parliamentary debates - United Kingdom Parliament - Parliament UK

Feb 5, 2013 - Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP). † Phillipson, Bridget (Houghton and Sunderland .... (d) a fair determination of the proceedings is not possible by any other means. '(1C) In deciding whether a party to ... public interest immunity would not apply. '(6A) In making a determination pursuant to subsection 2(d),.
176KB Sizes 1 Downloads 281 Views
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

JUSTICE AND SECURITY BILL [LORDS]

Fifth Sitting Tuesday 5 February 2013 (Morning)

CONTENTS CLAUSE 6 agreed to, with amendments.

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £6·00 PBC (Bill 099) 2012 - 2013

Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office. No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons, not later than Saturday 9 February 2013

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2013 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/.

157

Public Bill Committee

5 FEBRUARY 2013

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

158

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: MR DAVID CRAUSBY, † MR JAMES GRAY † Alexander, Heidi (Lewisham East) (Lab) † Brazier, Mr Julian (Canterbury) (Con) † Brokenshire, James (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department) † Crockart, Mike (Edinburgh West) (LD) † Evans, Graham (Weaver Vale) (Con) † Evennett, Mr David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury) † Gilmore, Sheila (Edinburgh East) (Lab) † Hillier, Meg (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/ Co-op) † Huppert, Dr Julian (Cambridge) (LD) † Johnson, Diana (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) † Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest East) (Con)

† Murphy, Paul (Torfaen) (Lab) † Neill, Robert (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) † Nokes, Caroline (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) † Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP) † Phillipson, Bridget (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) † Scott, Mr Lee (Ilford North) (Con) † Slaughter, Mr Andy (Hammersmith) (Lab) † Wright, Jeremy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice) Steven Mark, Lloyd Owen, Committee Clerks † attended the Committee

159

Public Bill Committee

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Public Bill Committee

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

160

(1G) A declaration under this section must identify the party or parties to the proceedings who would be required to disclose the sensitive material (“a relevant person”).’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Tuesday 5 February 2013 (Morning)

8.55 am Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

[MR JAMES GRAY in the Chair]

Justice and Security Bill [Lords] Clause 6 PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH COURT PERMITS CLOSED MATERIAL APPLICATIONS

Amendment proposed (31 January): 55, in clause 6, page 4, line 21, leave out subsections (2) to (6) and insert— ‘(1B) The court may make such a declaration if it considers that the following two conditions are met. (1C) The first condition, in a case where the court is considering whether to make a declaration on the application of the Secretary of State or of its own motion, is that— (a) a party to the proceedings (whether or not the Secretary of State) would be required to disclose sensitive material in the course of the proceedings to another person (whether or not another party to the proceedings), or (b) a party to the proceedings (whether or not the Secretary of State) would be required to make such a disclosure were it not for one or more of the following— (i) the possibility of a claim for public interest immunity in relation to the material, (ii) the fact that there would be no requir