You don’t usually raise an eyebrow when Lib Dems stand up for civil liberties – it’s what we do, it’s what we are. We even know that there are liberal-minded Tories (you, stop sniggering…) with whom the greatest common ground we share is on defending the freedoms, rights and liberties we enjoy; just look at the civil liberties paragraphs in the Coalition agreement.
It is right, however, to raise an eyebrow – possibly both – at the widely anticipated rebellion over whether to retain or rescind control orders for terrorist suspects; not just at the timing, coming so soon after heavy concessions appear to have been made over tuition fees and many aspects of the CSR, but at the public show of dissent against a Coalition policy.
That Control Orders are authoritarian Human Rights violations is probably self-evident to this audience – to those for whom that isn’t the case on principle, it’s likely you’d oppose them nonetheless on the grounds that by trampling on our own citizens’ liberties we lose the leverage to preach ‘freeman moxy’ to others around the world.
What’s interesting, and heartening for this Lib Dem, is the principled stance our Ministers have taken over the last few days since it emerged that a review of the counter-terrorism regime is likely to recommend the retention of control orders, with the concession that detention-without-charge should be reduced to 14 days instead of 28. Conducted under the auspices of Lib Dem peer and former DPP Ken McDonald, it appears as though the team compiling the report has reached conclusions at odds with its senior author – McDonald seems set to file a minority report (no, not using Spielberg’s pre-cogs…) arguing against the findings of his own review – seemingly because the security lobby appears to have won the day in recommending that control orders remain on the statute book. Chris Huhne is just one Lib Dem MP to have spoken out quite clearly against the retention of control orders, and rightly so.
Now here’s the thing – over the past few months we’ve heard the party’s senior leadership state again and again that Lib Dems aren’t just along for the ride – that coalition policy is something Lib Dems ought to be proud of. In so many instances this is indeed true; whether you look at the introduction of a Pupil Premium, the referendum on voting reform, the scrapping of ID cards or the Green Deal, you’d be hard-pressed to argue that Lib Dems haven’t implemented at least some of our headline policies. The key has been the extent to which policies our membership (and many MPs) disagree with – whether on housing, free schools or tuition fees – have been supported by Lib Dems in Parliament – all for the sake of unity in government.
As a supporter of the Coalition I understand the need for collective responsibility, but the debate over control orders – and the strong language used by our MPs in defending Lib Dem policy thereon – shows that when we really want to, we can stand up to our partners in government and make our influence known. Civil liberties are proving to be an interesting test case, showing that our MPs and Cabinet members are indeed willing to stand up for our values – the membership and the electorate will no doubt be watching to see how this precedent will affect Coalition politics in months to come as tough decisions are taken as to which elements of government policy we stand by, and which we stand up against – I look forward to more of the latter as and when it’s necessary!
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Sausage company launches free rural bus service
Friends of Balgay event on Saturday! #dundeewestend
The "Just War" tradition
Our kids need a lorra, lorra, larffs!!
Merlene Emerson
Michael BG
Joseph Bourke
Matthew Radmore
Roland
13 Comments
Alex Carlile argued in favour of control orders on The Week in Westminster R4 this morning. The crux of his argument is that they are the only way of detailing 3 or 4 people who would be a real danger to society if released. We will need to deal with this point if control orders are going to be abolished. But they must be abolished.
“Civil liberties are proving to be an interesting test case, showing that our MPs and Cabinet members are indeed willing to stand up for our values – the membership and the electorate will no doubt be watching to see how this precedent will affect Coalition politics in months to come as tough decisions are taken as to which elements of government policy we stand by, and which we stand up against – I look forward to more of the latter as and when it’s necessary”
I don’t understand why Liberal democrats think they can hold the “Thin Red Line” on control orders
And can object openly about the coalition on this issue.
But they can not do the same with Tuition Fee’s, Cuts To HB and LHA and Mobility Allowance to people in care homes.
Mind you, lets not forget that the coalition does not get to vote on Control orders, It is not something parliament votes on.
So I guess they feel they can talk tough on something they have no control over.
It is Liberal to use your voice to speak up for Civil Liberties, but please remember it’s also Liberal to add your voice to the young, poor, sick and disabled.
Did I not hear the LibDem minister, Jeremy Browne, accepting the argument for control orders, on BBC Question Time?
The way I see it, the crux of his argument is that (a) he cannot prove that they are a real danger to society, and (b) he’s begging to be excused from having to prove it.
The problem in relying on “independant” reviews such as this is that they can give the practical rather than the principled answer.
For example, I think we can be pretty sure those under control orders are not the sort of people we would invite home for dinner. They probably do have links to terrorism, and are probably also dangerous. Therefore for the police, security services (and even in their quasi judicial role succesive Home Secretaries) Control Orders meet their need and they are almost bound to support them. They are only making practical decisions based upon their roles. The principled position is that they are wrong and we should either charge these people then try them in a court of law or release them.
I believe we vote for politicians to take principled positions at times like this and therefore whilst the review may point to difficulties the control orders should go. Having said that Jeremy Browne did seem to be preparing the way for a climbdown using the same phrases that used to raise derision from opposition benches when coming from Labour Ministers.
If I am totally honest with myself, Control orders and 28 days detention is something that i really am unsure of and struggle with.
On the one hand, I can not understand why we are not allowed to use “intercepted” evidence in a court of law.
I get the whole civil liberties thing that governments should not be able to use phone taps ( cough cough splutter Andy Coulson)
I also get the fact that in certain circumstances in the interest of National security, certain evidence needs to be kept from the public domain.
What I don’t get is, why, if the Government can prove that they had good reason to use interception techniques, and also that the evidence they acquired would prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person was engaged in terrorist activity, why this evidence can’t be used in a Court and the subject be trialled according to British Laws.
If there is evidence, that a person has engaged in terrorist activity or even incitement to cause hate, in my opinion, that person should be trialled, convicted and locked up and taken off the streets, And that includes anyone who causes hatred towards Islamic faiths or western beliefs. I would not want to see these persons on control orders or on strict bail condition’s, but locked up in a prison cell, where they have no prospects of spreading their filth amongst the general population.
That’s the other reason, why I can not understand why we need 28 days without charge.
If there was recorded proof, that someone was violating laws, inciting hatred or terrorism, surly it should be a cut and dry case.
The thing I don’t agree with though, is parties that take a political stance, whilst in opposition, and make arguments of why these control orders are wrong, and then once in Government, make a complete U-turn on policies. It is confusing to the public.
That is not directed just at the Liberal Party either, It is Directed at Conservatives as well.
@Stephen Donnelly: Interesting argument, but one that for me just doesn’t hold water. If there is evidence that these ‘3 or 4 people’ are a danger to society, they should be made aware of the charges against them and the evidence for those charges, and tried in court – detaining them under this legal limbo between being accused of a crime and being free from suspicion not only infringes on their own liberty, it makes them a cause celebre for the terrorist cause.
@Matt: I don’t follow – according to the Telegraph, Tory MP David Davis says up to 50 Coalition MPs would oppose the retention of control orders, should a vote take place – so as I understand it Parliament may well get its say.
I’ll reply to the rest of your most interesting comments in a while, still busy with family stuff this Diwali weekend 🙂
@jayu: Jeremy Browne is a government Minister and as such has to, at least in public, toe the line that government holds – until a vote is taken. I do not believe he supports control orders, but that he was presenting the argument that there is a balance to be struck – this debate is not straightforward case.
@Steve Way: I agree that there is a distinction between technocrats and elected representatives – the latter lean on the former to give their (often ideological) policies technical weight, but in doing so run the risk that the evidence/recommendations that emerge conflict with their political stance – viz Browne review of higher education. I do not believe that Jeremy Browne was preparing for a U-turn, although that remains to be seen.
@Matt: agree that 28 days without charge is as needless as it is illiberal – and again acts as a recruiting tool for the very unsavoury elements we are supposed to be protecting ourselves against.
In general, my interest lies in the choice of control orders as the issue on which the Coalition is to publicly divide – as Matt points out, there have been a number of policies already implemented that go against Lib Dem thinking in one way or another, but they have been allowed to pass or supported in the interests of political unity – I wonder if control orders have been chosen as a precedent-setting policy, to test the water as to how the govt deals with a ‘rebellion,’ and to learn lessons from as and when another ‘red line issue’ emerges…
@Prateek Buch
I always thought there was some separate legislation that would allow government to keep control orders, even if it was not supported by the Majority of MP’s, If government felt it was in the interest of National Security. I maybe wrong on that then.
I do wonder how these control order are civil liberties are going to effect the coalition though.
I found the following article of interest
http://www.cageprisoners.com/our-work/opinion-editorial/item/778-government-faces-major-rebellion-on-control-orders
In that article, I noted that, on March 1 this year, when the House of Commons voted on whether or not to renew control orders, as they have done every year since 2005, almost every Lib Dem MP — including Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, Chris Huhne and Danny Alexander — voted against the renewal of the legislation, whereas just one Tory — the maverick David Davis — joined them
Nick Clegg condemned the “control order regime” in these terms: “It removes the pressure to charge and prosecute the criminals whom we all want to see apprehended. It diverts energy and attention away from other important innovations that we should be examining to strengthen our criminal justice system, and it infringes the most fundamental principles of due process and human rights.” The Liberal Democrat manifesto pledged to abolish control orders on the grounds that: “The best way to combat terrorism is to prosecute terrorists, not give away hard-won British freedoms.
I can not see how Nick Clegg would be able to make a complete U-Turn on this policy and vote differently to how he has for the last 5 years.
” the strong language used by our MPs in defending Lib Dem policy thereon – shows that when we really want to, we can stand up to our partners in government and make our influence known”
Exactly – shame they aren’t doing it more often.
I do not see how Nick Clegg would change the way he has voted for Control Orders since 2005.
Every year he has voted to abolish control orders.
Now he is a Government Minister, surly he can not now vote to keep them
Prateek: I agree that Alex Carlile’s argument should not prevail, but we need to answer the question of how we deal with people who may be about to carry out at terrorist act. We cannot wait until after they have carried out the offence ! Liberals often make the mistake of forgetting that they are in a minority. Whilst the argument against control orders is self evident for us, the majority of the population see a balanced debate, or often merely a desire to protect themselves against terrorism. We have to win the debate, and win it against the opposition of an illiberal media.
Happy to answer
If there is evidence that they ‘may be about to carry out a terrorist act,’ arrest them under anti-terrorism legislation, charge them, and prosecute a case against them.
I simply fail to see how control orders help to deal with people against whom there is clear evidence that they have committed an offence under any legislation…