Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 157:

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 158:


(b) his powers to apply to the court for the making, renewal, revocation or modification of derogating control orders;"

The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
 
7 Mar 2005 : Column 572
 

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 [General interpretation]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 159:


""control order" has the meaning given by section 1(1A)"

The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment is consequential on the amendment made on Thursday redefining control orders. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 162 and 163:

The noble and learned Lord said: The amendments are consequential on amendments made earlier. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 164 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 165:

The noble and learned Lord said: I shall not move Amendment No. 165 as it is incompatible with amendments that have already been made.

[Amendment No. 165 not moved.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I call Amendment No. 166.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I shall move that amendment as it is consequential.

Lord Goodhart: Amendment No. 166 contains provisions which are incompatible with what has now been decided because the Secretary of State no longer has a power to revoke a control order or modify the obligations.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In that case I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]

Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 167:

The noble Lord said: The amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not think that the amendment is consequential on anything that has
 
7 Mar 2005 : Column 573
 
come before. If the noble Lord could describe how it is consequential I have no doubt that we would easily be persuaded.

Lord Kingsland: It is the court that is now going to make the control order, so it is a matter for the court to consider an application by a controlled person for revocation or modification.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think we will have to change what we consented to.

Lord Kingsland: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could explain what he means.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If the parties agree, for example, that the control order would be discharged, would it be necessary to go back to court?

9 p.m.

Lord Kingsland: It is true that it would not be necessary to go back to court, but this is a much more limited interpretation of the paragraph than was intended by the draftsman of the Bill.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Would it help if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor were to consider this matter in the light of what has already happened?

Lord Goodhart: It appears to me that it is consequential because the failure by the Secretary of State to consider an application necessarily seems to imply a situation in which it is the duty of the Secretary of State to decide whether such an application should be allowed. I do not believe that it can reasonably be interpreted as referring to a case in which the subject of the order says, "I am applying for revocation of the order; are you going to agree with me or are you going to contest it?". That cannot possibly be a reasonable interpretation of subsection (3), therefore it is clearly consequential.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I agree. Having listened to what the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart, Lord Kingsland and Lord Clinton-Davis, have said, I am persuaded that they are plainly right and I am plainly wrong. Therefore, I agree that it is consequential. I apologise for taking up three minutes of the Committee's time.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]

Clause 13 agreed to.

Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 169:


"REVIEW OF ACT
(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a committee to conduct a review of the operation of this Act.
(2) A person may be a member of the committee only if he is a member of the Privy Council.
 
7 Mar 2005 : Column 574
 


(3) There shall be five members of the Committee of whom one each will be nominated by—
(a) the Prime Minister;
(b) the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons;
(c) the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons;
(d) the Convenor of the Crossbench peers in the House of Lords;
(e) the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.
(4) The Secretary of State may not refuse any nomination made under subsection (3).
(5) The committee shall complete a review and send a report to the Secretary of State—
(a) not later than the end of four months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed; and
(b) not later than the end of eight months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(6) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the report before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(7) The Secretary of State may make payments to persons appointed as members of the committee."

The noble Lord said: We on the Opposition Benches consider this to be an extremely important amendment. It proposes the establishment of a committee by the Secretary of State to review the operation of the Act after a certain period of time has elapsed. Quite properly for a matter dealing with national security, the members of the review committee should comprise only Privy Counsellors. We suggest that the ideal number would be five: one nominated by the Prime Minister, one by the Leader of the Opposition, one by the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, one by the Convenor of the Cross-Benchers in the House of Lords and one by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.

In our submission, the Secretary of State should be prohibited from refusing any nomination made by those designated nominators. The committee should complete its review swiftly and send a report to the Secretary of State within a matter of a few months. A copy of the report should be laid before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable.

Two aspects of the Bill give us particular cause for concern. First, the speed with which it has been making its way through Parliament has meant that full and proper consideration has not been given to it. Secondly, it affects the most fundamental rights of our citizens. For the first time in our history, it questions the right of an individual, having been detained, to be tried by his peers. For those two reasons, it seems to us wholly appropriate that a mechanism of the nature we suggest should be established. It is a necessary security for the support and protection of fundamental liberties in the country. I beg to move.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page