Conference calls for our parliamentarians to reject Secret Courts

Liberal Democrat Voice at Conference

On Lib Dem Voice: Reportage | Live Twitter Stream | Contribute
On the official party website: Conference home
Watch Live on BBC Parliament

At most conferences there is at least one debate which proves how different we are from the other main parties. Different because we entrust Conference to decide party policy, in open debate, even where that may be at odds with the views of our parliamentarians.

Today’s debate on the ‘Secret Courts’ motion was a good example. The full title was F41: No Government Above the Law – The Justice and Security Bill.

This motion, submitted by two local parties, called on the Coalition to withdraw Part II of the Justice and Security Bill, which would empower Ministers to allow civil hearings and trials to be held in secret where national security is at risk of being damaged. Under this Bill neither the public nor, most significantly, the other party in a case, would have the right to see the relevant evidence, so would not be able to challenge it.

The motion also called on all our parliamentarians to press for the withdrawal or defeat of Part II of the Bill.

An amendment had been submitted which did not call for withdrawal of the Bill. Instead it said that closed material proceedings (ie secret courts) should be allowed as a last resort.

Several senior and well respected MPs and peers spoke in support of this amendment, including Jonathan Marks QC, Jim Wallace, Tom Brake MP and our Chief Whip Alistair Carmichael MP.

They argued that the Bill should be amended not abandoned, because some rare cases justified it. There was some discussion about the Public Interest Immunity system, where decisions about sensitive materials are taken by a judge. Those in favour of the amendment claimed that this system was not effective.

Even Julian Huppert MP, who is not known for meekly toeing the party line, spoke in favour of the amendment.

Ranged against them were Sarah Ludford MEP, Paul Strasburger from the Lords and several party activists, many of whom claimed that this was an issue that tested our commitment to civil liberties.

Robin Meltzer said that these principles are fundamental to who we are as Liberal Democrats.

Sarah Ludford memorably declaimed:

Nick Clegg said we should distinguish those policies we would die in the ditch for from those we could compromise on. Please jump into the ditch on this one, Nick.

Conference was not convinced by the supporters of the amendment and it was defeated substantially, quickly followed by overwhelming support for the main motion.

 

* Mary Reid is the Monday Editor on Lib Dem Voice.

Read more by or more about , , , , , , , , , or .
This entry was posted in Conference.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/30420 for Twitter and emails.
Advert

5 Comments

  • I’m really pleased that the amendment was defeated and the motion was passed by such a huge margin. And I wasn’t too happy that one of the justifications given for the Bill during the debate (by a LibDem whip, no less) was that this would save money on detentions and mistrials!

    I don’t care how much civil liberties cost – any price is a price worth paying. Without them, this country is nothing. And without a commitment to them, this party is nothing too.

  • Hi Mary, As well as the two local parties of Beckenham and Islington the motion was supported by 12 conference representatives. And, I’m very glad to say, more importantly it was overwhelmingly supported in the conference hall!

  • Here’s hoping the parliamentary party will respect the “overwhelming” wish of conference.

  • It is beginning seem thatt there is very little that Nick would die in a ditch for, except maybe shoring up the Conservatives. Maybe Andrew Duff was right all along about him!

  • Quite funny that the BBC has managed to find a Lib Dem sporting long hair, beard and cannabis tee shirt to illustrate this story.

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 ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarJack 2nd Mar - 10:57am
    Why exactly should people get tax breaks to buy a second house when they retire? The case for pension tax relief is based on the...
  • User AvatarJane Ann Liston 2nd Mar - 10:23am
    A less punitive way to reduce the welfare bill would be to get those of us who are just short of the 35 qualifying years...
  • User AvatarSimon McGrath 2nd Mar - 10:17am
    @John Tilley "According to the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group there are 5 million households living in fuel poverty, and they calculate that the number may...
  • User AvatarStephen W 2nd Mar - 10:03am
    We should be able to establish sensible strategic units capable of receiving large blocks of powers across England. Greater Manchester, Greater Liverpool, Greater Birmingham &...
  • User AvatarGraham Martin-Royle 2nd Mar - 9:17am
    100% with this. The opposite to hate speech is more speech, not less.
  • User AvatarMichael Parsons 2nd Mar - 8:53am
    Capital flights, dead weight etc? (a) Liberalism should no longer use these Gladstonian economic S/D policies to evade the crying need for an active fiscal...