Parlimentary recall and what it could mean

Since 1948 there have been 24 recalls of Parliament, Thursday's will be the 25th and the second within a month. Here is the rundown of those other recalls and what they were to discuss.

1. 27-29 September 1949 to discuss devaluation of the pound
2. 12-19 September 1950 Korean War
3. 4 October 1951 Prorogation - followed by dissolution
4. 12-14 September 1956 Suez Crisis and Cyprus
5. 19 September 1959  Prorogation - followed by dissolution
6. 17-23 October 1961 Berlin blockade
7. 16 January 1968 Government spending cuts
8. 26-27 August 1968 Czechoslovakia, Nigeria
9. 26-29 May 1970 Prorogation - followed by dissolution
10. 22-23 September 1971 Northern Ireland
11. 9-10 January 1974 Fuel
12. 3-4 June 1974 Northern Ireland
13. 3 April 1982 (a Saturday) Falklands
14. 14 April 1982 Falklands
15. 6-7 September 1990 Kuwait Invasion
16. 24-25 September 1992 Government economic policy; UN operations in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Somalia
17. 31 May 1995 Bosnia
18. 2-3 September 1998 Omagh Bomb: Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill
19. 14 September 2001 International terrorism and attacks in the USA
20. 4 October 2001 ditto
21. 8 October 2001 ditto
22. 3 April 2002 Death of HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother
23. 24 September 2002 Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
24. 20 July 2011 (day after raising) Public confidence in the Media and Police

As you can see it in unprecedented for there to be two recalls in such close succession that are not as a result of war or terrorism. But that also shows the state of affairs we are in this week, must of the above were for time of war, the others were to end a Parliament, financial issues or to mark the passing of a Queen.

Dan Falchikov blogged that Lib Dems should vote against the possible introduction of the draconian measures as laid out, as I blogged earlier, in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. As he said:

"Anti-terror powers would appeal to the right wing mob - but have little practical effect other than to curb the liberty of the 99.99% of Londoners who are going about their law abiding business. Lib Dem MPs should vote against these draconian powers if proposed by the Tories (and no doubt supported by Labour)."

Having heard some MPs today call for military, water cannons etc, many of which measures can only come if a senior Minister of the Crown were to call for a vote to enable the Act in the debate on Thursday. As Dan points out many of the Tories may see it as stringent policing, many of the Labour members opposite who brought the Act into being may see it as a chance to show they were 'right', but Dan is right the Lib Dems need to stand up for liberty. We need to stand up for the vast majority of people who are law abiding.

Yes, we need to discuss what needs to be done, but we need to discuss that is a way that people can go about their lives as normal. Places shutting early is a sign that the rioters have won in a way that terrorists haven't done. Having been raised in Northern Ireland I know that our city and town centres were shut to traffic except for access and public transport at the height of the troubles. It is also only recently that Belfast city centre is reasonable alive to a late-ish hour (still nothing compared to Edinburgh or London but a whole lot better).

If we give in to shutting up shops, restaurants etc early, we are letting the yobs win. We are giving in to an urban terrorism far more easily that we did to those that planted the 7/7 bombs. Of course we have to take action to bring those guilty of the various crimes to justice, we have to protect those who are going about their daily business. A lot of that will come from family members turning in those who recently acquired plasma screens, new training shoes and whatever when there was no means to acquire these.

Our Lib Dem MPs must stand up for the balance of Liberty and Justice. It is a fine line (much like the Met have had to tread over recent days) but one that I trust our MPs will balance well. I look forward to some strong contributions from them in the debate on Thursday and a truly liberal stance on whatever comes out on the day.  We need to show the public as well as those that are doing the looting, arson, pillaging and civil unrest that we really are the party of new politics. That we have listened to all sides and want to defend our way of live, our people and business but do it with an essence of liberty.

Update I hear that PSNI armoured landrovers are being leant to the Met, on the local news here in Northern Ireland.

Are the rioters about to get anti-terrotist emergency powers enacted? #LondonRiots

COBRA are meeting at the moment but the media while awaiting the Prime Minister's statement are speculating that there may be a recall of Parliament on Thursday.

Why would such a recall be made? Possibly to enact the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. It is clear that the definition of an emergency certainly covers what we have seen in recent days.

(1)In this Part “emergency” means—

(a)an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom,

(b)an event or situation which threatens serious damage to the environment of a place in the United Kingdom, or

(c)war, or terrorism, which threatens serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) an event or situation threatens damage to human welfare only if it involves, causes or may cause—

(a)loss of human life,

(b)human illness or injury,

(c)homelessness,

(d)damage to property,

(e)disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,

(f)disruption of a system of communication,

(g)disruption of facilities for transport, or

(h)disruption of services relating to health.

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) an event or situation threatens damage to the environment only if it involves, causes or may cause—

(a)contamination of land, water or air with biological, chemical or radio-active matter, or

(b)disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life.

(4)A Minister of the Crown, or, in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers, may by order—

(a)provide that a specified event or situation, or class of event or situation, is to be treated as falling, or as not falling, within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1);

(b)amend subsection (2) so as to provide that in so far as an event or situation involves or causes disruption of a specified supply, system, facility or service—

i)it is to be treated as threatening damage to human welfare, or

(ii)it is no longer to be treated as threatening damage to human welfare.

(5)The event or situation mentioned in subsection (1) may occur or be inside or outside the United Kingdom.

There are sweeping powers in the Act. It allows under the monitoring of Parliament and/or the devolved powers for emergency powers, necessary for the overcoming of the emergency to be enacted. There is a quite a scope for just what those powers entail

Section 22

(1)Emergency regulations may make any provision which the person making the regulations is satisfied is appropriate for the purpose of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the emergency in respect of which the regulations are made.

(2)In particular, emergency regulations may make any provision which the person making the regulations is satisfied is appropriate for the purpose of—

• (a) protecting human life, health or safety,
• (b) treating human illness or injury,
• (c) protecting or restoring property,
• (d) protecting or restoring a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
•  (e) protecting or restoring a system of communication(e)protecting or restoring a system of communication
• (f) protecting or restoring facilities for transport,
• (g) protecting or restoring the provision of services relating to health,
• (h) protecting or restoring the activities of banks or other financial institutions,
• (i) preventing, containing or reducing the contamination of land, water or air,
• (j)preventing, reducing or mitigating the effects of disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life,
• (k) protecting or restoring activities of Parliament, of the Scottish Parliament, of the Northern Ireland Assembly or of the National Assembly for Wales, or
• (l)protecting or restoring the performance of public functions.

(3)Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative; in particular, regulations may—

(a)confer a function on a Minister of the Crown, on the Scottish Ministers, on the National Assembly for Wales, on a Northern Ireland department, on a coordinator appointed under section 24 or on any other specified person (and a function conferred may, in particular, be—

 (i)a power, or duty, to exercise a discretion;
(ii)a power to give directions or orders, whether written or oral);

(b)provide for or enable the requisition or confiscation of property (with or without compensation);
(c)provide for or enable the destruction of property, animal life or plant life (with or without compensation);
(d)prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, movement to or from a specified place;
(e)require, or enable the requirement of, movement to or from a specified place;
(f)prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, assemblies of specified kinds, at specified places or at specified times;
(g)prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, travel at specified times;
(h)prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, other specified activities;
(i)create an offence of—

(i)failing to comply with a provision of the regulations;
(ii)failing to comply with a direction or order given or made under the regulations;
(iii)obstructing a person in the performance of a function under or by virtue of the regulations;

(j)disapply or modify an enactment or a provision made under or by virtue of an enactment;
(k)require a person or body to act in performance of a function (whether the function is conferred by the regulations or otherwise and whether or not the regulations also make provision for remuneration or compensation);
(l)enable the Defence Council to authorise the deployment of Her Majesty’s armed forces;
(m)make provision (which may include conferring powers in relation to property) for facilitating any deployment of Her Majesty’s armed forces;
(n)confer jurisdiction on a court or tribunal (which may include a tribunal established by the regulations);
(o)make provision which has effect in relation to, or to anything done in—

(i)an area of the territorial sea,
(ii)an area within British fishery limits, or
(iii)an area of the continental shelf;

(p)make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for a specified purpose;

(q)make different provision for different circumstances or purposes.

Yes in the midst of that are the powers to declare martial law more or less and to make it an offence to fail to comply. It is possible that the rioters may have ended up bringing about such a threat that is even greater than any overseas terrorist threat to the UK in recent years.

Update As I was writing this the Prime Minister said he would be recalling Parliament on Thursday. What powers and actions they discuss on that day we shall have to wait and see.

Update The Hon Lady Mark has told us that his wife Baroness Scott of Needham Market has been told that the Lords will also be recalled tomorrow. Does this mean that there will be some sort of primary legislation, or a vote required on Thursday? Does this mean that the draconion parts of the Civil Contingencies Act may be asked for?

Worst night of deliberate fires across London since the Blitz #LondonRiots

Croydon! Yes, Croydon last night

If I was still working in retail in London who knows where I may have been sent to this morning to help with the clean up. As I was listening and watching the news last night I knew that three of the shops that I have worked in as temporary cover were affected, or close to an area affected one way or another. The trade I worked in would have been one of those that would have been a favourite of looters.

Also I watched I saw or heard of addresses where friends live or lived. I saw two separate flats where friends used to live burn down as a result of the worse fires across London since the Blitz. The London Fire Service was severely over stretched as was the Metropolitan Police. There is just no way that they could be everywhere in the numbers required to stop another outbreak or to get to another fire on time before it really caught hold. As I watched I couldn't believe it was London rather than Belfast I was watching.

What is all this looting, razing and pillaging of London business and the housing above them is that people will have been watching their jobs disappear on screens. Small shop holders that are getting looted, or having their businesses burnt to the ground may not be able to set up store again, not just soon but ever again. There was wanton vandalism on cars parked in streets all across the City. This 'pure criminality' as it was called last night, is taking the guts out of local businesses. Many of these have been struggling in the economic climate as it is and now find that their premises and stock have gone. This has very little, if anything, to do with the original protest in Tottenham after the shooting of Mark Duggan. This has now become opportunist burglary, vandalism and rioting.

There is the #LondonCleanup hashtag that is telling people where cleanup in going on. Bear in mind that some can not be done until the police and insurance companies have taken their evidence. But if I were in London today I would be seeing where I could be helpful, even if I wasn't working in retail and being sent to one of the chains other stores.

Five for the Fifth August 2011

It is that time of month when it is time to take part in Stephen's Five on the fifth. This months theme is My Town so here are some pictures taken around Bangor, not only where I live but where I was born and brought up. Not that I have always lived here.

Parks, houses and retail parks

Old Tower House and Boat House

Reflections on the new Library Extension

Floral Contrast in Ward Park

Seafaring Town

Death knell for the progressive DUP continues

Jeffrey's former NI Assembly picture

The first Northern Irish MP to support the restoration of the death penalty, even partially, is from that supposedly progressive new DUP we're heard so much about, yet in recent days appears to be notable in its absence.

It is Jeffrey Donaldson who is the first to raise his head over this particular parapet. He has said:

"We (the DUP) have stated consistently that in cases of terrorist murder, we believe that there should be the death penalty.


"One of the reasons why I think it should be debated is because I want to hear the contrary arguments.

"We haven't as parliamentarians debated this issue now for 30 years.

"A lot has happened in that time, terrorism has become much more sophisticated, much more deadly and I think it is time parliament debated this issue again." 

So if the MP for Lagan Valley is right the DUP will all not only want a debate but will be supporting a partial at least restoration of the death penalty.

The death penalty was abolished in 1969 in England, Wales and Scotland but not until 1973 in Northern Ireland. The last executions for murder in the UK occurred in 1964. Not surprisingly therefore the last person to see the judge don a black cap in a UK court was William Holden in 1973, he was removed from his death cell in May of that year before the abolition in Northern Ireland on 25 July.

On 20 May 1998 the UK Parliament voted to ratify the 6th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which prohibiting capital punishment except "in time of war or imminent threat of war." On the 10 October 2003, effective from 1 February 2004 the UK acceded to the 13th Protocol, which prohibits the death penalty under all circumstances. Whilst the UK adheres to the ECHR it can no longer legislate for a death penalty. The Conservative Party were the only party to campaign on a withdrawal from the ECHR at the last election.

Strangely on the first of these there was vote in Parliament. However, Mr Donaldson (then with the UUP) and all of the other Unionist MPs, with the exception of Martyn Smyth (UUP), were absent from the chamber and unable to take part in the debate or cast a vote.

Of course the main point here is to look at the nations where the death penalty is still in force. China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Syria are all prime examples of where capital punishment still persists and quite regularly. Also people cite the USA as a country where capital punishment is still allowed in the 'western world', however in states which practice capital punishment incidents of homicide are higher than US states which do not. Also the cost of keeping in a death row and the legal costs of petitions against the sentence lead to higher cost of capital punishment compared to life imprisonment.

The death penalty isn't the easy or cost effective alternative to our current system. Indeed when you look at some of those who are campaigning for its reinstatement you can see them as opponents of the ECHR which has a lot of  good protectionist points to it. There are also a large number of people campaigning for the reinstatement who want us out of the European Union altogether.

I think it is time to look at the motivation behind the people who want the death penalty back. Are they stirring up emotions on the back of the Norway tragedy to get their own ulterior motives fulfilled?

As a Liberal Democrat I believe that no-one should be enslaved by poverty ignorance and conformity, nor for that matter should they be hung or otherwise killed for it. Even if Mr Donaldson only wants it returned for terrorism let us not forget that the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six where two high profile cases where terrorist murder sentences were later overturned.

Are Mr Donaldson and the DUP prepared to have the possibility of innocent blood on their hands by supporting such a motion? What now of the new progressive DUP?

He'll travel to the Falls but not down the corridor - is that repugnant?

Now there was a time that a DUP elected politician attending a debate at St. Louise's School on the Falls Road would garner nothing but applause. Let me add that of course I'm delighted that the DUP send representatives to the Féile's West Belfast Talks Back event it shows an inclusiveness and more towards normality that was still somewhat lacking a few short years ago.

The problem comes from the DUP representative at this year's event. Yeah Jim Wells is the one who will happily attend a discussion on a wide range of issues on the Falls Road, but wouldn't attend a similar event in the Long Gallery just down the corridor and down some stairs from his Stormont office. Now I'm pretty sure that the behaviour of both audiences will be similar. Respectful of all the speakers, asking questions and listening to the answers. The clothing of those at both these debates will be normal summer street clothing I'd hazard as the weather today is as good as last Monday.

Yet Jim Wells is quite prepared to cross into one section of Northern Ireland society for a discussion of issues that a few years ago he wouldn't have been seen in, yet he wasn't even prepared to head to a different part of the building he works in to talk to another. What is worse he turns down the invite to the other with a message that had veiled meanings that he has refused to comment on or clarify. The different treatment of two different sections of the community that are protected under the two different parts of Section 75 of the Belfast Agreement is something that should be shown up and shouted about for what it is.

Repugnant! 

A politician who were to show such overt prejudice in another part of the United Kingdom would be condemned by his party leadership and would not be considered suitable to hold front bench office. The fact that Mr Wells is earmarked for an office that will have the health and social well being of the LGBT community within his remit is something that is abhorrent to a large number of the LGBT people I have spoken to since Jim's comments were made public. However, he is in the DUP and the position is one that the DUP have chosen under d'Hondt so sadly there is little chance of castigation from on high in his party. Ranks have already been closed, no comments are being made except to lie about the amount of notice given of Pride on the Hill.

Now is the time to engage Jim. If you don't I expect you are going to be picketed wherever you go. Something that he is well aware of happening when people are angry about not being consulted or appearing to have their views taken on board, and if "passions run high" who can tell what takes place. Not that I'm expecting the physical presence of this young DUP protester this evening but a peaceful protest and picket.

Jim Well's response watch Day 7

Me with QUBSU VP Welfare Adam McGibbon

As we know last week Jim Wells said:

"I understand that you [Belfast Pride] contacted my Kilkeel office regarding what is termed a 'Belfast Pride' debate.

"As you are probably know I find the behavior of those who take part in this march totally repugnant.

"I do not thereforee wish to be association in any way with this event.

"My position on this matter will not change in the future and I would politely suggest that any further requests of this nature will be a total waste of your time."

As one of the Northern Irish LGBT community, and the LGBT people of faith community who has also been to a Wells' family event I thought I'd give him to the right to clarify just what he meant in that statement and his subsequent comments to Diana Rusk at the Irish news.

It is now 7 days on from the Pride on the Hill event and Mr Wells has yet to answer the following questions that I posed to him on 26 July.

1) You turned down an invite to a debate as part of the festival not to the parade itself by saying that you found the behavior of those at the parade totally repugnant. As the areas covered included the higher level of LGBT teens who commit suicide, adoption by L&G couples, heteronormative views and traditions within schools etc some of this is within a Health remit. Does your statement that your "position on this matter will not change in the future and I would politely suggest that any further requests of this nature will be a total waste of your time" mean that you are never likely to meet with LGBT groups to discuss such issues?

2) You said you found the costumes and behaviour of those who take part in such parades repugnant. I'll be wearing my kilt with daywear sporran and casual shirt, my activities will be to march in beat to the music and represent my party. How is this anymore repugnant than many other parades that take place in this wee country of ours?

3) Diana Rusk reposted that you were asked if it was the behaviour of the participants that he felt were "repugnant" and not the activities of gay people, to which you said you had no comment. That is a political evasion that the LGBT community see as avoiding giving an awkward answer. As John McCallister said yesterday "The DUP don't condemn same sex cohabitees, or everyone who has sex outside marriage, bacause there are too many of them." The implication being that your party's refusal to meet and answer questions of the LGBT sector under part 1 of Section 75 is to do with electoral maths rather than a matter of principle. How do you respond to that and do you want to answer Diana's original question?

4) There is anger in the LGBT community at the DUP's continued marginalisation and apparent demonisation of the community. While the party talks about being newly progressive, how can continued non-attendance or no comment on issues raised about the LGBT members of our shared society be seen as condusive from the party with the largest level of support?

Still no response. I don't think there is anything in these questions that could be construed in anyway repugnant. We wonder if we will ever get answers.