Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Crosby and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

Perhaps I may add to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Tyler very much simplifies the administration. It sets a clear limit—rather clearer than the percentages in the original Bill. Given that, given the real problem about bureaucracy and fights with transparency in the Bill, and given that all of us appreciate the major changes made already, would the Minister not consider the advantages of both clarity and transparency in accepting this amendment?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Both interventions raise the same point. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that I tried to explain how the £9,750 registration limit comes into play, but I also went on to indicate that the Electoral Commission, in its guidance, will make very clear the operation of the various registration thresholds, including this one with regard to the constituency limit, so campaigners should be in no doubt. In response to that and to my noble friend Lady Williams, I have a lot of sympathy with the point, but the figure of £5,000 is better than a percentage. I do not want to embark on the theology of the percentages because they run through the Bill, but the figure itself will appear in the guidance from the Electoral Commission.

One of the concerns about the administrative burden is that smaller organisations could be caught up. It may be that in one particular constituency there is one constituency issue with which a small campaigning group has become engaged. If we set the limit at £5,000, they may find suddenly that they have to put in place a bureaucracy and administration to deal with that. The higher limit of £9,750 would probably address such concerns, which is what we want to try to ensure. It is often so when you have an individual campaign in an individual constituency. I accept that there is no perfect answer to this. It was a judgment call as to whether we should keep the limit as low as £5,000 or, having listened to those who thought that was too low for individual constituency cases, whether it might be possible to raise the sum. For that reason and to strike that balance, we thought that £9,750 was an appropriate amount. Therefore, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment. I give way to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Crosby and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 13th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

On that point, I raise the question of whether the three most senior classes of the Civil Service are not in a much narrower area in terms of cost than the wider range of civil servants to which my noble and learned friend has been referring. They seem to be almost completely distinct in terms of the costs involved.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I accept that it would be more proportionate, but I really am not in a position to say. One of the problems is that some of the terms used, such as “director-general”, mean completely different things in different departments. That has been another issue. At a time when we should be streamlining public services, not imposing additional costly burdens upon them, I do not believe that the added burden of 5,000 extra diaries would be proportionate.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Crosby and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I also support this important amendment. We know that some countries that are considered to be relatively close allies of the United Kingdom have human rights records that are indescribably bad. It would be a tragedy to have a situation where we cannot take seriously these human rights violations because of the limits that are placed in the language of this Bill.

We are increasingly seeing human rights becoming a new, very important structure of international law, which perhaps encouraged such movements as the Arab spring, and which undoubtedly helped to release many people from the acts of coercion by their own governments. We have close relations, as does the United States and our other allies, with some countries with poor human rights records. When those poor human rights records enter into the area of international criminal action, of the kind described by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I hope that we recognise that we have an obligation as a country with a very strong record of supporting human rights to maintain that standard and record. Indeed we are basically the founder of the original European Convention on Human Rights legislation, which binds us all today. We therefore will expect the Government to look very closely at the wording of this part of the Bill before we get to Third Reading to ensure that it will not mean that such major acts of criminality will be disregarded because of our legislation.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for moving this amendment. We now move on to the Norwich Pharmacal part of this Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and my noble friend Lady Williams for their important contribution on an issue that, going by the earlier debate, is of considerable importance with regard to human rights and serious breaches of human rights.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, highlighted two points: one relating to serious breaches involving, for example, torture; and the other part of his amendment that relates to the control principle. To put this in context, the approach taken by this Bill is consistent with other legislation that has been passed by Parliament. For example, in the Freedom of information Act 2000, Parliament explicitly ruled out a right to access intelligence material; and the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 and the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 provide for exemptions from disclosure of evidence into overseas proceedings where such disclosure would prejudice the United Kingdom’s national security.

First, I will indicate why limiting the protection offered by legislation to the control principle, which I think is what the noble Lord was seeking to do, does not go far enough. We appreciate that it is important that this is recognised and, of course, as has been said numerous times in our debates, it is essential that the originator of the material remains in control of its handling and dissemination. However, it is often the fact as well as the content of the sharing arrangements that needs to be protected. Certifying information as subject to a control principle agreement could reveal the fact that such a highly sensitive relationship exists. Countries may not thank us for revealing that fact, and might come under pressure to end co-operation with us.

Moreover, there are also some considerable difficulties in identifying what qualifies as control principle material, and these difficulties could lead to further uncertainty and litigation. Perhaps I might be allowed, even at this time of night, to indicate again evidence given by Mr David Anderson QC in June to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, when he discussed these practical difficulties. There may be correspondence between the intelligence services commenting on control principle material, or assessments based on a mix of domestic and foreign material, and it would often be very difficult to distinguish between them.

It is important that we respect human rights and that we take seriously human rights violations, and that we take measures to ensure that there are effective remedies available. I spoke at some length in Committee about what the Government do, both in the United Kingdom and overseas, to promote and uphold human rights. It bears repeating that the United Kingdom Government stand firmly against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As I indicated in a previous debate, we do not condone it, nor do we ask others to do it on our behalf.

We work on human rights around the world through bilateral contacts, membership of international organisations and development aid and assistance, and in partnership with civil society. Our efforts worldwide on combating torture are guided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Prevention of Torture Strategy 2011-2015. The United Kingdom is working to strengthen legal frameworks to prevent and prohibit torture, develop the will and capacity of states to prevent and prohibit torture, and help organisations on the ground to get the expertise and training they need to prevent and prohibit torture.

In recent months the United Kingdom has made its position on torture clear in public statements on countries of concern, lobbied to strengthen adherence to the convention against torture and the ICCPR, and delivered in-country training to officials of other countries on handling complaints of torture in places of detention. In addition, the Government devote significant resources overseas to combating torture. This work is often done behind the scenes, but there is also much work in providing consular assistance as well as in lobbying and capacity-building projects.

In the Norwich Pharmacal context, however, the Government believe that such disclosure is not the most effective solution to the problem. Disclosure in a single case can have far-reaching long-term effects on the United Kingdom’s national security and international relations, making it harder for the United Kingdom to act as a positive influence on human rights world wide. It is not in any way the case that we do not take these matters seriously. I hope I have indicated that there is a very extensive programme of work and commitment on the part of the United Kingdom Government to tackle torture, but we do not believe that using the Norwich Pharmacal procedure is the way in which to do that. In these circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Crosby and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 23rd July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

We shall have to agree to differ. Considerable thought has been given to this and we believe that it would not be possible to extend the power here. I am always wary of putting “for avoidance of doubt” clauses into Bills, and I know parliamentary counsel also have anxiety about these things. If that helped, I would certainly be prepared to look at it to put that beyond doubt, although I do so with the caveat that by putting in such things, you have to watch you do not stir up more problems than the ones you are trying to resolve.

We do not believe that the order-making power here can be extended by this coalition Government or any future Government to inquests without primary legislation.

I would like to pick up on the points made by my noble friend Lady Berridge and the differences between civil proceedings, between parties and the inquisitorial nature of a coroner’s inquiry. The Government recognise that inquests have a unique role in our justice system. In inquests where intelligence evidence cannot be disclosed without risking national security and public safety, we will continue to use existing arrangements. In such circumstances, the Government can make a public interest immunity application to exclude the material. The coroner will exclude the material if he or she decides that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. An inquest can also be converted into an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. My noble friend made that point in regard to the inquest into the death of Azelle Rodney which could not proceed because neither the coroner nor the jury could see highly sensitive material. To allow all the material to be seen, the inquest was converted into an inquiry with terms of reference mirroring the purpose of the inquest.

With regard to the Mark Duggan case, it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this Dispatch Box on how the Inner North London and North London coroners propose to handle any sensitive material in their conduct of the inquest into the death of Mark Duggan. It is for the coroners concerned in these cases to decide the best course of action.

Finally, Amendments 70A and 70B would limit instead of remove the order-making power. Amendment 70A would omit the aspect of the power which would enable the adding or removal of a court or tribunal. We believe it is the key aspect of the power and so we could not accept it being limited in this way.

Amendment 70B would omit the aspect of the order-making power which enables orders to be made which amend or repeal any enactment, and I fully understand why Parliament is always wary of any such power. The provisions are for the situation where the definition of “relevant civil proceedings” is changed and certain supplementary or consequential changes are needed. An example of this is in subsection (4), and I hope that it meets the specific concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Hodgson. So, if a tribunal is added, Clauses 6 to 11 of the Bill may need to be adapted for use in relation to that tribunal. The power could be used to explain what “rules of court” mean for the tribunal because tribunals have “procedural rules” rather than “rules of court”. These sorts of differences would be reflected in the use of that power.

I hope I have been able to explain why the Government reached this position.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

Perhaps I may press my noble and learned friend one stage further. The material says that a court can be added or excluded as the case may be, and to a lay person saying that it does not apply to a coroner’s court sounds like a Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland announcing that what seems obvious is the opposite of what is obvious. Will my noble and learned friend consider either dropping paragraph (a) or making a particular reference to the exclusion of coroner’s courts so that those of us who are not deeply into legal language would be able to understand the Government’s intention?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I take the point made by my noble friend Lady Williams. I said I would be willing to look at words like:

“for the avoidance of doubt this does not include coroner’s courts”.

I caveated it because I am always wary of parliamentary draftsmen finding 10 reasons why that will mean 20 different things. In that spirit, I hope she will be reassured that not only do we not intend to include inquests, but we do not believe that the wording here does include inquests. However, I am prepared to look at that to see whether there is a wording which will put that beyond doubt and reassure those who think that there is no belt-and-braces position as things stand.

I have sought to give reassurance on these important issues, and particularly it is important that Parliament scrutinises the powers available to Government by secondary legislation, perhaps a fortiori in circumstances such as this. I will reflect on what has been said in the course of this Committee’s discussion.