Tag Archives: counter-terrorism and security bill

Lib Dem Press Release: Lib Dem peers defeat Government on civil liberties

Liberal Democrat peers have defeated the Government on a key vote on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill.

Amendment 15, tabled jointly by Liberal Democrat frontbench spokesperson Brian Paddick and two Labour peers, creates exemptions to the new offence of “entering or remaining in a designated area” so that it doesn’t apply to aid workers, journalists, people visiting ill relatives or those attending funerals.

The amendment passed by 220 votes to 191.

Liberal Democrat peers also voted for another amendment, tabled jointly by Lord Paddick and Baroness Jones, to limit the Bill’s impact on freedom of speech. However, Labour abstained and Tory peers voted against the amendment, so it failed by 93 votes to 198.

Liberal Democrat MPs had previously voted against the Bill in the House of Commons, joined only by Caroline Lucas, but Labour voted with the Tories to pass it 376–10.

Brian Paddick, Liberal Democrat Lords Spokesperson for Home Affairs, said:

Through our opposition to these unnecessary, illiberal new laws, we have secured important changes that will reduce the risk of innocent people being wrongly convicted.

Posted in News | Also tagged and | 2 Comments

Baroness Sally Hamwee writes…”Pesky Lib Dem” Lords win crucial civil liberties changes to Counter Terrorism Bill

David Pickett photo Scooby Doo gang PEsky LIbDems legoThey call it the heavy lifting, or – less physical, more forensic – using a fine-tooth comb.  The second chamber is where detailed and precise scrutiny of legislation occurs.  For Bills which raise vital questions about civil liberties, such as the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill this is all the more important.  It was therefore to the surprise of Lib Dems in the Lords that it was, aside from a misplaced attempt to reintroduce the so-called “Snooper’s Charter”, almost exclusively Lib Dem peers doing the heavy lifting .  At one point I passed a note to Brian Paddick and Sarah Ludford, the team with me on the entirety of it: A lot of people want to talk about the issues we’ve raised but they couldn’t be ****d (complete to taste) to write their own amendments.

Our concern, really to make sure that this sort of legislation is fit for purpose and balances the need to protect the public with precious civil liberties, is often derided.  It is important to get every dot and comma right.  It is therefore a badge of honour to be accused by Norman Tebbit of “dancing around on pins” or, in Michael Howard’s words, “the pesky Lib Dems”.

The Bill that came to the Lords was very different from when it was first trailed by the Prime Minister, speaking to the Australian Parliament about “excluding” people from the UK.  Lib Dems in Government ensured that such claims, made for electoral reasons, were not reflected in the legislation that was finally published.  This is not to say it came to the Lords in a perfect state and our work has ensured that checks and balances on the State have been increased.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 7 Comments

Lord Roger Roberts: May’s Counter-Terror powers could enable her to ban liberalism

Lord Roger Roberts gave the following speech expressing his concerns about the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill in the House of Lords at its Second Reading on Tuesday:

I was delighted that Lord Carlile mentioned, in his contribution to the debate, the four Albanians—two Muslims and two Christians—who walked together in the demonstration in Paris

Multi-faith groups exist in many places and people are able to say, “My brother, my sister, my family; we are one family”. We could really tackle a lot of these stresses before they become threatening. There is an opportunity in some way or another to encourage it.

However, the world is full of uncertainties. I am not the only one who remembers the time when it was better to be red than dead—so some said. Others said that it was better to be dead than red. Today it is the difference, between security and liberty. We are trying to see where is the line that needs to be drawn. This Bill seeks to draw that line. I sometimes measure our civilisation by Alan Paton’s (the author of Cry, the Beloved Country) values. In a lecture in 1953, he declared himself a liberal and defined the term thus:

Posted in News | Also tagged and | 5 Comments

LibLink: Brian Paddick on the Counter Terrorism Bill

As the House of Lords settles down to begin its deliberations on the Counter Terrorism and Security Bill, Brian Paddick has given his impressions on the party website. His piece is very much a descriptive narrative of what the Bill aims to do. There’s no facility to leave questions on the website, but if you leave them here, we’ll see if we can get him to answer them.

Posted in LibLink | Also tagged | 3 Comments

Human Rights Committee criticises Terrorism Bill for plans to block UK citizens and for challenges to academic freedom

The knee-jerk reaction to any act of terrorism is to propose yet more regulations and legislation to prevent future attacks or to deal with the attackers. As liberals we have to be very careful to ensure that our civil and human rights are not being curtailed unnecessarily.

Posted in News | Also tagged and | 4 Comments

No ifs, buts or maybes. Liberal Democrats must not support Counter Terrorism and Security Bill in its current form.

I’ve written before that I have reservations about the Government’s Counter Terrorism and Security Bill. Last week, there were signs that Nick Clegg was going to insist on changes when it comes to the House of Lords.

The very least you would expect for a Bill that’s supported by Liberal Democrats is that it meets human rights standards. Today, a report by Parliament’s joint committee on human rights says that amendments are required in several key areas of the Bill:

Posted in News | Also tagged | 12 Comments

++Breaking: Clegg gets tough with Theresa on terror measures

I have been uneasy about some of the measures in the Counter Terrorism and Security Bill which will be debated in the Commons in the next two days. It will clear its Commons stages, but once the Lords get their hands on it, they could quite easily defeat some of its key provisions. Nick Clegg has signalled that Liberal Democrats may withdraw support if more judicial oversight isn’t guaranteed. The Guardian has the story:

Posted in News | Also tagged and | 14 Comments
Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarBernard Aris 14th Dec - 3:41pm
    @ Tom Harney Dear Tom, when you are a small trading country litterally sandwiched between three formerr world powers, it sure pays to know their...
  • User AvatarDavid Evans 14th Dec - 2:31pm
    The Conservatives chose to have their rebellion, but then pretended that leaving Theresa May in power for now was OK, because negotiating Brexit was a...
  • User AvatarNeil Sandison 14th Dec - 2:20pm
    We need to use are assets well Vince is the experienced sage on policy and european cooperation .Layla Moran is in the firebrand liberal campaigning...
  • User AvatarSandra Hammett 14th Dec - 1:58pm
    Pendulum Theory. You don't fight the fire of demagogue with direct opposition, taking the clearly defined ground on the other end of the scale. Neither...
  • User AvatarMichael BG 14th Dec - 1:51pm
    If I were PM I would calculate the increase in government revenue from the growth of the economy and allocate £6 billion to the NHS...
  • User AvatarGeoff Reid 14th Dec - 1:48pm
    Threatening self-harm to get your own way ..... I begin to wonder if the model for the posers of the Tory irreconcilable right should be...