Clarke’s concessions on secret courts will not satisfy Liberal Democrat campaigners

Ken ClarkeIsabel Hardman has written a piece on the Spectator’s Coffee House blog which essentially says that Liberal Democrat MPs and campaigners are on a bit of a collision course over Part II of the Justice and Security Bill. Liberal Democrat conference voted overwhelmingly in favour of this measure being withdrawn because of its provisions on secret courts.

The article suggests that Liberal Democrat MPs are likely to support the measures now that Ken Clarke has accepted an amendment from the House of Lords guaranteeing judges, not ministers would authorise secret courts. Liberal Democrat Voice’s Nick Thornsby explains why this is not acceptable opponents of this measure within the Party.

It is of course welcome that Ken Clarke has recognised some of the flaws contained in the original bill. But even the amendments made in the House of Lords don’t go far enough. The bill, establishing the principle of court cases where one side can’t hear the evidence from the other, is fundamentally illiberal. It is difficult to see how Part II can remain intact and be acceptable to Liberal Democrats.

Hardman suggests that “this could be as big a problem for the party as the Health and Social Care Bill was”. I think she’s under-estimating the situation. The NHS debate did split the party along social and economic liberal lines. That is not the case with this measure. There is nothing like civil liberties being threatened to unite people across the party. It is unlikely, in any debate that may take place in the future, that you’d see the result turn on tens of votes.

You can read the whole article here.

If you wish to take part in the Liberal Democrat campaign against secret courts, you can do so here.

* Caron Lindsay is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

Read more by or more about , , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/32265 for Twitter and emails.

One Comment

  • Just to observe that the lack of any comments on this item is a possible indicator that the concessions that Ken Clarke is minded to make in the light of the Lords’ amendments to this Bill may have taken some of the steam out of Lib Dem opposition to it.

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 AvatarLiberal Neil 20th Aug - 5:20pm
    Most of the points put forward by Denis in the article and in the comment by John Barrett are perfectly reasonable. If people currently on...
  • User AvatarDav 20th Aug - 4:42pm
    the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a good expression of what mid-20th century liberals believed to be universal rights and values And 'British values'...
  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 20th Aug - 4:31pm
    Thanks Tony Hill, as you say, I think a feeling of lack of power and injustice is something to do with it and we should...
  • User AvatarIain 20th Aug - 4:30pm
    There is a strange assumption in the 'Yes' camp that rUK will want have some interest in promoting the interests of Scotland, in some cases...
  • User AvatarIan MacFadyen 20th Aug - 4:30pm
    It is silly to condemn the Better Together campaign for being negative. It exists to oppose a bad idea and ensure that it is voted...
  • User AvatarJohn Barrett 20th Aug - 4:22pm
    Moving away from the Islamic State debate to the Scottish State. With Federalism not an option in the September 18th referendum and Westminster unlikely to...