The Counter-Terrorism Bill completed its Committee stage in the Lords on Tuesday. The proceedings included the removal of the clauses providing for ministers to determine that some inquests be held in secret. Lord Lester of Herne Hill, a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, spoke to outline some of the objections that would be raised if the proposal was to re-appear in the promised Coroners’ Bill.
With the provisions for detention for 42 days and for inquests in secret having been removed from the Bill, there was little remaining that was greatly contentious. On some amendments, the minister, Admiral Lord West, was notably accommodating. In response to one amendment he said ‘I was briefed that it was too difficult to come up with a form of words that captured the differences that the noble Baroness outlines’ but then went on to say ‘However, on reflection, I should like to try again to see whether it is possible to find a form of words that captures that, although as it stands, it is quite clear..’ At this point, I looked at the Civil Servants in the officials’ box to see their reaction to the minister going beyond his brief. One had a wry smile.
Having completed discussion of the remaining amendments, the House rose relatively early. Report stage of the Bill is scheduled for 4 November and 11 November.
What happened to the scrutiny of Clause 83 Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc. on this last fay of the Committee stage ?
What safeguard is there in this Clause, which would prevent a chilling effect on journalists, bloggers, biographers or historians ?
Why are all current and former police constables covered by this, instead of, say, just anti-terrorism unit ones ?
Why not include current and former Judges, prosecutors and prison warders ?
Why are witnesses not “protected” in this way either ?
Why is there a “reverse burden of proof” i.e. the defence have to prove that the accused had a good reason for eliciting or communicating or publishing information, rather than the prosecution having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the action was evil.
Will the study of military history become illegal ?
Since it also covers former members of the armed forces, surely this will chill any reporting of, or even the organisation of, Remembrance Sunday / Poppy Appeal memorial parades and events etc ?
All the senior members of the Royal Family are current or former military officers. Will the vast publishing and media industry which surrounds them now be deemed to be illegal ?
It seems likely that this law will be used by petty jobsworths, to try to harass anyone who takes a photograph of any military, or police personnel.
See Counter-Terrorism Bill clause 83 reminder – chilling effect on reporting or speculation about military or intelligence service or police personnel ?
The Government Minister, Lord West of Spithead claimed that there are safeguards in this Clause 83, but there are none visible within the current text.
Is anyone going to try to amend this at the Report stage ?
Watching Them, Watching Us: The Clause was debated at Report stage (see HL Debates, 21 October, cols. 1071-3). Lord West argued that there were safeguards in the Bill but offered to have discussions to see if concerns expressed about the clause could be met.
I have been monitoring the amendments tabled for Report stage. They can be found at:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/counterterrorism.html
As yet, none has been tabled on the clause.
I’ve decided to meet the challenge head on by setting up a Petition to the Prime Minister:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/rescindguilty/
Whatever the stated safeguards, I feel that it sets a dangerous precedent that there is legislation that means that you are guilty until proven innocent (especially one that has such an impact as being accused of a terrorism offence).