Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Law and Crime
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): This has been a useful debate, which is reflected in the fact that it has been longer than I expected. Significant concern has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Back Benches, by Liberal Democrat Members and by Opposition Members, including members of the Scottish National party. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) did not table any amendments to the Bill, so to criticise the Labour party for doing so is slightly unnerving Deep down, the Minister knows that he has lost the argument on this issue. The Government will return in another place with an amendment that will be broadly similar to what we have proposed today and that will have the approval of the Liberal Democrats and his own Back Benchers. That amendment will come back to this House and we will have another debate in a few weeks’ time in which we will once again agree that this is the right thing to do I wish to withdraw new clause 1, but the essence of this debate is new clause 3, on the appeal mechanism, so I wish to support new clause 3, give the House an opportunity to vote for what it will ultimately agree when another place has determined it and let this House today determine this policy. Therefore, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote in support of new clause 3, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 1 Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 3 Prior permission of the court ‘(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State— (a) makes the relevant decisions in relation to an individual, and (b) makes an application to the court for permission to impose measures on the individual. (2) The application must set out a draft of the proposed TEO notice (3) The function of the court on the application is— (a) to determine whether the relevant decisions of the Secretary of State are obviously flawed, and (b) to determine whether to give permission to impose measures on the individual and (where applicable) whether to exercise the power of direction under subsection (9) (4) The court may consider the application— (a) in the absence of the individual; (b) without the individual having been notified of the application; and (c) without the individual having been given an opportunity (if the individual was aware of the application) of making any representations to the court (5) But that does not limit the matters about which rules of court may be made (6) In determining the application, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review (7) In a case where the court determines that a decision of the Secretary of State that condition A, condition B, or condition C is met is obviously flawed, the court may not give permission under this section (8) In any other case, the court may give permission under this section (9) If the court determines that the Secretary of State‘s decision that condition D is met is obviously flawed, the court may (in addition to giving permission under subsection (8) give directions to the Secretary of State in relation to the measures to be imposed on the individual (10) 1n this section "relevant decisions" means the decisions that the following conditions are met— (a) condition A; (b) condition B; (c) condition C; and (d) condition D."—(Mr Hanson.) Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time The House proceeded to a Division, and Madam Deputy Speaker having directed that the doors be locked—