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 Liberal Democrat conference voted overwhelmingly in favour of this measure being withdrawn because of its provisions on secret courts.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 AvatarIan Sanderson (RM3) 28th Jul - 7:16pm
    “male Supreme Court justices mostly fit the stereotypical pattern of boys’ boarding school, Oxbridge college and the Inns of Court”, Last time I looked the...
  • User AvatarTim13 28th Jul - 6:50pm
    The reason I compared PRP (for complex jobs) with PRP is because it has the same effect, ie focusing on one part of a job...
  • User AvatarCaractatus 28th Jul - 6:22pm
    This is such feeble stuff, no offense meant but no one cares.
  • User AvatarPeter 28th Jul - 6:20pm
    "Performance related pay for complex jobs does not work". I never thought I would find myself defending PRP but it depends on what you are...
  • User AvatarCaractatus 28th Jul - 6:17pm
    The trouble with this is no one forced Clegg to support an increase in tuition fees and he is rightly criticised for breaking a promise...
  • User Avatarpaul barker 28th Jul - 6:14pm
    Oops. For Por read Our.