Justice and Parliament
March 16, 2005
At seven in the morning, the Members Tea Room, normally as pristine and evocative as a Victorian Literary Club, was strewn with yesterday’s newspapers and half eaten breakfasts; the exhausted staff announced that even the bacon had run out as Honourable Members grumpily trooped into the Chamber to resume debate at 8am after a five hour break.
At thirty hours, the third longest single session in history, Parliament was involved in a supposedly titanic struggle with the Lords.
In the sleep deprived torpor of yet another debate about the same thing, there seemed two avenues of déjà vu.
The obvious one was that we had debated standards of evidence, who should do the prosecuting, and sunset clauses five hours earlier, and eight hours earlier than that, and four hours earlier than that, and a week earlier than that and so on.
A Tory opposition member talking about the overwhelming power of the executive, the need for justice and the dangers of miscarriages thereto. The Liberal Democrats saying much the same thing, but at greater length and with even less coherence. A brilliant late night explanation that Judicial Review is not an appeal, merely an examination of process by the Left’s best parliamentary lawyer, Bob Marshall Andrews, were all the stuff of drama.
The other avenue was of my mind. As a newly elected MP in 1983 I joined with Tony Banks and a motley but small crew, to keep the House going without any break for thirty one hours as we tried to oppose the ‘paving’ Bill which would allow the Thatcher Government to destroy the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan Counties. The arguments by the Labour opposition were much the same as those used by the current (Tory) opposition. More significantly, the six monthly debates on the Prevention of Terrorism Act were a serious fore-runner of today’s debates.
The PTA was rushed through both Houses in 1974 after the Birmingham Pub Bombing. The Police were allowed to detain for up to seven days, and the accused were denied access to legal representation and knowledge of the charge against them. Small wonder the Guildford Four “confessed” to an offence it was later proved it would have been impossible for them to have committed. While this was not “Executive Detention” in its purest sense, the odds were so stacked against the hapless defendant, it could not be called justice.
However, over the water in Northern Ireland, there was real Executive Detention on a colonial model. “Suspects” were interned without charge or trial, banishment from the province was another power, the broadcasting ban ensured there was no media debate, and for some of those lucky enough to get to trial there were juryless courts with only a well paid informer as a witness for the prosecution.
Whilst there is, quite rightly, outrage at the plans on hand by Charles Clarke they are not unprecedented in the Empire of the past. Emergency powers were often used in African colonies, India and Malaya.
However what I found truly shocking last week was the acceptance by too many MP’s that the “asymmetric conflict” of the “war on terror” justified this fundamental and enormous legal change.
Magna Carta is commemorated in the Palace of Westminster with an enormous mural in St Stephens’s entrance, which shows an utterly miserable King John sitting on an open air dais in the rain at Runneymede, whilst an impatient Baron points his finger dramatically at the parchment, and demands his seal, which would forever end the absolute divine right of Kings.
The sealed version is kept in the House of Lords, less than two hundred yards from the Commons.
Magna Carta did not bring freedom and justice for every peasant but it did limit the powers of the King, now “The Executive”. As many around the world know, to their cost, once politicians are given the right to detain, and the accused are denied knowledge or representation the consequences can be dire.
I am not suggesting that Charles Clarke actually wants to detain hundreds of people; it is just that he believes the Security Services have some power and knowledge that should not be challenged.
What the legislation actually does is to give power to the Security Services to name someone as a threat; the Home Secretary then orders restrictions which must be endorsed by a Judge. Under the special rules and procedures the accused will not know the case against them, their lawyer will be given an outline but not allowed to discuss it with their client, and the judge and prosecution who will be privy to the Security Services briefing will know the whole case.
It is hardly fair or just.
The reality is that the new Anti Terror Law elevates the Security Services to a special status, above the law, at the same time as their stock in public esteem is at an all time low. They, after all, were quoted as telling the Prime Minister that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; the fig leaf that took us to war in Iraq.
In Britain there is comprehensive criminal law. It is illegal to murder, plan to murder or plant bombs. To claim, as the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens did in the News of the World, that there are over two hundred people prepared to undertake such tasks is interesting. If he has evidence why did he not act?
Or was his assertion on the eve of the Parliamentary debate designed to bamboozle Parliament in the same way that the deployment of tanks around Heathrow Airport in February 2003 was aimed to reduce the size of the anti war movement.
As I finally left the House of Commons on Friday evening, and the Bill now law, I felt that we had lost something important and precious. The anti terror hysteria of today is the miscarriage of justice of tomorrow.
The only consolation is that there is to be a continuous review, and new legislation - Parliament failed to protect basic civil liberties, it is therefore up to all of us to protest to protect.
Fires and campaigns
March 11, 2005
(From Highbury and Islington Express)
Next week the future of London’s Fire Services will be under scrutiny.
The Authority has, quite rightly, put London’s services under scrutiny and looked at the level of fire cover all across the capital.
They had to do this after Fire-fighting planning and minimal cover was devolved to Fire Authorities under new legislation. They found that the response times in some parts of outer London were too long and consequently there were greater dangers of fire injury to people living and working there.
The obvious response is to increase fire cover and the number of appliances in those parts of London, and that is clearly the responsibility of the elected members to do so.
However, I simply cannot accept that the lives of people in those districts should be made better by reducing the number of appliances in inner London. Under the plans of the Fire Chief and his planners, Manchester Square Fire Station will be closed and the building returned to its property company owners; two appliances will be lost there. Euston Station, well sited between the Euston and Kings Cross/St Pancras Rail termini will lose an appliance and just along the road in Islington, one appliance will be lost at Clerkenwell and another at Upper Street. In the north of the borough, at Holloway Station in my constituency, no appliances will be lost but cover will clearly be affected by the losses elsewhere.
Next Thursday, March 17th, the decision will be made. I hope that the Fire Authority sees sense and rejects the plan. Islington’s population is rising as new buildings and conversions are completed. The huge development at Kings Cross will bring more and more passengers through the station, and the Arsenal stadium will have more than 60,000 people at every game. It does not seem a very sensible thing to cut our fire cover by a third.
Chris Smith, Emily Thornberry and I have addressed a letter to the Fire Authority on this - I hope they see sense and reject the plan, and give us an assurance that Clerkenwell Fire Station will not be closed and asset stripped by sale.
Control orders
Parliament is currently in intense debate about Control Orders and the response to terrorist threats. The Home Secretary has proposed that he be given the power to impose so called ‘Control Orders’ over people whom the Security Services have identified as being a potential threat.
Everybody wants to live in safety and security, and clearly if anyone is planning bombing or mayhem it is illegal. Therefore the criminal law should be used against such people and they, when accused, have an opportunity to defend themselves. What I cannot agree with is handing power to politicians to detain or restrict people, on the basis of evidence from unpublished and unaccountable security services. Therein lies the route to miscarriages of justice; it also undermines the fundamental principle of Magna Carta, that justice should be separately administered from executive power. The issue is being ping-ponged between the Commons and the Lords. I strongly believe that the duty of Parliament is to protect our liberties.
Policing
Good news about our neighbourhood policing. Money from both Central Government and the London Authority has meant that already Finsbury Park, Mildmay, Tollington and Hillrise Wards now have dedicated local police teams whose job is to deal with local problems of anti social behaviour, car crime, drug dealing and burglary. They are focused on the community and it can only make for a better community.
Police numbers in Islington are at a record high, and the policing policies of community involvement and crime prevention are good news.
Play centres
Sadly our borough is looking in two directions where children are concerned.
The Council has raised the charges for play centres to such an extent that working families cannot afford to use them. This is short-sighted and damaging to our children and their family life.
However, Sure Start, a Government initiative, has been a success and enabled many families to get support through pre school facilities and advice on work and benefits.
Islington will be getting 10 new children’s centres by 2006, thanks to £4,182,898 from government. These centres will provide integrated services including child care, early education, health advice an benefit support.
Investment in children is vital - all studies show that under achievement in school and later in life starts at the beginning. The children’s centres and inclusive approach to education for all our children is indeed good news.
Peace in Europe and the world
March 9, 2005
Last weekend Manchester’s Mechanics Institute was full of informed concerned and intelligent people from all over Europe discussing peace.
An appropriate setting, this fine early Victorian building, constructed to show the influence of Manchester in emerging industrial Britain, was also the home of the first meeting of the TUC in 1968: unity and hope bound together in common history.
The Conference agreed a statement and then on Sunday visited the sites of Manchester’s radical past and future. Greater Manchester Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament deserve much credit for their achievements.
The issue the Conference addressed was the proposed European Constitution. Not wishing to be associated with the xenophobes of the Telegraph and the Mail, and to show a European unity for purpose, the Conference was entitled “A Europe for Peace”.
The Conference declaration concentrated on Article 40 of the Constitution; one of the most ominous of a complicated and enormous document.
Specifically the plans of Article 40 are that EU security and defence should be linked to NATO and that its operations should compliment the North Atlantic structures.
Significantly, not all EU member states are in NATO and those, such as Ireland, with a constitutional requirement of neutrality, are about to find themselves part of a nuclear alliance.
NATO, the father of the Cold War in the 1940s should have shut up shop in 1990, and by its own terms at the same time the Warsaw Pact became part of history. It didn’t just carry on but re-invented itself as a force with global reach. The first outing was in the Balkans where it used the rather thin argument of “peace keeping” to avoid the tiresome business of declaring war and thus being open to legal challenge.
An intense day’s discussion agreed where security does not lie, and from where it should come.
Military solutions, pre-emptive war, new nuclear weapons and foreign military bases will not bring about a peaceful future. They may well please the military planners and will certainly bring huge benefits, to the arms industry.
The security we all crave would be better delivered by complying with international law, by seriously strengthening the United Nations, nuclear disarmament, cutting arms expenditure, working for social justice and an inclusive and harmonious society.
All the pages and pages of jargon in the EU constitution mask the real intent of the ominous Clause 40. There will be a European Army and harmonisation of defence capabilities and needs. The actual reference to a standing army was deleted from the first draft of the Treaty and replaced with a series of decisions which would allow qualified majority voting to establish a rapid reaction to a crisis. The European Defence Agency has various rather ominous aims in its shopping list including to “evaluate the progress made by each member state in fulfilling its capability requirements”; it is also designed to “promote the harmonisation of operational requirements, including compatible procurement methods and multilateral projects”. It also envisages an even bigger European defence industry where it requires member states to “contribute to the strengthening of the defence and technological base”.
In September 2004, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the Commons that “the constitution fulfils our objectives by ensuring that the cooperation is flexible, inclusive and complimentary to NATO, and is focused on the development of military capabilities”.
The issue we all have to face is why, at the start of the 21st century, we seem to be about to take the world back to 19th century spheres of influence where gunboats were replaced by rapid reaction forces.
Once this constitution is safely in place the EU will have a common foreign and defence policy, a huge harmonised military capability and at its instant disposal, a force of 60,000: almost the equivalent of the British Army as a start. When this was discussed at the Helsinki summit Paavo Lipponen (Finland’s Prime Minister) was unwilling, or unable, to say where this force would be used, and if it would require UN consent. When pressed on this aspect of the whole project supporters, of the constitution point to adherence to the UN charter but seem unwilling to accept a UN veto on action. It could be Iraq and WMDs all over again.
Forty five years ago President Eisenhower, no liberal pushover for peace, observed the growing and sinister power of the “military-industrial complex”. Since then the powerful lobby of arms manufacturers, security experts and military planners have acquired even greater influence. In the European constitution we have not just a plan for a big army, and an industrial base to back it up but also NATO to give it global reach. Hardly surprising that the Neo Cons in Washington are now fully behind the project.
Whilst nobody is saying that the EU army will have a nuclear capability, two member states (UK and France) have nuclear weapons and through NATO the US has nuclear weapons in Europe.
In May the Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference takes place in New York. Under UN auspices this should be a great hope – a chance for the five declared states (USA, China, Russia, France and UK) to announce their long term disarmament objectives, and the un-declared (India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel) to renounce them.
However, the more likely outcome is huge pressure being put on small states not to proliferate, whilst the declared states continue to develop and rearm with the ultimate weapons of mass destruction.
The debate about the European constitution should not be left to the Right, and Euro federalists to hammer out a position. All the millions who marches for peace in Iraq, and now opposing military strikes against Iran need to understand what a European army will really mean. It would give a group of European States the chance to collectively arm and deploy themselves wherever there was a “threat”. Chapter Five of the NATO Treaty (collective threat) was scrambled after September 11th 2001. Under the new plan for Europe we would have an even less accountable force with global reach.
Do we want a world of war and conflict or of peace and sharing? The proponents of the EU army claim it would be a force for good and be an alternative to the USA. The reality is that NATO will take over all of European military planning.
Magna Carta unbound
March 2, 2005
On Monday night the House of Commons was treated to the bizarre spectacle of a Labour Home Secretary quoting a Daily Telegraph opinion poll on anti terror legislation, to try and gain support for his controversial control orders legislation.
If ever there was evidence of the world turned upside down it was this. Many of us wondered why, having descended so far, the Home Secretary did not go further and pray in aid the Sun or Daily Mail to try to gain support for a bill that has alarmed anyone who believes in the liberties that, essentially, we have won for ourselves.
Earlier in the day, the House was asked to restrict debate on 277 amendments to six hours, and on the bill’s third reading, to one hour.
In effect, the introduction, permanently, of executive detention was to be forced through only six days after the details of the new law were even published!
As if by providential accident, the shoe bomber trial came to a head on the same day and the Prime Minister asserted there were hundreds of people out there who were about to attack the very foundations of the British state. Not to be outdone, the Evening Standard ran a splash story on “spotting terrorists”, as if to whip the whole world up into a frenzy of support for what is a very dangerous bill. The last series of coincidences witnessed like this was the deployment of tanks around Heathrow the day before the huge anti war demonstration in 2003.
What the Terrorism Bill does is to enable the Home Secretary, on information from un-named and un-questionable sources in the Security Services, to order the restriction on the lives and movements of individuals in the UK. If the orders are breached, the person has then committed a criminal act and can therefore be committed to prison.
The fundamental objection to the Bill is the power it gives to one Minister, to detain individuals who may not know the case or evidence against them.
The principle of the right to trial of an individual by a court, separate from the Executive was established in the 13th century by Magna Carta. As Barbara Follett MP memorably put it during the second reading debate, if it was OK 800 years ago, so why not now? She also pointed out how Control Orders operated in Apartheid South Africa.
In his contribution at the end of the debate, Home Affairs Select Committee Chair John Denham made the point that we were in no position to condemn executive detention elsewhere in the world if we practised it ourselves.
Labour politicians who now run the Government all spent their student days opposing banning orders in apartheid South Africa, supporting Amnesty International, or campaigning against injustice anywhere in the world. It is indeed a strange sight when, with one whisper from the Labour Whips office they scurry to support something they know to be wrong.
The debate was really about very serious principles but descended into high farce before it began, when a letter sent to the Tory Home Affairs spokesperson, David Davies was published.
In this letter Charles Clarke admitted that the bill was flawed and that he would be amending it in the Lords but was committed to the bill in its present form. He therefore opposed all the amendments and refused to concede the basic opposition to the bill which is about his powers.
His “concessions” on the Bill amount to his orders being put before a Judge, and that the defendant would be denied access to the Security information under which he was being subject to an order.
The only judicial voice he could find in his support was none other that Lord Donaldson, who readers may remember as President of the ill fated National Industrial Relations Court of 1972 vintage.
Charles Clarke spoke for an hour and half and suffered a mauling from all sides in trying to justify the unjustifiable. The only amendment that was voted on was put by Welsh Labour MP Wynne Griffiths, and was defeated by only fourteen votes, the lowest majority on anything in the last two parliaments.
The Bill now goes to the Lords and will hopefully be dramatically altered to not allow executive detention and to ensure that all defendants have the right to a fair trial, and knowledge of the case against them; not the world of mirrors evidence supplied by the Security Services to Ministers.
The antecedents for this Bill lie in Northern Ireland, and the fevered imagination of the neocons in Washington.
As the Troubles in Northern Ireland intensified after the deployment of the Army in 1969, powers of arbitrary arrest were introduced, internment, banishment and jury-less trials. None of these desperate measures brought about any improvement in the lives or liberties of anyone in the Six Counties. Eventually a political process and engagement changed things.
Post September 2001, the USA introduced Homeland Security which gives sweeping and huge powers to the Federal Government to detain “suspects”. Internationally they created the legal void of Guantanamo Bay, and the horrors that came with that. Not to be outdone in Britain, we passed the 2001 Anti terrorist Act which allowed Foreign nationals to be detained. Belmarsh has become a by-word for unjust detention, and only the Law Lords opinion last autumn has brought some hope of release for those detained there.
Creating a scare over “security” is easy to do, but the opposition to this bill shows some lessons have been learnt, and there abides some concern for the potential victims of miscarriages of justice.
Last weekend I talked to many Muslims in my constituency who were alarmed at what they believe is an attack on their community.
Pressure on the Lords, and next week on the Commons, may yet prevent Executive detention coming about. After all we won our liberties by campaigning, and so we must also defend them.
