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 Liberal Democrat conference voted overwhelmingly in favour of this measure being withdrawn because of its provisions on secret courts.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 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.
Advert

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.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarMark Seaman 22nd Oct - 1:31am
    MPs are beginning to stand against it .... yep .. when it is several years till they have to stand for election again. But the...
  • User AvatarMartin Walker 21st Oct - 10:33pm
    Mmm - while I agree with the differentiation between patriot and nationalist, I'm not sure that being willing to die for your country is a...
  • User Avatarpaul barker 21st Oct - 10:17pm
    I dont know what the future holds & neither does anyone else. Our Party has been damaged, not destroyed. We still have 100,000 members, probably...
  • User AvatarDavid Evans 21st Oct - 9:42pm
    Sadly Katharine, Nick took and used power and destroyed the future of Liberal Democracy at the same time. Perhaps you are happy for the good...
  • User Avatarexpats 21st Oct - 9:36pm
    Katharine Pindar 21st Oct '17 - 8:31pm.........Arnold, you are up against unreason and extremism here, but there are many of us who do agree with...
  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 21st Oct - 8:31pm
    Arnold, you are up against unreason and extremism here, but there are many of us who do agree with you. As Frankie almost said above,...