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

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 Tuesday 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.

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 ...?




Recent Comments

  • User Avatarstuart moran 23rd Sep - 5:50am
    jedi If there are regional Parliaments/assemblies then they run the risk of becoming one party fortresses, this is exacerbated by FPTP - there would not...
  • User AvatarJJ 23rd Sep - 2:50am
    That's a good question Stuart, and the electoral college does prevent the bulling of rural areas by the urban centers, or as you put it...
  • User AvatarGeorge Potter 23rd Sep - 1:12am
    Also, on the topic of boundary determination, my personal view is that there should be an independent commission established to construct units for devolution out...
  • User AvatarGeorge Potter 23rd Sep - 1:08am
    @Michael Kilpatrick I agree - we need a simple three tier government structure: federal, devolved assembly, unitary authority. Possibly some areas could introduce parish councils...
  • User AvatarGeorge Potter 23rd Sep - 1:01am
    Also, for reference, the median size of Germany's states is 3 million people - this should give some guide as to what size is needed...
  • User AvatarGeorge Potter 23rd Sep - 12:58am
    @sesenco I come from Surrey and neither it, nor Kent, nor Sussex are naturally Tory. If you look at the last county election results, while...