[ charlesarmstrong ]

[ 00:06 wednesday 12 december - piscita, isola di stromboli ]

the house of lords has completed its scrutiny of the “terrorism” bill and has passed intelligent amendments removing all its worst excesses.

tomorrow the bill returns to the commons. the government has indicated it is willing to remove the elements fast-tracking eu legislation and creating new crimes of religious hatred to consider them separately next year. however it has offered no concessions on the clauses permiting detention without trial or review.

presumably the commons will overturn all the lords’ amendments, comforted that the democratic process has been served by the government’s concessions. then the bill should go back to the lords, where there is every sign the noble members would persist in their objections.

in the normal run of things the bill could go back and forth three times in this fashion and if the lords still objected the government would have to abandon it til next year.

but i have a bad feeling the government is not going to let this happen. i don’t know how, but my instinct says the government plans to circumvent the lords somehow to get the bill onto the statute books in the form they want it, and to do so promptly. i hope i’m wrong for this would not be a good auger for the future of democratic government in britain. i’m rather attached to democracy.

: cH

[ 20:48 friday 7 december - piscita, isola di stromboli ]

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1696000/1696491.stm

<<
Home Secretary David Blunkett is accusing unelected opposition peers of committing “sabotage” on the bill.

The government was ready to listen to sensible proposals for change, he said, but the Lords had removed four “major parts”.

“I will ask the Commons to reverse all the decisions last night because they were literally holding the bill underwater,” he told BBC Radio 4′s World at One programme.
>>

ummm… *literally* holding the bill underwater? perhaps this is a devilish new parliamentary tactic?

: cH

[ 19:41 friday 7 december - piscita, isola di stromboli ]

last night the uk house of lords did a splendid job of picking apart the government’s “anti-terrorism” bill. a couple snippets of debate are reproduced below, together with links to the pages of hansard from which the excerpts are drawn. crucially the noble lords made amendments which remove the exclusion of judicial review, moderate the draconian snooping powers and remove the ill-considered clauses creating a new crime of “religious hatred” in their entirety. in so doing they have performed their function of defending the constitution and inhibiting the passage of bad legislation.

now the bill will go back to the house of commons where the government will, without a second thought, overturn every single one of the lords’ amendments.

the lords feel strongly about the bill, as the debate attests. they will fight the government with every means the constitution permits them. in theory they could delay the bill for up to twelve months. the government has indicated it expects it to be law before christmas. not only will the lords fail, i suspect the government fully intends to use this fight as a pretext for further diminishing the house of lords’ powers. i predict we shall see heated accusations that this unelected body is hampering the elected government’s efforts to safeguard citizens’ security.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds01/text/11206-14.htm

Lord Mayhew of Twysden:
My submission is that in the Bill we should not be driven to surrender a precious safeguard against the abuse of power, especially when there is no need for it. If one did so, one could be sure that such a precedent would soon be followed because, in my experience, all departmental Ministers resent judicial review.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds01/text/11206-15.htm

Lord Donaldson of Lymington:
Where does this leave us? If the amendment is carried it remains most unlikely that judicial review will ever be sought. If it is rejected, the message will go out loud and clear, not as the noble and learned Attorney–General believes, that judicial review is unnecessary, but that the Government are bent on having the power to operate outside the rule of law.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds01/text/11206-19.htm

Noble Lords: Oh!

: cH