NationStates Jolt Archive

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4324575.stm)

Peers inflict terror bill defeat
Peers have defeated the government over its anti-terror bill, voting by 249 to 119 to ensure all control orders will be made by courts and not ministers.
The government had wanted only the more serious control orders involving house arrest to be overseen by judges.

Among 20 Labour rebels was ex-Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine - Tony Blair's boss when he was studying for the Bar.

MPs will get the chance to look again at peers' amendments when the bill returns to the Commons on Wednesday.

The government had said it would give no more concessions on the bill, but there has been no indication what approach ministers will now take when it comes back before MPs.

The Home Office said: "The government continues to believe that the bill as passed by the House of Commons strikes the right balance between protecting the security of the nation and safeguarding individual liberty.

"The Commons will consider the bill as returned by the Lords."

The BBC's political correspondent Mark Mardell said the language coming out of the Home Office was "pretty mild".

He said: "I am just beginning to wonder whether they will accept this, because that would mollify all of the Liberal Democrat and most of the Labour rebels on this, and then sharpen their divisions with the Conservatives and attack what the Conservatives want to do."

Detention unlawful

The government tabled new legislation after the Law Lords ruled in December that current provisions for detention without trial were unlawful.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke offered some concessions in a bid to get the bill through quickly.

He agreed to hand over the power to place terror suspects under house arrest to the courts, while resisting attempts to require him to get their approval for less stringent orders.

But peers - including crossbencher and former Met police chief Lord Condon - on Monday backed the Lib Dem amendment extending judicial oversight to all control orders.

Two other Lib Dem amendments also made it through.

One raises the standard of proof for making a control order from "reasonable grounds" for suspicion to a requirement that a judge must be satisfied on the "balance of probabilities" such an order is justified.

The second introduces a requirement for the director of public prosecutions to deliver a statement to the court saying there was not reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution before an order was made.

Mr Mardell said: "In a polite and ponderous way, their lordships gave the government a pasting.

"Now the government does have to decide whether to try and change this once again, whether to oppose these moves and engage in a game of parliamentary ping-pong."

Good

This is going to be like other times after the Lords send back a flagship Labour bill.

The Lords does something it is constitutionally entitled to, then Labour minister complain that it is unacceptable that an unelected body can do this.

And expect no one to realise that the Labour party has had plenty of time to sort out the unelected body.

Meh. Happy the Lords have acted this way, and happy to know the only thing that Derry Irvine can do of note now is vote against the government.

Thank god they knocked it back. I never understood the theory that you stop people destroying our freedoms by destroying them ourselves!

Thank god they knocked it back. I never understood the theory that you stop people destroying our freedoms by destroying them ourselves!


Its how they've gone about it in the US, the problem is that it doesnt actually defend the country.

The house of lords shot the bill down?

I thought the House of lords had only symbolic power, much like the monarchy.

The house of lords shot the bill down?

I thought the House of lords had only symbolic power, much like the monarchy.
Oh no. The HoL has to pass everything Parliament tries to pass. Why'd you think it took so long to get the Fox Hunting Bill through?!

Oh no. The HoL has to pass everything Parliament tries to pass. Why'd you think it took so long to get the Fox Hunting Bill through?!

Well there is the Parliament Act, which means that HoL can only review the Bill three times (per term), with the third review being automatically passed. Which means that the HoL gradually gets more power the closer the election comes.

The Fox Hunting Bill was slightly different though. It was eventually forced through (under the Parliament act) because the Labour backbenchers were getting tired of Blair's attempts to appease them by putting it to vote but not having any intention of seeing it passing (he knew that the Lords would never pass it).

The Parliament act is a bit dodgy though. Especially the current form, which is an altered form of an original one. Guess how the ammended (that is current one) was passed ;)

The Parliament act is a bit dodgy though. Especially the current form, which is an altered form of an original one. Guess how the ammended (that is current one) was passed ;)
yea, but did the High Court not rule that its fine?

yea, but did the High Court not rule that its fine?

The high court said nothing (it was ages ago, so really I have no idea) AFAIK.

But I just think it is dodgy passing an ammendment for an existing Act by using the Act you are planning to change.

Not because it set a bad prescedent. Just looks unfair, unbritish even :D

Bah. Great. Now we're going to have police and intelligence officers up and down the country having to tell the judges, and therefore anyone else in court, the justification - and therefore the methods used to obtain the justification - and therefore it will hideously compromise the intelligence services, therefore making us more vulnerable not only because dangerous terrorists are on the street, but because we won't even see the next ones coming.

I support the bill. I'm sorry to see that, yet again, an unelected body has decided national policy.

The high court said nothing (it was ages ago, so really I have no idea) AFAIK.

But I just think it is dodgy passing an ammendment for an existing Act by using the Act you are planning to change.

Not because it set a bad prescedent. Just looks unfair, unbritish even :D
no i mean, the Countryside Alliance challenged the fox hunting law because of the 1949 Parliament Act, claiming it wasnt legal because itself was pushed through under the 1910(?) Parliament Act, but the High Court rejected the claim.

So i just assumed the High Court must have ruled that it was a perfectly valid law

Bah. Great. Now we're going to have police and intelligence officers up and down the country having to tell the judges, and therefore anyone else in court, the justification - and therefore the methods used to obtain the justification - and therefore it will hideously compromise the intelligence services, therefore making us more vulnerable not only because dangerous terrorists are on the street, but because we won't even see the next ones coming.
and, as theyve been doing for the last several years, theyll ignore the fact that if they really want to arrest terrorists, they should just turn up at a Sinn Fein convention...

no i mean, the Countryside Alliance challenged the fox hunting law because of the 1949 Parliament Act, claiming it wasnt legal because itself was pushed through under the 1910(?) Parliament Act, but the High Court rejected the claim.

So i just assumed the High Court must have ruled that it was a perfectly valid law

I thought the CA was chalanging over the fact that the Bill have no provision to pay compensation over lose of income.

Nevermind. I haven't paid much attention to the whole thing. I'm not so much pro-hunting as don't care. Don't care about the foxes, don't care about the hunters.

Bah. Great. Now we're going to have police and intelligence officers up and down the country having to tell the judges, and therefore anyone else in court, the justification - and therefore the methods used to obtain the justification - and therefore it will hideously compromise the intelligence services,

Noooooooooooooooooo, anything but justice.

therefore making us more vulnerable not only because dangerous terrorists are on the street, but because we won't even see the next ones coming.

How are we vulnerable now?

If you have proof that dangerous terrorists are on the street, for the love of God tell someone.

I support the bill. I'm sorry to see that, yet again, an unelected body has decided national policy.

I feel the same way about the Labour National Executive too.

I thought the CA was chalanging over the fact that the Bill have no provision to pay compensation over lose of income.

Nevermind. I haven't paid much attention to the whole thing. I'm not so much pro-hunting as don't care. Don't care about the foxes, don't care about the hunters.
i think theyve tried a few different things to get it overturned...meh, its still legal here

i think theyve tried a few different things to get it overturned...meh, its still legal here

I never realised that NI had a problem with orange things that run around causing havoc and destroying peoples livelyhood.

I never realised that NI had a problem with orange things that run around causing havoc and destroying peoples livelyhood.
never heard of the 12th July?

never heard of the 12th July?
:p

Yes. I've heard it when the little orange things are in season.