Justice and Security Bill — Clause 6 — Balance Interests of Justice With Harm to National Security — Closed Material Proceedings — 4 Mar 2013 at 20:18

Patrick McLoughlin MP, Derbyshire Dales 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[1]. 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.

==

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

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.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con253 (+1 tell) 5084.9%
DUP3 0037.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab4 205 (+2 tell)081.8%
LDem37 (+1 tell) 7078.9%
PC0 2066.7%
SDLP0 2066.7%
SNP0 4066.7%
Total:297 226082.2%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Steven BakerWycombeCon (front bench)aye
David DavisHaltemprice and HowdenConaye
Simon ReevellDewsburyCon (front bench)aye
Andrew TyrieChichesterCon (front bench)aye
Charles WalkerBroxbourneCon (front bench)aye
Hazel BlearsSalford and EcclesLab (minister)no
Paul GogginsWythenshawe and Sale EastLabno
George HowarthKnowsleyLab (minister)no
Jack StrawBlackburnLabno
Michael CrockartEdinburgh WestLDem (front bench)aye
Tim FarronWestmorland and LonsdaleLDem (front bench)aye
John HemmingBirmingham, YardleyLDem (front bench)aye
Simon HughesBermondsey and Old SouthwarkLDem (front bench)aye
Julian HuppertCambridgeLDem (front bench)aye
Greg MulhollandLeeds North WestLDem (front bench)aye
Sarah TeatherBrent CentralLDemaye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive