Today (as predicted) Nick Clegg is announcing the details of how the government will end detention of children for immigration purposes.
Since the government review started on 1 June, the number in detention has dropped sharply – 78 compared to 594 in the same period under Labour in 2009. Now the government is committed both to ensuring that no children are in detention over Christmas and that the policy is completely abolished by May. As previously announced, the family wing at Yarl’s Wood being shut. (More details here.)
Tom Brake (Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee on Home Affairs and Justice) has said of the news:
Today’s announcement marks the fulfilment of an important Liberal Democrat policy: by the first anniversary of the Coalition Agreement not a single child will be detained for immigration purposes.
Over the last five years of Labour’s government, an average of nearly seven children a day were in such detention, with 173 of them detained for more than a month in the last year alone. The average length of time children spent locked up over the five years was just under thirteen days.
The detention (a polite term for locking up) children involved in immigration cases was a policy that Labour at times almost seemed proud of as showing so-called ‘toughness’. It was also a policy which the ending of has been high on the list of coalition ‘must haves’ for many Liberal Democrats. Retaining such detention was also a policy that many Conservatives have argued hard for within the coalition since May. Today’s news is a clear example of something that would not have happened if the Conservatives were governing alone.
Two other significant policies where news was originally planned before Christmas will now await the new year. These are control orders (where the vigorous debate between Liberal Democrats and some Conservatives versus other Conservatives continues) and the next set of details on how elections by PR for a reformed Upper House will be carried out.
Both of those are important issues in their own right, but also will have an important political impact. If ending child detention is followed by control orders being axed and radical plans for the Upper House, then tuition fees will look like the (very important) exception in how the coalition is doing at delivering policies Liberal Democrats have long argued for. However, if the government does not deliver on one or both, the big political risk is that tuition fees starts to look like a typical outcome for the coalition – with a resulting rapid drop in support for it from Liberal Democrats.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Matt Sanders selected by Lib Dems for South West Hertfordshire
Chase Park fair photos
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Nigel Jones
Katharine Pindar
52 Comments
Good and all, but are the children with their families or have they been split up so that this box can be ticked?
Ending of child detention by putting the children in care and leaving their parents inside would not be a win in my book.
@Ellie families will be kept together
The maximum a child was kept in detention was 91 days and when I visited Yarl’s Wood there were over 30 children in the unit. At least 5 of whom were babies under 2!
Very welcome news. I hear their is some sniping from the Tory backbenches regarding possible absconds so it is excellent that the Lib Dems have delivered this.
“Two other significant policies where news was originally planned before Christmas will now await the new year. These are control orders (where the vigorous debate between Liberal Democrats and some Conservatives versus other Conservatives continues) and the next set of details on how elections by PR for a reformed Upper House will be carried out.”
I don’t think for 1 minute that control orders will go. sure it might be repackaged and called something else, and a couple of the restrictions might be relaxed, but essentially it will still be a control order called something else.
according to the bbc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12000406
“Senior Liberal Democrats are understood to be ready to accept a ban on travel for terror suspects.
They are also ready to accept some restrictions on use of telecommunications.
It is understood, for example, that mobile phones and computers could be used by the suspects under certain conditions.
The terminology would be changed and a new name given to control orders.”
No doubt, by making Control Orders Lite, Nick Clegg will be coming out shouting that these are progressive and the only alternative on the table and all ministers will be whipped into supporting the policies and voting for the renewal, even though they would be breaking another manifesto pledge, to scrap control orders altogether.
Absolutely delighted by this announcement. It’s been quite a battle. Thanks to Nick for this news. In 13 years Labour allowed children of Asylum Seekers to be detained and as recently as last month when I raised this again in the House of Lords Labour’s former Minister – Jeff Rooker defended this “lock them up” policy. This was the main pledge that won my personal backing for the Coalition.
Excellent news then. Hurrah 🙂
Matt,
What you have described there sounds a lot like a compromise to me. It’s what happens when neither party in a discusion is willing to let the other side have all of what they want and we would be daft to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Accepting that compromises will happen is one of the big lessons for all of us now we have a coalition government and I for one would rather have control orders watered down (although I can take or leave the pointless politicking of a name change) than left as they are.
Just to add as an afterthought,
Apart from anything else, if they are left with their original name, Lib Dems can point to them and say “we tried to get them stopped but the Tories wouldn’t let us, so we did the best we could and made them as harmless as possible” instead of what we saw with tuition fees, which was a lame attempt to make the compromise sound as though it was what we wanted all along. I strongly suspect it was that rather than the policy itself that caused the enormous slump in popularity for the party.
Ellie, I think you’re probably correct over tuition fees.
@Ellie
so you think Control Orders Lite would be acceptable?
You think, that by just reducing the hours of the curfew slightly, allowing some form of telecommunications in a controlled situation, and banning travel. ALL this without an actual trial by Jury, is a compromise and should be acceptable?
Considering The Liberal Democrats and every single one of their MP’s have voted against Control orders, every year since there introduction in 2005, You think “re-branding” and relaxing parts of the order slightly is acceptable and should allow Liberal Democrats to hail it as a victory and give them the go ahead to support them.
Even if the restrictions are relaxed “slightly” These people are still denied a fair trial in front of a jury, where they can hear the evidence against them and then a barrister can form their defence.
If this was allowed to pass, all for the sake of coalition, and keeping the Tories happy, then it will go to show just how weak and irrelevant Liberal Democrats are in government, and just how much the Parliamentary Party has stolen your party away from you
Reducing control orders to being basically a form of travel restriction would be a huge improvement on the status quo.
@Athirat
I don’t think you will find it is being reduced to “just travel restrictions”
And I thought True Liberal Democrats, believed in having a FAIR trial, where they are presented with the evidence, so they can form a defence.
Any sanctions placed on a person who has not received a fair trial is Illiberal, And that is what Liberal Democrats have been opposed to for years.
Moving the Goal Post at the 11th hour is a sham and another cop out, and as I said before, it will show just how Irrelevant the Liberal Democrats are as a party.
Great news, but it should have been announced in the Commons first. What difference does another 12 hours make to the mass media? So far as I can see, only Steve Webb (with a major pensions statement) has been true to the government’s promise to reverse Labour’s disrespect for parliament.
matt, you missed out the all-important bit in the BBC report that ‘Lib Dems are insisting that any future terror suspects be subject to the new regime as a precursor to prosecution, not as an alternative.” It’s the absence of any need for a move towards prosecution that are the key way in which control orders are unacceptable.
Here are Chris Huhne’s criteria in a 2009 parliamentary debate: “If control order-like powers are still needed for a few individuals, they must be granted by a judge, time limited, subject to a higher standard of proof than mere reasonable suspicion, and subject to regular and thorough assessments of the possibility of prosecution. Securing convictions or letting the innocent go free should be the key goals.”
Congratulations on achieving this. This is great news! Now please keep pushing for control orders to be axed.
Excellent news. The amount of distress caused to children and parents by locking up children was never, ever, proportional to its purpose and I’m glad that this Coalition pledge will be implemented in full. I’m also glad that families will not be split up, which would hardly be much of an improvement from the children’s point of view.
We need to keep pushing on control orders, both as a party (as I am sure is happening) but also as individual members. Please write to the Prime Minister to urge him to scrap control orders and allow wiretap evidence in court instead so that real terrorists can be convicted and the unfairly suspected can be let free: http://www.number10.gov.uk/footer/contact-us
@matt: The UK government already places travel bans on suspected football hooligans to prevent them from going to big matches abroad. Is this disproportionate and a breach of the principle of a fair trial or is it enough that they have previous convictions for hooliganism?
But the people subject to control orders now, will continue to do so, without a trial by jury or even by knowing the full evidence against them.
And future Suspects will still be subjected to the same Orders, Just re-branded, Without knowing the full evidence against them, therefore not being able to form a defence.
Do you really think that is Liberal?
I am shocked to the core if Liberal Democrats are prepared too and going too move yet another Red Line.
Basically, the Lib Dems’ job re. control orders is to ensure that whatever they are replaced by doesn’t quack like a duck in terms of civil liberties and human rights violations. The fact that the publication of the review has been continually delayed – four times, and now seemingly until after the New Year? – is I think testament to the fact that the Lib Dems are doing a lot of pushing.
@Niklas Smith
“@matt: The UK government already places travel bans on suspected football hooligans to prevent them from going to big matches abroad. Is this disproportionate and a breach of the principle of a fair trial or is it enough that they have previous convictions for hooliganism?”
I thought the whole point was that they do not have previous convictions for hooliganism.
And no I do not think it is right to impose travel restrictions on anyone, unless their is evidence and they have been trialled and convicted in a court.
If a football hooligan is convicted, then the should have their passports removed for a Timed ban, Like a Driving Licence is removed by the Courts.
But we are talking about Something completely different here “Control Orders” And People being subjected to Travel sanctions, communications, Curfews and Electronic Tagging all without hearing any evidence or being able to to prepare a reasonable defence.
matt – do you know the details of the review already?!
@Valeriet
“Basically, the Lib Dems’ job re. control orders is to ensure that whatever they are replaced by doesn’t quack like a duck in terms of civil liberties and human rights violations. The fact that the publication of the review has been continually delayed – four times, and now seemingly until after the New Year? – is I think testament to the fact that the Lib Dems are doing a lot of pushing”
Lets be honest here for 1 minute. The reason the Publication of the review has been put back 4 times already is because the coalition knows that this is going to be a major car crash for the government and for Nick Clegg in particular, Lets not pretend about that.
There is even talk of Control Orders being renewed Temporarily ” 6 months” whilst Security Services try and come up with an alternative.
Everybody with half a brain knows that the government is stalling. Control Orders are renewed every 12 months, and the Coalition has had 7 months to review these control orders already.
Cameron and Clegg are dreading the renewal as they know, that so soon after the Tuition Fee’s Disaster and the drop to 8% in the Polls for Liberal Democrats, The fact that so many members and activists are leaving the party in their droves, Renewal of Control Orders are potentially going to kick the support for the Liberal Democrats so far back, It will be disastrous for the coalition and especially the Liberal Democrats.
That is why Cameron said back in October, this is going to be a F*****G car crash.
Stalling on this is bloody shameful, They should release the details of the review and allow MP’s to start debating it.
Instead what they will do, is the same with tuition fee’s, release the review a couple of weeks before the Vote, Then hurry and bully their party into supporting them.
And it seems as though Liberal Democrats as a whole are prepared now to abandon any of their values and principles, all to hold on to power
@Valeriet
“Basically, the Lib Dems’ job re. control orders is to ensure that whatever they are replaced by doesn’t quack like a duck in terms of civil liberties and human rights violations. The fact that the publication of the review has been continually delayed – four times, and now seemingly until after the New Year? – is I think testament to the fact that the Lib Dems are doing a lot of pushing”
Lets be honest here for 1 minute. The reason the Publication of the review has been put back 4 times already is because the coalition knows that this is going to be a major car crash for the government and for Nick Clegg in particular, Lets not pretend about that.
There is even talk of Control Orders being renewed Temporarily ” 6 months” whilst Security Services try and come up with an alternative.
Everybody with half a brain knows that the government is stalling. Control Orders are renewed every 12 months, and the Coalition has had 7 months to review these control orders already.
Cameron and Clegg are dreading the renewal as they know, that so soon after the Tuition Fee’s Disaster and the drop to 8% in the Polls for Liberal Democrats, The fact that so many members and activists are leaving the party in their droves, Renewal of Control Orders are potentially going to lose further support for the Liberal Democrats, It will be disastrous for the coalition and especially the Liberal Democrats.
That is why Cameron said back in October, this is going to be a car crash.
Stalling on this is bloody shameful, They should release the details of the review and allow MP’s to start debating it.
Instead what they will do, is the same with tuition fee’s, release the review a couple of weeks before the Vote, Then hurry and bully their party into supporting them.
And it seems as though Liberal Democrats as a whole are prepared now to abandon any of their values and principles, all to hold on to power
Excellent news.
It is frustrating it has taken so long, and even more so that we have to wait until May. Does this mean there will be more detentions in the meantime?
But …
The Liberal Democrats are the only party who wanted to implement this policy, and with a presence of just 57 MPs this policy will now go through.
That is a great achievement.
@matt
The ideal with control orders would be no compromise, the rule of law, and innocent until proven guilty. I’m sure there will be a compromise, but I’m hoping for as close to that as possible.
If you too believe in innocent until proven guilty, wouldn’t it be sensible to wait until you hear the proposals before you condemn them?
@George Kendall.
“The ideal with control orders would be no compromise, the rule of law, and innocent until proven guilty. I’m sure there will be a compromise, but I’m hoping for as close to that as possible.
If you too believe in innocent until proven guilty, wouldn’t it be sensible to wait until you hear the proposals before you condemn them?”
Come now George, Do you honestly believe hand on heart that the are not going to be renewed, even if it is a slightly watered down version?
It is still being convicted without a fair trial, no matter how many minor tweaks that are made to it.
You only have to watch the new reports and read the ones on the BBC website, to see what’s going to happen.
There is no possible justification for the review not to have published it findings already, which would allow people, and the MP’s to debate the contents of that review. It is being delayed as long as possible so their is no time for proper debate, So that MP’s can be bullied and hurried into making a decisions again
Can I request we discuss control orders on a separate thread? I am sure the opportunity will arise in due course.
On this particular issue I cannot find an official response from the Labour party, I wonder why?
This article was written and included Control Orders, why shouldn’t it be discussed here?
Nobody is taking away the fact that the end of child detention should not be celebrated and is in fact a Huge Victory for the Liberal Democrat Party, and one that should be welcomed by everyone.
However we should not ignore control orders and shirk away from discussing it, just because it is uncomfortable for the party right now
Matt
I’m well aware that it does not look like to be shaping out to be the ideal policy, which would be the whole-scale scrapping of control orders. But I completely reject your notion that ideological purity must become before progress. If we denigrate reforms simply because they do not reach the unachievable ideal we would never progress.
(I’m assuming it is unachievable – perhaps you can see a route by which the Lib Dems would be able to scrap Control Orders completely, I’d be interested to hear it),
@ellie I think your points are very strong and i hope the leadership are listening.
@matt – even if there is some compromise on this the outcome will still be far better than if we had had a minority Conservative government (the Conservatives support control orders) or a minority Labour government (Labour strongly support control orders) and I am not aware that it is something Labour would have given ground on had we had a Lib/Lab government. So this seems to be the best available outcome to me.
that did not read right, sorry.
Should have said. Nobody is denying the fact that the end of Child Detention should be celebrated and it is a huge victory for the Liberal Democrat and one that should be welcomed by everybody.
The fact remains that it is in the Liberal Democrat Manifesto, To totally abolish Control Orders.
Control Orders go against Civil Liberties, which is everything the party stands for.
ALL 57 Liberal Democrats MP’s, have voted against control orders every year since 2005, when they where introduced.
Therefore it would be total absurd for those same MP’s to now Vote to keep control orders, just because they are in government and in coalition.
It would be a classic example of Behaving one way in Opposition just to oppose government and gain support of a section of society that are totally opposed to control orders which breech peoples civil liberties, Just to then act totally the opposite when in Government.
Just because this is going to be difficult for the party, does not mean that they should compromise their values once again and allow the Tories to get their way.
The party needs to stand firm stick to it’s core beliefs.
Is it really more important to vote in favour of coalition yet again. over standing up to your principles?
@Matt – could you respond to Athirat’s question? Basically, how could we achieve the total abolition of control orders?
@Henry
I do not believe in imposing sanctions on people without them having a fair trial, where they are able to hear the evidence against them and are able to have a barrister that can form their defence.
I believe the police and the crown prosecution should be able to use intercepted evidence in a court. It is used in other countries.
After someone is given a fair trial, If convicted, they should be sentenced accordingly.
That would mean, either being sent to prison for engaging in terrorist activities or being subject to Control Orders.
But only when they have been fairly trialled.
How many times has Clegg announced the ending of child detention for immigration purposes? As I have said before, I won’t be cheering until I see what the coalition will do to replace it. Increase use of ‘dawn raiding’ is just as immoral in my opinion.
Excellent news and a milestone achievement to everyone involved in the effort including the many children’s charities that have stayed on this issue and emphasised enough. This is the best gift to children in christmas and I can already see the good start to 2011! 🙂
Excellent news indeed. However:
“If ending child detention is followed by control orders being axed and radical plans for the Upper House, then tuition fees will look like the (very important) exception in how the coalition is doing at delivering policies Liberal Democrats have long argued for. ”
Sorry, that’s too optimistic. The nation at large isn’t interested in plans for the Upper House and doesn’t much care about whether a few people are subject to control orders. The nation does care about student fees, alongside jobs, taxes, fairness, public services, and keeping promises. Winning on what the nation sees as sideshow issues doesn’t look like winning.
Disagree. Persons released on bail have restrictions placed on them (typically with regards to travel), and have not yet received a fair trial.
The problem with control orders is that they are restrictions placed on persons who will never receive a fair trial.
This could be really good news, but some clarification on the detail would be helpful. I am worried by this:
Professor Carolyn Hamilton, the director of the Children’s Legal Centre, said she was happy with the “long overdue” closure of Yarl’s Wood’s family wing but said the government had not gone far enough to end child detention.
She said: “We are disappointed that the current detention system will not end until May. Furthermore, the proposals for secure and supervised pre-departure accommodation appear to be detention by another name. Holding children in accommodation from which their parents are not allowed to leave for up to a week may prove just as psychologically damaging as other forms of detention.
“If we are to have the ‘most child-friendly immigration system in the developed world’, as Nick Clegg has promised, there is still a long way to go. Rebranding detention is not the same as ending it.”
@Matt – that wasn’t my question. No Liberal Democrat disagrees with you, and we remain the only party which opposes control orders [if we had a majority].
My question was this – How do you propose that 57 Liberal Democrat MPs overturn the determinations over 550 other MPs who support control orders. In the present practical situation, how will we do this?
I do of course, utterly agree with you, and long, deeply for constitutional protection – but the only party which supports this, yours and mine, does not have a majority.
I don’t think anyone disagrees with you Matt. But it can’t be done until another General Election takes place and people vote for the protection of our civil liberties. Put simply, this hasn’t happened yet.
Oh dear I fear Matt is struggling to fit the reality into his own world view with his persistant posting that presumably deliberately fails to acknowledge the cogent arguments fon what looks to be an unalloyed Lib Dem victory.
Now given Labour have betrayed every single voter from May by abandoning every single policy they fought that election. What’s more their current leadership is so devoid of original thought that Ed Miliband is asking renegade Lib Dems to help him fill his blank piece of paper.
Anyway here’s my advice to Matt and his Labour cronies on what their new policies should be…
http://livingonwords.blogspot.com/2010/12/what-ed-miliband-should-put-on-his.html
Dan – I think you’re being unfair on Matt, and we shouldn’t assume people are Labour just because they disagree. Hopefully though, he’ll understand that we are limited only by our smaller number of MPs. A bit of electoral reform and a few more votes could rectify this, but for now we are in the situation we are in…
@David Allen “The nation at large isn’t interested in plans for the Upper House and doesn’t much care about whether a few people are subject to control orders. The nation does care about student fees, alongside jobs, taxes, fairness, public services, and keeping promises. Winning on what the nation sees as sideshow issues doesn’t look like winning.”
True. But Lib Dem members and activists do care. Whether we are rewarded by the electorate is a secondary issue.
@Henry “Dan – I think you’re being unfair on Matt, and we shouldn’t assume people are Labour just because they disagree.”
I agree, I don’t think matt is a Labour supporter. But, @matt, I must say, the way you constantly try to divert any positive discussion about the Lib Dems into a negative discussion, does make you look like one.
For the record I am a floating voter now and not affiliated with any party, I have voted both Labour and Liberal Democrats in the past, and at the last election I voted for Simon Wrighte and the Liberal Democrats.
After corresponding with Simon Wrighte over tuition fee’s and him keeping his promise and voted against the Fee’s I may well vote for him again in the future.
I fully understand that we vote for an MP to represent us in Parliament and not for a party, However there would be certain actions taken by the party as a whole that would stop me from ever voting for a liberal democrat candidate again.
1) Control Orders, I am fiercely against anybody being sanctioned like this, without being presented with the evidence, having access to a barrister to form a defence, and then being trialled in a court in front of a Jury, And if the matter does contain so much secret information that can not be heard by members of the public or jury, then it should be heard by a panel of 12 Judges who can make a ruling. But The Person charged, must know all the evidence against them, so they can form a defence, That is how our British Justice System is supposed to work.
I fail to see why intercepted evidence can not be used in court, many other countries uses this evidence in this way.
All 57 Liberal Democrat MP’s have voted against Control orders since 2005.
If you believe in something so passionately as the Liberal Democrats have on Civil liberties, Then you should vote with your conscience, Not to do so is a cop out.
If Liberal Democrats where to stand firm, then it could force the government to change the law and to allow for intercepted evidence to be used in a court. And those already subject to control orders can be trialled and thrown in Prison where they belong, if it is proven that they have engaged in terrorist activity.
You can not spend 70 years in opposition, writing manifesto’s every 4 years, saying this is what the party stands for and what the party believes in. Then the 1st chance you get to spend in Government, make complete U-Turns on all those policies and Principles.
If nothing else, it proves that Plural Politics does not work
Finally @ George Kenadall “I must say, the way you constantly try to divert any positive discussion about the Lib Dems into a negative discussion, does make you look like one.”
The only things I come out on a negative discussion about Liberal Democrats on this site is
Education, Welfare, Sick & Disabled, and Civil Liberties, And that’s because those are the people who are being abandoned the most by this coalition Government.
Even Liberal Democrat activists have said on this site, that in the private members, Liberal Democrats are ignoring discussions that matter {putting heads in the sand} and discussing topics of irrelevance.
MP’s are putting their hands in the sands and avoiding these issues, hoping they will slip by quietly and get their votes through the House of Commons.
If People don’t kick up a stink about these things, MP’s will think we don’t care, and think they a green light to do what they like.
In My Opinion That is what these open forums are for, a place where you can air your views and opinions, even if it is uncomfortable for your party
@Dan Falchikov
“Anyway here’s my advice to Matt and his Labour cronies on what their new policies should be…
http://livingonwords.blogspot.com/2010/12/what-ed-miliband-should-put-on-his.html”
How pointless and Childish, And you actually went to the effort to right that Dross.
It makes me even more determined to write on places like this, because if this is the Intelligence and the views of most of those in the Liberal Democrat Party , Then God Help us All
@Matt – hopefully you will have read my comments and realise that this is not the ‘views of most of those in the Liberal Democrat Party’.
However, you suggested that standing firm might secure a change – it might, and I am fairly confident that Lib Dems in government are doing this, but it might not be. There remains, with Labour and Conservatives, an overwhelming majority to keep control orders. So I think this is the crux of our disagreement.
A quote from Mill to keep you going: ‘Their practical conduct as politicians necessarily partakes of compromise. Their demands and systematic aims must often fall short of their principles. But let them not therefore cut down their principles to the measure of their demands.’
Also, good to hear that you will likely continue to support Simon Wright. He is excellent.
Some very, very good news. It didn’t happen overnight, but it shows that when people of goodwill get together and try to sort out a problem like this, some sort of solution can be drawn up that is much much better than the status quo.
@Henry
I did read your response and I did appreciate your comments.
I would like to ask you a question though if I may.
Since 2005 all Liberal Democrat MP’s whilst in opposition have voted against control Orders, Where they wrong to oppose these control from the comfy of the opposition benches?
Please don’t take my comment to be rude in anyway, as that is not how it is intended, I actually appreciate engaging with people like yourself, who are prepared to debate an issue, rather than other Members, who will go unnamed but who prefer to resort to insults.
BTW, although I said I am prepared to support Simon Wrighte as our MP for the moment, and I do hold the man in high respect, since my engagement with him over tuition fee’s and the fact that he stuck to his pledge. Unfortunately though there would be actions that the Liberal Party takes as a whole, which would result in me stopping that support for him as an individual. And that would be if the party continues to lurch further to the right, or further cuts to those on welfare
@Matt – The Liberal Democrats were indeed right to vote against Control Orders, and would be wrong now if they voted for them. However, if they negotiated a far weaker, more liberal alternative – even if it wasn’t quite what we wanted – this would be acceptable to vote for based on the notion of compromise and working with other people who we do not agree with.
In a similar instance, if I were elected, I would usually vote against elected police commissioners, but if, through consultation and compromise, a rehabilitation programme and reduction in pointless imprisonment were adopted, I might agree to vote for them.
The point I am trying to make is a) compromise happens [in every walk of life], b) it can even happen contrary to your principles if those principles are un-attainable in the practical context [we might disagree on this], and c) we don’t even know what will be proposed yet… I am still optimistic.
@Henry
I do get what your saying and I do appreciate where you are coming from.
But the Issue for me is not just the content of the control order and whether the Liberal Democrats manage to negotiate leaner restrictions, but is more the fact that the accused is not given a fair trial.
They are not presented with all the evidence against them, in some instances, the accused are not even made aware of the actual offences that are being alleged against them, Just that they are being accused of terrorism activity. How Can someone defend themselves or even deny something that they have no idea what they are being accused of? And how are they to form a defence?
It goes totally against our civil liberties and the right to a fair trial, And that in my opinion is what the liberal democrats should be voting against.
If you truly believe that something is wrong, then you must stand by your principles, We can not accept a watered down version of a control on the basis of it being progress.
Something is either right or it is wrong, There is no in-between,
A Control Order is not like a Departmental Budget where 2 parties can negotiate Cuts to spending and compromise in coalition.
A Control Order is a denial of a Beings Civil Liberties and a right to a fair trial, and for me there should be no compromise
I am Deeply disappointed that nobody seems to want to continue to debate over control orders.
I know it is an issue that is deeply sensitive for the party, however it should not be something that is ignored.
The BBC has been reporting for the last couple of days, that ministers are getting close to a deal over control orders.
People seem to be flippant about the fact that the review on Control Orders has been completed, The Government are just choosing not to publish it yet.
The only reason that they will not publish the review, is because they know this is going to be extremely uncomfortable for the coalition, especially those from the Liberal Democrat Party, So they are hammering out a deal with the ministers, before publishing the details.
I did not think that was the purpose of reviews, I thought the whole point was, to publish the findings of the review, allow MP’s to debate the content of the review, then ministers put forward policies, Parliament then debates them once more before finally taking a vote.
The fact that ministers are already close to a deal should be of cause for concern for some people. Once the Policy is decided, the Party will be whipped into supporting it.
People should be making there feelings clear to their Parliamentary Party and sending them a signal of what would and wouldn’t be acceptable to them. Otherwise, how do you expect to influence policy?
Or is it just a case that we have Liberal Democrats in Government now, so we allow them to tell us what is and isn’t acceptable?
@Matt – you are being a bit unfair now. I will debate the issue further when we know what is coming forward – at the moment, we don’t and as mentioned, whether or not our ministers can vote for it is dependent on what is proposed. I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about trial/charge/innocence and justice, but we must wait and see what is proposed – if we had a Lib Dem majority, I have no doubt that these would have gone in weeks, once services were able to consider how to protect liberty without infringing it.
@Henry
I don’t think my post was being unfair. The Government is holding back the contents of the review, I am not saying that is Liberal Democrats fault, I am saying that is the Government.
If a Review has been completed, then they should let us know the conclusions of that review so that we and MP’s can start debating the review, Before the Ministers go ahead and draw up the policy, which the party will then be whipped into supporting.
That is how a review is supposed to work.
But they have put back publishing it, 4 times now.
The Public should get to have their say, and speak to their own MP’s about the proposals.
The Control Orders have to be renewed early next year, and it looks as though, the review will be released just before MP’s are expected to vote, not giving the public or parliament time to debate.
This is some of the decisions taken on control orders since 11th September 2010 and 10th December 2010
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/parliamentary-business/written-ministerial-statement/wms-control-orders/?view=Standard&pubID=848600
It is worth noting that in this period. 1 person has been placed on a Non-Derogating Control Order http://www.terrorismlaw.info/index.php?id=15
1 has been renewed
2 control orders Expired and {Not Renewed} No explanation for not renewing them
1 control order, made in a previous quarter but never served
In total, as of 10 December, there were eight control orders in force, all of which were in respect of British citizens