The Second Reading debate yesterday on the Counter-Terrorism Bill was notable for the quality as well as the quantity of contributions. There were some high-powered speeches. As has been widely reported, the former head of MI5, Baroness Manningham-Buller, made her maiden speech, opposing the provision for 42-days pre-charge detention. Two former members of MI6, Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Lab) and Baroness Park of Monmouth (Con), argued for the provision.
The bulk of the speeches were against 42-days and there were, to my mind, compelling speeches as to why the provision was inappropriate and the safeguards unworkable. From the cross-benches, Lord Dear, a former senior police officer, made the point (as others did) that provision for post-charge questioning made the 42-day provision otiose. Former law lord Lord Steyn said that the ‘so-called protections in the Bill are ilusory and constitutionally illiterate’. Most speakers focused on the 42-day provision, though other parts of the Bill were also covered, including the provisions covering special inquests.
As things stand, there seems little doubt that the 42-day provision will be defeated when the House returns in the autumn. It may well be defeated by a margin of 2-to-1 or even 3-to-1. The bulk of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Cross-benchers will vote against; any dissenters are more than likely to be off-set by Labour peers voting against.
The debate can be found at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80708-0002.htm#08070843000002
Lord Norton, I should first say thanks for being such an active poster on this blog. Your interest in it has made for a very active and lively discussion between ordinary members of the public and all of the esteemed Lords on this site.
But I would like to know what is your assessment of the chances of the Government attempting to invoke the Parliament Acts on this piece of legislation, when it is ultimately thrown out? And given the cross-party opposition to it in both Houses, and the narrowness of the Government’s victory in the Commons, what would be the chances of it being successfully invoked?
On the Parliament Acts, do you think it is time for the balance of power between the Houses to be reassessed, and maybe at least the 1948 Act repealed? I have always been uneasy with the idea of the 1911 Act being used to amend itself, and I think the Lords has changed sufficiently enough since its hereditary days to have a stronger final voice in legislation.
I just found this pretty awesome article, The Last Patriot, that sheds some light on the first encounters America had with Jihadist back in the late 1700s. Its a really interesting article worth checking out.
Adrian Kidney: Thanks for your comments. We appreciate feedback and indeed the comments on what we write. On your substantive question, it is always possible that the Commons may not stick with the 42-days provision. The Government may have difficulty mobilising enough support to overturn the Lords amendment (assuming – which seems reasonable – that we reject the provision). If there is ‘ping pong’ and we do not give way, it is always possible that the Government may drop the 42-day provision in order to get the rest of the Bill through. In short, there is quite a way to go before the issue of the Parliament Act comes into play. Some of the scenarios I have just mentioned mean that it would not be relevant. On the 1911 Act being employed to amend itself, there was some interesting obiter dicta in the opinions of the law lords in the case involving the challenge to the Hunting Act, which suggested they may be prepared to regard certain provisions as, in effect, entrenched.
Thanks, my Lord. Given that the Law Lords will be removed next year and replaced by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, do you think this could affect their opinion?
Is there any chance of you posting your thoughts on the Supreme Court, if it’ll be a good or bad reform? (sorry for digressing on the terrorism Bill though!)
I think Lord Norton is being generous here, in deference to caution and accuracy in reporting how the process functions. I have no such qualms or hangups! 🙂
/pundit_mode:
This bill is going to get smacked back down to The Commons, where another vote will be unsuccessful. Just remember all the schenanegans the PM had to pull off to get it through the first time. Even with paying off the DUP and other MPs it only got through by the finest of margins.
Now the full extent of the public’s disgust at this bill is known, I cannot see MPs supporting it. The Parliament Acts cannot be used on a bill that has no support in The Commons.
Obviously Lord Norton has far more knowledge of the subject than I. It’s fun to play pundit occassionally, I stand by the above though.
Personally I think the Lords should have the power to force a general election, if they believe the lower house is not performing its duties to the people. Now that would make things interesting.
Liam,
Interesting, though if the Lords had that power I think that the Commons would reform it into an elected Chamber like a shot!
Liam: I am an academic. I don’t make predictions. I look at the evidence and test alternative explanations. You won’t even get me to commit to saying that the sun will definitely rise tomorrow. All one can do is make a probability statement.
i am not sure that public opinion has yet swung against 42-days detention, though I suspect support will diminish as more people realise it is unnecessary and will not help prevent a terrorist offence. If the provision has no support in the Commons, then it is unlikely that it will be returning to the Lords.
Like Adrian Kindney, I can see that giving us additional powers, such as to force a general election, may generate substantial political problems!
Adrian Kidney: On the removal of the law lords, I will be happy to do a separate post. I think their move from the Palace of Westminster to the new Supreme Court building, across the road in Parliament Square, will have potentially damaging consequences. Both Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a former law lord, and I argued against the move.
One thing that has shocked me recently when I have spoken with disaffected New Labour voters is that some are turning to the BNP; I don’t really understand this except to speculate that it is perhaps a reaction to the betrayal they feel. This is especially so in our frontier cities and towns where stresses of all kinds are high.
I have also taken stock of the values of youngsters, ones who are not educated and who come from ‘under class’ families, who see politics as ‘black and white’: who also feel they have no use for a society that has no use for them. Their values concern me because they align closely with fascism a prospective enemy within.
These individuals need role models that are middle of the road in terms of politics. However, given that the government against conventional wisdom has a mandate to pursue foreign military campaigns one must ask a question. Are they in any way promoting the interests of far right politics or extremism in our name?
Winston Churchill certainly thought that the Labour party was capable of acts that belong to the far right. Was he wrong? Politically yes, but his words do leave an after taste.
Terrorism is an important concern but equally so is the prospect of an incoming government that has been elected on a manifesto that in practice turns out to be quite different from that promised. If one considers the overrides that terrorist legislation puts in place might this be useful to such a government, an extremist government?
Such a government would need access to the judiciary. Hypothetically, could this be done through the Lord Chancellors office? Could a Commons party zealot with or without competencies hold the position, ignore the obligations of the great seal and thus have access to the judiciary?
Of course one is bound to say this could never happen in today’s terms but what of tomorrow? The House of Lords with all of its know-how and wisdom is a time capsule of peers whose core values were set in an earlier time. Fortunately, this acts to safe guard us. Time however moves on and in due course the values held today may differ radically from those of tomorrow. What values do we hold sacred that must be politically time proofed?
My argument is no different to the 42 day issue simply because it is a ‘what-if’ scenario, untested by events. The bill however does tinker with our hard one freedom and safe guards. It is the politics of a people and way of life that will not accept risk in any form whatsoever. It is the politics of a government that says: “It was not our fault, please vote for us again.” It is the politics of a government frightened by its own agenda, cause and effect.