Justice and Security Bill — Clause 8 — Balance National Security vs Public Interest in Requests to Withhold Information From Parties in Civil Court Cases — 4 Mar 2013 at 22:13
George Osborne MP, Tatton voted to prevent the disclosure of material if the court considers disclosure would be damaging to the interests of national security, even if that damage would be outweighed by the interests of justice.
The majority of MPs voted to prevent the disclosure of material in civil court cases if the court considers disclosure would be damaging to the interests of national security, even if that damage would be outweighed by the interests of justice.
The majority of MPs voted to retain an absolute exemption from disclosure to anyone but the court, Secretary of State, and special advocates, of material damaging to the interests of national security.
This relates to "closed material proceedings" which 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 38, page 7, line 18, at end add
- ‘and that damage outweighs the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice’.
Had it not been rejected this amendment would have added the above text to Clause 8 of the Bill. It sought to modify the required court rules to be followed in cases where the closed material procedure is used, and specifically to extend the rule in Clause 8 (1)(c) which stated the rules must secure:
- that the court is required to give permission for material not to be disclosed if it considers that the disclosure of the material would be damaging to the interests of national security,
The amendment would have changed the absolute requirement to order material not to be disclosed if doing so would be damaging to national security with a requirement to balance that damage against the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Justice and Security Bill
-  Clause 8 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 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||252 (+1 tell)||4||0||84.3%|
|Lab||0||204 (+2 tell)||0||79.8%|
|LDem||39 (+1 tell)||7||0||82.5%|
|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|
|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|