The next few months will see the arrival in the Lords of what could be called ‘big beast’ bills. Chief among these is the Coroners and Justice Bill. It had its First Reading just before Easter recess having left the House of Commons with some Clauses untouched by any kind of debate. So the Lords faces the task of scrutinising it cover to cover (228 pages) and line by line.
It contains many sensible provisions but rather more contentious ones. These include juryless inquests, assisted suicide, intercept evidence, the publication of criminal memoirs and the big issue of free speech and offence on the grounds of sexual orientation.
On the latter, Peers are being lobbied by gay rights organisations which believe such offence should be outlawed but equally by the free speech protagonists who fear a slippery slope towards censorship.
The bill also specifies the circumstances in which the coroner MUST appoint a jury, the general rule being that inquests are carried out in the absence of a jury.
Since the bill amends several previous Acts (The Terrorism Act 2000: The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and The Terrorism Act 2006) there will be plenty of opportunities for disagreement both party political and on the basis of liberty principles. The Second Reading at which general principles are put forward will be on 27th April.
Other Bills scheduled for the summer ‘term’ include The Equality Bill, The Welfare Reform Bill and the final stages of The Postal Services Bill.
It’s hard to know where to start with this bill, it contains so many things that concern or utterly appall me not least some of those which you mention. 228 pages is not exactly light reading and assuming my memory is correct this bill still contains:
Clause 152 – which seems to give the government almost carte blanche to share whatever data they like with whomsoever they like for whatever purpose they like as long as it serves a ‘policy objective’! Well that’s a cast iron protection if ever I saw one 🙁
I can’t quickly see the clause but it allows courts to consider all convictions (‘an offence under the law of any country’) in determining sentences for new offences in the UK even if those foreign convictions were obtained without a trial (in absentia), acceptable evidentiary rules, representation and so on. You are again in the invidious situation of being required to take into consideration convictions for things not deemed an offence in the UK. Further more the act consciously introduces discriminatory practice. A UK citizen with a spent UK conviction will be treated differently in the UK if convicted anew than the same citizen convinced again elsewhere when the UK government will provide the details of the said conviction to EU nations which can be used to provide a heavier sentence.
I’ll keep my powder dry on other issues for now. There is surely a far more important issue at hand. Looking at my TV guide a few days ago I saw a report of a new assistant for Dr Who; I read she had style, verve, confidence and was filming in the desert a few weeks ago. Then I saw she was called Lady de Souza, clearly this was some master-stroke of parliamentary outreach. Imagine my disappointment when I tune in to find it’s someone called Michelle Ryan. What were BBC casting thinking 😀
The Ministry of Justice said that it was removing the data-sharing provisions – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7949157.stm
Still, I think the justice minister (someone Wills?) said he still wants to resurrect clause 152 in some form later on. All this after the news that a quarter of all government databases are illegal…
I apologise if this is a repeat as I closed the window at the same time as clicking submit last time:
Given what has already been passed, what’s in the Coroners and Justice Bill, and what is proposed for future legislation, I’m giving serious consideration to emigrating. Democracy isn’t just about having elections every so often, it’s about having rights and liberties for all protected, it’s about being able to express your ideas freely, and it’s about being done and being seen to be done.
The general thrust of the Coroners and Justice Bill is to attack the last bit of that. The clause that Croft mentions, which I’m glad has been rescinded, is a more fundamental attack on our rights.
Len & Francisco: Yes I wasn’t sure as I’ve seen it reported several ways if the intent was to try to bring it back in this bill in some form or simply bump it to the next ‘Criminal Justice’ Bill in the pipeline.
Some of us mere electoral fodder have a growing concern at the way ill thought out legislation is being pushed through a broken house of commons. We look to the House of Lords to look after the interests of the people and not those of the political class. I look back at the way you dealt with the religious hatred bill, and rejected some of the clauses that had little to do with religious hatred but a great deal to do with advancing the police state through the restriction of freedom to speak out against the abuse of minorities.
Although the Justice Ministry withdrew 152 (now 154), under public pressure, the Ministry says “Every government has to strike a balance between the imperatives of individual liberty and collective security” and that “there needs to be also weighed in the balance all the measures this Government has taken to fetter the power of the state, including the Human Rights Act, the Freedom of Information Act and radical devolution of power away from Westminster”. I would argue most strongly that it has done the exact opposite, so ask any in the Lords, please find the time to scrutinise this bill and others, to the full extent necessary.
At the very least, please throw out the secrecy clause, whereby
“the Secretary of State is satisfied that the investigation will concern or involve matters (referred to below as “protected matters”) that should
not be made public… Whilst this clause might have been included with good intent, I feel that the Government would have loved to have had it to save embarrassment, during the recent Nimrod inquiry and would like to have it in time for the Ian Tomlinson inquiry.
From Hansard (House of Commons 17 Mar 2009 Mr. Sanders: Many of my constituents are very concerned about clause 152 …. Mr. Wills: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope it will give his constituents some reassurance to know that we have withdrawn the clauses that they are worried about.)
My goodness you are an educated lot!
Yes, it is going to be a controversial bill for precisely some of the reasons you all refer to. However, I think the fact that a significant part of it has not undergone any scrutiny at all as yet, due to time constraints, means that it will necessarily have a long passage in the Lords and thus plenty of opportunity to comment as we go along.
Here’s my test of the week. CAn anyone remember a time when there WASN’T a criminal justice bill in the pipeline?
I agree with Croft about the relative importance of things!
Dear Lady d’Souza,
Many thanks for posting something on the forthcoming Bills.
I suspect the Coroners and Justice Bill may go the same way as the Marine and Coastal Access Bill and spend day after day after day, if not month after month after month in Committee. Who knows if we’re really lucky a general election may intervene before the Bill has left your House!
On criminal justice Bills in the pipeline, I recall a comment once made by the late Lord Callaghan which along the lines of ‘we all know how the Home Office works, it has a cupboard full of Bills and the minute it spots a legislative opportunity, it throws one in.’.
Howridiculous.
Well if any(more) of the unpalatable parts of this bill are consigned to a future criminal justice bill(s) that should fall outside of the parliament act so the Lords will have a new stick to keep the government ‘honest’. Likewise if any provisions are subject to negative/affirmative resolutions in both houses.
It is almost beyond parody when you have MPs doing almost a 3 day week – what with their ‘constituency days’ and parliament sitting effectively half days most of the week – that we still have bills from the commons being rammed through on timetable/guillotine motions resulting in large sections never having any scrutiny.
My quiz answer to when there wasn’t a criminal justice bill in the pipeline: 1834! The Duke of Wellington was acting PM. Having appointed himself to almost every cabinet office he decided upon passing no legislation or changing any policy but only to keep government running smoothly and efficiently as any good general would!