The parliamentary drama at Westminster over the last few days on renewal of the United Kingdom's terrorism laws was resolved last night by a compromise between the Labour government and the Conservative opposition and between the Commons and the Lords. Serious issues of human rights and judicial procedure were involved, along with a hint from prime minister Tony Blair that he would if necessary call an early election on the question if it was not agreed.
Emergency legislation introduced after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 allowed foreign nationals to be detained indefinitely without charge if suspected of terrorism. Following a Law Lords ruling that they were unlawful, the government wanted new laws which would apply to Britons and include provisions for house arrest.
The compromise saves face for Mr Blair, despite being claimed as a victory by Conservative leader Michael Howard. It will allow a substantial review in one year's time of powers to detain terrorist suspects arbitrarily. This preserves an important principle in the face of a government with such a large majority that it is continually tempted to disregard the House of Commons and blame the House of Lords and the judges for filling the resulting constitutional void.
Despite being non-elected, the Lords play an important balancing role in the British system. On this occasion they played it well, working in tandem with, but complementary to, opposition parties and government rebels in the Commons. This forced the government to clarify its intentions about issues such as whether ministers or judges should issue control orders for house arrests of terrorist suspects; what evidence would be involved and who will specify its rules; what standard of proof is required to show the order is needed; what evidence is available to the defendant; and whether there should be a sunset clause on the legislation.
Against the background of emergency legislation to combat terrorism introduced after the 9/11 attacks in the United States it is all the more important that its renewal should receive careful examination along these lines. As many speakers warned at this week's conference on the subject in Madrid to mark the first anniversary of the attacks there last year, it is self-defeating for democrats to abandon their principles in confronting these dangers. That will encourage terrorism, not prevent it. The sorry experience of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib prisons have done more than anything else to discredit such emergency and arbitrary responses to terrorism.
In this perspective these parliamentary and judicial criticisms of arbitrary government measures in Britain have been valuable exercises in democratic accountability, however complex the procedural wrangling and however fudged the legislative outcome. These exchanges are a potent reminder that the British election campaign is well under way, with voting in early May. Mr Blair's government has learned this week not to take the vote for granted.