Tony Blair accused of introducing secret courts to the UK

The former British justice secretary Ken Clarke has blamed Tony Blair's "disastrous war on terror" for the need to introduce secret courts in the UK to protect sensitive intelligence material. In a Guardian article today, the former justice secretary and Minister without portfolio says that armed conflicts begun under Blair have prompted a rise in compensation cases from former detainees who allege mistreatment. The intervention by Clarke highlights Tory divisions over Afghanistan and Iraq after military action was launched in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Clarke voted against the Iraq war in 2003 while David Cameron voted in favour. Noted the newspaper Clarke uses language that is unlikely ever to be used by the prime minister. "Most people are aware that Tony Blair's disastrous war on terror has resulted in a substantial rise in individuals, often former detainees, bringing compensation cases against the UK government alleging mistreatment," he writes. Clarke brands critics of the government's justice and security bill, which will usher in secret courts, as "reactionary parts of the human rights lobby". He says it is necessary to introduce the new measures to ensure intelligence material can be admitted as evidence without risk of exposing it to the public domain. Under Clarke's plans such intelligence would be heard by a judge but not by claimants or their lawyers. The judge would in effect be obliged to obey a minister's request for information to be kept secret on grounds of "national security". The bill was drawn up after the court of appeal agreed to disclose CIA information which showed that MI5 and MI6 knew Binyam Mohamed, a British resident was abused and subjected to inhuman treatment while held as a terror suspect. It was also prompted by UK citizens suing the government for compensation after being held in Guantanamo Bay. Ministers, including Clarke, argue that the bill - pressed for by MI5, MI6 and the US government specifically to stop the kind of disclosures about their activities made in the Mohamed and other civil cases - would not be used as a cover up. The bill does not mark a "shady move" by the state to "cloak the dark forces lurking deep within government," Clarke writes. "Far from extending secrecy, allowing cover-ups or switching off the lights, done right, this bill will for the first time extend justice into the most secret activities of the UK state." "The result is that we have no answers to shocking allegations made against British agents. And we are potentially putting the taxpayer in the situation of paying out significant sums to individuals who could be linked to terrorism simply because crucial evidence cannot be brought before a judge." Clarke insists there will be safeguards to ensure there is no "mission creep". He writes, "The judge and not the executive will have to take the key decisions about whether a closed hearing is justified. Even if they do allow a closed hearing in principle they will retain the power to order the government to disclose material, or to remove it entirely from the courtroom because it is prejudicial or not in fact national security sensitive at all. Clearly, any suggestion that these closed hearings would make anything secret which is in the public domain now is emphatically wrong."