From one crisis to the next

The government’s anti-terror plans have passed through the House of Commons with a reduced majority of 14 and will now proceed to the House of Lords. If, as is expected, the Lords throws the legislation back into the Commons for consideration and the process continues in this manner with the legislation remaining in its current form then the government is left with no choice but to force it through the Lords using the parliament act.

What? Excuse me?

Well why not? If the Commons continues to pass through the legislation then it is clearly the will of our great democracy. No second chamber has the right to treat this great and fair process that so encapsulates the will of the majority of the public of our great group of nations.

Of course, I think that what I have written above is completely untrue in as much as I believe that the House of Lords provides an invaluable service to all of us and should be held in high regard.

I also believe that when arguments have been made and principles have been established, over and over again, on the floor, in the papers, on the radio, on the news, then these principles should be followed or thrown out for the ragged bag of spin and lies that they so obviously were.

The ban on fox hunting was simply a bill, as is the government’s anti-terror plans. It was forced through using the parliament act, with a large commons majority, to the detriment of the processes that have evolved to prevent poor legislation from becoming legislative acts that bind once free people to the will of a larger group of people. The fact that the Lords exists at all recognises and attempts to reduce the effects of one of the weaker aspects of democracy.

The current issue can be described as less divisive due to the lower margins of doubt in the Commons but that is not strictly relevant with respect to the accepted processes and the functioning of this democracy. If the houses are not treated as black boxes with either yay or nay results then the process is impossible to explicitly describe and enshrine in law.

It may not come to this. The government may change the bill so that it becomes acceptable. They may give up on it. What they cannot do is leave it as it is and continue to hand it to the House of Lords without then forcing it through using the parliament act.

Anything else would compound the prejudice shown by this government to a minority group and would be utterly damnable.

I forgot about this. There has to be a delay of 1-2 years before the parliament act can be used:

The Parliament Act 1949 further reduced the delaying power of the Lords, so the position now is that the Lords can only delay a Bill for about two years. In some circumstances, the Commons can present a Bill for Royal Assent after one year, even if the Lords object.

Given that the government urgency on this bill is where it is it is unlikely that they will reach the point where the parliament act can be used. Some other solution will, no doubt, be found.

Please don't suggest the introduction of a new act, the Parliament Act 2005, to reduce the delay time of the Lords to a day or so. Or a few minutes. This, though perhaps attractive to New Labour on the surface, would be subjected to the same 1-2 year delay in the Lords so it wouldn't help their immediate problem.

Oh, how utterly perfect. Anoneumouse, from the Anglo Saxon Chronicle emails with this gem:

No, they don't need to go through the rigmarole of attaining a new Parliament Act. All they have to do, is declare that this is an "emergency" and then force the Bill through by invoking the provisions within the Civil Contingency Act 2004.

Ta da!

Posted by John at March 1, 2005 09:00 AM | TrackBack