text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Prevention of Terrorism Bill - Derogating Control Orders
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>The issue in this division was an amendment to an amendment the House of Lords had made to the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/037/05037.1-7.htm"> Prevention of Terrorism Bill</a>.</p>  
  
  <p>The effect of the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmbills/080/pla090305.htm"> amendment</a> was to insert the italicized words into clause 1(2):</p>
  
  <p class="indent">The power to make a control order against an individual shall be exercisable <i>(a) except in the case of an order imposing obligations that are incompatible with the individualâs right to liberty under Article 5 of the Human Rights Convention, by the Secretary of State; and (b) in the case of an order imposing obligations that are or include derogating obligations,</i> by the court on an application by the Secretary of State.</p>
  
  <p>Therefore the amendment would allow control orders which did not infringe the European Convention on Human Rights to be imposed by the Home Secretary. Those voting Aye were voting to give the Home Secretary the power to impose these control orders prior to being reviewed by the court; those voting No were insisting that all control orders must be approved by the courts before coming into effect.</p>
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  <p>I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.</p>
  
  <p><i>Question put,</i> That amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1 be made:&#8212;</p>
  
  <p><i>The House divided:</i> Ayes 348, Noes 240.</p>
  