Justice and Security Bill — Clause 6 — Balance Interests of Justice With Harm to National Security — Closed Material Proceedings — 4 Mar 2013 at 20:18
John Penrose MP, Weston-Super-Mare voted against allowing the closed material procedure for using national security sensitive information in court to only be used where the degree of harm to national security caused by disclosure would be likely to outweigh the public interest in fair and open justice.
The majority of MPs voted against requiring courts to only consider applications to use the closed material procedure where the degree of harm to national security caused by disclosure would be likely to outweigh the public interest in fair and open justice.
"Closed material proceedings" allow relevant national security-sensitive material held by a party to civil court proceedings to be taken into account through disclosure of the material to both the court and a special advocate representing the other party or parties' interests as the other parties are not themselves permitted to see the material.
MPs were considering the Justice and Security Bill. The amendment rejected in this vote was:
- Amendment: 30, page 5, line 36, leave out from ‘that’ to end of line 37 and insert
- ‘the degree of harm to the interests of national security if the material is disclosed would be likely to outweigh the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice.’.—
The amendment relates to clause 6(6) of the Bill which sets out one of the conditions required to be met for a court to consider a closed procedure application. Following the vote the subclause remained unamended stating:
- The second condition is that it is in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice in the proceedings to make a declaration.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Justice and Security Bill
-  Clause 6 of the Justice and Security Bill as at the time of the vote
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||253 (+1 tell)||5||0||84.9%|
|Lab||4||205 (+2 tell)||0||81.8%|
|LDem||37 (+1 tell)||7||0||78.9%|
|Steven Baker||Wycombe||Con (front bench)||aye|
|David Davis||Haltemprice and Howden||Con||aye|
|Simon Reevell||Dewsbury||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Andrew Tyrie||Chichester||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Charles Walker||Broxbourne||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Hazel Blears||Salford and Eccles||Lab (minister)||no|
|Paul Goggins||Wythenshawe and Sale East||Lab||no|
|George Howarth||Knowsley||Lab (minister)||no|
|Michael Crockart||Edinburgh West||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Tim Farron||Westmorland and Lonsdale||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|John Hemming||Birmingham, Yardley||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Simon Hughes||Bermondsey and Old Southwark||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Julian Huppert||Cambridge||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Greg Mulholland||Leeds North West||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Sarah Teather||Brent Central||LDem||aye|