56% of Lib Dem members urge secret courts plan to be voted down outright

Lib Dem Voice polled our members-only forum recently to discover what Lib Dem members think of various political issues, the Coalition, and the performance of key party figures. Some 550 party members have responded, and we’re publishing the full results.

Only 3% of Lib Dem members back current plans for secret courts

LDV asked: Parliament is currently debating Part II of the Justice and Security Bill which makes provision for closed material procedures (CMPs) – more commonly known as ‘secret courts’ – to be used in any civil proceedings (except, at present, for inquests) in cases where national security is said to be at risk. Opponents believe the powers will enable ministers, rather than judges, to manipulate the way evidence is withheld or presented in the courts – depriving claimants of a fair trial. The government claims the reform will enable judges to hear a greater range of national security cases enabling suspected terrorists to be tried using the full evidence available, including sensitive intelligence. What is your view?

    56% – I oppose Part II of the Justice and Security Bill and believe it should be voted down outright

    32% – I oppose Part II of the Justice and Security Bill but am open to supporting it if it can be amended by Lib Dem MPs to include increased safeguards

    3% – I support Part II of the Justice and Security Bill and believe it should be approved as it stands

    8% – Don’t know

Our survey shows that a clear majority (56%) of Lib Dem members oppose outright the Coalition Government’s plans for ‘secret courts’, with a tiny 3% supporting them. A significant minority, 32%, are potentially open to supporting Part II of the Justice and Security Bill — but only with increased safeguards to ensure those accused of crimes are subject to a fair trial. This was the line pushed by a number of Lib Dem parliamentarians (including Julian Huppert and Tom Brake) when the issue was debated at conference.

What our survey could not test, of course, is what safeguards might be considered sufficient by those Lib Dem members who said they were persuadable. For instance, on Friday Ken Clarke himself (who’s steering the legislation through Parliament) tabled a last-minute amendment conceding that secret hearings cannot be extended further solely by ministerial decree — this was a major loophole in the legislation noted here on LibDemVoice by Nick Thornsby.

My guess is, though, that it will take more than just that to persuade most Lib Dem members that this isn’t a serious extension of the state. As Jo Shaw observed caustically when moving the motion of outright opposition to secret courts in September, “Kafka’s novel was a warning – not a manual”.

70% oppose Draft Communications Data Bill (aka Internet Snoopers Charter)

LDV asked: The Draft Communications Data Bill – which proposes to extend the powers of law enforcement agencies and others to have access to communications data (such as Skype and instant-messaging services) – was announced in the Queen’s Speech. From what you have seen and read, do you support or oppose the Bill as it is currently set out?

    14% – I support the Draft Communications Data Bill

    70% – I oppose the Draft Communications Data Bill

    16% – Don’t know

I previously asked this question in July — the results were almost exactly the same: a thumping majority (70%) of Lib Dem members oppose the Draft Communications Data Bill, with just 14% in favour of it. Julian Huppert will have his work cut out trying to amend the Bill in a way that assuages the fears of Lib Dem members that this isn’t just another example of the state (willingly abetted by the Tories) extending its reach further into the lives of private individuals.

  • Over 1,200 Lib Dem paid-up party members are registered with LibDemVoice.org. Some 550 responded to the latest survey, which was conducted between 28th and 31st October.
  • Please note: we make no claims that the survey is fully representative of the Lib Dem membership as a whole. However, LibDemVoice.org’s surveys are the largest independent samples of the views of Lib Dem members across the country, and have in the past offered accurate guides to what party members think.
  • For further information on the reliability/credibility of our surveys, please refer to FAQs: Are the Liberal Democrat Voice surveys of party members accurate? and polling expert Anthony Wells’ verdict, On that poll of Lib Dem members.
  • The full archive of our members’ surveys can be viewed at www.libdemvoice.org/category/ldv-members-poll
  • * Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and editor of the 2013 publication, The Coalition and Beyond: Liberal Reforms for the Decade Ahead. He is also a Research Associate for the liberal think-tank CentreForum and writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

    Read more by .
    This entry was posted in LDV Members poll.
    Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/31598 for Twitter and emails.

    7 Comments

    • John Leston 18th Nov '12 - 9:23am

      Only 56% is rather depressing …….

    • Andrew Tennant 18th Nov '12 - 10:01am

      @John Leston
      Agree – though you can add a further 32% (total 88%) whose response started ‘I oppose the Bill’…

      @Stephen Tall
      Can anything be gleamed from the comments as to what safeguards respondents were thinking would make the Bill acceptable?

    • We already have secret courtsfor child protection. What makes people think they are any less trustworthy when dealing with national security cases?

      It is not as if anyone wants to open the family courts to the bright light of day, after all.

    • David Evans 18th Nov '12 - 4:44pm

      @ad – Nice irony there. +1

    • I am hopeful that we can get rid of Part II of this Bill. Our peers know the strength of feeling, and so do our MPs. I heard Ken Clarke on Today this morning. He sounded combative as he should because I think he knows he is in for a real fight.

      David Pannick has come out against the plans and can lead the Crossbenchers. Baroness Helena Kennedy (who sits on the Joint Committee of Human Rights) has put her name to the amendment to delete clause 6 (which introduces secret courts). Lord Strasburger has put his name to this amendment too. It is vitally important that our peers vote against clause 6, at the very least.

      Over 500 party members have signed the petition at http://www.libdemsagainstsecretcourts.org.uk – on the basis of the responses to this poll only 16.5 people were in favour of this illberal, unfair and unnecessary Bill. It must be stopped, and Liberal Democrats must be the ones seen to be stopping it.

    • “We already have secret courtsfor child protection.”

      If you’re referring to reporting restrictions, that’s very different from what’s being proposed now.

    • Liberal Democrats must be the ones seen to be stopping it.

      Absolutely

    Post a Comment

    Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

    If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

    Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

    *
    *
    Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




    Recent Comments

    • User AvatarSara Scarlett 26th Oct - 1:47am
      I have to admit I don't agree with the grounds on which they were protesting. Just seemed like a bunch of vague, unhappy lefties being...
    • User AvatarSara Scarlett 26th Oct - 1:23am
      Stephen [Tall], Some good points. I'm not entirely convinced by 6. Although I do see it's merits. I'd like to see the devolution of power...
    • User AvatarCharlie 26th Oct - 1:07am
      Glenn From my time at university and discussion with many charity /ngo workers. An example is golden rice which through genetic modification has much greater...
    • User AvatarSarah Noble 25th Oct - 11:24pm
      Callum: mind you, that would mean that a) the SNP would have to drop their policy of abstention on English matters and more importantly, b)...
    • User AvatarCaron Lindsay 25th Oct - 11:21pm
      I think it's fair to say that I am not a fan of the Labour Party. One of their first acts in government was to...
    • User AvatarStevan Rose 25th Oct - 11:18pm
      Since only the already relatively decentralised matters of education and NHS gained majority support amongst members of the party most in favour of localism, does...