The MPs who voted for the ID cards bill.

Noting the project set out in this article at the Samizdata blog, below is a list of the MPs who voted for the Identity Cards Bill on the 2nd reading, which took place on Tuesday 28th June. If they represent you, you might want to tell them what you think of their support for this bill. If so hop over to www.writetothem.com and you can send write a message to be faxed to them.

Michael Taylor's project above of course focusses on the "behind the scenes" backers, however it seemed to me that making public which MPs voted for the bill would be a good starting point.

The list below is taken from the Parliament website, which records the divisions (votes to you and me) in the House of Commons. The Ayes were:

Nick Ainger
Mr. Bob Ainsworth
Mr. Douglas Alexander
Mr. Allen
Mr. David Anderson
Janet Anderson
Hilary Armstrong
Charlotte Atkins
Mr. Ian Austin
John Austin
Mr. Bailey
Vera Baird
Ed Balls
Gordon Banks
Ms Barlow
Mr. Barron
John Battle
Hugh Bayley
Margaret Beckett
Miss Begg
Sir Stuart Bell
Hilary Benn
Mr. Benton
Roger Berry
Mr. Betts
Liz Blackman
Dr. Blackman-Woods
Mr. Blair
Hazel Blears
Mr. Blizzard
Mr. Blunkett
Mr. Borrow
Mr. Bradshaw
Mr. Gordon Brown
Lyn Brown
Mr. Nicholas Brown
Mr. Russell Brown
Mr. Des Browne
Chris Bryant
Ms Buck
Richard Burden
Colin Burgon
Andy Burnham
Ms Butler
Mr. Byers
Mr. Byrne
Mr. Caborn
David Cairns
Mr. Alan Campbell
Mr. Ronnie Campbell
Mr. Caton
Colin Challen
Mr. Chaytor
Paul Clark
Mr. Charles Clarke
Mr. Tom Clarke
Mr. Clelland
Ann Clwyd
Mr. Coaker
Ann Coffey
Harry Cohen
Michael Connarty
Mr. Robin Cook
Rosie Cooper
Yvette Cooper
Jim Cousins
Mr. Crausby
Mary Creagh
Jon Cruddas
Mrs. Cryer
John Cummings
Mr. Jim Cunningham
Tony Cunningham
Mr. Darling
Mr. David
Mr. Davidson
Mrs. Dean
Mr. Denham
Mr. Dhanda
Mr. Dismore
Jim Dobbin
Mr. Donohoe
Mr. Doran
Jim Dowd
Mr. Drew
Angela Eagle
Maria Eagle
Clive Efford
Mrs. Ellman
Mrs. Engel
Jeff Ennis
Bill Etherington
Paul Farrelly
Mr. Frank Field
Jim Fitzpatrick
Mr. Flello
Caroline Flint
Barbara Follett
Mr. Michael Foster (Worcester)
Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye)
Dr. Francis
Mike Gapes
Barry Gardiner
Linda Gilroy
Mr. Godsiff
Paul Goggins
Helen Goodman
Nia Griffith
Nigel Griffiths
Mr. Grogan
Andrew Gwynne
Mr. Mike Hall
Patrick Hall
Mr. David Hamilton
Mr. Fabian Hamilton
Mr. Hanson
Ms Harman
Mr. Tom Harris
Mr. Havard
John Healey
Mr. Henderson
Mr. Hendrick
Mr. Hepburn
Mr. Heppell
Lady Hermon
Stephen Hesford
Ms Hewitt
David Heyes
Keith Hill
Meg Hillier
Margaret Hodge
Mrs. Hodgson
Mr. Hood
Mr. Hoon
Phil Hope
Mr. George Howarth
Dr. Howells
Mr. Hoyle
Beverley Hughes
Mrs. Humble
Mr. Hutton
Dr. Iddon
Mr. Illsley
Huw Irranca-Davies
Mrs. James
Mr. Jenkins
Alan Johnson
Ms Diana R. Johnson
Helen Jones
Mr. Kevan Jones
Mr. Martyn Jones
Tessa Jowell
Mr. Joyce
Sir Gerald Kaufman
Ms Keeble
Ms Keeley
Alan Keen
Ann Keen
Ruth Kelly
Mr. Kemp
Jane Kennedy
Mr. Khabra
Mr. Khan
Mr. Kidney
Mr. Kilfoyle
Jim Knight
Dr. Kumar
Dr. Ladyman
Mr. Lammy
Mr. Laxton
Mark Lazarowicz
David Lepper
Tom Levitt
Mr. Ivan Lewis
Martin Linton
Tony Lloyd
Ian Lucas
Mr. MacDougall
Andrew Mackinlay
Mr. MacShane
Fiona Mactaggart
Mr. Mahmood
Mr. Malik
Judy Mallaber
John Mann
Rob Marris
Mr. Marsden
Mr. Marshall
Mr. Martlew
Mr. McAvoy
Steve McCabe
Chris McCafferty
Kerry McCarthy
Sarah McCarthy-Fry
Mr. McCartney
Siobhain McDonagh
Mr. McFadden
Mr. McFall
Mr. McGovern
Mrs. McGuire
Shona McIsaac
Ann McKechin
Rosemary McKenna
Mr. McNulty
Mr. Meale
Gillian Merron
Alun Michael
Mr. Milburn
Mr. David Miliband
Edward Miliband
Andrew Miller
Anne Moffat
Laura Moffatt
Chris Mole
Mrs. Moon
Margaret Moran
Jessica Morden
Julie Morgan
Mr. Morley
Kali Mountford
Mr. Mudie
Mr. Mullin
Meg Munn
Mr. Denis Murphy
Mr. Jim Murphy
Mr. Paul Murphy
Dr. Naysmith
Dan Norris
Mr. Mike O'Brien
Mr. O'Hara
Mr. Olner
Sandra Osborne
Dr. Palmer
Ian Pearson
Mr. Plaskitt
Mr. Pope
Stephen Pound
Bridget Prentice
Mr. Gordon Prentice
Dawn Primarolo
Gwyn Prosser
Mr. Purchase
James Purnell
Bill Rammell
Mr. Raynsford
Mr. Andy Reed
Mr. Jamie Reed
John Reid
John Robertson
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
Mr. Rooney
Mr. Roy
Chris Ruane
Joan Ruddock
Christine Russell
Joan Ryan
Martin Salter
Mr. Sarwar
Alison Seabeck
Jonathan Shaw
Mr. Sheerman
Jim Sheridan
Mr. Simon
Mr. Singh
Mr. Slaughter
Mr. Andrew Smith
Ms Angela C. Smith (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Angela E. Smith (Basildon)
Jacqui Smith
Anne Snelgrove
Sir Peter Soulsby
Helen Southworth
Mr. Spellar
Dr. Starkey
Ian Stewart
Dr. Stoate
Dr. Strang
Mr. Straw
Graham Stringer
Ms Gisela Stuart
Mr. Sutcliffe
Mark Tami
Ms Dari Taylor
David Taylor
Mr. Thomas
Ms Thornberry
Mr. Timms
Paddy Tipping
Mr. Todd
Mr. Touhig
Jon Trickett
Dr. Desmond Turner
Mr. Neil Turner
Derek Twigg
Kitty Ussher
Keith Vaz
Joan Walley
Lynda Waltho
Claire Ward
Mr. Watson
Mr. Watts
Dr. Whitehead
Malcolm Wicks
Mr. Alan Williams
Mrs. Betty Williams
Mr. Wills
Ms Rosie Winterton
Mr. Woodward
Mr. Woolas
Mr. Anthony Wright
David Wright
Mr. Iain Wright
Dr. Tony Wright
Derek Wyatt

Government bans spontaneous protests within 1 km of Parliament

As reported in the Evening Standard and on the BBC and in the "Mayor of London" weblog, spontaneous protests, even if they only involve a single person, are now banned in an area that extends up to 1 km from Parliament Square in London.

This ban has been imposed under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, a law which was passed just before the general election in the "wash up" period after it was called. Sections 132 to 138 set out both the nature of the ban and the requirements for organising protests and how the designated area is set out. Key features are:

• it is an offence to organise, take part in or carry out a demonstration without authorisation in any public place within the designated area (section 132),
• the offence of organising a demonstration in the designated area without authorisation is punishable by upto 51 weeks in prison and a fine (section 136),
• the offence of taking part in or carrying out a demonstration in the designated area without authorisation is punishable by a fine (section 136),
• to get authorisation for a demonstration in the designated area one must apply to the Metropolitan Police 6 days beforehand if reasonably practical or 24 hours beforehand otherwise, and must do so in person or in writing using registered post (section 133),
• the police must authorise the demonstration but can impose any of the following conditions; restrictions on the length and times of the protest, restrictions on the numbers who can protest, restrictions on the number and size of the banners or placards used, restrictions on where the protest can take place; maximum permissable noise levels. (Section 134) The use of loud hailers is banned. (section 137)
• violating the conditions of a demonstration is an offence punishable by upto 51 weeks imprisonment and or a fine in the case of the organisers or a fine for other protestors (Section 134),
• it is an offence to incite someone to commit any of the offences described above (Section 134) punishable by upto 51 weeks in prison and/or a fine

The designated area can be any area the is upto 1 km from Parliament Square. Section 138 gives the Secretary of State the power to issue an order describing the designated area.

This statutory instrument was produced under this section and thus gives effect to this part of the Act and describes the designated area that will come into effect from the 1st August 2005.

Note that under the terms of the Act unauthorised protests are not allowed in any public place, that is any place the public have access to, within the designated area. Thus it covers the public areas of any pubs, hotels, conference centres or other buildings the public have access to.

Also the idea of a "demonstration" is not defined in the Act, leaving unanswered questions such as "Does wearing a T-shirt with a political slogan count as a demonstration?" and "Does organising a meeting of a political group inside a bar in the designated area count as an unauthorised demonstration?".

The government's mass surveillance fetish

The British government seems to have a fetish for mass surveillance. Today it has announced plans to use satellite tracking of all motor vehicles as a means of road pricing:

Drivers could pay up to £1.34 a mile in "pay-as-you go" road charges under new government plans.

The transport secretary said the charges, aimed at cutting congestion, would replace road tax and petrol duty.

Alistair Darling said change was needed if the UK was to avoid the possibility of "LA-style gridlock" within 20 years.

Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey, with prices starting from as little as 2p per mile in rural areas.

These plans have been in the offing for some time mind you. But it is in line with other proposals they've had that involve mass surveillance of everyone's activities:

• Their identity cards bill would involve recording all checks of people's identity in a centralised database thus enabling mass surveillance of people's activities -- opening bank accounts, accessing government services and registering with doctors would all (eventually) require identity checks and the information about who checks and when would be stored in the database.
• They want communications providers, e.g. phone/internet companies to store all "communications data" for a year or more. Compulsory retention of this data for 12-24 months is also being pushed at EU level. This is data about who you phone/email, what websites you visit, who visits your site, who phones emails you and even the location of your mobile phone.
  
• They have backed the use of automated number plate recognition to track those who visit petrol station forecourts as a means of preventing people from driving off without paying.

Note that all this surveillance will be directed at the population as a whole, not merely those who the govt suspects of wrong doing.

The Queen's Speech

Today, the Queen set out the government's legislative programme for the next parliamentary session. The full speech is available online here. As expected, the human livestock bill Identity Cards Bill has been reintroduced, as has the proposal to make "incitement to religious hatred" a criminal offence.

Both of these have implications for civil liberties. The former will give the government another means by which to interfere in people's lives and keep tabs on what people are doing whilst the latter is likely to make criticism of religious beliefs a risky affair and thus restrict freedom of speech.

A list of the bills being introduced can be found here. It is likely that the Identity Cards Bill and the incitement to religious hatred bill will not be the only legislation attacking civil liberties if this government's record is anything to go by.

On Blair's "rebalancing" of the justice system

From "Just Law", by Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, Chapter 1, page 26
(hardback edition, ISBN: 0-701-17506-0):

"In the criminal courts the victim is a witness, a crucial and central witness for the state. So, when the government talks about rebalancing the system, it is really about rebalancing in favour of the state.That is the fraud in the government's rhetoric, the sleight of hand."

Kennedy puts this point quite well, but I have a problem with the language.

It is the accuser who is the witness for the state.

Who the victim(s) is(are) depends on whether the defendant is innocent of the crime he's charged with and on whether the accuser has had a crime committed against them. These are questions for the court to decide.

It may well be that the defendant is the victim, e.g. of a false accusation.

It may even be that both the accuser and the defendant are victims, with the accuser misled as to who the perpetrator is and the defendant the unfortunate scapegoat or victim of mistaken identity.

Or it may be that the accuser is indeed a victim of a crime committed by the defendant.

But the language of the government's rhetoric, and much of the debate over these issues, implicitly assumes that the accuser is the victim.

Yet surely part of the purpose of the trial is to determine whether or not the accuser has in fact had a crime committed against them? And thus whether or not the accuser really is a victim?

And when Tony Blair says, e.g. "It is perhaps the biggest miscarriage of justice in today's system when the guilty walk away unpunished"(1), it is simply wrong.

Logically speaking you have 4 possible miscarriages of justice:

1. The accused is punished for a crime someone else commited.
2. The accused is punished for a crime he didn't commit and no one else committed.
3. The accused is punished for something he did do, but which wasn't a crime.
4. The accused walks free from a crime they committed.

It is arguable that cases 2 and 3 are as serious as 1 -- assuming like crimes -- because in each of these three cases, 1 party is punished or not incorrectly.

However (1) is clearly more serious than (4) because 2 parties are punished (or not) incorrectly -- the accused and the actual perpetrator(s). To make matters worse, the actual perpetrators also remain free to commit further crime.

Moreover since it is the state that brings a prosecution, there is an inequality of arms which safeguards like the presumption of innocence, the right to a jury trial and the right to silence seek to redress.

Weakening or jettisoning those safeguards thus makes it easier for the state to lock anyone they choose up and thus increases the risks to us all from the state.

This is where those who criticise civil libertarians for preferring the rights of criminals over victims get it so wrong with regards to those who try to uphold the accused's rights.

When the rights of the accused are weakened, this is an attack on the rights of all, because anyone could be accused of a crime and these rights are there to try and ensure that only a sound accusation will result in loss of liberty.

Defending the rights of the accused is not the same as defending the rights of criminals.

Convicting the accused is not the same as convicting the guilty.

Making it easier to convict the accused by lowering the burden of proof, or standards of evidence, will simply make the system less reliable, thus increasing both the incidence of innocent people being punished and the incidence of the guilty walking free.

It will also lead to less trust in the system (though I grant trust in the system has already been compromised in Britain).

The only sound way to ensure the guilty are convicted and the innocent are either not put on trial, or are acquitted if they are, is to ensure a sound and thorough investigation of crime, and to ensure that each case is thoroughly tested in court.

Principles such as presuming innocence, having to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and allowing a trial of someone by a jury of their peers should not have been jettisoned as they are there precisely to ensure such thorough investigation and testing of cases.

Of course the criminal justice system was not perfect when these principles applied. There may well have been a need to provide better protection for witnesses for example, but this was not an excuse for abandoning sound principles that had been tried and tested for hundreds of years.

Footnote

(1) Kennedy attributes this quote to Tony Blair for the 18th June 2002, but does not give a proper source. Indeed, one problem I have with the book is the poor citation of sources. A bit of googling got me this article however:

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1717.asp

Near the bottom it says:

"And it's perhaps the biggest miscarriage of justice in today's system when the guilty walk away unpunished."

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005: Summary

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, i.e. the control orders legislation, is available online here.
This is the version of the legislation that has become law. This article summarises the key features of the Act.

Sections 1 to 4 set out the powers to create control orders. The main points are:

• Control orders have two forms: derogating control orders are those incompatible with the right to liberty set out in article 5 of the ECHR and thus require a derogation from that article, non-derogating control orders are those which do not derogate from article 5.
• Control orders can be imposed on a person by a court on application by the Home Secretary, except for non-derogating control orders where the Home Secretary can impose an order without first going through the courts if, in his opion, it is urgent.
• Control orders can impose any obligation that the Home Secretary (or court where appropriate) believes is necessary for "purposes connected with" preventing or restricting the involvement of the person in "terrorism-related activity".
• Possible obligations include prohibitions or restrictions on a person's possession of specified articles and substances; their use of specified facilities; who they can communicate or associate with; their work, occupation, business or other specified activities; their movements and their place of residence.
• Other possible obligations include requirements on the person to surrender specified possessions for the duration of the order; to allow access to and searches of their place of residence or any other premisses they have access to; to allow items to be removed from their residence/premisses for testing and to remain in a particular place for specified times or periods or generally.
  
• Terrorism-related activity is defined as activity one or more of the following: the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; conduct which facilitates the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; conduct which encourages the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; or conduct which gives support or assistance to individuals known or believed to be involved in terrorism-related activity.
• Terrorism is defined as it is under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
• The Home Secretary can impose a non-derogating control order on a person if he has "reasonable grounds for suspecting" someone is or has been involved in terrorism related activity, and if he considers it necessary to do so for to protect members of the public from "a risk of terrorism".
• Non-derogating control orders last for 12 months but can be renewed by the Home Secretary.
• Courts must give permission for the Home Secretary's application for a non-derogating control order unless they find that the decision to make such a control order is "obviously flawed". They can also quash specific obligations if they believe the decision to impose them is "obviously flawed".
• For a derogating control order to be imposed, there must be a public emergency resulting in derogation from article 5 of the ECHR in force.
• A court can impose a derogating control order if it is satisfied, on balance of probabilities, that the person concerned is involved in terrorism-related activity and if it considers the control order necessary for purposes connected to protecting the public from a risk of terrorism. Note that my earlier article on control orders was thus mistaken about the burden of proof for derogating control orders -- house arrest would use the balance of probabilities, but non-derogating orders would not.
  
• Derogating control orders expire after 6 months unless renewed.

Section 5 enables a person to be arrested and detained by the police as soon as the Home Secretary makes an application for a derogating control order. This detention can last for upto 48 hours, or with court approval, a further 48 hours.

Section 6 stipulates that derogating control orders can only have effect if a derogation from article 5 of the ECHR is in force. Such a derogation is made by the Home Secretary making an order and putting it before both Houses of Parliament. The order to derogate ceases to have effect 40 days after it has been made, unless both Houses approve of the order. If approved an order lasts for 12 months, but can be renewed by Parliament.

Section 7 sets out various matters on modifying and proving control orders including giving the police the power to enter any premisses, by force if necessary, to search for someone who is to be subjected to a control order, where they suspect the person to be on those premisses.

Section 9 creates various offences. It is an offence to contravene an obligation imposed by a control order, punishable by upto 5 yrs in prison. Obstructing officials who try to enter premisses to search for someone subject to a control order is an offence carrying upto 1 yr (6 months in Scotland) in prison.

Section 13 stipulates that Sections 1 to 9 expire after 12 months, but allows them to be renewed for a year at a time by Parliament.

Section 14 requires the Home Secretary to make 3 monthly reports on the use of control orders, to appoint someone to review the legislation, for that person to review the legislation after 9 months and then every 12 months thereafter (if the legislation is renewed).

Cybermen should be shaking in their boots...

...the Doctor's back, and it's about time! I just watched the first episode tonight. It was jolly good fun, with some superb lines and comedy. I could really get to like Christopher Eccleston's Doctor!

Rose ain't too bad either, and not just because she's aesthetically pleasing to the eye... Billie Piper can act.

Some bits were a touch cheesy, but then that was true back when Tom Baker, or for that matter William Hartnell, were playing the role.

Anyway role on episode 2...