A fascinating story in the Sunday Telegraph today: Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor turned down the offer of a peerage from Gordon Brown after consulting his brother bishops.

The Cardinal told the paper:

I somehow missed this session on 2 December 2009. The committee looking into EU policy on protecting Europe from large-scale cyber-attacks heard from Andrea Servida, Deputy Head of Unit, Directorate General Information Society and Media, European Commission. I’m afraid I haven’t yet had time to watch the session but the AV is here if anyone’s interested.

Today’s papers refer to the committee but their stories seem to be based on last week’s hearing. Very confusing, and it looks like Wedneday’s session was advertised incorrectly, or I’ve just completely failed to fathom the workings of Parliament, which is more likely. Both stories imply there was a Lords hearing today, although the house wasn’t sitting. Beats me.

Questions in the upper house yesterday from Chris Patten to Security Minister Lord West:

Lord Patten: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Office of Cyber Security will be fully operational by March 2010.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): The Office of Cyber Security was established in September 2009, and is already working in support of delivering the Cyber Security Strategy. Within the strategy it was felt sensible to plan for an initial operational capability – which included being staffed by approximately 20 people from different departments and agencies – by March 2010. They presently have 12 staff but are not waiting for an arbitrary initial operational capability; they are already making progress in their priority work areas. Other staff will be recruited over the remainder of the financial year.

Lord Patten: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they have taken or will take through the European Union to improve its cyber security strategies.

Lord West: The UK has contributed valuable input over many years to the improvement of the elements of Cyber Security, both through ENISA (the European Network and Information Security Agency) and other EU fora. This work takes place under the broad Commission headings of Critical Information Infrastructure Protection and Telecommunications Resilience, as well as the European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection (known as EPCIP). Actions include collaborative efforts aimed at increasing European co-operation on policy to enhance cyber security, such as developing European priorities, principles and guidelines on long-term internet resilience and stability, as well as enhancing co-operation with industry.

The first answer reveals that OCS has appointed 12 out of ‘c.20‘ staff, which is new. Additionally, I can confirm from other sources that Graham Wright has definitely been appointed to OCS as Deputy Director as reported here before.

The second answer is evidently based on the work of the HoL enquiry on EU cyber policy (here and here), and corroborates the evidence they’ve heard so far.

Short story

They’re not, they’re appointed.

Long story

I’ve been noticing a number of Supreme Court related search queries in the blog stats and thought this was a good question to be searching for because the Supreme Court is a new and critical part of our constitutional framework. I’ve studied the House of Lords reasonably well for mooting etc but I’ve read very little on the Supreme Court because it’s just not yet bubbled down to me. Therefore, pinch of salt should follow.

The Supreme Court is a horizontal shift for the House of Lords. It doesn’t actually gain any new powers but the judges get new emails, a new building and court room and they lose their robes and wigs (which I think is a shame).

There are 12 Justices of the Supreme Court who have simply stopped being Law Lords and started being Justices of the Supreme court one day. It’s really probably the best way to get your bench of venerable and well experienced judges from one court to another.

I think that elected judges are a pretty dangerous situation. You don’t actually want the guy who can literally send you to jail trying to appeal to people who read the Daily Mail, you’re not going to measure up. You end up with situations like the US where judges need to differentiate themselves through how tough they are on criminals. It makes wonderful headlines but it’s not exactly Baron Hume. I think there are considerable problems with the appointment model, it appears to be self propagating etc, but it is a better curtailing measure against concentrated state power (a very New World ideal) than if they and the legislature were both chasing after the same votes from the same voters. I think you really want a little bit of heterogeneity in your government.

4dd6465fc78a86d0987870f88dffcb9c

With the news that Baron Rannoch of Pearson has become the leader of UKIP, it is important to consider the lack of accountability this party now has. As a peer, Rannoch has not been elected by the public and actually went into the upper chamber as a Tory peer, selected by Thatcher. Only in 2007 did he join UKIP. Thus, in my eyes UKIP are unelectable in two ways – not only for their silently racist policies engrained within their anti European stance, but also due to the fact that they now have an unelected leader.

How a party can preach about democracy when they have just elected someone as a leader who hasn’t been elected by the public is beyond me. Everything he now says about the public such as :

“”Ukip is not for sheep, Ukip is not for lemmings. Ukip is for people who think and act for themselves.”

…cannot have the full legitimacy of voters when he has not gained a mandate from the people he is supposed to be representing.

Given this, it is rather rich of UKIP to preach that they would enhance democracy and accountability. For example, Jonathan Arnott said:

“For a long time, it has been clear that there is a major discrepancy between the will of the people and the views of our elected politicians.”

What about unelected?

He goes on to say:

“UKIP are known for holding elected MPs to account over their broken pledges of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty”

Again, what about unelected?

He states:

“Only by allowing the public to force a binding referendum on any issue that matters to them (through a set number of registered voters petitioning to demand one) can we ensure that Parliament becomes truly accountable.”

What about simple things that matter to them such as an elected leader (look at the problems surrounding Brown’s leadership credibility)? How does having an unelected leader help make Parliament accountable?

He ends with:

“It is surely time for the UKIP to drag UK democracy kicking and screaming into the 21st Century!”

Oh, and having an unelected leader does exactly that, doesn’t it?

It would be interesting to see what happen to Rannoch if the House of Lords was abolished, which it ideally should be – would he remain their leader still? Interesting conundrum. For a party which talks so much about democracy, they really need to reconsider what they actually mean by it, which would involve conceptualising democracy in other contexts than just Europe.

A certain Labour MP seems to be arguing that we should oppose reforms such as increasing use of proportional representation and democratising the House of Lords because the result will be “Lord Griffin of Barking”.

PR and an elected second chamber = More Nazis in the legislature, apparently. So shame on anyone who wants such reforms.

Tom Harris thinks the retort to his characteristically sophisticated argument will be “Ah, you can’t stop the BNP by gerrymandering the electoral system. You have to beat them with argument”, to which he replies “And how did that work out in the European Elections?”

If Mr. Harris had been reading his copies of the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight (or even if he had just spent more than 5 minutes thinking about the issue) he might appreciate that anti-fascist activism doesn’t simply rely on trying to stop the BNP through having better arguments than them. In-fact, relying solely upon such a strategy (as many advocates of platform-sharing seem to be) is pretty useless.

Far better to have A) mainstream parties offering popular policies that retain the support of enough people in communities vulnerable to the BNP so that the fash find it harder to get elected and B) mainstream parties campaigning hard on the ground and keeping in close contact with the voters in those communities so that the fash find it harder to get elected.

So basically Tom Harris’ arguments are tosh and he’ll have to do better to justify his sneering at supporters of reform.

The House of Lords continued its committee hearings on EU large-scale cyber attacks yesterday. Giving evidence were Andrew Cormack of JANET and Chris Gibson of FIRST. They spoke almost with one voice on a variety of subjects, principal amongst them the role of Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs). Not as much of interest, perhaps, as the first session but some useful stuff came out of it.

Two main themes emerged. First, that trust is the key to building successful and effective CERT networks. This can be built by face-to-face interactions but also by working together consistently. Both men strongly support the view that trusting working relationships bear far greater fruit than national or transnational interventions could ever do. Although bodies like the EU have a role in facilitating this kind of dialogue (they praised ENISA in this regard) there should be minimal top-down imposition of CERT networks.

This second major finding, it was strongly implied, also applies to wider cybersecurity measures. In the context of the EU this suggests that local and personal relationships are more important than centrally planned structures. Keep member-state/EU’s hands off emergency response networks, unless acting as a bridge between communities and partner organisations if required. This would be useful, as only 25% of European IP addresses are currently covered by CERTs; the EU can help with the other 75%.

I’m not sure this is what the committee expected. It certainly surprised me somewhat, and gratified me too, although I guess this was also a thinly veiled statement against wider regulation.

Cormack and Gibson’s assertion that the internet is actually a pretty safe place, as long as one is cautious and careful, was welcome. A lot of paranoia is unwarranted, said Gibson, and Cormack counselled that user behaviour is critical: the problem is not the knowledge of vulnerabilities, for example, but getting people to act on that knowledge. I’ve been saying this for ages, and I’m glad this was drilled home at the hearing.

Both gentlemen agreed that there is a strong role for the EU as facilitator, but also as a co-ordinator for Europe-wide security exercises. I was encouraged that both men took a pretty realistic view of the threat. When asked what constituted ‘resilience’, Cormack took the entirely reasonable line that resilience is ‘the ability to not fail catastrophically’. The flipside is that networks can be allowed/expected to degrade but should do so benignly. This is a risk management approach, and a wise one. Total security is impossible, as most of us understand, and ramping up security past a certain point is subject to the law of diminishing returns.

There were other points too. Queried as to the likelihood of CERTs being taken over by criminals, both men gave this idea short shrift. What will make the press – if it does at all – is that neither man would publicly give details of the one occasion on which a CERT was denied membership of FIRST and blackballed. This evidence will be provided as a confidential submission and we will not hear the details unless leaked.

Video of the hearing is not yet online but should be available via here in the next few days. Written evidence is available here.

The next hearing is scheduled for Wednesday 9 December 2009 but is subject to change. Update: change it did, and I missed the 2 December hearing. AV available here. Evidently no-one else knew either – the public gallery looks empty.

As we noted here, Friday evening saw UCD School of Law host the 13th Memorial John M Kelly Lecture, this year delivered by Lord Kerr; justice of the UK Supreme Court. The lecture, entitled “The Conversation between the European Court of Human Rights and National Courts: Dialogue or Dictation” was a wide ranging and extremely interesting one and the audience ranged from sitting and retired justices of the Supreme and High Court to undergraduate students in the School.

Lord Kerr was primarily concerned with the implications for courts in Ireland and the UK (although, primarily the UK), of Europen Court of Human Rights decisions that appeared to lay down a universal rule for the member states of the Council of Europe but where implementation of that rule caused substantial practical difficulties in the domestic state. The focus on Ireland and the UK had two bases: firstly these two jurisdictions are the only common law jurisdictions in the Council of Europe; secondly, s. 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and s. 4 of the ECHR Act 2003 require the courts, respectively, to take ECtHR jurisprudence “into account” (HRA 1998) or to take “judicial notice” and “due account” thereof (ECHR Act 2003).

Lord Kerr identified a number of reasons why any conception of Convention caselaw as ‘binding’ (if that was how these statutory provisions were interpreted) might be problematic. 1: Where there is a written constitution there may be tensions between constitutional supremacy and Convention caselaw. 2: Because of the ECtHR’s commitment to dynamic/evolutive interpretation of the Convention there is strict concept of precedent in the Strasbourg court, which may make things like the contemporaneousness of a judgment important in considering whether it ought to be binding or not; 3: Where a domestic court considers itself bound to follow a Strasbourg decision serious practical difficulties may flow from the implementation of that decision.

The latter two of these considerations were particularly prominent in the recent House of Lords decision in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF & Another (2009), in which the Lords held that people have the right to know the information used against them to impose control orders, so that they can effectively challenge those orders. The hearing of this case in the House of Lords took place mere days after the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights handed down its decision in A & Others v United Kingdom. In that case, the Grand Chamber had held inter alia that while Special Advocates can be used to effectively protect the rights of persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activity with concerns of national security surrounding disclosure of evidence, “he special advocate could not perform this function in any useful way unless the detainee was provided with sufficient information about the allegations against him to enable him to give effective instructions to the special advocate” (para 220). The exact extent of evidence to be made available with depend on the circumstances of every case. In the AF case, the House of Lords had somewhat reluctantly followed the Grand Chamber’s decision in A v United Kingdom, feeling itself bound by it. The opening paragraph of Lord Hoffman’s speech is revelatory in this respect:

[T]he judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR) in A v United Kingdom (Application No 3455/05), BAILII: [2009] ECHR 301, requires these appeals to be allowed. I do so with very considerable regret, because I think that the decision of the ECtHR was wrong and that it may well destroy the system of control orders which is a significant part of this country’s defences against terrorism. Nevertheless, I think that your Lordships have no choice but to submit. It is true that section 2(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires us only to “take into account” decisions of the ECtHR. As a matter of our domestic law, we could take the decision in A v United Kingdom into account but nevertheless prefer our own view. But the United Kingdom is bound by the Convention, as a matter of international law, to accept the decisions of the ECtHR on its interpretation. To reject such a decision would almost certainly put this country in breach of the international obligation which it accepted when it acceded to the Convention. I can see no advantage in your Lordships doing so.

What was important here, Lord Kerr opined, was that the decision in A v United Kingdom was extremely current and exactly on point; in fact, he said that to have refused to follow it would have been “unseemly and discordant”. Interestingly, however, Lord Kerr noted that when reading the speeches in the case it is clear that the members of the House of Lords were trying to communicate to the Strasbour Court the difficulties in practical terms that laying down such a universal rule regarding disclosure might have in the domestic jurisdictions and especially in common law jurisdictions.

Lord Kerr was clear in his support for the European Court of Human Rights as an institution, noting that without it we would be deprived of “an invaluable and irreplacable strain of jurisprudence”. While there were some difficulties with the Court–particularly of the kind revealed by the A anf AF litigation considered above–he felt that there were ways in which such difficulties might be overcome or at least effectively communicated. In this respect, Lord Kerr said that where difficulties arise national courts ought to clearly communicate them to the Strasbourg Court. To do this, common law superior courts need to become very familiar with the civil law systems in order to be able to point out situations in which a universal rule handed down by the European Court of Human Rights might not be suitable within a common law context. Importantly, however, Lord Kerr went on to note that the exchange of views and ideas should not be limited to the adjudicatory process.

On this last point, and in response to a question from my colleague Prof. Colin Scott, Lord Kerr noted that the writing of a judgment provides somewhat limited opportunity for such communication because (a) appropriate cases might not reach appeal courts and (b) a court is limited by the circumstances of the case in preparing its judgments. Lord Kerr therefore felt that structured and effective systems of court visits and judicial networks (although he expressed some discomfort with the term ‘networking’) ought to be encouraged.

This short report-written based on personal notes and not on a transcript-can give only a flavour of the lecture as presented, but will hopefully have conveyed the stimulating content and the insight the lecture offered from a judicial perspective.

イギリス議会の2009−10年度会期が始まった。初日である昨日11月18日には、「State Opening of Parliament（議会開会式）」と呼ばれる伝統に則った華麗なセレモニーが、議事堂であるウェストミンスター宮殿で行われた。

議会開会式は、通常11月が12月、または総選挙の年の新しい議会の初日に行われる。議会開会式ではまず、ヨーマン・オブ・ザ・ガードにより、現代版火薬陰謀事件を防ぐという名目で、ウェストミンスター宮殿の地下室をくまなく調べる。君主である女王が住居を出る前には、House of Commons（庶民院）の議員が、女王の安全を守るという名目のために、儀式上の人質としてバッキンガム宮殿に連れて行かれるが、女王が無事帰ってこられた折りには解放されることになっている。女王は、公式馬車で議会に到着。女王が儀式に出席しておられる間は、イギリスの国旗・ユニオンジャックに代わり、「Royal Standard」と呼ばれる王旗が掲げられる。そして、

ローブと王冠を身につけた女王が、エジンバラ公に付き添われ、House of Lords（貴族院）に入場されると、庶民院議員を召喚するために黒杖官（こくじょうかん、Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod）が議場に遣わされる。黒杖官が扉の前まで来ると、目の前でドアがばたんと閉められるが、これは庶民院の独立性の象徴だとのことだ。その後、黒杖官は持っている杖で3度ドアを叩いたあと、中に招き入れられる。

そして、守衛官（Serjeant-at-Arms）が英国下院議長の職杖（ceremonial mace）を手に、議長、黒杖官とともに、二人一組になった庶民院議員を率いて、貴族院に向かう。首相と野党党首が通常並んで歩き（今年はゴードン・ブラウンとデービッド・キャメロン）、その後２列になった議員たちが続く。庶民院議員はスピーチの間、女王の反対側に当たる横木の後ろに立って聞いている。女王は中立性を示す平坦な語りによって、「Speech from the Throne」または「Queen’s Speech（女王演説）」と呼ばれる、内閣によって用意された政府の来年度の施政方針を読みあげる。その後は、両議員とも議場に戻り、スピーチの議題を議論する、と言う段取りだ。

伝統を重んじるイギリスらしい、時代錯誤とも思える儀式だが、君主である女王、庶民院、貴族院による国の統治と、それぞれの独立性を国民に示すという意味で、重要なのだそうだ。恥ずかしながら、7年間イギリスに住んでいながら、この儀式をちゃんと見たことはおろか、その存在すらも意識していなかったのだが、少し前に議会見学ツアーに参加したので、今年の「State Opening of Parliament」は興味を持って見た。儀式の所作ひとつひとつに歴史的意味があり、その意味を知れば知る程面白いなあと思う。

ちなみに約75分のこの議会見学ツアー、見所満載の歴史あるウェストミンスター宮殿の中をゆっくり見て回ることができ、経験豊富なツアーガイドがユーモアたっぷりに歴史や蘊蓄を語ってくれる。出口には小さいお土産物のショップもあって、「Parliament」ロゴのお土産も買えるので、ご興味がある方はぜひ（Parliament Website）。しロンドンに来るのが無理なら、オンラインツアーもありますよ。Yesterday on November 18 was the day of the annual State Opening of Parliament to marks the commencement of a 2009-10 session of the Parliament. It is held in the House of Lords Chamber, usually in November or December, or in a General Election year when the new Parliament first assembles.

 

In this lavish ceremony, firstly the cellars of the Palace of Westminster are searched by the Yeomen of the Guard in order to prevent a modern-day Gunpowder Plot. Before the monarch departs her residence, the Crown takes a member of the House of Commons to Buckingham Palace as a ceremonial hostage, to guarantee the safety of the Queen. But don’t worry, the hostage is released upon the safe return of the Queen.

The Queen arrives at the Parliament in a horse-drawn coach. The Royal Standard is hoisted to replace the Union Jack on the Queen’s entrance and remains while she is in attendance. After she takes on the Robes of State and the Imperial State Crown, the Queen proceeds to the House of Lords, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh.

Then Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod is called to summon the member of the Commons to hear her speach. When he approaches the doors to the chamber of the Commons, the doors are slammed in his face on his approach – symbolising the independence of the Commons. He strikes the door three times with his Black Rod, and is then admitted.

The Serjeant-at-Arms picks up the ceremonial mace and, with the Speaker and Black Rod, leads the Members of the House of Commons to walk in pairs towards the House of Lords. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Gordon Brown and David Cameron this year) usually walk side by side, followed by the two lines of MPs. Inside the chamber, the Commons stand behind the Bar of the House of Lords, and remain there during the speech.

The Queen reads a prepared speech written by the Cabinet, known as the Speech from the Throne or the Queen’s Speech, outlining the Government’s agenda for the coming year, in the presence of members of both Houses. The Queen reads the entire speech in the same tone, so as to indicate her neutrality. Following the State Opening, the Government’s programme presented in the Queen’s Speech is debated by both Houses.

This anachronistic State Opening of Parliament is not a mere historical ritual but also has symbolic significance to demonstrate the governance of UK; the Crown-in-Parliament (Her Majesty, together with the House of Commons and the House of Lords) and the separation of powers. Embarrassed say but I had never paid attention nor was I aware of the ceremony at all during my 7 years life in UK, but I happened to have a chance to join a tour of the Parliament the other day, and I enjoyed watching this year’s State Opening – each ceremonial process and action has its historical meaning and the more I know, the more intriguing.

The 75 minutes tour of Parliament offers you to see inside of the historical Westminster Palace with an experienced tour guide explaining its history and episodes with full of British (old man’s) humor.  If you are interested, check our their website for details. If you cannot come to London, online tour is available as well

Houses of Parliament London

The Houses of Parliament well known as the Palace of Westminster is home to the House of Lords, House of Commons and the famous Clock Tower Big Ben. It was the residence of the King of England since 11 century till the 16^th century. But, by the 14^th century the parliamentary and the judicial courts resided in Westminster. In the year 1834, the entire Houses of Parliament i.e. the Palace of Westminster was destroyed by fire. Few years after this incident the remains of St Stephens and the Westminster Hall were incorporated into a brand new Houses of Parliament. The Palace of Westminster lies to the north of the river Thames and thus, it offers beautiful sightseeing. The famous government building of White Hall is also sited close to the Palace of Westminster.

The vivacious history of all the buildings covered in the estate of Houses of Parliament span to around 900 years since the time of Anglo Saxon kings till the present time. The estate of the Parliament now extends far beyond the Palace of Westminster and also includes the Norman Shaw buildings which, once upon a time were used by the Scotland Yard. Besides the historical buildings the Parliamentary estate also hosts a wide historical collection for which the items are commissioned and collected by the Parliament itself due to its relevance and importance to the nation.

The following information will be useful if you are planning to visit Houses of Parliament:

Address Houses of Parliament – 2 Abbey Gardens, House of Commons, London SW1P 3SE

Nearest tube station – Westminster London Underground

Entry Ticket - 12£ for adults and 5£ for kids between the age of 5 – 15 years.

Attractions near Houses of Parliament

· Jewel Tower, Westminster

· Westminster Abbey

· Cabinet War Rooms

· Whitehall and Downing Street

· London Eye

· London Aquarium

· Florence Nightingale Museum

· County Hall Gallery

Restaurants near Houses of Parliament

· The Brasserie at One Great George Street

· The Footstool Restaurant

· The Cinnamon Club

· Locale

· Aji Noodle Bar

Night Clubs and Pub near Houses of Parliament

· The Red Lion

· Westminster Arms

· St Stephens Tavern

· The Speaker

· Farmers Club

Events near Houses of Parliament

· Classic FM Music Makers Christmas Concert on 15^th December 2009.

· Advent Lecture 2009: Heaven on 1^st , 8^th and 17^th December 2009

· Exhibition at Houses of Parliament from 5^th October – 31^st December 2009.

Houses of Parliaments Highlights

· Chambers of Commons

· Chambers of Lords

· Queens Robing Room

· Westminster Hall

The complete tour of Houses of Parliament takes around 75 minutes. The residents of UK can visit the Palace throughout the year but, the tourists are allowed only during the summer openings. Visitors can travel all over the designated areas of the estate and they need to be accompanied by a trained guide. You can also attend the judicial hearings, debates and committees taking place at the parliament. Thus, if you are interested to know about the heritage and historic significance of Britain’s parliament then this is the best place to start your tour from.

First published in The Church of England Newspaper. The Anglican Bishop of Leicester has been appointed convenor of the Lords Spiritual, the Church of England’s lead bishop in the House of Lords. On Nov 2 the Rt Rev Tim Stevens said he was “pleased to have been asked to take on the role in order to ensure that the voice of the bishops is clearly heard in Parliament at a time of significant change and challenge for the nation.”

In announcing the appointment, Dr Rowan Williams noted the role of the convenor was “key to ensuring the contribution that the Lords Spiritual make to the life and work of the House is the best that it can be.”

He “brings great wisdom and the experience to the role,” Dr Williams said, adding “ I am sure that his wise counsel will be greatly valued.”

Bishop Stevens succeeds the Rt Rev Kenneth Stevenson as convenor of the Lords Spiritual. The Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Rev Michael Perham has been appointed to fill the seat in the Lords of Bishop Stevenson, who retired in September.

It’s an honour and a privilege to speak for the Church and to speak for Gloucestershire in Parliament,” Bishop Perham said. No date has yet been set to introduce the new Lord Spiritual to Parliament.

The fate of the government’s Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill looks in doubt today following comments by a leading Tory peer.  The bill, which includes measures to remove the hereditary principle from the House of Lords, is one of the pieces of legislation expected to be in the Queen’s speech later today.

Lord Strathclyde, the Conservative leader in the House of Lords, has indicated that Tory peers are likely to use their majority in the upper chamber to block most of the bills announced in the Queen’s speech.  They plan to spend so long scrutinising legislation that is put before them  that there would not be enough time for the bills to become law before the expected May 2010 election.  As well as paralysing the government’s legislative programme, this intervention by the Lords will also be seen as a bold act of self-preservation.

In the Commons the Conservatives have been supportive of many elements in the bill and had even called for the bill’s progress to be speeded up.  But it is the issue of the removal of hereditary peers that would almost certainly ensure the bill would receive staunch opposition from members of the upper chamber.

The Constitutional Reform Bill has been widely criticised for not being ambitious enough in its scope.  Having pledged to include far wider-reaching democratic reform in return for removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords, they have been accused by many of reneging on that promise.  Other measures in the bill include:

• allowing peers to resign, be expelled or suspended;
• requiring all treaties to be ratified by Parliament;
• placing the civil service and National Audit Office on a statutory footing;
• repealing the ban on unauthorised protests outside Parliament.

The Liberal Democrats have also said that the measures do not go far enough, particularly on the issues of party funding, decentralisation of power and electoral reform.  The Independent has described the bill as a “pale and unambitious creature”.  A poll by the Fabian Society, and reported in the Guardian, showed a majority of people wanted far more radical changes to the political system.

A large number of proposals in the bill were first set out in the Governance of Britain Green Paper which was published shortly after Gordon Brown became Prime Minister in 2007.

The Constitutional Reform Bill was introduced to the House of Commons on 20th July 2009 and has already had a second reading in the House of Commons.  The bill is being carried forward into the new session to complete the remaining stages.

With the news that the government have conceded defeat over the amendment proposed by Conservative Lord Waddington, which claims that inciting hatred towards homosexuals is part of ‘free speech’, the need for the House of Lords to be reformed has never been so great. Comedians worried about criminal prosecution also stirred up moral panics, as the government clearly stated that:

“The offence only covers words or behaviour that are threatening and intended to stir up hatred.”

We all know when a comedian is joking, and when someone is actually threatening violence. This homophobic, heteronormative attitude is symbolic of the backwards unrepresentative nature of the House of Lords. It shows the desperate need for a reform of the House of Lords. The House of Lords needs to become elected, as are the MPs. Why is it that those who are elected by the public, largely oppose the amendment, but it is those dinosaurs in the upper house that have the final say? Most of them are upper class, white, heterosexual males – hardly a representative sample. Interestingly, Lord Bach resonates with these concerns, as he seems to acknowledge the illegitimacy the House of Lords have when deciding important policy issues:

“There must come a point where this House, with all its great virtues, gives way to the House that has been elected by the people of this country.”

How true. The amendment conflicts with two central discourses that inform central values of our party. Firstly, our strong belief in equality is important here. Our “homophobia is gay” campaign helped show that we rightfully believe that whether you are a lesbian, gay man, straight, transsexual etc. everyone is equal. Secondly, civil liberty issues are very central to these discussions. We must state clearly that discriminating someone in a hateful way, because of the person they fall in love for, is not a ‘freedom of speech’. Freedom of speech is a contestable concept, however. I for example, defended the right for Geert Wilders to have been allowed back into our country. The difference here, is that the way he approached the matter was no different to how the BNP approach matters on a daily basis (in public). If he had been wanting to come to the country to do what the BNP do in private, which is to actively beat up and discriminate on the grounds of race and ethnicity, then it would have been a different situation. The same can be said for homosexuals. If someone has an opinion that homosexuality is wrong, whilst I profoundly disagree with them and would like them to read some books on Ancient Greece, they are still rightly able to hold that view. The difference is in the provision of protection against the action that may be taken to promote these views. If someone actively threatens someone with death threats for being gay for example, then this is something that should not be defended on the grounds of ‘free speech”.

The Conservatives may say that this is not what they meant by the amendment, however, if you look at what the amendment was replacing, the right to “only cover words or behaviour that are threatening and intended to stir up hatred“, then it seems like they are supporting this type of action with their screwed up view of civil liberty.

With homophobic violence still ever growing, the amendment is a worrying development for equality activists. With the news that the LGBT Labour group are calling for the Labour government to not give in and still fight for equality, it is disappointing to see that Delga, our own LGBT affiliation, has not yet commented on their website. For example, police claim that  90% of homophobic violence goes un reported, and is more un reported than racial violence, this development is hardly going to spur homosexuals to report homophobic violence.  It is worrying to consider that Lord Smith, an openly gay peer, supports the assertion that as a result of this, there will be more homophobic violence, and this is especially worrying given the high level of under reporting by the homosexual community.

Overall, the amendments illustrates the desperate need for reform of the House of Lords. They are clearly out of touch with society, there needs to be representative elected individuals whose opinion will not be seen in the context of their backward minority opinions of equality.

]]> http://jamesmanning.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/the-usefulness-of-swiss-cowbells/ Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:32:25 +0000 James Manning http://jamesmanning.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/the-usefulness-of-swiss-cowbells/

You won’t typically find a huge amount of humour on the red benches of the House of Lords, which only made yesterday’s exchange during Transport Questions all the more pleasant.

The Lords were discussing the problem of the quietness of electric and hybrid cars – namely that pedestrians (particularly the blind) won’t hear them and the number of people stepping out in front of cars will increase dramatically.

Lord McColl, the shadow health minister, stood up and asked: “My Lords, does the Minister accept that there might be a simpler solution? When I purchased one of these cars a few years ago, my wife, being very practical, said that the answer would be to put on the front of the car a small Swiss cowbell…”

Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary responded: “Whether such Swiss innovations would go down well here is a matter for conjecture. But we have nine months for a wide-scale public debate and I will ensure that the noble Lord’s suggestion features prominently in that debate.”

The exchange can be seen on parliamentlive.tv – here (6 minutes in).

[Hat-tip: Paul Waugh]

When describing the result tomorrow TV pundits should remember how to describe the result properly!

No doubt BBC News and Sky News will be broadcasting live from a public building tonight and into tomorrow morning to give us the result, and subsequent comment, about the by-election in Glasgow North East.

I have been impressed by the level of media coverage in Scotland about the by-election, which many are saying might be the last before Gordon Brown eventually goes to the polls next year.

I have been involved in many elections, but one of the things that I have never been unsure of is how to describe the result when it came.

‘Speakers’ normally retire at General Elections, become ennobled, and then retire to the relative obscurity of the crossbenches in the House of Lords, but Michael Martin has joined the upper house midterm, as did his predecessor, Betty Boothroyd. 

I was exasperated when Sky News announced, with all apparent seriousness, that ‘Labour have failed to win the Henley By-Election!’ as part of their coverage of that result, which to be fair was one thing that could be predicted at any point in the last hundred years.

So, why my concern about how to describe the result in Glasgow North East? Anyone who looks at the area will assess that it is working class and what might be considered a ‘Labour heartland’, but for the past nine years it has not been represented by a Labour MP, but by The Speaker. 

Bearing in mind The Speaker is not standing at this election any result has to be described as ‘a gain from The Speaker,’ whether this is a Lib Dem gain, an SNP gain and, most importantly, a Labour gain.

If Labour win the by-election there will be one extra Labour MP in Parliament and their parliamentary majority will go up, therefore I will be watching out for this to be correctly described as a ‘Labour gain from The Speaker,’ rather than a ‘Labour hold,’ if they manage to clinch the result tonight or, more likely, tomorrow, as it was when Betty Boothroyd retired in 2000.

Peter Mandelson is about the receive a letter from 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' to beat them all!

A little known hereditary peer, Lord Mereworth, has written to Peter Mandelson, in his role as Lord President of the Privy Council, to ask whether his disbarment, and that of other hereditary peers, was in fact legal. 

Lord Mereworth, who was denied his seat in the upper house as a consequence of the House of Lords Act in 1999, has served a protocol letter, claiming that the law is unenforceable. It is a first salvo before mounting a judicial review in the high court.

The document says the 1999 act failed to revoke the “letters patent”, the act under which the then King, George V, granted a hereditary peerage to Mereworth’s grandfather. The protocol letter states: “It is stated expressly in the letters that George V bound his successors, and it is axiomatic that any attempt to alter the terms or effect of the letters would be a matter of moment for those successors.”

It is difficult to gauge the level to which the Government should take this matter seriously, but a great deal of legislation could be put under threat if this petition is credible.

Whatever the credibility of the claim, the prospect of a democratically elected government being undermined by a judicial review of an Act of Parliament, and potentially disqualifying all the laws that have passed through House of Lords since, is unconscionable.

According to The Guardian’s  report the Government is taking the letter very seriously. 

As an afterthought those people who have since been elected to the lower house, namely John Thurso, but still retain their hereditary title could see themselves being disqualified from the lower house by their re-instalment in the House of Lords.

Two new ‘Lords Spiritual’ will be introduced to Parliament next month. On Nov 3 the Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt. Rev. Jonathan Gledhill will be introduced to the House of Lords by the Bishops of Wakefield and Ripon and Leeds, while on Nov 24 the Rt. Rev. Anthony Priddis will be introduced by Bishop Gledhill and the Bishop of Manchester.

The two will be added to the roster of “duty bishops,” leading prayers in the Lords and participating in debates.

Bishop Gledhill said he looked forward to his work in Parliament. “I have been surprised at the strength of conviction from people of other faiths and none who have said to me that they value the contribution of the bishops in the Lords and that this is part of the constitution which should not be meddled with,” he said.

“Christian leaders have played an active role in parliament since at least the time when the Witans, consulted by Saxon Kings, were attended by religious leaders. The very name ‘Westminster’ reminds us of the Christian origins of our constitution, and in each generation Christian leaders have been active in contributing to our laws and advancing the values which underpin them,” he said.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester are seated by right of office in the House of Lords, the remaining 21 Lords Spiritual are composed of the 21 other senior diocesan bishops.

The man once known as the scourge of the Fat Cats has now been exposed as a £20000 flipper and someone who has milked his expenses since being elevated to the Lords to be another labour poodle. Richard Rosser Once a trade union leader and chairman of Labour’s national executive committee used to be most vocal in his condemnation of those “Fat Cats”  and the people on the “Gravy Train”.

Oh how times have changed now the “Gravy Train” pulled up at his stop and he managed to drag himself aboard. Here is a man who claimed almost £20000 in one year after flipping his main 4 bedroom residence in London to smaller flat outside the capitol, although according to neighbours he still seems to spend most of his time in his luxurious town house. But of course by flipping to his little flat 100 miles from London he becomes eligible for a nice little payout of £174 a night, and he doesn’t even have to provide a receipt. What a nice little earner. It seems that he may well have been doing this since 2005 and have trousered well over £50000 since then, not bad for a jumped up little oik as some might say.
Other might scream what a bloody hypocrite.

The sooner the Lords get the same treatment as the HOC the better, and hopefully some of those in the other place might be getting a tug from PC plod.