A taught political battle culminated last Monday when the Lords gave a crushing blow to the Government’s plans to detain terrorism suspects for 42 days. Peers, myself included, voted against the measure by 309 votes to 118 – the biggest loss since hereditary peers were forced to give up their seats in 1999.
Those who voted against the Bill included two former Lord Chancellors (Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Falconer of Thoroton), Baroness Manningham-Buller (former Head of MI5), Lord Woolf (former Lord Chief Justice) and Lord Condon (former Metropolitan Police Commissioner). The Government’s embarrassment was increased by clear dissent within the Labour Party. There were 24 Labour rebels.
The atmosphere in the House was electric. This was democracy in action. For those who argue that the House of Lords is unnecessary, this government defeat shows the vital importance of having a second chamber. Without the House of Lords, Britain would be vulnerable to having ill considered legislation passed.
Yet I believe that our democratic system is a developing process. It needs scrutiny to improve and to be an example for the rest of the world. The Lords’ victory has generated much media coverage, but a slightly disquieting issue lies silent at its centre.
The Government’s senior Independent Reviewer on Terrorism, Lord Carlile is a Liberal Democrat Peer. His support for 42 days was heavily relied upon by the government in favour of the bill. Now the beauty of our democracy is illustrated by the very fact that a Liberal Peer can hold beliefs which run contrary to his party’s views – the Lib Dems opposed the 42 day legislation.
However, as a former judge myself, I am concerned that the Government’s terrorism advisor is an active politician – albeit in the Upper House. I believe that such an important role should be held by an apolitical, impartial Judge or senior lawyer and not by a politician.
And what did the students learn from this battle?!
Sorry to be pedantic, Lord Taylor, but what happened last Monday was not democracy in action. Rather it was the British constitution in action. We live in a parliamentary state rather than a democratic one.
The greatest virtue of the Upper House is that, aside from the fact its members are peers, it is not at all democratic except, ironically, for those hereditary peers who are elected to it.
Howridiculous.
Surely
“Baroness Manningham-Buller (former Head of MI5), Lord Justice Woolf (former Lord Chief Justice) and Lord Condon (former Metropolitan Police Commissioner).”
are all Crossbench peers, rather than Labour rebels ?
Lord Tyler,
I happily join you in applauding the destruction of the government’s 42-days legislation. This was indeed a great day when an illiberal law was rejected.
However I find it interesting that you applaud ‘democracy’ in action (as howridiculous points out), when it was in fact the unelected, supposedly undemocratic chamber which did its duty when the elected chamber did not.
Can you not see the contradiction in your (otherwise admirable and understandable) belief in an elected second chamber being superior?
Can you seriously claim, for example, that an elected ‘Senate’, be it elected on STV or not, would be more capable of undoing such legislation? While this was an easy clause to debate on – a clear cut for or against – the difference gets even starker when complex legislation is brought forward, and the sheer wealth of expertise in the Lords brings itself to bear. It may not be completely successful in moderating ill thought out legislation, but it’s consistently more successful than the Commons in getting its way.
This was a triumph for liberalism, not democracy. For a working democracy, this law should not have even have survived the Commons to *get* to the Lords.
What interests me more is if we will see this bill reincarnated with the 42 day detention plans driven through via the parliment act. I am in no doubt that parliment will try to run this or something similar through when the next terrorist attack happens. The problem is the next time an attack happens we may not be so lucky to have a house of lords that is so wise and understanding. We may very well have a fully elected house who have the same police state sensibilities of parliment.
I am pleased to see that this blog has generated strong opinions. Thank you for your responses.
Firstly, to clarify, Baroness Manningham-Buller, Lord Justice Woolf and Lord Condon are indeed cross-bench peers. However, the Government was relying on these people – as they were relying on Lord Carlile, the Liberal Democrat advisor on terrorism – to vote in favour of the Bill. Instead, they voted against it.
Secondly, I can see that some people would see a contradiction between the term “democracy” and the unelected House of Lords. However, I believe that this debate has shown that a second Chamber is a vital component to our democracy. Without it, we would very likely have 42 day terror detention legislation in operation now. A democratically elected Parliament is great but, as Adrian points out, it needs guidance and scrutiny. I believe the Lords, with their wealth of experience and knowledge, can provide that guidance and, in doing so, they serve our democracy.
Finally, James, I believe that the above should ensure the future survival of the House of Lords. Over the last few years, it has become increasingly more active and engaged with modern, relevant issues. I believe that, given the level of opposition, the Government will not attempt to introduce this legislation in the future. The embarrassment they faced over this loss will not be forgotten quickly.