JOURNALS HOUSE OF LORDS - United Kingdom Parliament

288 10th March
2005
20. School Transport Bill—The bill was reported from the Grand Committee without amendment.
The House was adjourned during pleasure.
The House was resumed.
21. Prevention of Terrorism Bill—The bill was returned from the Commons with certain amendments
to which they have disagreed insisted on; with certain other amendments to which they have
disagreed insisted on but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof; with certain other Lords
amendments disagreed to but with amendments to the words so restored to the bill; with
certain Lords amendments disagreed to; with a Commons amendment not insisted on; and
with the remaining Lords amendments agreed to without amendment; the Commons
amendments and reason were considered forthwith; motions to insist on certain Lords
amendments and to disagree to certain Commons amendments were agreed to (see division
lists 6 to 8); a motion not to insist on certain other Lords amendments and to agree to certain
other Commons amendments was agreed to; a Committee was appointed to propose a reason
for the disagreement and insistences.
The Lords following were named of the Committee:
Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Kingsland, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
The Committee reported that they had proposed the following reasons:
In respect of the insistence on disagreement with Commons Amendments 1A and 1B; the
insistence on Lords Amendments 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 37, and Lords Amendments 37Q
to 37T; and the disagreement with Commons Amendments 17H to 17M and 37A to 37O:
“Because the Lords remain of the view that reasonable suspicion is too low a test; that the
authority to conduct a prosecution should be the Director of Public Prosecutions and not
the chief of the relevant police force; and that all control orders should be subject to the
same procedure before the courts.”
In respect of the insistence on Lords amendments 27, 31 and 32, and the disagreement with
the Commons in their Amendments 27C and 27D in lieu thereof :
“Because they remain of the view that the Act ought to be subject to the form of review
proposed by the Lords.”;
In respect of the insistence on Lords amendment 33D and the disagreement with Commons
Amendments 33A to 33C in lieu thereof:
“Because it is appropriate that the Act should cease to have eVect as proposed by the
Lords.”
The Report was agreed to; then the bill was returned to the Commons with amendments and
reasons.
The House was adjourned during pleasure.
The House was resumed.
22. Prevention of Terrorism Bill—The bill was returned from the Commons with certain Commons
amendments in lieu insisted on; with certain other amendments to which the Lords have
disagreed insisted on and with amendments in lieu thereof insisted on; with certain Commons
amendments to Lords amendments, disagreed to by the Lords, insisted on; with amendments
to the words to be restored to the bill insisted on; with the Commons disagreement to certain
Lords amendments and Lords amendments in lieu insisted on; with the Commons
disagreement to certain Commons amendments to Lords amendments insisted on; and with
certain Commons amendments to which the Lords have disagreed not insisted on but with
amendments proposed in lieu thereof; the Commons amendments were considered forthwith;
motions to insist on certain Lords amendments, to insist on the Lords disagreement with the
Commons in certain amendments and to disagree with certain other Commons amendments
were agreed to (see division lists 9 to 11); a Committee was appointed to propose reasons for
the disagreements and insistences.
The Lords following were named of the Committee:
Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Kingsland, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
The Committee reported that they had proposed the following reasons:
In respect of the insistence on disagreement with Commons Amendments 1A and 1B; the
insistence on Lords Amendments 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 37, and Lords Amendments 37Q
to 37T; and the disagreement with Commons Amendments 17H to 17M, 37A to 37C, 37E to
37O and 37V: