Secret Courts fight to continue at Scottish Conference

Last Sunday, I spoke in the debate against secret courts at Federal Conference in Brighton. This Friday, I'll be proposing a motion against this highly illiberal and unfair measure at Scottish Conference in Dundee. I am not going to post the speech I made in Brighton yet because I'm going to do the environmentally friendly thing and recycle it. Many Scots won't have heard it so I don't want to spoil the surprise. As I'm proposing the motion, I'll have some extra time to add stuff to it.

If you don't know much about this issue, Jo Shaw's speech proposing the motion in Brighton goes through many of the issues. I am still very upset that she felt she had no option but to resign from the party. We should not be losing such strong liberal voices as Jo. We need the expertise of people like Dinah Rose, and now, Philippe Sands as we seek to protect civil liberties.

Will we still like Mike after Monday's secret courts vote? #no2secretcourts

New Eastleigh MP Mike Thornton's life is about to change immeasurably. On Monday he takes his seat in Parliament. I don't know if he's visited the place before, but even now I've been there many times, my jaw drops every single time. When you go into the Scottish Parliament, it's all bright and shiny and new and modern. With Westminster, you can feel yourself stepping back a century or two when you step off the escalator from Portcullis House. I am sure it's going to be quite an overwhelming experience for him.

One of the very first things Mike is going to be asked to do is to vote on the dreaded Justice and Security Bill. For some reason, the vote on Part 2 is happening first, on Monday. That's the bit about secret courts which the party has made clear it opposes outright and wants to see deleted. Liberal Democrat MPs Mike Crockart and Julian Huppert tried to get the secret courts clause deleted at Committee stage and failed by one vote. Labour voted with them.

We don't yet know how Labour will vote on Monday. But if they decide that the Bill is too illiberal for them, the same people who wanted us all to have to carry ID cards or who wanted to lock people up without charge for 3 months, our civil liberties credentials will be severely compromised.

What's the problem with secret courts? Well, how can you possibly have a fair trial if one side is not allowed to see all of the evidence? If it's shown to a judge and a special advocate, but not to the person suing the Government. One of the foundations of our legal system is that decisions are made after evidence is properly tested in court. That means that all parties have to have sight of all of the evidence. If they don't, for example if some has been withheld, then it's a miscarriage of justice.

The other thing we need to think about is that surely the very essence of a liberal party is to protect the people from the excesses of the state. Why would we put the state in a position which makes it much easier for it to cover up complicity in torture. Did you see that Channel 4 drama, Complicit, the other week? The plot showed an MI5 officer basically ask a foreign "security official" to torture some information out of a British citizen he suspected had been sorting out smuggling of ricin into Britain. We never know whether the suspect is guilty or not. The information gained under torture proved to be false and he was pretty severely injured. Had he then sued the British Government for compensation for complicity in his torture, the chances are that would be heard in a secret court where he would not be able to see the evidence the government presented in its defence. The whole thing was presented as Moral Dilemma Central, but I'm afraid I don't see the dilemma. Torture is never, ever acceptable. And anything which makes it easier for a government to overstep the boundaries is really not on.

I think it would be good to give Mike an idea of how strongly the party feels about this. Conference was very clear last September that it wanted to see Part 2 of the Bill deleted. I think it might be a good idea for all of us who are opposed to secret courts were to email him this weekend and tell him why he should vote against this legislation. I understand it would be quite difficult for him to make his first ever vote in Parliament against his party. He wouldn't know where to go for a start. So it would be much easier if he had some company. Why not email the rest of our MPs and ask them to vote against the Bill too so he has company in the voting lobby. There will be some history geeks out there, I'm sure, who will be able to tell me if any MP has ever rebelled on their first vote.

But back to Mike. He very nicely sent us an email thanking us for all our help last night. I suspect that replies to that don't go straight to him, so I think it would be more effective to use his council email address, mike.thornton@eastleigh.gov.uk.

Oh, and as far as my question in the title of this piece is concerned, of course we will still like him. We liberals don't fall out with people because they disagree with us. Or we shouldn't, anyway. The activists from all over the country who poured into Eastleigh or spent hours on phone banks at home will really, really love him, though, if he does what Conference asked and voted to get rid of unfair and illiberal secret courts.Let's get to filling his inbox. Don't write loads - we don't want to overwhelm him - but do write. His first vote could be his most important.

Where now on secret courts? #no2secretcourts

Just before Christmas Jo Shaw wrote an update on the Lib Dems against Secret Courts campaign on Lib Dem Voice. For me, the most remarkable thing was that Nick Clegg had refused to meet those running the campaign.  I really don't see what such an attitude could gain, save to estrange the leadership from the party at a time when we all need to be working together.

This is an issue on which the party is fairly united. It's not an NHS Bill which gets the social liberals up in arms while the others don't care. On this one, the activists speak with one voice. Conference, the sovereign policy making body in the party has overwhelmingly rejected Part II of the Justice and Security Bill. Those advising Nick may well think that the party can just be ignored on this because the electorate don't give much of a stuff about secret courts. However, if he ignores activists on this, he stores up a whole host of future problems for himself. More than any other party, the Liberal Democrat leader needs his troops out on the streets, talking to voters and delivering leaflets. By and large, we do these things - and fewer people are doing a lot more these days. They are just getting on with campaigning on the ground. They are more likely to feel motivated to do more if their views are treated with respect by the leadership.

It's not surprising that Liberal Democrats strongly oppose a measure which would prevent parties to a court case being shown the evidence against them. It offends every principle of justice. Your normal legal proceedings involve transparency of the evidence, with both sides being able to cross-examine each other.

It is really important that the only liberal party in this country emerges from this period in government with its civil liberties credentials intact. That record is in danger of being severely blemished if Part II of the Justice and Security Bill goes through. Just imagine, you are suing the Government for complicity in your torture by another regime. You have to bear in mind that this has happened. Anyway, Government decides that this is a matter of national security so you are not allowed to see what they tell the judge - which could be the biggest pack of lies out there. You don't get the chance to pick over it and say "well, know, I know we left this airport at this time on this plane because..." How can you possibly prove or disprove things you aren't allowed to see?

Jo Shaw and her colleagues have drawn up a second motion to submit to Spring Conference. It says:

Conference notes:

• The motion “No Government Above the Law – the Justice and Security Bill” passed overwhelmingly at the Liberal Democrat Federal Conference in September 2012 called for:
  • Part II of the Justice and Security Bill to be withdrawn or defeated by Liberal Democrat parliamentarians; and
  • Public Interest Immunity to be put into legislation;
• That the amendment calling for “CMPs to be used only as a last resort and in cases that would otherwise be incapable of being tried” was rejected overwhelmingly by the Liberal Democrat Conference;
• That Liberal Democrat peers formed the majority of those voting in the Lords to remove secret courts from the Justice and Security Bill;
• The Liberal Democrat party’s unique characteristic is that party members decide policy at Federal Conference;
• That despite the above, the government’s intention as stated by Ken Clarke in the Commons on 18th December 2012 is to pursue enactment of Part II of the Justice and Security Bill including some, but not all, of the amendments proposed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Conference believes:

• That the measures in Part II of the Justice and Security Bill will mean the courts system of the United Kingdom will provide neither justice nor security in cases involving allegations against the state of the most serious nature including torture, rendition, negligence of armed forces, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment;
• That the proposals in the Justice and Security Bill are directly contradictory to the core values and stated purpose of the Liberal Democrat party as enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, namely to “build and safeguard a fair, free and open society”;
• That Part II of the Justice and Security Bill should be withdrawn immediately;
• That active support for the proposals contained in Part II of the Justice and Security Bill in opposition to agreed party policy is tantamount to conduct evidencing material disagreement with the fundamental values and objectives of the Party.

Conference calls for:

• In the event that Part II of the Justice and Security Bill is not withdrawn in accordance with the above, the agenda of the next Federal Conference shall include a debate to consider sanctions or other measures in accordance with the Constitution;
• A pledge to repeal Part II of the Justice and Security Act (if so enacted) to be included in the Liberal Democrat manifesto for the next General Election.

If you are a voting rep and you wish to support this motion, please sign up here and fast. The deadline for submission is 1pm on Wednesday.

It may well be that the Federal Conference Committee decides not to schedule this for debate. In this eventuality, reps are also asked whether they would be willing to be one of the 200 reps required to call a special conference on this issue. I reckon that if this happened, it would just be held in Brighton at the same time as Spring Conference so there would be minimal extra expense. It's not something the party would do lightly, though, but it must, I think, be an option. Them inside the bubble need to realise how strongly people feel about this. I have yet to meet a single Lib Dem activist, who isn't on the Government payroll, who agrees with secret courts and even more are upset to see the very clear will of Conference thwarted. Stephen Tall goes as far as to suggest that it's this issue which poses the biggest threat we've seen to Clegg's leadership.

If your mind is not yet made up on the subject, can I point you in the direction of two more blogposts - Andrew Brown's letter to Nick Clegg and Louise Shaw's Cognitive Dissonance and Secret Courts. 

As Louise says:

 I’m not sure why the leadership, Nick Clegg in this case, won’t meet with Jo Shaw (no relation) and the excellent campaign “Lib Dems against Secret Courts”  I’m not sure why no statement has been released. I’m not sure what’s happening here. However I have some faith that the leadership will do the right thing – mainly because I can’t see what the tenable position is for the Liberal Democrats otherwise…..

So I’m sat here with two competing beliefs. I think that we must do the right thing, I can’t believe any Liberal Democrat would believe otherwise. But I’m not sure we are……

A bad day at the office for Jim Wallace #no2secretcourts

First of all, some words of heartfelt thanks. People like Ros Scott, Sal Brinton, Tim Clement-Jones, Sally Hamwee and Dee Doocey simply don't strike me as the rebellious sort. That Tony Greaves is doesn't make me any less grateful to him, but he is pretty familiar with the grass on that side of the fence. Sixteen of our seventy - ish peers who were around to vote last night in the Lords chose to stick with party policy and vote to delete the secret courts provision from the Justice and Security Bill. That's a tough choice to make and I am grateful to each and every one of them. I was particularly chuffed to see Bob Maclennan in there, who was MP for Caithness and Sutherland where I lived when I first joined the SDP in 1983. The others on my Role of Noble Honour are Lords Hussein, MacDonald, Shipley, Strasburger, Tope, Roberts and Thomas and Baronesses Walmsley and Linklater. Thank you all.  There were some others, by the way, who seemed to have made themselves scarce between the earlier votes and this crucial division, so they didn't vote for the clause to stay in either.

I know exactly why I think it's wrong to have cases decided between a spook, a judge and a state appointed advocate for the defendant/complainant who isn't allowed to tell them of the case against them. I do, however, get a bit scared about writing about it, not being a legal person. My Lib Dem Voice colleague Nick Thornsby has written a hell of a good article for the Guardian on why secret courts are a bad idea. As he says:

It is difficult to comprehend just how fundamental a departure from centuries-old principles this would be. The right to see and hear the evidence of the other side, and subsequently to challenge the veracity or utility of that evidence, forms the basis of our entire civil justice system. The prospect, too, of claimants being told that they have lost their case but not being given any reasons why should send a chill through any believers in fair, open justice.

 The delete vote was the fourth out of five votes. The Government had been pretty heavily defeated on the first three which sought to add safeguards to the Bill. They certainly made it better - but that is a relative term. It was horrific and it's now merely bloody awful. The number of Liberal Democrat peers voting for the Government line was a whole 12. That is not a good day at the office for the man introducing the Bill, Jim Wallace, by any manner of means. If he could only take 11 colleagues with him, that should send enough shock waves through him to make him realise the strength of feeling in the party. Jim was a very good Deputy First Minister, and he should recognise this situation as the parallel to the 1999 Coalition. We had made very specific promises on tuition fees (which we did not implement) and free personal care (which we did bring in). If we had reneged on either of these, the party would have spontaneously combusted. This, I think, is where we are with secret courts, where the only people who seem to have any sort of time for it are those in Parliament. As I said on Lib Dem Voice yesterday, a glance at the list of the 172 party members who signed the letter to the Times shows unanimity across loyalists and the awkward squad, social and economic liberals, Lib Dems the length and breadth of the country. I hope that Jim heeds what he is being told and takes steps to get rid of the secret court provisions once and for all. It is really important for this party that he does.

The Bill is back in the Lords next week before it heads off to the Commons. For the Lib Dems against secret courts campaign, there is a long way to go. Jo Shaw wrote about last night's proceedings here.  If you're a Lib Dem member and you want to support the campaign you can do so by signing the petition here and following the blog or the Facebook page here.

Help raise money to help women and girls by sponsoring the Rosa UK team.

It occurred to me that you might like to sponsor Jo Shaw, someone who's well known to many readers of this blog in her latest venture. 

Jo is running 10k next weekend to raise money for the Charity, Rosa UK, that she has recently joined as Chief Executive. An example of the work they do is found here at Shape your Culture. There are so many aspects of our culture and expectations of how women should behave and look which are really toxic and SYC aims to change that. Anyway, you can sponsor the Rosa team here. 

Have you signed the Liberal Democrats against secret courts petition?

Jo Shaw and I may currently be competitors in the  elections for the Federal Executive, but that doesn't mean I can't take time out of my day to back her continuing campaign against secret courts.

Her motion against the Government's Justice and Security Bill provided the only real defeat for the leadership at Conference. In a thrilling debate, Conference representatives overwhelmingly rejected the idea of secret courts.

You can see my assorted collection of tweets from the debate here and Jo's proposing speech was published in full on Liberal Democrat Voice here. She said:

Personally I cannot imagine being able to argue that I believe in a fair free and open society and at the same time support the notion of a trial from which one side is excluded, evidence is heard in secret, judgments are handed down in secret and the government is able to rely on unchallenged and unchallengeable evidence. Those two sets of ideas seem to me to be entirely contradictory.

How can we, who stand for openness vote for a closed court which shuts out press and public scrutiny?

How can we, who believe in freedom, vote to allow the Security Services to operate wholly in the shadows?

How can we, Liberal Democrats, who have fairness at the core of our beliefs, vote for a trial which leaves one party in the dark, excluded?

I don’t believe we can. If the preamble to our constitution means anything, it means Liberal Democrats should be campaigning fearlessly against these proposals which offend every principle we hold dear.

So, what happens now the Conference debate is over? Well, it's important to make sure that the powers that be stick to the terms of Jo's motion passed at Conference which are:

1. The Coalition Government to withdraw Part II of the Justice and Security Bill; and put in place instead a statutory scheme reflecting the current Public Interest Immunity system to be enacted which will retain judicial discretion, be a proportionate means of ensuring national security is not jeopardised by any litigation, and ensure the working successful democratic principle of open justice is retained.
2. All Liberal Democrats in parliament to press the government to do this and in any event to press for the withdrawal or defeat of Part II of the Justice and Security Bill.

To that end, there's a petition you can sign here and a Facebook group you can join here. Please do so and encourage others to join the campaign. This is such an important issue and we must make sure that our liberal principles are implemented.