of "derogation matters" (legal issues pursuant to the fact that there was a "public emergency which threatened the life of the nation")
• Clause 33 - The power of the Home Secretary (which could not be challenged by any court) to certify that the 1951 Refugee Convention does not apply.

The Aye-voters agreed that Clauses 109 and 110 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill (or, as they became, Clauses 111 and 112 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) should be part of the law.

These two clauses gave an authorized minister (Secretary of State, First Minister in the Scottish Parliament, etc.) the ability to make regulations to implement obligations arising from the third pillar of the Maastricht Treaty of Europe, which is the part to do with cooperation in justice and home affairs.

The Aye-voters agreed that Clauses 79 to 87 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill should be part of the proposed law without any changes.

Clause 79 makes it illegal to disclose the whereabouts of fissile nuclear material that prejudices the security on a site.

Clause 80 allows the Secretary of State to make rules that prohibit publishing information about Uranium enrichment technology.

Clause 81 explains how clauses 79 and 80 apply to the different parts of the United Kingdom.

Clauses 82-85 changes the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the Civil Aviation Act, and the Aviation Security Act to allow the arrest and removal of a an intruder in an aircraft or aerodrome.

Clause 86 changes the Aviation Security Act 1982 to allow an authorized person to detain an aircraft if it breaks an order or if there is likely to be an act of violence.

Clause 87 changes the Aviation Security Act 1982 to make it illegal to issue false papers for an item of air cargo.

The Aye-voters failed to make a series of changes to Clause 89 (or Clause 90 of the final act) of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill which adds a new clause into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

This Clause allows someone who is detained at a police station to be fingerprinted or searched for a birthmark that would identify them to the police. The change that was proposed (and rejected) would have inserted in the phrase "in connection with a terrorist investigation" in several crucial parts of this law. As it stands, this Act extends the power of the police in areas that are unconnected with Terrorism.

The Aye-voters failed to make a change to Clause 97 (or Clause 98 of the final Act) of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.

This clause extends the power of the MoD police to act as outside of their current territory and into civilian areas by request of any other police constable. The proposed change (which was rejected) would have inserted the phrase "[in relation to an offense] which he might reasonably assume to be terrorism" into that clause. Without this change, the law applies to all situations not involving terrorism.

The Aye-voters agreed that clauses 101-105 and 120-122 should stay in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.

Clauses 101-105 (or

The Aye-voters failed to change clause 17 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill

This clause authorises the disclosure of information by public authorities listed in schedule 4 for "the purposes of any criminal investigation whatever."

The change (which was rejected) would have subsituted the word "terrorism" for "criminal". Without this change the law allows private information to be shared routinely between all government agencies even when it does not involve terrorism.

The Aye-voters voted for the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill to be "read a Third time".

This means it goes to the House of Lords for further review. Any changes they make are brought back to the House of Commons for further debate, as it was on 12 December 2004.

The Aye-voters set a timetable for review of the Lords changes to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. The motion stated that everything will conclude by midnight.

The debate on changes to parts 3, 10, 11 and 13 would be done by 8.15pm, on changes to part 4 by 9.30pm, on changes to part 5 by 10.45pm, on changes to part 14 by 11.30pm, and all remaining changes by midnight.

The Aye-voters agreed that "Government amendments (a) to (f)" to the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.

I can't find a record of what these changes are in the text of the debate, but a quote in a speech suggests that it designates the Special Immigration Appeals Commission as a "superior court of record". This promotion could be a means to limit the power of existing judicial system to hear appeals against its judgements.

The Aye-voters rejected the Lords decision to remove clause 39 from the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.

This clause substitutes the phrase "Racially or religiously aggravated" for "Racially-aggravated" in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Powers of Criminal the Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

The Aye-voters rejected the decision of the House of Lords to insert a "sunset clause" into the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.

The text of this clause can be found on page 74 of their version of the Bill as clause number 125 "expiry". It states that part 4 of the Act should cease to exist after one year, parts 3, 5, 10, 11, 13 should cease to exist after 2 years, parts 1, 2, 6-9, 14 of the Act should cease to exist after 5 years, while part 14 could go on indefinitely, although the Secretary of State can extend any part for an extra year if approved by a vote in Parliament.

The Aye-voters insisted on their disagreement with the House of Lord's decision to insert a "sunset clause" into the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, as they had done in their vote on 12 December 2001. This clause would have put an expiry time on various parts of the Act.

A Bill has to pass both Houses of Parliament before it becomes law, although ultimately, if the House of Lords refuses to back down over something, the House of Commons can cite the Parliament Act and over-rule them if it follows the prescribed procedure.

The majority of MPs voted against recommendations by Privy Counsellor Review Committee^[1] to urgently replace the Part 4 of the Act powers which allow for foreign nationals to be detained indefinitely.

They did this by voting against changing the motion for debate from:

• This House
• takes note of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee Report on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Review (HC 100),^[1] which was laid before this House on 18th December 2003.

to:^[2]

• This House
• welcomes the Privy Counsellor Review Committee Report on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001;^[1] and
• calls upon the Government to act on the Committee's recommendation to repeal Part 4 of the Act and replace it with alternative provisions for monitoring and prosecuting suspected terrorists which do not require the suspension of basic human rights.

This review by seven members of the Privy Counsel was stipulated in the original Act.^[3]

• [1] Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Review: Report, Privy Counsellor Review Committee, 18 December 2003
• [2] Mark Oaten MP, House of Commons, 25 February 2004
• [3] Review of the Act, Section 122 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

The majority of MPs voted in favour of the continued power of sections 21 to 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Part 4).^[1][2]

The MPs who voted against the original law, voted in favour of renewing it. In particular, the vast majority of members of the Conservative Party who abstained on the original law chose to renew it.^[3]

Without this motion, the powers of the Home Secretary to certify a foreign national as a suspected terrorist and detain him indefinitely would have expired under a sunset clause in the Act.^[4]

The first renewal of this section had been debated and passed without a vote.^[5]

This was the second time these powers were renewed by Parliament. The Home Secretary had presented his case for it in a Ministerial Statement.^[6] The Joint Committee On Human Rights presented the detailed opposition to the provisions a month later,^[7] but they were finally declared unconstitutional at the end of the year partly on the basis that there was no "public emergency threatening the life of the nation" which would be necessary to justify this detainment regime.^[8]

A recent list of of statutory instruments relating to terrorism that are renewed by Parliament is here.

• [1] Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill - Indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, House of Commons Division, 21 November 2001
• [2] The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in force of sections 21 to 23) Order 2004, Statutory Instrument, 3 March 2004
• [3] Comparison of votes between renewal and original, 3 March 2004 and 21 November 2001.
• [4] Duration of sections 21 to 23, Clause 29, Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
• [5] Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism, House of Commons, 3 March 2003
• [6] David Blunkett MP, House of Commons, 20 January 2004
• [7] The Sixth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Parliament, 23 February 2003
• [8] Judgments - A (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent), House of Lords, 16 December 2004

The Aye-voters failed to change the motion for debate from:

The Bill now be read a Second time.

to:

This House declines to give a Second Reading to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, because it contains excessive powers in relation to requirements on a person to remain at a particular place when such powers are not presently necessary; gives to the Executive powers that should be exercised by the judiciary; allows decisions to be made on an insufficient standard of proof; fails to address the need to bring terrorists to trial on the basis of all evidence available; and thus wrongly infringes the right to liberty of the individual.

Had they succeeded they would have blocked the first stage of the process of bringing this Bill into law. The next vote is on the original question, "That the Bill be read a second time", which is Parliamentary speak for moving the Bill onto the next stage of procedure. It looks like an exact negation of this vote, but the MPs votes votes were slightly different.

The Aye-voters agreed that the Prevention of Terrorism Bill should be "read a Second time", which is Parliamentary speak for sending it to the next stage of the process where it is reviewed section by section in Committee, after which it is read a Third time (another debate and vote) before going to the House of Lords for further work.

This Bill was "read a first time" on 22 February (a day earlier) by the act of being printed. The relevant document quoted at the start of the debate (which took place over 6 hours) was Memorandums laid before the Constitutional Affairs Committee on the Operation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), HC323-II. It requires some sort of a crisis to cause the procedure to move this quickly. In this case it is because there is a perceived need to replace parts of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 which had been subjected to many votes and problems in Parliament since it was passed.

The Aye-voters agreed timetable for review of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. It is specified that the "Committee stage" to review the Bill, section by section, will take place on the floor of the House in a debate lasting no more than 5 hours. Normally this process takes place over a number of days in a small Standing Committee of MPs who have time to review the text carefully, but this is how it is done when time is short.

After this Committee stage debate, the final "Third reading" debate and vote (before the Bill is sent to the House of Lords) was ordered to take no more than one hour. If the Lords don't make any changes to the Bill, it becomes law as an Act of Parliament. Otherwise the MPs must review the changes the Lords have made and can choose to disagree with them. The Bill then goes back to the Lords, and these two steps are repeated until done, or the Parliament Act is cited.

The day for this Committee and Third reading process was scheduled through the "usual channels" on 28 February 2005, and the first vote on that day was to allow 6 hours for the debate.

The majority of MPs voted against giving a greater role to the courts in relation to the imposition of control orders.

The Aye-voters failed to make a series of changes to the text of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill

These changes for the most part replaced "Secretary of State" with "court". For example, the phrase "The Secretary of State may make a control order against an individual" would become "The Secretary of State may apply to the court for a control order...".

The Aye-voters failed to add a new clause to the text of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which would have defined the "Court of Terrorism Control" that would overseen the process of the Secretary of State obtaining "Control Orders". This court would be obliged to operate within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998, and not admit any evidence that had been obtained under torture.

It's not clear to me, given the failure of the previous vote that would have required the Secretary of State to have applied to the court to make his "Control Orders", what this court would have done, but these matters may be lost in the capability of Parliamentary procedure to take full account of the complex connections between the components of the business at hand.

The Aye-voters agreed that clauses 1-13 of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill should "stand part" of the Bill. There are only 13 clauses in this Bill. Thus concluded the clause by clause "Committee stage" scrutiny of the text of the Bill. It is now time for the Third reading, where there is one final vote before it is passed on to the House of Lords.

The Aye-voters agreed that the Prevention of Terrorism Bill be read a Third time, which is to say that it has completed all the necessary stages in the House of Commons, and now goes to the House of Lords for further discussion and review before it can become law. The Third reading debate, prior to the vote is worth looking at for the protestation about the lack of review during the Committee stage.

The public should be reminded of the fact that Parliament is the supreme law making body in this country. If a majority of MPs had voted against this Bill in any of its stages, it would have been history. Contrary to how it would appear, MPs are legally and morally free to vote whichever way they choose, regardless of party affiliation. They are not like judges: bound by statute, precedent, and the common law.

The Aye-voters agreed to a timetable for the discussion of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill (as amended in the House of Lords). The timetable supplimented the one set out on 23 February and changed on 28 February.

The first review of the Lords version of the Bill would last three hours before the changes made by the House of Commons were passed back to the Lords. If the Lords made any more changes (or changed any of the changes back), the Commons would discuss and change the Bill for an hour before sending it back, and this process would proceed until one side backed down.

And so began the longest day in Parliament in decades.

The issue in this division was an amendment to an amendment the House of Lords had made to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.

The effect of the amendment was to insert the italicized words into clause 1(2):

The power to make a control order against an individual shall be exercisable (a) except in the case of an order imposing obligations that are incompatible with the individual’s right to liberty under Article 5 of the Human Rights Convention, by the Secretary of State; and (b) in the case of an order imposing obligations that are or include derogating obligations, by the court on an application by the Secretary of State.

Therefore the amendment would allow control orders which did not infringe the European Convention on Human Rights to be imposed by the Home Secretary. Those voting Aye were voting to give the Home Secretary the power to impose these control orders prior to being reviewed by the court; those voting No were insisting that all control orders must be approved by the courts before coming into effect.

The Aye-voters rejected the change that the House of Lords had made to clause 3 of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.

The rejected replacement for Clause 3 is filed under Amendment No. 8 in the list of Lord's amendments and would have inserted a subsection at the beginning of the clause that read:

3(1) The court may make a control order against an individual if it (a) is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity; (b) considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, to make a control order imposing obligations on that individual; and (c) has been informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions that there is no reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution of the individual for the terrorism-related activity.

In other words, this power could have only been used if the danger was likely, actual, and there is no alternative.

The Aye-voters rejected the insertion of a new clause the

The Aye-voters rejected a new Clause that was inserted after Clause 11 of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill that would have required the Act (which this Bill would eventually become) to be reviewed by a committee of five members of the Privy Council (senior parliamentarians) within eight months of it becoming law.

The actual text of this rejected Clause can be found under "Amendment No. 31" in the list of Lords' amendments.

The Aye-voters rejected the insertion by the House of Lords of a new clause into the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. This clause is listed as Amendment No. 33, and reads in full:

Limitation: This Act and any order made under it shall by virtue of this section cease to have effect on 30th November 2005.

This is an example of what is commonly known as a Sunset Clause.

The Aye-voters rejected the change proposed by the House of Lords to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, as detailed under Amendment No. 40, which deleted a set of lines across pages 17 and 18 on a version of the Bill I can't find, and replaced them with the paragraph:

The rules of court must comply with the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This article guarentees right of free trial, right to hear charges brought against you, presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and other fundamental precepts of our Western judicial system.

The Aye-voters "insisted" on a series of the changes to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, that they had previously voted on the day before, but which had been rejected by the House of Lords during their debate.

I think the Lords' changes were to require the Secretary of State to apply to a court for a control order in all cases, rather than issue them all himself on his own say-so, and the further House of Commons amendments (that were "insisted on" here) were a compromise that said that some of them required a court, and some could be made himself.

Matters get very confused because the versions of the Bill during the night don't appear to have been published on the web, and all links to them have anyway been broken since it has now become an Act.

If you want to do a better job here, link to the question put, and read a list of commons amendments.

The Aye-voters "insisted on" the result of their vote the day before in Division 125.

The measures they rejected (for a second time) was a senior review of operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 after eight months that would make recomendations as the process of future legislation. Such a review would be limited in that it could not review the Sunset Clause.

The Aye-voters rejected "Lords amendment: No.33D" and proposed "amendments 33A to 33C" instead to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.

I think this is the official rejection of the Sunset Clause, and replacement with a weaker more complex version (see 33A in this list of amendments) that involves approval by a resolution in both Houses of Parliament after one year for the Act to continue in force. This is merely a vote to keep the legislation on the books. A full Sunset Clause requires for the legislation to go through the due process of debate, review, and exposure.

The Aye-voters "insisted on" the results of the votes the day before in Division 127 and Division 128, which evidently had been overturned in a debate in the House of Lords.

These threw away the requirements that the court which would oversee the process (of issuing Control Orders) would have its rules set by the Lord Chief Justice rather than the Lord Chancellor, and for the rules of the court to comply with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to hear charges brought against you, innocense until proven guilty, etc).

To anyone who wishes to complain about the quality of my decoding of these motions, may I refer you to this statement at the head of the debate.

The Aye-voters reaffirmed their vote earlier in Division 131, which reaffirmed their vote the day before in Division 122, and took out the changes made to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill by the House of Lords to make is so that a court would issue all control orders, rather than the secretary of state.

The Aye-voters reaffirmed their vote earlier in Division 132 which reaffirmed their vote the day before in Division 125 which had evidently been overturned by the House of Lords.

This rejected proposal would have established a senior panel to review the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 after eight months and make a report to Parliament.

The ayes voted to reject the proposal

The Aye-voters reaffirmed their earlier vote in Division 133 which reaffirmed their vote the day before in Division 126 which was to reject the House of Lords insertion of a Sunset Clause into the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.

There are probably some other compromises on this sunset provision that are too obscured in the technicalities for me to waste more time on. Why don't we get Parliament to do this job properly in laying out what these votes are, instead of:

This House disagrees with Lords amendment No. 33D and insists on its amendment No. 33C in lieu, does not insist on its amendments Nos. 33A and 33B and proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

The main issue of the compromise is whether the choice to repeal the Act at a later date would be taken now, or at a later date. The only technical difference between these positions is the date of such a vote, which can be of great importance to the outcome, like the timing of the General Election.

The Aye-voters insisted again on its changes to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, that it had insisted on in Division 135, Division 131, and the day before in Division 122.

This was the one where the courts rather than the secretary of state was to issue these "Control Orders" (house arrest on anyone in the country without charge or the necessity of proof of guilt). There may be some levels of compromise buried in the amendment Nos. 37A-37C, 37E-37O, 37Q-37T, 17H-17M, but I'm bored and can't find them. Perhaps this is how they won the day: by driving everyone into the ground with all this technicality.

The Aye-voters reaffirmed their vote earlier in Division 136, reaffirming Division 132 which reaffirmed their vote the day before in Division 125 which had evidently been overturned by the House of Lords.

This rejected proposal would have established a senior panel to review the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 after eight months and make a report to Parliament.

It's not easy to find the compromises, which are amendments Nos. 27C, 27D and amendment (a). A publically available (and readable) record of what exactly was going on is in shambles, and about as easy as reading the output from a paper shredder.

The Aye-voters reaffirmed their vote earlier in Division 135, which reaffirmed the vote in Division 131, which reaffirmed their vote the day before in Division 122, and took out the changes made to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill by the House of Lords to make is so that a court would issue all control orders, rather than the secretary of state.

In technical speak, this was done by:

I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendments 1A and 1B to Lords amendment 1, insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 37 and insists on its amendments 37A to 37C and 37E to 37O and 37X, insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments 37Q, 37S and 37T proposed in lieu of Lords amendment 8, insists on its amendments 17H to 17M to the words restored to the Bill by its insistence on its disagreement to Lords amendment 17 and disagrees with Lords amendment 37Y.

If there are compromises in there, I leave it to you to find them and make them legible.

The Aye-voters reaffirmed their vote in Division 133 and made some sort of compromise on the Sunset clause. I think.

This was the final vote held for what became the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which you can now read online. Since this was arguing for amendments held in the Lords, it had officially passed the House of Commons already and there was no further vote needed to pass it here.

So, it seems, the structure of the passage of a Bill is: 2nd reading (which introduces it), committee stage (which makes changes), 3rd reading (which passes it), followed by lord's amendments and further commons amendments (which makes changes to something that was already passed).

Those voting Aye agreed that the Terrorism Bill should be "read a Second time".

This means it can swiftly move on to the next stage of the process on its way to becoming law.

Those voting Aye agreed to the Government timetable for the passing of the Terrorism Bill through the House of Commons.

It was to be conducted in a "Committee of the Whole House" (as opposed to in a Standing Committee), which is a process for rushing the Bill through in double time.

The debate will be over in two days.

Three hours for Clauses 1 to 4 followed by another three hours for Clauses 23 and 24 on the first day.

On the second day there will be six hours for the remaining parts of the Bill, followed by four hours for the Third Reading debate, after which it goes to the House of Lords for further processing.

Those voting Aye wished to change Clause 1 of the Terrorism Bill according to Amendment 79.

Clause 1 of the Bill says:

A person commits an offence if (a) he publishes a statement or causes another to publish a statement on his behalf; and (b) ... he knows or... has reasonable grounds for believing that members of the public... are likely to understand it as a[n]... encouragement... of acts of terrorism...

The amendment would have changed part (b) into:

(b) ...he intends or is recklessly indifferent to the fact that the publication will be understood as an... encouragement... of acts of terrorism... (c) It is not necessary... that he intended to cause... a specific terrorist act.

In other words, to be guilty you had to actually want to cause offence, as opposed to your words merely being interpreted as offensive, which is easily done even if it is not your intention.

The issue of this vote is almost exactly the same as the next one. You can see a comparison between the two votes here.

The majority of MPs voted against making the offence of Encouragement of Terrorism only apply to cases where an individual intended their actions to encourage terrorism.

NOTE: The clerks of the house have confirmed their list of names, though it differs from the official count for the Ayes of 299, meaning that there appears to be a majority of 3 rather than just 1. Click HERE for the list of MPs including those who were absent.

Those voting Aye wished to add a phrase to the end of part (1) of Clause 1 of the Terrorism Bill. This was a brief but similar change to what was proposed in the last division

Clause 1(1) of the Bill says:

• A person commits an offence if (a) he publishes a statement or causes another to publish a statement on his behalf; and (b) ... he knows or... has reasonable grounds for believing that members of the public... are likely to understand it as a[n]... encouragement... of acts of terrorism...

And the question which was the subject of this vote was to append the phrase:

• and intends that his statement shall have that effect

which would have meant you couldn't break this law unintentionally.

The majority of MPs voted to make glorifying the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism an offense.

Those voting Aye wished to delete subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Terrorism Bill

Subsection (2) says:

• ...[S]tatements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging... acts of terrorism... include every statement which-
• (a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and
• (b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances.
• This provision interprets subsection (1) which asserts that both direct and indirect encouragement of terrorism is an offence.

Those voting Aye wished to change subsection (1) Clause 6 of the Terrorism Bill which says:

A person commits an offence if... at the time he provides... [training in techniques capable of being done for the purposes of terrorism] he knows or suspects that a person receiving it intends to use the skills... [for] acts of terrorism.

by removing the words "or suspects".

Does this mean if you are more paranoid and suspicious of strangers you are more likely to be found guilty according to this law?

Those voting Aye wished to add a new section to the end of Clause 8 of the Terrorism Bill.

Clause 8 says, in summary:

[A person commits an offence if he attends at any place, where he could not reasonably have failed to understand, that terrorism training is provided, whether or not he receives the training]

By adding the provision that:

It shall be a defence [against this charge]... [if]... his attendance... was... [to prevent] the... training taking place, [to gather] information..., or involuntary.

By leaving this out, an undercover reporter can be guilty even when exposing or informing on such practices.

Those voting Aye were voting for a change to the timetable for debate on the Terrorism Bill, from what it was set down in Division 71.

The change was to give slightly more time than originally planned for the debate, allowing extra time for the numerous divisions that were anticipated to take place while the clock was stopped. The most contentious Clause 23 (extension of period of detention to 90 days) would have a debate lasting three hours, and the debate over clauses 1 to 22 would last a further three hours.

Those voting No were not necessarily in favour of keeping the original shorter timetable; many wanted more time for debate and consideration to take place.

The majority of MPs voted against extending the period of police detention of a terrorist suspects without presenting charges of a crime to 90 days.

They did this by voting against the restatement from "3 months" to "ninety days"^[1] of the time limit proposed in the bill.^[2]

Had this restatement been allowed, then all further amendments to revise this proposal downwards (to 28 days in the case of the next vote)^[3] would have been blocked.^[4]

Note to readers: This is the first Government defeat in a whipped vote since 1997, managing to overturn their majority of 66.

• [1] Amendment No. 55, House of Commons, 9 November 2005
• [2] Extension of period of detention by judicial authority, Clause 23, Subsection (5) : (3)(b)(ii), Terrorism Bill
• [3] Terrorism Bill - Extension Of Period Of Detention to 28 Days, House of Commons Division, 8 November 2005
• [4] David Heath MP, House of Commons, 9 November 2005

A person commits an offence if (a) he publishes a statement or causes another to publish a statement on his behalf; and (b) ... he knows or... has reasonable grounds for believing that members of the public... are likely to understand it as a[n]... encouragement... of acts of terrorism...

to (in summary and rearrangement):

(1) A person commits an offence if (a) he publishes a statement or causes another to publish a statement on his behalf; and (b) he intends his statement to be, or is reckless as to whether or not his statement would be, understood by members of the public to whom it is published as an encouragement of acts of terrorism.

(1A) For the purposes of this section, the cases in which a person is taken as reckless includes any case in which he could not reasonably have failed to be aware of that likelihood.

Paragraph (1A) means it is still possible for someone else to decide you have encouraged terrorism, even if it was not your intention. A speech in the debate outlining the recent legal disputes over this interpretation of the word "reckless" is here.

Those voting No in this division were not saying they agreed with the original words; it is procedurally necessary for the No side to win for any other amendments to be considered.

Division 73 and Division 74 were previously held on this same issue on 2005-11-02.

This appears identical to Division 75 on 2005-11-02. A comparison of votes can be seen here.

Those voting Aye wished to delete subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Terrorism Bill.

Subsection (2) says:

...[S]tatements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging... acts of terrorism... include every statement which-

(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and

(b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances.

This is a clarification of subsection (1) which asserts that direct and indirect encouragement of terrorism is an offence.

Those voting Aye removed a Lords amendment to Clause 1 of the Terrorism Bill

The original words of subsection 1(4) were:

It is irrelevant... whether the statement relates to the [a] particular act of terrorism... or of acts of terrorism... generally; and whether any person is in fact encouraged or induced by the statement.

The Lords had changed this to:

For the purposes of this [law] "indirect encouragement" comprises the making of a statement describing terrorism in such a way that the listener would infer that he should emulate it.

And those voting Aye in the Commons changed it back, before committing a number of other of their own changes listed at the bottom of the debate.

The dispute appears to be whether a statement which glorifies terrorism should be an offence, even if it has no effect and was not intended to have an effect on anyone's physical activity.

Those voting Aye removed a Lords amendment to Clause 3 of the Terrorism Bill

This clause outlines how the "Encouragement of terrorism" and the "Dissemination of terrorist publications" laws (in Clauses 1 and 2) will be applied to the Internet.

Subsection 3(3) explains how the police would be able to serve someone a notice which

(a) declares that, in the opinion of the constable giving it, the [webpage]... is unlawfully terrorism-related; (b) requires the relevant person to... [modify or make it unavailable] to the public; [and] (c) warns... that a failure to comply with the notice within 2 days will result in... [it] being regarded as having his endorsement [with all the legal consequences that this implies].

The amendment made by the Lords was to insert the phrase "in the opinion of the constable giving it", which was removed by this vote in the Commons.

It's difficult to locate the thinking for this disagreement in the preceding debate (please try if you can), but one speech by the minister mentions how there will be "properly accredited" special branch officers behind these notices. The disagreement with the Lords appears to be whether those special branch officers will be able to send out a notice to remove a webpage which, to the policeman who actually delivers it, does not appear to be unlawfully terrorist-related. In other words, it's whether common sense prevails, or the decision is wholly left to the experts.

Those voting Aye removed a Lords amendment to Clause 3 of the Terrorism Bill

This clause outlines how the "Encouragement of terrorism" and the "Dissemination of terrorist publications" laws (in Clauses 1 and 2) will be applied to the Internet.

Subsection 3(7) says:

...[A] statement or an article or record [ie a webpage] is unlawfully terrorism-related if it [contains]... something that is capable of being understood as a direct or indirect encouragement... of acts of terrorism...

The amendment made by the Lords, which was reversed by this vote in the Commons, was to change "capable of being" into "likely to be".

The thinking behind the MPs' view is that the police can decide a webpage is unlawful when they believe something is capable of encouraging terrorism, whether or not this is likely or intentional.

Those voting Aye failed to block the Government's proposal to remove the Lords amendments to the Terrorism Bill. They attempted to do this by proposing a counter-amendment which, had it been passed, would have cancelled the effect of the Government amendment.

The rejected amendment would have restated Section 1(4):

for the purposes of this section, "indirect encouragement" comprises the making of a statement referring to terrorism in such a way that the listener, reader or viewer would infer that he should emulate it.'

and inserted an extra clarification after Section 2(8) (page numbering very unclear) which would have said:

The reference in subsection (8) to something that is capable of being understood as an indirect encouragement... of acts of terrorism... comprises the making of a statement referring to terrorism in such a way that the listener, reader or viewer would infer that he should emulate it.'

In other words, to be busted for this terrorism offence you would have actually had to be encouraging people to do it, not simply make joke about it.

The Lords amendments were rolled back by the vote in Division 196.

Those voting Aye passed the removed the Lord's amendments to the Terrorism Bill and made some minor changes to the original text. This was done with the motion:

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 5, 11, 31 and 34 and insists on its Amendment 34B but does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 28 and proposes the following Amendment in lieu:—

I can find no easy presentation of these numbered amendments on a web-page to explain what is meant.

The extra change was to insert into Clause 2(8) "Dissemination of terrorist publications the paragraph:

(8A) The reference in subsection (8) to something that is likely to be understood as an indirect encouragement to... acts of terrorism... includes anything which is likely to be understood as (a) the glorification of... such acts... and (b) a suggestion that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances.

This sounds pretty similar to the meaning of what was proposed in Division 195 but rejected. Does anyone know?

The majority of MPs voted to renewed the powers to impose Control Orders outlined in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, for further year.

This vote was part of the process of a weak sunset clause, where the legislation remains in force on the basis of a single debate and vote in parliament. A strong subset clause would have meant that the legislation couldn't be renewed so easily, and any extensions of the powers would need to go through the usual procedures for passing legislation.

The majority voted to approve a Statutory Order^[1] to renew the powers of the Government to make make Control Orders, a form of house arrest for terrorist suspects.

According to the weak sunset clause in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005,^[2] Parliament must vote every year to continue these powers or they will lapse.

The Conservative Party abstained as a block on this vote, while voting in favour of it during its renewal the year before.^[3]

• [1] The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in force of sections 1 to 9) Order 2008, 30 January 2008.
• [2] Duration of sections 1 to 9, Clause 13 of Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
• [3] Control Orders - Annual renewal 2007, House of Commons Division, 22 February 2007

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Lords are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.