UK: 'The Counter-Terrorism Bill has clauses and amendments galore which will have received only the most general attention'

Peter Bone counted 16 new clauses and 60 amendments to be processed in three hours. Legislators need the talent of tobacco auctioneers. Talent. It'd be like listening to the Pinky and Perky version of "I'm the very model of a modern major general."

Not that the material is suitable for light verse. Control orders. Post-charge questioning. Asset freezing. Coroners.

Yes, coroners. In future, a minister will be able to interrupt an inquest to kick out the jury, dismiss the coroner and declare the proceedings secret. Why? One reason might be that the soldier, say, lacked body armour, bullets or boots and the coroner was expressing naive disapproval. You can't have a jury hearing a case like that. They might talk. It wouldn't be in the public interest for such matters to get out. Oh no, it would damage confidence in the Government.

Oh, and if the new coroner "misbehaves", he or she can be "revoked" as well. "Misbehaviour" isn't defined but we can assume it would be misbehaviour to criticise ministers or the ministry or suggest the death was somehow avoidable or unnecessary or possibly even undesirable.

Quite a change, that.

It'll all get nodded through. As Mark Durkan said in his melancholy way, how will MPs persuade doubters of the power of scrutiny when it comes to 42 days? The proposal is that the Commons will be asked to debate – maybe on day 35 of the citizen being detained without charge – whether or not to keep him in jail for another seven days. "The noddies have it."

~ more... ~

From: A debate cut short – rather like prisoners' sentences

Douglas Hogg (C, Sleaford and North Hykeham) observed in a fury that a mere three hours were allowed yesterday to discuss 16 new clauses and 60 amendments, including important changes to such matters as post-charge questioning, control orders, asset freezing and inquests. He said this was a "scandal" and "a serious attempt to stifle parliamentary debate", and expressed the hope that the Lords would "not hesitate" to amend legislation that the Commons had not had time to examine.

Richard Shepherd (C, Aldridge-Brownhills) protested that the Commons was being "hollowed out" and said the Upper House was being handed the legitimacy that comes from assuming MPs' proper function of scrutinising new laws.

Mark Durkan (SDLP, Foyle) lamented that when the Commons could be "treated so lightly and so glibly" it became "a nod-through House", while Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) remarked that on Thursday the House will spend "a whole day on dangerous dogs".

The effect of these protests on Tony McNulty, the Home Office minister in charge of seeing the Bill through the House, was less than nothing. Mr McNulty is very good at exuding brutish insolence. Sometimes he laughed at the people who told him he was undermining our ancient liberties and sometimes he scowled at them but at no point did he cease to suggest that this motley crew were wasting everyone's time.

Mr McNulty pointed out that a very large amount of time had been allowed to scrutinise the Bill in committee: to which a number of backbenchers objected that clearly they were not on that committee.

But yesterday afternoon the numbers were on Mr McNulty's side. On this kind of occasion, it is only a small minority of MPs who show any instinctive love of our liberties and who come to the Chamber to try to hold the executive to account. Most of our representatives have other things to do with their time and do not imagine their careers will be advanced by a quixotic insistence on their right to be given enough time to examine the laws for which they are voting.