Lord Hague of Richmond

Conservative Peer

@williamjhague

Security Sensitive Evidence in Courts

There have been votes in Parliament on if there should be a mechanism for material deemed national security sensitive to be made available to a civil court and a special advocate but not parties to the case. The mechanism is called the "closed material procedure".

Photo: Alba Palacios

Lord Hague of Richmond voted a mixture of for and against allowing national security sensitive evidence to be put before courts in secret sessions

TheyWorkForYou has automatically calculated this MP’s stance based on all of their votes on the topic. You can browse the source data on PublicWhip.org.uk.

Key votes about allowing national security sensitive evidence to be put before courts in secret sessions:

  • On 17 Jul 2013: Lord Hague of Richmond was absent for a vote on The Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) 2013 — Closed Material Proceedure Show vote
  • On 17 Jul 2013: Lord Hague of Richmond was absent for a vote on Civil Procedure Rules — Closed Material Proceedings Show vote
  • On 7 Mar 2013: Lord Hague of Richmond was absent for a vote on Justice and Security Bill — Third Reading Show vote
  • On 4 Mar 2013: Lord Hague of Richmond was absent for a vote on Justice and Security Bill — Clause 6 — Closed Material Proceedings Only If Fair Determination Not Possible By Other Means Show vote
  • On 4 Mar 2013: Lord Hague of Richmond was absent for a vote on Justice and Security Bill — Clause 6 — Balance Interests of Justice With Harm to National Security — Closed Material Proceedings Show vote
  • On 4 Mar 2013: Lord Hague of Richmond was absent for a vote on Justice and Security Bill — Clause 8 — Balance National Security vs Public Interest in Requests to Withhold Information From Parties in Civil Court Cases Show vote
  • On 18 Dec 2012: Lord Hague of Richmond voted to allow material deemed national security-sensitive to be made available to a civil court and a special advocate but not parties to the case; to strengthen oversight of intelligence and security activities in Government; and to permit intercept evidence in closed proceedings in employment cases before tribunals. Show vote

Note for journalists and researchers: The data on this page may be used freely, on condition that TheyWorkForYou.com is cited as the source.

For an explanation of the vote descriptions please see our page about voting information on TheyWorkForYou.