Author Archives: Jo Shaw

Jo Shaw is the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Spokesperson for Holborn and St Pancras.

A response to Julian Huppert’s analysis on the Justice and Security Bill

A response to Julian Huppert’s analysis of the Justice and Security Bill

We learned on Wednesday this week that the Justice and Security Bill is being rushed into Report Stage in the Commons. The government has now published its latest proposed amendments to the Justice and Security Bill. Astonishingly I have been told that Conservatives are saying the Bill has been moved forward to conclude in the Commons on 7th March to avoid a further motion at our Spring Conference.

Julian Huppert and Mike Crockart worked very hard during the Committee stage of the debate, and voted (supported by Labour) to defeat secret …

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , and | 66 Comments

Jo Shaw asks… Is there a way out of the Secret Courts mess?

It’s a strange and rare thing for a Liberal Democrat to be pinning her hopes for a civil liberties victory on a combination of government bad faith, Conservatives of principle voting the right way and Labour sticking to their guns. Yet that combination, combined with the votes of Lib Dem MPs, could offer a lifeline for those campaigning to defeat secret courts contained in the Justice and Security Bill.

The Bill is now in Committee in the Commons. At the last possible moment the government published its proposed amendments to the Bill. The government line is that these amendments clarify the …

Posted in News | Tagged and | 17 Comments

Jo Shaw: Secret Courts update – please support our new motion to the Lib Dems’ Spring Conference

Supreme Court - Some rights reserved by cphoffman42The Justice and Security Bill, which introduces secret courts into almost all civil cases, was rushed into its second reading in the House of Commons on Tuesday this week.

The Minister in charge of secret courts in the Commons, Ken Clarke, made an opening statement in the debate which made it clear that the Coalition Government does not accept the amendments proposed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, some of which were passed by the Lords. It is still …

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , and | 18 Comments

Opinion: Secret Courts – one month on

One month ago today Liberal Democrat members voted overwhelmingly against the government’s plans for secret courts contained in Part II of the Justice and Security Bill. The motion was passed unamended despite the efforts of party leaders who attempted to dilute the motion into an apology for unfair trials.

Reporting of the Bill has continued, none of it reassuring. During the debate I said I could not understand why our government would suggest this illiberal measure, unless it was due to pressure from the US government. Disturbingly it seems I was right as it was what David Anderson QC, the government’s …

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 9 Comments

Opinion: Opportunity knocks for Nick Clegg and UN Women

In January of this year, I appointed myself a Godmother. Not of a child (I’m already a godmother to one of them, and she’s fabulous, plus I was asked!), but of an organisation – UN Women. As part of the campaign to assist the launch of UN Women, VSO is campaigning for Godmothers (of both sexes), to ensure that UN Women gets the support, financial and moral, it needs for its vital work.

Women have been at the heart of the world’s events over the past few months. Whether it’s campaigning against the driving ban-or-is-it-a-ban in Saudi Arabia, the …

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , and | 4 Comments

Jo Shaw writes: Counter Terrorism and Security Review latest

The long awaited outcome of the review of counter-terrorism and security powers is to be announced this week. Already last week, the expected and widely trailed outcome was confirmed that the length of time for pre-charge detention has been halved from 28 to 14 days – this 28 day power will lapse on Tuesday. It now appears that Theresa May will announce the outcome of the review on Wednesday, after Cabinet presumably discusses the issue on Tuesday.

The most thorny issue for the Liberal Democrats is what will go and what will remain of the highly controversial Control Order regime. David …

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , , , and | 1 Comment

Opinion: Control Orders – 14 words to mull over

“The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society”. These are the first fourteen words of the Preamble to the Constitution of the Liberal Democrats. It was this statement that finally made me decide to join the Lib Dems nearly ten years ago, and has kept me campaigning, working and fighting for and on behalf of our party ever since.

The control order debate has been raging lately, within the party and in the press. I wanted to explain why I feel so strongly about the issue of control orders and why I set up the …

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 13 Comments
Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarJayne Mansfield 27th May - 12:19pm
    @ Michael BG, Michael may I just point out that dementia isn't actually an illness. Dementia is an umbrella term. It has multiple causes and...
  • User Avatarexpats 27th May - 12:15pm
    Alex Macfie...Did you actually read the evidence you posted? In fact, they support MY views rather than yours.... What is untrue about Corbyn's...“During the 1980s…...
  • User Avatarexpats 27th May - 12:05pm
    Denis Loretto 27th May '17 - 9:33am.............Unlike Expats I thought the Andrew Neil interview was as much a car crash for Corbyn as the previous...
  • User AvatarSimon Shaw 27th May - 11:49am
    @Dave Orbison "He has repeatedly made it abundantly clear that he is not a pacifist and recognises that force is sometimes required. His speech is...
  • User AvatarSimon Shaw 27th May - 11:41am
    @Dave Orbison "Simon Shaw – hopefully you found this easier to understand, though no doubt you will disagree and prefer to talk about the IRA."...
  • User AvatarDave Orbison 27th May - 11:40am
    Ray Atkins re reference to Chamberlain. Really? Can we not have a reasoned debate about this without introducing spurious arguements which misrepresent people's views simply...