National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Bethell and Lord Hope of Craighead

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the thoughtful and detailed debate we have had on this amendment. I will address a few of the points—I cannot address all of them—and I will seek to be brief.

This amendment is not about the past—it is not about Clive Ponting or Lord Haw-Haw and what happened a long time ago—but about the future. The future has states that use as a strategy the suborning of our citizens as an important part of hybrid warfare, at a scale and with a sophistication that we just have not seen for more than a generation—for two generations—and which, given the way in which they do it, we have probably never seen before. That is why this amendment is important: it is to combat a strategic threat from our enemies.

It fills a gap. The suborning of our citizens is not wholly covered by everything in the Bill at the moment, but I take on board the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and others on this. Duplication is not a sin in drafting laws. I have seen it happen before and I think that there is a gap that could be occupied by an amendment such as this.

A number of noble Lords asked what kind of attack this might cover. It would absolutely cover the contribution to a cyberattack. That is exactly the kind of modern warfare that our enemies are seeking to suborn our citizens to join in on, and therefore we should be thinking very much indeed about all the contributions our citizens could make to hybrid war when we are thinking about this.

As regards the impact on ISIS or a terrorist group, I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that ISIS is not going to be intimidated. I am more worried about Kimberley—the person who does not know that they are doing something wrong by helping one of our enemies.

Lastly—I will try to keep my comments brief; I appreciate that I have not tackled all of the points—I confess for a moment here to a massive cognitive dissonance. Noble Lords and noble and learned Lords have spoken about their anxieties about the word “treason” as if it was a super-hot piece of vocabulary that was too hot to handle. I simply do not have that sentiment at all; it does not touch me in the same way that it clearly touches others. I thought the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, spoke very well about that. Words such as theft, rape and terrorism are important parts of our legal vocabulary. I regard treason as simply akin to any one of those, and the arguments made—

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

The problem is—I speak as a former prosecutor—that if you are facing a jury with a charge that has “treason” on it, that elevates the temperature of the debate. It is much easier if you concentrate on the actual words of the offence that you are trying to get the jury to focus on. That is the point. The prosecutor has to decide whether he or she wants to use the word treason at all in the charge. It is better to avoid it if you can get the substance of the defence into ordinary language and get the jury to consider the facts in the light of ordinary language without being diverted by the more exciting “treason”. That is my point.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, pragmatism is completely right; I understand the noble and learned Lord’s point and I do not doubt his insight in the slightest. I have a slightly different perspective. That seems to be an argument to rehabilitate the thought rather than to avoid the crime. If something is happening that threatens our national security and is a crime, we need to think of ways of communicating that to juries and to prosecutors. In the same way, juries sometimes struggle with “rape” and are sometimes reluctant to convict—but obviously that is not a reason to not take rape to trial. Given the mood of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Covid-19: Response

Debate between Lord Bethell and Lord Hope of Craighead

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Baroness is entirely right: this epidemic has demonstrated, if it needed to be demonstrated at all, the key role that pharmacists play in the health of the nation. I pay tribute to the role of pharmacists in providing support and filling the gap after GPs’ surgeries have closed. I reject, however, the idea that they have had no support. PPE has been provided, any pharmacist is prioritised as a key worker, and we will continue to offer support and to help grow this valuable sector.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, is there not a danger of sending out mixed messages? The Statement begins by celebrating what has been achieved together by flattening the curve, but the devolved nations in the UK are still behind the flattening of the curve achieved in London. It then says that, thanks to the resolve and shared sacrifice of the British people,

“we are now in the second phase of this fight.”

This is not so in Scotland, where I live. We are still firmly in lockdown and likely to remain so until June. Should those who prepare these Statements not be a bit more careful in their choice of language? Is there not a risk to those who live in Wales and Scotland if people who live in England are misled into believing that those other parts of Great Britain are in the second phase of the fight too?

[Lord Bethell]

I first pay tribute to the devolved nations for working so closely together, as characterised by the very close work of the four CMOs. The noble and learned Lord is entirely right that different parts of the country move at different paces—the disease does not respect national boundaries in any way—but public health messages have to be clear to be effective. It is difficult to speak in terms of one region or another being in different phases of the disease, but I completely accept his point that local variations may well be necessary. When they are, and if it is possible, we will have to shape our communications to that cause.