Formal Minutes
Monday 23 February 2004
Members Present:
Jean Corston MP, in the Chair
| Lord Bowness
Lord Campbell of Alloway
Lord Judd
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Lord Plant of Highfield
Baroness Prashar
| Mr David Chidgey MP
Mr Kevin McNamara MP
Mr Paul Stinchcombe MP
|
The Committee deliberated.
* * * * *
Draft Report [Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security
Act 2001: Statutory Review and Continuance of Part 4], proposed
by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft
Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 33 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 34 read as follows:
"Like the Newton Committee, we have grave concerns
about long-term detention without trial on the basis of suspicion
of links with international terrorism, necessitating an indefinite
derogation from the important right to liberty under ECHR Article
5. Insufficient evidence has been presented to Parliament to make
it possible for us to accept that derogation under ECHR Article
15 is strictly required by the exigencies of the situation to
deal with a public emergency threatening the life of the nation.
Even if the derogation were found by the courts to be justified
under Article 15 we would still consider it to be deeply undesirable."
Amendment proposed, to leave out the first sentence
of the paragraph and to insert the following sentence in its place:
" In the absence of clear and sufficient evidence to the
contrary, we cannot accept that derogation under Article 15 is
strictly required by the exigencies of the situation to deal with
a public emergency threatening the life of the nation".—(Mr
Kevin McNamara.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided:
Content, 2
Lord Judd
Mr Kevin McNamara MP
| | Not Content, 5
Jean Corston MP
Lord Bowness
Lord Plant of Highfield
Baroness Prashar
Mr Paul Stinchcombe MP
|
Paragraph 34 agreed to.
Paragraph 35 agreed to.
Paragraph 36 read as follows:
"As both the Newton Committee and Lord Carlile
accept, we are convinced that there is a need for other measures
to respond to the threat of terrorism. While we note that Lord
Carlile has found that the certification and detention of those
detained so far under Part 4 was fully in accordance with the
statutory criteria, and that the SIAC is capable of applying those
criteria in a proportionate and context-sensitive way, provided
that it acts in accordance with the requirements of Article 6
of the Convention; and while we appreciate that at least some
of those who are currently in detention may pose a threat which
would make it undesirable to release them while a search is taking
place for an alternative; we are nevertheless certain that a more
satisfactory legal framework is urgently required which would
be both effective and compatible with the United Kingdom's human
rights obligations including full compliance with Article 5 of
the ECHR."
Amendment proposed, in line 6, to leave out the words
from "Convention" to the end of the paragraph and insert
in their place the words "and while it is essential to take
all necessary measures to defend society from the threat or acts
or terrorism it is unacceptable to rely upon indefinite detention
without trial thereby denying rights guaranteed by the ECHR; a
satisfactory legal framework is urgently required that would be
both effective and compatible with UK obligations, including full
compliance with Article 5 of the ECHR.".—(Mr Kevin
McNamara.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided:
|
Content, 1
Mr Kevin McNamara MP
| | Not Content, 6
Jean Corston MP
Lord Bowness
Mr David Chidgey MP
Lord Plant of Highfield
Baroness Prashar
Mr Paul Stinchcombe MP
|
Paragraph 36 agreed to.
Paragraphs 37 to 59 agreed to.
Summary agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report
be the Sixth Report of the Committee to each House.
Ordered, That certain
papers be appended to the Report.
Ordered,
That the Chairman do make the Report to the House of Commons and
that Baroness Prashar do make the Report to the House of Lords.
* * * * *
[Adjourned till Monday 1 March a quarter past Four
o'clock.
| 
