History > 2006 > UK > House of Lords

4.30pm

Anti-war protesters' rights breached,

court told

Monday October 23, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

Police displayed an "exorbitant and disproportionate use of powers amounting to false imprisonment" when they stopped 120 campaigners heading for a mass rally against the Iraq war, Britain's highest court was told today.

Ben Emmerson QC, representing the protesters, said it was a fundamental right in Britain for citizens to gather to demonstrate peacefully on matters of public interest.

He told the law lords it was the responsibility of the police to maintain public order "in a manner which fully respects the rights of those who wish to demonstrate peacefully".

Police who authorised two coachloads of protesters to be stopped and passengers searched while being detained - and then forced back to London under heavy escort - had breached that right, he said.

The demonstrators were prevented from attending a mass rally at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire two days after coalition forces launched the Iraq war from the air base in March 2003.

Police from seven forces acting under the direction of Gloucestershire constabulary stopped the coaches outside Lechlade, near Fairford. Ninety of those detained formed the Fairford Coach Action to try to seek judicial condemnation of the police.

They say that although the high court and court of appeal ruled the police acted unlawfully in detaining them on their coaches, it was ruled that the police did not violate their right to freedom of movement and lawful assembly.

The law lords are being asked to overturn that ruling during the three-day hearing which began today.

Mr Emmerson said the police had behaved in a way that was "premature and indiscriminate". He said that in order for the police action to be lawful, they had to show that there was an imminent danger of public order offences.

The action was allegedly premature because 120 people who wished to take part in the demonstration were turned away when the police knew there was no imminent danger of disorder.

Mr Emmerson said it was discriminatory because the police took action against a large number of people because of the "perceived intention" of some individuals.

"We say it was beyond the scope of the powers that the officers had available to them. The decision to detain passengers on the coaches and to force them to return to London was an exorbitant and disproportionate use of powers amounting to false imprisonment."

He said the police who took the action knew that they had exercised powers to limit the area where the demonstration would take place and anyone found near the 13-mile perimeter fence at the base could be arrested.

Lord Woolf, the lord chief justice at the time of the Fairford appeal ruling, said the passengers were "virtually prisoners on the coaches for the length of the journey" back to London, which took more then two hours.

The passengers had already been held for two hours while they were searched.

The police are defending their actions and their lawyers are expected to argue that rather than interfering with the passengers' human rights, they were upholding them by protecting their lives which would have been put at risk if they had broken into the air base.

The hearing continues.

    Anti-war protesters' rights breached, court told, G, 23.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,,1929571,00.html

Straw plans hailed as best chance

in generation to secure Lords reform

· Proposals include 50% elected chamber
· Number of members would be cut back to 450

Monday October 23, 2006
Guardian
Patrick Wintour, political editor

The chances of serious democratic reform to the Lords rose yesterday when draft plans tabled by the leader of the Commons, Jack Straw, proposing a 50% elected chamber were hailed by the Liberal Democrat leader in the Lords, Lord McNally, as "the most serious and well thought through contribution from the government since 1998".

Lord McNally said parliament faced "its best chance in a generation to secure reform" but added that a lot of discussion lay ahead. He said the cash for peerages scandal had led to a mood for reform.

The Conservatives, in principle in favour of elections, were more cautious. The Conservative leader in the Lords, Lord Strathclyde, said: "We are in favour of replacing Labour's cronyism with an elected House of Lords with more powers which will be better able to hold an over-mighty government to account."

Mr Straw, charged with securing a cross-party consensus on Lords reform, tabled proposals to an inter-party review group in private last week. He proposes that the current 741-member Lords be cut back to 450 with all members, appointed and elected, holding office for a non-renewable fixed term of 12 years, the equivalent of three parliamentary terms, with elections by proportional representation.

He does not deal explicitly with transitional arrangements, but his proposals will take as long as 15 years to come fully into effect. Such a lengthy period is needed to cut the size of the Lords, introduce the new elected element and avoid compulsory redundancies among current peers. The average age of peers is 69, but death alone will not quickly reduce the number to 450, so a redundancy package is being considered.

Mr Straw suggests that as few as 80 peers be elected at each of the next three general elections, meaning the chamber would finally be half-elected a little before 2020. He proposes that the remaining 90 hereditary peers would be required to leave the Lords in the first redundancies.

Mr Straw suggests: "Staggering the process over three election cycles allows a more manageable process, whilst keeping the valuable continuity of membership and ensuring the house is regularly refreshed with new talent."

Mr Straw's plan did not go down well with some Labour peers, with concerns that a smaller chamber would see many forced from the Lords.

Mr Straw plans to publish a white paper in November, and is waiting for a report from a separate committee on the powers and conventions of the Lords.

In the likely next step, MPs will be asked soon after Christmas to vote in principle on what proportion of the upper chamber should be elected.

Mr Straw opposes an all-elected second chamber, saying it would result in a loss of valuable experience and would become more political.

He proposes no single party should have a majority and suggests reducing the number of bishops from 26 to 16, with a duty placed on the appointments commission to ensure other faiths are represented. A minimum age for membership should be set and the prime minister should still have a right to appoint some ministers to the Lords, as well as 10 senior public service appointments per parliament.

But senior Tory MP Sir Patrick Cormack said: "I sincerely hope these leaks are incorrect. If they are correct it indicates that Jack Straw has totally taken leave of his constitutional senses."

He said: "These proposals would be a prescription for constitutional mayhem, setting the two chambers against each other, and that would in effect not mean the reform but the abolition of the House of Lords."

Main points

· Reduction by about a third, from 741 to 450 members, split 50-50 between elected and appointed. Quotas for women and ethnic minorities. No single party has overall majority.

· Life peerages abolished. No one to serve for more than three parliamentary terms.

· Members paid salary, expected to work full-time.

    Straw plans hailed as best chance in generation to secure Lords reform, G, 23.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/lords/story/0,,1928945,00.html

Honours scandal

reaches door of Downing Street

PM's fundraiser and confidant bailed
after day of questioning on secret loans

Thursday July 13, 2006
Guardian
Patrick Wintour and David Hencke

The cash for peerages scandal paralysing Labour moved perilously close to Tony Blair's door when the Metropolitan police yesterday arrested Lord Levy, Mr Blair's personal party fundraiser, Middle East envoy and personal confidant.

The news No 10 has been privately dreading for months came after the police spent all day interviewing Lord Levy at a north London police station before releasing him on bail without charge.

It is understood that at least three senior Downing Street officials have also been interviewed by the police, but not under caution. Since Mr Blair has himself said the buck stops with him over party fundraising, Downing Street seems to accept that it is inevitable detectives will now interview the prime minister too.

The Scottish nationalist leader Alex Salmond claimed "the waters are now lapping at the ankles of the prime minister".

The ebullient Labour peer, 62, was questioned by members of the specialist crime directorate about offering peerages in return for loans and whether he had breached laws on the disclosure of gifts to political parties.

Lord Levy later vociferously protested his innocence and angrily attacked the police for arresting him even though he had offered total cooperation. He accused the Met of using their arrest powers "totally unnecessarily".

His aides said his computers and papers were at the full disposal of the police. He had also been asked to provide fingerprints.

His lawyer said: "He went to the police station voluntarily this morning. Most unexpectedly the police invoked their powers of arrest. He has not been charged and does not expect to be once this inquiry is complete, as he has committed no offence. It is not clear what the allegations are, but he denies any wrongdoing, or any involvement in wrongdoing with others."

Some MPs questioned the timing of the arrest, and the former home secretary, David Blunkett, last night urged investigators to be "thorough rather than theatrical".

In their statement, police said only:"Officers ... requested a man to attend a London police station this morning where he was arrested in connection with alleged offences under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 and Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. He has now been released on bail to a date in the future pending further inquiries".

Lord Levy was questioned on his role in raising £14m of undeclared loans from Labour-supporting millionaires before the 2005 election, including four men who were subsequently proposed for peerages by Mr Blair. He was also questioned as to whether he had told one of the lenders, Sir Gulam Noon, to rewrite a certificate seeking a peerage, and send it to the independent Lords appointments commission so that it excised his previous statement that he had given the party a loan. It is disputed whether the appointments commission's rules required such loans to be declared.

The arrest came the day before John Yates, the Met deputy commissioner, was due to be questioned in private by MPs on an all-party public administration select committee on the progress of his investigation. MPs have put their own inquiry on hold at his request.

Grant Shapps, a Tory member of the committee, said yesterday: "It was always a fine judgment ... whether this affair should be investigated by a parliamentary or criminal inquiry. We were going to seek further assurances today that this police inquiry was serious, or else we would have restarted our inquiry in October. There can be no doubt that this arrest is intended to demonstrate progress, and so is in part directed at us as a PR move."

The chairman of the committee, Tony Wright, argued that the police investigation "is a reminder to the whole political class that it is scrutinised in a way that it has not been before".

He pointed out the police investigation was also looking at links between Tory donors and peerages.

    Honours scandal reaches door of Downing Street, G, 13.7.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1819106,00.html

Divorce ruling could apply to old cases

Lords decision means women may go back to court to claim more money

Monday May 29, 2006
Clare Dyer, legal editor
Guardian


A landmark House of Lords ruling last week could open the way for hundreds of divorced women to go back to court for more money, according to leading lawyers.

The principle laid down by the law lords that women who gave up a well-paid career to raise children were entitled to compensation for their sacrifice has come too late for partners who divorced with a clean break. But those still receiving maintenance from high-earning former husbands could go back to court to ask for a big increase, lawyers said, even if their divorce was years ago.

Experts in the field are only now realising that the judgment, which came when the lords ruled in the cases of Melissa Miller and Julia McFarlane, could potentially be applied retrospectively.

Many hundreds of women with existing maintenance orders will try for "massively increased payments", said Jeremy Levison, the solicitor who acted for Mrs McFarlane's ex-husband, Kenneth, a £750,000 a year accountant. "I'm already seeing women this week about this very topic," he said. "I'm being consulted by two classes of people: men who are worried and are asking are they going to have to pay their wives a lot more, and women who are asking does this mean we're going to be receiving much increased payments? One will have to do a careful analysis of the law but ... one would have thought that the answer ... must be yes."

Stephen Cretney, emeritus fellow of All Souls College, Oxford and the doyen of English family law academics, said though the issue would be strongly contested, there was "a strong arguable case" for certain women to be able to claim more money. He said the arguments for and against would be finely balanced and he would expect the courts to decide the issue on the merits of each case.

Another leading divorce solicitor, who asked not to be named, said the issue was certain to be raised in "one of the many test cases there will have to be post-McFarlane". The lawyer, who is currently advising a successful City professional on his ex-wife's application for a maintenance increase, said: "I think Jeremy Levison is right. I think it's definitely a runner."

A family law QC said there was a "perfectly valid argument" that the courts should now award compensation for a forgone career if an ex-wife came back for an increase in her maintenance.

Lawyers said the effect on existing maintenance orders, which could soar by millions of pounds, was just one of a number of issues which were bound to be litigated over the coming years. One said the judgment left the law "in a state of chaos". Another said it was "a disaster for the divorcing public".

Linda Poulson, 62, of the charity Divorce Recovery Workshop, said going back into litigation might not be worth the extra stress. "When people have settled, it's much more important rather than haggling over money, to think about your own quality of life [and] if getting an extra nought on the end of your finances is going to make up for the hassle," she said.

This week the Law Commission, the official legal reform body, will unveil proposals to give unmarried partners who live together the right to claim limited financial support and a share of property when the relationship ends. The consultation paper, commissioned by the government, will stop short of recommending full divorce rights but will suggest a safety net to prevent hardship. A draft bill is due in August next year.

    Divorce ruling could apply to old cases, G, 29.5.2006, http://money.guardian.co.uk/news_/story/0,,1785197,00.html

Lords backing for ex-wives of high flyers

· Former spouses win large slices of husbands' wealth
· Rulings likely to guide lawyers for a generation

Thursday May 25, 2006
Guardian
Clare Dyer, legal editor


The ex-wives of two high-earning men won the right to a large chunk of their former husbands' wealth yesterday when Britain's highest court laid down principles that are expected to guide divorce lawyers for a generation.

Experts predicted the judgment would see more rich men spurning marriage and insisting on prenuptial agreements - which are not strictly enforceable but are influential with judges.

For the first time, the House of Lords ruled that wives who give up potentially lucrative careers to raise children are entitled to compensation for their sacrifice in cases where the family's resources exceed their needs. The lords also ruled that a short marriage is no less a partnership than a long one and that a non-working, childless woman whose marriage to a rich man lasts fewer than three years is still entitled to a substantial share of the wealth built up during the marriage.

The five law lords unanimously upheld a high court judge's award of £5m to Melissa Miller, 36, from the estimated £20m-£30m fortune of her ex-husband, Alan, a high-flying fund manager. The couple's marriage lasted two years nine months.

In the second case, 46-year-old Julia McFarlane reversed a court of appeal ruling that had put a five-year limit on annual maintenance payments of £250,000 from her former husband Kenneth's earnings of £750,000. The judges said the payments should be for life, until she remarries or until Mr McFarlane, a tax adviser at Deloitte, applies to the court for a further order - leaving it open to him to offer a lump sum in future to "buy off" her entitlement to continuing maintenance.

Mrs McFarlane, who gave up a career as a City solicitor to bring up their three children, has already agreed with her ex-husband to a 50-50 split of the family's property, which totals more than £2m.

The law lords' judgment, which sets out the principles that should apply where assets and earnings exceed the former partners' needs, has implications for the divorce of Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills, who were together for four years.

Lord Nicholls said the length of the marriage was "highly relevant" in deciding whether the less wealthy partner should get a share of assets brought into the marriage - "non-matrimonial property" - rather than built up during it. "In the case of a short marriage, fairness may well require that the claimant should not be entitled to a share of the other's non-matrimonial property," said Lord Nicholls. However, the fact the couple have a child together means Ms Mills will get more.

Mrs Miller, an American earning £85,000 a year in public relations and living in a rented flat when she met Mr Miller, said in a statement: "Although this has been a long and exhausting process, it is a wonderful result."

Her former husband, on the other hand, branded the legal process "horrific" and the family law system "a shocking disgrace" in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle. "The interests of the parties become subservient to the massive egos of the solicitors and barristers involved, vitriolic and highly personal letters flow back and forth, and barristers take their wonderful legal points seemingly out of interest in changing the law rather than what is in the best interests of the divorcing couple," he told the paper.

The 42-year-old joint chief investment manager at New Star Asset Management said he and his former wife were "wholly incompatible - we never lived together prior to marriage and we couldn't live together after marriage". He had offered her £2m, hoping to avoid going to court, where he felt "violated" by the "sick and offensive" tone and questions.

At the appeal court hearing last year Lewis Marks QC, Mr Miller's counsel, told the judges that Mrs Miller had achieved "a modest fortune" in under three years. He added: "If my client had knocked her down with his motor car, and she had suffered severe injuries, at most the damages would be £2m."

Lawyers had feared that the Miller case could open the way for ex-spouses to argue that "conduct" - for instance, having an affair - should affect the financial outcome, taking the law back 20 years. But the law lords said the lower courts had erred in deciding that Mrs Miller could claim more because her husband's affair had ended the marriage. Conduct was relevant only in the rare cases where it was "obvious and gross", they said.

Yesterday's judgment will also end arguments by lawyers for ex-husbands that they should not have to pay former wives as big a share of the assets because their own contributions were "stellar".

The wives

Melissa Miller:

Mrs Miller, 36, an American born PR executive, was married to fund manager Alan Miller for two years, nine months, after a four-year engagement. It ended after Mr Miller met another woman.
Initial ruling: Mr Miller was ordered to pay off the mortgage on their £2.3m home and hand it to his wife, and give her a £2.7m lump sum. He appealed,
New award: Mrs Miller can keep the £5m.

Julia McFarlane

Mrs McFarlane, 46, a City solicitor, was married to tax accountant Kenneth McFarlane for 16 years. She gave up her career following the birth of her three children in 1991.
Initial ruling: Given the couple's £1.5m home and £250,000 a year for five years in 2001. Mr McFarlane appealed and this was reduced to £180,000 a year.
New award: £250,000 a year for life.

    Lords backing for ex-wives of high flyers, G, 25.5.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/lords/story/0,,1782562,00.html

Blair turns to Cunningham in drive to curb Lords powers

Saturday May 20, 2006
Guardian
David Hencke, Westminster correspondent



Tony Blair will on Monday move to curb the powers of the House of Lords to wreck his government's legislation programme after a series of bitter clashes between the Commons and the unelected house over terrorism laws, ID cards and hunting.

He will announce he is bringing back former cabinet minister Jack Cunningham (now Lord Cunningham of Felling) to head an all-party parliamentary committee to review the house's powers.

The committee will be expected to report in time for a government bill to be introduced next year to reform the Lords before the next election. The bill is expected to recommend the end of the Lords' powers to throw out bills.

Critics view Lord Cunningham's proposed appointment as a sign that Tony Blair is determined to end the century old Salisbury convention which allows peers to overturn legislation, after a bruising 12 months which has seen the Lords curb the terms of his ID cards bill and dilute the powers of the home secretary to detain suspected terrorists without charge.

The change of tone dates from last Wednesday after politicians met Jack Straw, the new leader of the House of Commons, only to learn that a carefully agreed deal with Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, to balance changes in the powers of Lords with plans for a newly elected House had been torn up by Mr Blair.

Downing Street has always wanted to give the Commons the final say in legislation but Lord Falconer had promised during informal negotiations with opposition parties that axing the powers of Lords to block bills would not be on the new committee's agenda. Lord Cunningham who left government to work with a lobbying company, Sovereign Strategy, had never been mentioned as chairman.

Mr Blair's renewed interest in Lords reform also follows the furore over the "loans for peerages" scandal, which is now being investigated by Scotland Yard. By abolishing working peers, the prime minister will no longer face accusations that he has put people into the Lords in return for donations or that he is shoring up controversial policies, such as his City Academy programme by awarding funders with peerages.

Liberal Democrats, who oppose curbs on the powers, have raised objections with Mr Straw. Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, warned yesterday: "Any move to castrate the Lords of any of its powers to make the government less accountable will not be welcome. It will be also up to the new committee to elect its chairman and I am not sure that a Labour loyalist like Jack Cunningham is the best person. Another person may be nominated by non-Labour people."

Lord Cunningham has supported the government on ID cards and its restrictions on human rights to fight terrorism, but is a rare attender at the House, except to vote for the government.

    Blair turns to Cunningham in drive to curb Lords powers, G, 20.5.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/lords/story/0,,1779362,00.html

Legislation

Pressure to change law on carrying knives

Saturday May 20, 2006
Guardian
Paul Lewis

The death of Kiyan Prince follows a series of high-profile knife, blade and bottle attacks against schoolchildren, including Shanni Naylor, 12, who was slashed across the face last year with a blade thought to be from a pencil sharpener, and Damilola Taylor, who died after being stabbed in the thigh with a broken bottle in 2000.

Last month a 13-year-old boy was stabbed with a penknife during a playground fight in Northern Ireland.

In legislation before the Lords, the government hopes to increase the age at which someone can buy a knife from 16 to 18. The violent crime reduction bill will also permit staff in schools and colleges to search pupils for weapons.

Some schools have already begun to use metal detectors to search pupils. In London, the mayor, Ken Livingstone, has announced the deployment of police teams to "every London neighbourhood" to target knife carriers. He has called for them to receive "maximum sentences".

Stabbing is the most common method of killing. More than 240 murder victims were killed that way last year, 29% of those deliberately. In 2004, more than 20 teenagers died as a result of knife attacks in the UK. In a Mori survey 29% of young people in London schools admitted having carried a knife; one 16-year-old boy in five had attacked someone with a knife, intending to hurt them seriously. Sixty-five per cent of people who carry knives have the weapons used against them.

Next week, the government will launch a month-long knife amnesty allowing individuals to hand in weapons to police stations without facing prosecution.

Tony Melville, the Association of Chief Police Officers' lead on knife crime and assistant chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police, said: "Taking knives off our streets will save lives and cut crime. Every weapon that is handed in is one that cannot be used in causing horrific injuries or even worse ... we hope this amnesty will be a catalyst in changing the culture of routine knife possession."

    Pressure to change law on carrying knives, G, 20.5.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1779374,00.html

6.15pm

Lords block right to die bill

Friday May 12, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Hélène Mulholland and agencies

The Lords tonight blocked a bid to allow terminally ill patients the right to end their lives, despite widespread public support for a change in the law.
After an impassioned seven-hour debate, peers voted by 148 to 100 to delay the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill bill's second reading for six months.

The move further reduces the bill's chances of making its way through parliament.

Crossbencher Lord Joffe's third attempt to enshrine in law the right-to-die aroused strong opposition from the medical profession and from church leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams.

A You Gov poll commissioned by Dignity in Dying, the lobby group campaigning for a change in the law, meanwhile showed overall public support for right to die legislation.

Lords turned out in force to debate the controversial issue, with 80 peers lined up to speak.

The proposals would have allowed doctors the right to prescribe drugs that a terminally ill patient, in the final stages of life and suffering terrible pain, could take to end his or her own life.

Opening the debate earlier today, Lord Joffe said: "As a caring society we cannot sit back and complacently accept that terminally ill patients suffering unbearably should just continue to suffer for the good of society as a whole.

"We must find a solution to the unbearable suffering of patients whose needs cannot be met by palliative care. This bill provides that solution in the absence of any other."

He insisted the bill would "not impose anything on anybody and only provides an additional end of life option for terminally ill patients which they are free to accept or reject as they and only they decide".

Opponents argued that the bill did not include safeguards to protect people suffering from depression, and could put pressure on the terminally ill to end their lives prematurely.

Archbishop Rowan Williams warned that the legislative proposals would "jeopardise the security of the vulnerable by radically changing the relationship between patient and physicians".

He said: "Whether or not you believe that God enters into the consideration, it remains true that to specify even in the fairly broad terms of this bill, conditions under which it would be both reasonable and legal to end your life, is to say that certain kinds of life are not worth living."

Outside the debating chamber, disabled opponents launched the Not Dead Yet campaign in protest at the proposals, while supporters of the Catholic church-backed Care Not Killing also held a protest.

Care Not Killing, which represents more than 30 charities and healthcare groups, warned that the Joffe bill would put the old and sick under intolerable pressure to end their lives, not least because of severe pressures on health and long-term care services.

Despite the vocal protests, a YouGov survey published today for the Dignity In Dying group found three-quarters of people in favour of the right-to-die bill.

More than half (59%) said there was good care for people in the later stages of a terminal illness, yet 76% were in favour of assisted dying as long as there were safeguards in place.

Of the 1,770 people questioned, 13% were opposed to the idea, while 11% said they did not know, and 39% said they had experienced hospice or palliative care either directly or though a loved one.

Deborah Annetts, chief executive of Dignity In Dying, said: "It is clear that the public truly appreciates the scope of the problem. Even with the high quality of our palliative care, some people will still want this option."

The government had resisted taking a position on the controversial proposals, citing a position of "neutrality". A Department of Health spokeswoman said it would "wait and see" what happens in the Lords before deciding whether to back the bill's passage through the Commons.

Earlier today, the archbishop denied that opponents of the bill were trying to impose their religious beliefs on the general population, many of whom did not share their faith.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that a "diverse range of groups" was opposed to the bill and not just those "enslaved by so-called clerical superstition", including the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Disability Rights Commission.

"[Opposition] comes from a number of people who are very close to the hardest of practical decisions who still say the costs of voting this through is disproportionately high to the benefit for certain individuals."

    Lords block right to die bill, G, 12.5.2006,http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1773462,00.html

UK fights to safeguard immunity of officials accused of torturing Britons

· Confessions to bombings made after beatings
· Government lawyers back Saudi Arabia's appeal

Monday April 17, 2006
Guardian
Clare Dyer, legal editor

The government will argue in Britain's highest court next week that foreign officials who commit torture abroad should be immune from civil action in the English courts.

Christopher Greenwood QC, the international lawyer who advised the attorney-general that the Iraq war was lawful, will argue for the British government, which has intervened in support of Saudi Arabian officials accused of detaining and torturing four Britons in Saudi jails.

Saudi Arabia is appealing to the House of Lords against a court of appeal ruling that, while the state is immune from compensation claims for torture, individual officials who inflict it are not. Civil rights lawyers said the ruling in October 2004 was a historic victory, ending immunity for torturers abroad from claims in the English courts.

The cases of Sandy Mitchell, Les Walker and Bill Sampson arose from a series of terrorist bombings in Saudi Arabia six years ago which the Saudis blamed at the time on an alcohol turf war among westerners. The men claim they were tortured into confessing responsibility on Saudi television. The fourth man, Ron Jones, an accountant, was seized after being injured in a bomb blast outside a bookshop. He was taken from his hospital bed and detained for 67 days, during which his captors attempted to get him to confess to planting the device that injured him. The torture of Mr Jones, which has been confirmed independently, involved being beaten on his hands and feet, suspended for long periods by his arms, deprived of sleep and given mind-altering drugs.

All the men were released after an al-Qaida attack in May 2003 by nine suicide bombers in Riyadh, which made it clear the allegations against them were false. Four other men who were detained with Mr Mitchell, Mr Walker and Mr Sampson could also make claims if the law lords uphold the right to sue for compensation.

The UK government's intervention, backing the Saudi claim for immunity, follows a House of Lords case last year in which lawyers for the government contended that evidence obtained from torture abroad should be admissible as evidence in UK courts - an argument rejected by the law lords. "The thing we're quite angry about is that the government has weighed in to support the argument that the individual torturers should not be responsible. They have actually intervened formally and put in an argument in support of the Saudi government's argument that the individual torturers should continue to have immunity," said Tamsin Allen of Bindman & Partners, the law firm representing three of the men.

"We've been trying to pressurise the government not to do that because we say the inevitable conclusion is that they are supporting the right of torturers to continue to torture with impunity. We've got a court of appeal judgment saying that torturers should bear individual responsibility and we should be able to sue them in these courts and provide redress for torture victims, and they're arguing no ...

"Their argument is that state immunity is so important it has to be protected. We say there's no challenge to state immunity and it's not being undermined. The Americans have specific laws to allow torture victims to sue wherever the torture happened. We don't, and the government is trying to argue against the court of appeal judgment that established those rights."

Ms Allen said some of the men were tortured until their hearts were damaged, one was raped, and all suffer post-traumatic stress disorder.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Constitutional Affairs said: "The UK government condemns torture in all its forms and works to eradicate it wherever it occurs. The intervention in this case is not about criminal responsibility for torture, nor about the UK government's attitude to torture. It concerns jurisdiction, and the way in which civil damages can be sought against a foreign state for acts allegedly committed in its own territory."

    UK fights to safeguard immunity of officials accused of torturing Britons, G, 17.4.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/story/0,,1755288,00.html

Elect the Lords - and stop our gongs going for a song

Filed: 30/03/2006
The Daily Telegraph
By Boris Johnson

I was stuck at a traffic light yesterday when a brand new red Toyota 4X4 drew abreast, containing three extraordinary women. Their cheeks were flushed, their lips were red, they wore sexy little cream pant suits and matching cream hats, and identical pink shirts to go with the flowers in the brim.

They were in that state of innocent euphoria that causes human beings to hail complete strangers. "Oi Boris," they shouted through the window, "we've just been to see the Queen!" And then the Beverley sisters (for that was how they introduced themselves) waved the square blue leather case containing the three identical ribbons and medals they had earned for a lifetime of belting out hits (I think they said there was one called Sisters) that have no doubt brought pleasure to millions, if not to you or me.

Then the honking behind us became unbearable and, as we parted, I suddenly felt all choky. As I watched these jubilant beldames kangaroo-hop from the lights, and as I listened to the chorus of horns as they tried to execute an illegal right turn, I felt a surge of emotion at their joy, their evident and ineradicable pride, at being gazetted "Members" of the British Empire, an institution that has long since collapsed and which is in any event reviled in the schools of this country.

How perfect, I thought, that in the twilight of their singing careers, the Queen has rewarded these spunky old crooners with a mark of distinction that contrives to be both ludicrous and affecting in exactly the right degree. How fine, how proper, how British.

I thought about the honours system, in all its absurdity and magnificence. I thought about how it brings a tinsel spark to so many lives, and I wondered why people were, these days, so cynical and fed up that some conservative commentators have recently called for the whole thing to be scrapped. How could anyone look at the happiness of the Beverley sisters, dolled up for the palace, and propose to snatch their prize away? Why be so cruel, when they have sung so lustily and for so long, and so well deserved their tinny guerdon?

The answer, of course, is that at the very apex of the honours pyramid there is an institution - the peerage - that is now wrapped in a fog of guilt. And beneath that fog there is one fact that is now obvious to the whole country - that peerages, places in the upper house of our legislature, can be bought and sold like golf-club memberships. It is odious, and it must stop.

I remember feeling a bit mystified, on arriving at school, to be told that some small, knock-kneed kid was guaranteed a seat in Parliament because of some feat of his great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather. It struck me as unfair on the kid, since the ruthless democracy of human reproduction had diluted the genes of his illustrious ancestor, placing the sprig firmly in the bottom form, and I wasn't convinced that his coming role in government was fair on the rest of us, either. But I think I'd rather have the hereditary system, with all its imperfections, than the current bordello.

As I say, there is nothing wrong with honours for achievement, and the whole apparatus seems to satisfy something deep in our instincts. We live in a gong-enchanted island, a nation divided into snobs and secret snobs; and on the whole our appetite for honours - for rank, dignity, title, preferment - is a great spur to energy and aspiration. I have known lifelong Lefties, diehard republicans who have succumbed with trembling fingers to the letter from the palace, and gone out to get their morning dress with the hilarious excuse that, ahem, it is all a load of nonsense, really, but they feel obliged to accept because, er, you know, it's not so much for themselves, as a, ah, recognition of the work done by the institution in which they were privileged to serve...

No one could object to such footling self-deception, and nor do I remotely object if people receive honours for their support of political parties. I think of my old friend and editor, the great Sir Max Hastings, who no doubt deserved a knighthood many times over, but who almost certainly clinched it by bringing the Evening Standard out for Labour in 1997, even though he knew it would mean a ban on fox-hunting and hysterical measures against people taking shotguns on aircraft. What is the moral difference between Sir Max's act of self-sacrifice and the generosity of Chai Patel, who wanted to give so much money to Tony Blair?

If you are a rich man, and you are so public-spirited as to donate squillions to a political party, so that its members can get on with their task of understanding and improving the condition of the country, then you should surely be encouraged, not vilified. The last thing we want is for the whole political clerisy to be bankrolled exclusively by the taxpayer, with state funding for all manner of cranks, bigots and extremists. If Chai Patel and others want to give money to Labour or to the Tories, then I see no reason why they should not be rewarded with a suitable gong for their philanthropy: on two conditions.

First, that they should in future give on condition that the gift (or loan) is public; and second, that they cannot thereby ascend to the legislature. It is time to end this crisis, and rescue the Lords, by insisting on a fully elected chamber, in which all peers are chosen by the same method, and yet without the same democratic mandate as the commons.

The answer, of course, is a self-electing chamber of 500-600 of the best from all walks of life, serving for a maximum of 10 years, and electing new members from a list of candidates drawn up by the appointments commission on the proposal of a wide variety of bodies, including unions, the universities, the CBI, the professions, and all the rest of it. Election by such a body would carry immense prestige. Such peers would never have their heads turned by money. It is by far the best way forward.

    Elect the Lords - and stop our gongs going for a song, DTe, 30.3.2006, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/03/30/do3001.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/03/30/ixopinion.html

11.45am update

Law lords back school over Islamic dress

Wednesday March 22, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies
 

The law lords today overturned a court ruling that teenager Shabina Begum's human rights were violated when she was banned from wearing full Islamic dress at school.

Shabina, 17, won a landmark victory last March that Denbigh high school in Luton, Bedfordshire, had infringed her human rights after teachers would not let her wear a traditional jilbab covering her body completely.

Today's judgment was warmly welcomed by headteachers, who feared the earlier ruling would make it impossible to enforce any school uniform policy.

Shabina said she was disappointed, but happy the case was over. She said she would be discussing with her lawyers whether they would apply to take the case to the European court of human rights.

The school, which had agreed a uniform policy with parents and community leaders allowing girls to wear the shalwar kameez (trousers and tunic), went to the highest court in the land last month to ask a panel of five judges at the House of Lords to overturn the ruling at the court of appeal.

Lord Bingham said the school was fully justified in acting as it did.

"It had taken immense pains to devise a uniform policy which respected Muslim beliefs, but did so in an inclusive, unthreatening and uncompetitive way," he said.

"The rules laid down were as far from being mindless as uniform rules could ever be. The school had enjoyed a period of harmony and success to which the uniform policy was thought to contribute."

He said the rules were acceptable to mainstream Muslim opinion. It was feared that acceding to Shabina's request would or might have significant adverse repercussions.

"It would, in my opinion, be irresponsible for any court, lacking the experience, background and detailed knowledge of the headteacher, staff and governors, to overrule their judgment on a matter as sensitive as this," said Lord Bingham.

"The power of decision has been given to them for the compelling reason that they are best placed to exercise it, and I see no reason to disturb their decision."

Shabina had worn the shalwar kameez and headscarf from the time she started at the school at the age of 12 until September 2002, when she and her brother, Shuweb Rahman, announced that the rules of her religion required her to wear the head-to-toe jilbab in future.

Shabina was sent home to change. She did not return to the school and later enrolled at another school where the jilbab was permitted.

The appeal judges had ruled that Shabina was unlawfully excluded when she was sent home to change into school uniform.

Shabina - who missed two years of schooling - said after the judgment was handed down: "Obviously I am saddened and disappointed about this, but I am quite glad it is all over and I can move on now. I had to make a stand against this and I am just happy it is all over now.

"Even though I lost, I have made a stand. Many women out there will not speak up about what they actually want," she added.

She said she would be discussing with her lawyers whether they would apply to take the case to the European court. "I still don't see why I was told to go home from school when I was just practising my religion."

The general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), John Dunford, said he was delighted that the House of Lords had supported the school. "The school had carried out an extensive consultation with the local community before deciding on the uniform. The purpose of school uniform is to create a community ethos and no individual pupils should be able to go their own way," he said. Mr Dunford added: "This judgment will be widely welcomed by headteachers of schools with uniforms. If the judgment had gone the other way, it would have serious consequences for schools and communities that want their children to wear a uniform." The general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, Mick Brookes, said: "This is a good judgment for schools. It shows that where a school is sensitive to local issues and has a good consultative process, its judgment will be upheld in law."

Mr Brookes added: "The balance between the individual rights of a pupil and the need for schools to have order and discipline is always going to be a contentious area."

Alison Carter, a solicitor for the Children's Legal Centre, said the total cost to the Legal Services Commission, which supplied legal aid for Shabina's case going from the high court to the court of appeal and the House of Lords, was no more than £50,000.

The law lords had heard that 75% of pupils at Denbigh high were Muslim and, at the time Shabina was admitted, the headteacher was Muslim.

The faith was represented on the parent teacher association and governing body.

To try to accommodate all faiths, the school adopted the shalwar kameez, a garment worn by many faiths on the Indian sub-continent.

According to the school's lawyers, among Shabina's objections was that the kameez was worn by "disbelieving women".

But Shabina's counsel, Cherie Booth QC, said that was incorrect. Her objection was that the kameez was no longer suitable for her because she had reached sexual maturity and it did not sufficiently protect her modesty.

Lord Bingham said any sincere religious belief such as that held by Shabina must command respect, particularly when derived from an ancient and respected religion.

The issue was whether her freedom to manifest her belief by her dress was subject to limitation and whether that limitation was justified.

He said Shabina could have attended another school, where the jilbab was permitted, far sooner. He was satisfied there was no interference with her right to manifest her belief in practice or observance. Even if there was interference, it was a "proportionate" response by the school.

Agreeing, Lord Hoffmann said there had been nothing to stop Shabina going to a single-sex school where her religion did not require a jilbab or a school where she was allowed to wear one.

Article 9 of the European Convention "does not require that one should be allowed to manifest one's religion at any time and place of one's own choosing", he said.

Shabina's discovery that her religion did not allow her to wear the uniform she had been wearing for the past two years created a problem for her. But her family had chosen that school with knowledge of its uniform requirements.

To change schools might not have been entirely convenient for her, particularly when her sister was remaining at Denbigh high, "but people sometimes have to suffer some inconvenience for their beliefs", said Lord Hoffmann.

"Instead, she and her brother decided that it was the school's problem. They sought a confrontation and claimed that she had a right to attend the school of her own choosing in the clothes she chose to wear."

    Law lords back school over Islamic dress, NYT, 23.3.2006, http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1736769,00.html

Schoolgirl's religious dress case to go before Lords

Friday February 3, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Donald MacLeod

A three-year legal battle over a Muslim schoolgirl's right to wear head-to-toe traditional dress is to go before the House of Lords on Monday.

The case, which has had repercussions for schools in many areas of England, will take place against a background of heightened tension over Muslim sensibilities following international protests over the publication of Danish newspaper cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.

Shabina Begum accused the headteachers and governors of Denbigh high school in Luton, Bedfordshire, of denying her the "right to education and to manifest her religious beliefs" when they refused to allow her to come to school in a jiljab, a full-length gown which covers the body and hair.

In March the court of appeal ruled in her favour. The student, who was represented by Cherie Booth QC in the long drawn-out case, said it was a victory that would "give hope and strength to other Muslim women" although it had cost her the loss of two years' schooling.

The school, which permits pupils to wear the hijab, a headscarf, and trousers and tunic, said afterwards it had lost the case on a technicality and was proud of its inclusive school uniform policy.

Monday's hearing is due to be held before Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, and Baroness Hale of Richmond.

Lord Justice Brooke, the vice-president of the civil division of the court of appeal, called on the Department for Education and Skills to give schools more guidance on how to comply with their obligations under the Human Rights Act when he gave judgment in March 2005.

He ruled that her school had unlawfully excluded her, denied her the right to manifest her religion and denied her access to suitable and appropriate education.

In June 2004 high court judge Mr Justice Bennett had dismissed the girl's application for judicial review, ruling she had failed to show that the "highly successful" 1,000-pupil school, with 79% of its students Muslims, had excluded her or breached her human rights.

Shabina, whose father and mother are both dead, wore the shalwar kameez (trousers and tunic) from when she entered the school at the age of 12 until September 2002, when she and her brother, Shuweb Rahman, informed assistant headteacher, Stuart Moore, that she would wear it no longer.

After the appeal court judgment the school issued a statement saying: "Denbigh high is a multiracial, multifaith school with a uniform policy that takes into account the cultural and religious sensitivities of pupils at the school.

"The case was lost due to a small technical breach of the Human Rights Act. The judges accepted that the school is entitled to have a uniform policy and could see nothing wrong with it. The policy will be reviewed as it always is annually."

The local education authority, Luton borough council, added that all schools would now be advised to take pupils' religion into account when imposing school uniform rules.

The Muslim Council of Britain welcomed the appeal court's decision. Its secretary general, Iqbal Sacranie, said: "This is a very important ruling on the issue of personal freedoms. Many other schools have willingly accommodated Muslim schoolgirls wearing the jilbab."

The Lords will also consider the case of Abdul Hakim Ali who was excluded from Lord Grey school in Bletchley, near Milton Keynes, after being accused of starting a fire. Police dropped the investigation but he was not allowed back to the school.

This is a test case for the use of the Human Rights Act in school exclusions and could have far-reaching implications for schools, although it has attracted none of the publicity surrounding the Shabina Begum affair.

    Schoolgirl's religious dress case to go before Lords, G, 3.2.2006, http://education.guardian.co.uk/faithschools/story/0,,1701569,00.html

6.15pm update

Lords deal blow to ID cards

Monday January 16, 2006
The Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent

The government tonight suffered a damaging blow in its bid to introduce identity cards, with the Lords voting to force ministers into revealing the complete projected costs of the scheme before it can become law.
Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers, backed by at least some Labour ones, inflicted a 237 to 156 defeat on the government over the measure, a majority of 81.

Although peers have admitted they cannot defeat the government bill in full, since it was a government manifesto commitment, insisting on the publication of the of all detailed costings will further exacerbate the row over the cards.

Whilst the government has insisted the cards will only cost around £584m annually, the most senior group of independent experts, at the London School of Economics, would cost £10-19bn over the first 10 years.

Unless MPs can defeat the amendment when the bill returns to the Commons, it means that the home secretary, Charles Clarke, must give a report to parliament, for approval by MPs, containing a detailed account of the revenue and capital costs arising from the legislation with a statement of expected benefits. It would also be subject to review by the national audit office.

Researchers for the LSE, and peers today, complain they have had almost no information out of government departments on the likely costs of the ID scheme.

In language stronger than is usual in the upper chamber, Tory peer Baroness Noakes, who was behind the amendment, said peers had "failed to get any useful information out of the government" regarding detailed costings.

The issue has already sparked a war of words between the government and the most senior independent experts on the issue, with home office minister Andy Burnham today accusing critics of "bouts of scaremongering" over the likely costs.

The government insists that a joint biometric passport and ID card would costs a combined total of £93 to citizens - a figure rejected by outside experts.

Simon Davies, of the LSE, said: "There has been a culture of secrecy which has developed at the Home Office.

"As the scheme has progressed it has been progressively impossible for the Home Office to actually release crucial data, not just to us but to parliament."

He said the LSE stuck by a report published in June which said the scheme would cost up to £19bn - more than three times the government's estimate, but he said that since then ministers had watered down the proposals.

"What was originally promised was a secure, fully-inclusive, universal system that had comprehensive goals.

"Now it has become a low-security, fallible system, [where] government departments can just buy in at whim. This is a radically different beast."

Experts such as Mr Davies also point out that, if current funding for the project is met by revenue, it could also mean private firms and even the public sector making high charges for each "accreditation", or reading of the card to confirm identity, to recoup costs of scanning machines.

But Mr Burnham said the government figures had been checked by commercial accountants KPMG, who concluded they were "robust and appropriate", and that a full release of commercially sensitive data would risk failing to get the best deal for the taxpayer.

"We can't just put all the figures out in the public domain because that may lead us not to get the best deal for the taxpayer. We have said what it will cost to produce a biometric passport and a biometric identity card.

"The LSE's figures are based on a number of assumptions which just don't hold. There are a whole range of ways in which they have inflated the figures to come out for a newspaper headline of £300 for identity cards. It didn't stack up."

The government had shown it was prepared to listen and other amendments meeting peers' fears had been tabled.

"We are listening still. We are making sensible amendments where the bill needs to be amended but I hope, in that spirit, we will take forward a scheme that everybody can be united on."

Shami Chakrabati, director of Liberty, the civil liberties pressure group, said today: "This bill is as expensive to our rights and freedom as to our wallets."

As the Lords debated the controversial identity cards bill, Mr Clarke faced calls from his own backbenches to look again at the plans. But Mr Clarke said the scheme would help in the fight against crime.

"Identity fraud costs the economy at least £1.3bn a year and the evidence shows that the threat is rising.

"The ID card scheme will tackle the problem by recording biometric information so that we are able to detect people who try to register multiple identities to commit fraud or for other worse purposes.

Mr Clarke added, to some Tory jeers: "As the arguments about both costs and about the security of the system and the need for it have become more widespread and better understood, support for ID cards has increased.

"It is a critical measure to enable us to provide security for the people in this country and we shall proceed with it."

    Lords deal blow to ID cards, G, 16.1.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1687641,00.html