This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/mar/03/secret-courts-commons-vote
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 2 | Version 3 |
---|---|
Secret courts plan faces Commons vote | Secret courts plan faces Commons vote |
(7 months later) | |
MPs will vote on Monday on the final form of the government's justice and security bill, which radically expands the use of so-called secret courts. | MPs will vote on Monday on the final form of the government's justice and security bill, which radically expands the use of so-called secret courts. |
Amid disapproval from human rights groups over the procedure's introduction into civil cases, debate in parliament on the report stage of the bill is likely to focus on what safeguards should be bolted on to the legislation. | Amid disapproval from human rights groups over the procedure's introduction into civil cases, debate in parliament on the report stage of the bill is likely to focus on what safeguards should be bolted on to the legislation. |
Opponents are keen to ensure judges rather than ministers decide when evidence should be heard in secret and not released to a claimant in a closed material procedure. They fear judges will be bound by the regulations to hold secret hearings. | Opponents are keen to ensure judges rather than ministers decide when evidence should be heard in secret and not released to a claimant in a closed material procedure. They fear judges will be bound by the regulations to hold secret hearings. |
But a cabinet office spokesperson said: "The bill makes it clear the judge has complete discretion over whether or not to order a closed proceeding if he is satisfied it is in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice." | But a cabinet office spokesperson said: "The bill makes it clear the judge has complete discretion over whether or not to order a closed proceeding if he is satisfied it is in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice." |
A succession of amendments introduced by Ken Clarke, the minister without portfolio steering the regulations through the Commons, have been aimed at persuading Lib Dems to support the bill. The changes have also served to confuse battle lines In the Guardian, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the Tory chairman of the intelligence and security committee (ISC), says the legislation will ensure better parliamentary and judicial oversight of MI5 and MI6. | A succession of amendments introduced by Ken Clarke, the minister without portfolio steering the regulations through the Commons, have been aimed at persuading Lib Dems to support the bill. The changes have also served to confuse battle lines In the Guardian, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the Tory chairman of the intelligence and security committee (ISC), says the legislation will ensure better parliamentary and judicial oversight of MI5 and MI6. |
"Amid the frenzied debate not many people have noticed that the bill strips agency heads of their power to deny the ISC information," he says. "They have missed the fact that we will now be able to send our own investigators into agencies to gather evidence we need for our reports." | "Amid the frenzied debate not many people have noticed that the bill strips agency heads of their power to deny the ISC information," he says. "They have missed the fact that we will now be able to send our own investigators into agencies to gather evidence we need for our reports." |
Parliament's joint committee on human rights, however, again denounced the secret courts proposals last Thursday, only to find a new raft of amendments had been introduced by the Cabinet Office since it had agreed its report. | Parliament's joint committee on human rights, however, again denounced the secret courts proposals last Thursday, only to find a new raft of amendments had been introduced by the Cabinet Office since it had agreed its report. |
The committee chair, Hywel Francis, said: "The bill as drafted does not put in place sufficiently robust safeguards to oversee the exercise of what are very wide-ranging powers. | The committee chair, Hywel Francis, said: "The bill as drafted does not put in place sufficiently robust safeguards to oversee the exercise of what are very wide-ranging powers. |
"We urge the government to think again and make sure secret proceedings are used only in cases of pressing national security need, and are the last possible resort." | "We urge the government to think again and make sure secret proceedings are used only in cases of pressing national security need, and are the last possible resort." |
Three committee members – Conservatives Rehman Chishti, Robert Buckland and Lord Faulks – subsequently backed the bill, saying the latest changes "ensure that the bill reflects the spirit, if not letter, of the amendments … passed by the Lords last year". | Three committee members – Conservatives Rehman Chishti, Robert Buckland and Lord Faulks – subsequently backed the bill, saying the latest changes "ensure that the bill reflects the spirit, if not letter, of the amendments … passed by the Lords last year". |
The Commons battle will be fought over a string of amendments. Labour says its proposals will add necessary safeguards to the way secret courts operate. Tories believe the Labour amendments are more likely to wreck the bill. | The Commons battle will be fought over a string of amendments. Labour says its proposals will add necessary safeguards to the way secret courts operate. Tories believe the Labour amendments are more likely to wreck the bill. |
One Labour proposal, amendment 30, introduces a duty for a judge to carry out a balancing act before going into a closed hearing to check national security issues outweigh "public interest in the fair and open administration of justice". | One Labour proposal, amendment 30, introduces a duty for a judge to carry out a balancing act before going into a closed hearing to check national security issues outweigh "public interest in the fair and open administration of justice". |
Tories say this would render the reforms a nonsense since open justice is inevitably what is excluded in a secret court hearing. | Tories say this would render the reforms a nonsense since open justice is inevitably what is excluded in a secret court hearing. |
Another Labour proposal, amendment 31, says closed material procedures should only be used as long as "a fair determination of the proceedings is not possible by any other means". To the Conservatives that is a recipe for making the bill unworkable by forcing the judge to prolong the litigation needlessly. | Another Labour proposal, amendment 31, says closed material procedures should only be used as long as "a fair determination of the proceedings is not possible by any other means". To the Conservatives that is a recipe for making the bill unworkable by forcing the judge to prolong the litigation needlessly. |
Clarke's new clauses provide for a five-year review of the system and annual reports on the operation of closed material procedures. They enable claimants to apply for secret hearings and ensure judges are satisfied that a public interest immunity certificate could not be used instead. | Clarke's new clauses provide for a five-year review of the system and annual reports on the operation of closed material procedures. They enable claimants to apply for secret hearings and ensure judges are satisfied that a public interest immunity certificate could not be used instead. |
Clarke described the amendments as going "to extreme lengths to meet every practical legal objection that has been made about the bill. The judge now has total discretion over whether to order a CMP following an application either by the government, the claimant or from the court of its own motion." | Clarke described the amendments as going "to extreme lengths to meet every practical legal objection that has been made about the bill. The judge now has total discretion over whether to order a CMP following an application either by the government, the claimant or from the court of its own motion." |
But Labour's justice spokesman, Andy Slaughter, dismissed the bill as "another attempt to hide away, in an excessive way, the scrutiny of the public and the right to fair and equal access to justice in this country." | But Labour's justice spokesman, Andy Slaughter, dismissed the bill as "another attempt to hide away, in an excessive way, the scrutiny of the public and the right to fair and equal access to justice in this country." |
An online petition opposing the bill, launched at the weekend by the National Union of Journalists, attracted the support of human rights groups, lawyers, journalists, union leaders and politicians. | An online petition opposing the bill, launched at the weekend by the National Union of Journalists, attracted the support of human rights groups, lawyers, journalists, union leaders and politicians. |
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "Government arguments for morphing British courts into shadowy Soviet-style commissions have completely collapsed. Secret justice is not justice and simply cannot be justified. The time for tinkering is long gone. MPs of all political stripes must stand up and fight for fair trials and the rule of law by defeating this odious bill." | Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "Government arguments for morphing British courts into shadowy Soviet-style commissions have completely collapsed. Secret justice is not justice and simply cannot be justified. The time for tinkering is long gone. MPs of all political stripes must stand up and fight for fair trials and the rule of law by defeating this odious bill." |
The civil rights group Reprieve said the government's plans would cost millions of pounds more than they saved. It pointed out that special advocates, the expert lawyers who work in such national security cases, criticised the government proposals last month in a letter to the joint committee on human rights, describing them as "inherently unfair and contrary to the common law tradition". | The civil rights group Reprieve said the government's plans would cost millions of pounds more than they saved. It pointed out that special advocates, the expert lawyers who work in such national security cases, criticised the government proposals last month in a letter to the joint committee on human rights, describing them as "inherently unfair and contrary to the common law tradition". |
Reprieve's executive director, Clare Algar, said: "The special advocates are the experts in this field and it is shameful that the government has not respected their views. They are taking a principled stand against plans for secret courts which would undermine centuries-old British freedoms and put the government above the law. Even if ministers won't listen to them, our MPs must, and vote against these plans in the Commons this week." | Reprieve's executive director, Clare Algar, said: "The special advocates are the experts in this field and it is shameful that the government has not respected their views. They are taking a principled stand against plans for secret courts which would undermine centuries-old British freedoms and put the government above the law. Even if ministers won't listen to them, our MPs must, and vote against these plans in the Commons this week." |
Amnesty International's UK head of policy, Allan Hogarth, said: "The government appears to be deaf to criticism and is hell-bent on creating a very un-British secret justice system that could be straight from the pages of a Kafka novel." | Amnesty International's UK head of policy, Allan Hogarth, said: "The government appears to be deaf to criticism and is hell-bent on creating a very un-British secret justice system that could be straight from the pages of a Kafka novel." |
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |