Previous SectionIndexHome Page

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment;
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to motion No 4.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would be good enough to confirm first that the vote on this motion will be a deferred vote, and secondly that, when the deferred voting procedure was debated on the Floor of the House, it was made very clear that no deferred votes would apply to anything that could be regarded as controversial legislation.

You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that irrespective of the arguments advanced on this particular measure—which many will regard as extremely controversial—if the procedure applies, the measure will be voted on not tonight, once the debate has taken place, but later. I understand that various members of the Government have said that it would be unfortunate if the procedure did not apply, because that would be seen as ascribing unnecessary importance to the order. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will indicate whether you think the deferred voting procedure suitable for what is plainly an important decision.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. That has enabled me to check what the Modernisation Committee said about deferred Divisions when it recommended them. It listed various types of business in the case of which it would be

19 Nov 2001 : Column 123

possible and sensible to defer Divisions after 10 pm. They included motions to approve statutory instruments, and this is a motion to approve a statutory instrument.

Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have now voted on Second Reading of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. Last week, unusually, the House agreed that amendments to that legislation could be tabled before Second Reading, for debate in Committee on Wednesday. Hon. Members tabled amendments yesterday, and they—including some Liberal Democrat Members—have tabled more today. So that the maximum number of hon. Members on both sides of the House can contribute to that debate, would you and the Chairman of Ways and Means consider not excluding from debate on Wednesday amendments that are tabled tomorrow?

Finally, and linked to the above point, until hon. Members have heard the next debate, on the order, they obviously cannot table amendments to the legislation on the basis of the issues that arise in that debate. It may not be possible or practical for hon. Members to table those amendments until tomorrow, and I hope that they will be given the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Those matters are the responsibility of the Chairman of Ways and Means. However, the hon. Gentleman has put the matter on the record, and I have no doubt that the Chairman of Ways and Means will take note of his comments.

Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put it on record that Conservative Members, too, hope that the Chairman of Ways and Means will attend to the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

19 Nov 2001 : Column 124

Human Rights

10.31 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): I beg to move,

We are about to debate a very significant order which concerns the derogation that the United Kingdom proposes to make from article 5 of the European convention on human rights—the right to liberty and security. It is not a step to be taken lightly, and I make it clear now that the Government have given very careful consideration to the matter before embarking down this road. I shall address three issues: the technicalities of what the order does; the domestic powers that we are proposing to take, which require the order to be made; and the conditions that have to be satisfied for a state to derogate from an article of the European convention, and why we believe that those conditions are met.

The Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 was made on 11 November, laid before Parliament on 12 November and came into force on 13 November. The power to make such an order comes from section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Section 1(1) of the 1998 Act sets out the articles of the convention that constitute "the Convention rights" for the purposes of that Act. Section 1(2) provides that those articles are to have effect subject to any designated derogation. Section 14(1) of the Act provides that a "designated derogation" includes any derogation by the United Kingdom from an article of the convention that is designated in an order made by the Secretary of State. The order that we are debating today is such an order.

The consequence of making this order is that the meaning of the convention rights as they have effect in our domestic law is amended in the manner set out in the order. The Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 has attached as a schedule the proposed derogation which the UK intends to make from article 5.1 of the convention. It is considered that, as we have discussed earlier today, a derogation from that article is required to the extent that some of the measures in part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill are inconsistent with article 5.1.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): Will the hon. Lady explain something that is causing me some difficulty? If we have to derogate—as I am sure we do—how could the Home Secretary put on the face of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill the statement that its provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights? We know that they are not, because we are having to derogate.

Beverley Hughes: Because article 15 provides for that, and the sequence in which we are taking the various stages means that it is perfectly in order for the Home Secretary to put that on the face of the Bill. That is why we are debating the order tonight.

Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): Will the hon. Lady explain to the House why, rather than laying the order that brings derogation into force for

19 Nov 2001 : Column 125

40 days last week, the Government did not wait? They could have waited, first, until the Select Committee on Home Affairs had reported; secondly, until the Joint Committee on Human Rights—which is of central importance to this deliberation—had reported; and thirdly, until the House had had an opportunity to debate this motion. There was no need for an order to be laid last week; it could have been laid at the end of the debate. Why did the Government not proceed by taking account of Parliament first, rather than legislating first and coming to Parliament later?

Beverley Hughes: Although this is a very important order, I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that it is technical in the sense that—[Interruption.] He is aware of this; I know he is.

Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight): We are not.

Beverley Hughes: If we do not pass the measures in the Bill, the order will fall. The debate on the Bill that we have had today and will continue to have, and the debate in another place, will be about the principles that underpin the reasons for the order. In that sense, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is making an irrelevant point, because the order, and the need for it, is dependent on the existence of the powers in the Bill. If the provisions establishing those powers are not passed, the order will fall.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): Will the hon. Lady give way?

Beverley Hughes: No, I shall make some progress. I shall give way later.

I now turn to the domestic powers that we are taking. Clauses 21 to 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill provide for the detention, subject to judicial oversight, of certain individuals in circumstances that are likely to conflict with article 5.1 as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Chahal. They extend existing detention provisions in the Immigration Act 1971 to cover a circumstance in which the following three conditions are met.

First, the Secretary of State must certify an individual as being a "suspected international terrorist"; that is, he must believe that a person's presence in the UK is a risk to national security, and suspect that the person is an international terrorist. Secondly, action must have been taken with a view to removing that person from the UK. Thirdly, removal must have been temporarily or indefinitely prevented by a point of law relating to an international agreement or by a practical consideration.

Although it is possible to detain people and be consistent with article 5 of the ECHR where we are seeking to remove someone on national security grounds, that detention would cease to be permissible if the duration of such proceedings extended beyond the time that would reasonably be required to secure the deportation. In the cases of some of the individuals who might be detained under those powers, it is possible that delays in removal would exceed a period acceptable in convention terms. That is why we need the order, which modifies our domestic obligations under the Human Rights Act to match the modifications that the UK will

19 Nov 2001 : Column 126

make to its international obligations under the ECHR when the proposed derogation is formally notified to the Council of Europe.

Next Section

IndexHome Page