Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Lord Butler of Brockwell Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on behalf of Plaid Cymru in paying our tribute to the late Queen and extending our sympathy and condolences to all the Royal Family.

Seventy years ago, on a February morning, I was whisked away from my primary school in Bontnewydd by my father and taken down to Caernarfon where, on the steps outside the law courts, a proclamation was made, following the death of the King, that we had a new Queen. At the end of it, my father whispered to me, “It may be quite a time before you experience that again.” It most certainly has been.

As the MP for Caernarfon, I had the honour of welcoming Her Majesty to the constituency on several occasions. She always came with dignity and charm, and was always so well informed. The most memorable occasion for me was her opening of Wales’s National Assembly in 1999—our first Parliament for 600 years. On the day, I was with her, as was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and the then First Minister, Alun Michael. It was an honour indeed. She carried out that day with such dignity.

That evening, the celebration dinner coincided with the European Cup final, with Manchester United losing by a goal with a minute to go. They then equalised, and the joy was palpable. When they scored the winning goal in injury time, her “Whoopee!” was heard by the whole room as she almost rose out of her seat.

Her visit to the Welsh Senedd last summer was one of her last public engagements away from London and was very much appreciated. That was the occasion when she was overheard, one almost thinks deliberately, emphasising the importance of the Glasgow climate conference—a sentiment that will undoubtedly be shared by our new monarch.

Queen Elizabeth’s grace, humour, patience and devotion to duty were, and are, an inspiration to us all. Whatever our future debates about the constitutional relationships between the nations of these islands, Queen Elizabeth II has ensured that the monarchy is not in question and is a symbol of the shared heritage that we have within our diverse political structures and ambitions. May King Charles III inherit her remarkable talents and may she rest in peace.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hennessy—how we miss him today; he would have made a great contribution to this debate—used to talk about rising to the level of events. This is an event whose level it is difficult to rise to. It is also extremely difficult to rise to anywhere near the level of the opening tributes that we heard this morning. The British do these things rather well but those were done superbly well. If I may speak for myself, they made me very proud to be a Member of this House.

Queen Elizabeth was the sovereign during the whole of my professional life in the Civil Service. I want to make a few observations about the role of the sovereign in the constitution. I always regarded, and continue to regard, the sovereign as the embodiment of the British state. It is worth recalling that, like the Armed Forces—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, is due to speak, I think—and the other Crown services, the Civil Service owes its allegiance to the sovereign. We owe our duty to the Government of the day because it is the sovereign’s Government—the Government appointed by the monarch. So the last official duty of the Queen, so bravely carried out on Tuesday in appointing the new Prime Minister, had more than a symbolic importance. The completion of the appointment of other Ministers will presumably be carried out by the new King. However, when appointed, they will be the King’s Government and we in this House will rightly take an oath of loyalty to him.

I make this brief excursion into our constitution to demonstrate that all of us who are servants of the Crown have a higher duty than simply to our political bosses. Speaking for myself, I found that my duty to Queen Elizabeth was not only demanding but inspiring. Her Majesty’s standard of service throughout her long life, to which so many tributes have been made, was one to which many of us may aspire but can never attain. Moreover, she carried out those duties with a grace, dignity and humanity of which the whole nation can be proud. She caused other nations to envy us.

This is a difficult and challenging time for the new King, as well as a moment of acute personal sadness for him. Nevertheless, he has had a long apprenticeship. He is his own person, as every individual should be, but he has demonstrated over many years his devotion to the welfare and success of this country and its citizens, as well as to the challenges that are being faced by the wider world. His mother has demonstrated the value of our monarchy. I wish our new sovereign well and pledge to him my loyalty and support as he carries forward that heavy responsibility.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to Her Majesty the Queen for all that she gave to us and thanking those noble Lords who have already made tributes. The noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, moved me to tears for the first time, for which I thank them—because tears matter.

My first personal meeting with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was as Bishop of Southampton. In 2007, Romsey celebrated the 500th year of its royal charter and the 900th anniversary of the foundation of its wonderful abbey. Her Majesty had been a regular visitor to Broadlands, the home of the Mountbatten family, so local people took the opportunity to tell me their memories of bumping into Her Majesty as she walked locally, popped into the shops or made her way to worship in the abbey. This highlighted for me her humanity, interest in people’s lives, concern for the local community and commitment to worship and prayer.

At the close of the service, together we examined James I’s seal on the royal charter. She delighted in explaining to me the continuity between her seal and his: notably, both were seated on a horse. She made an observation on the horse’s gait, for she was concerned for its welfare. Concern for welfare also struck me during my visit to Sandringham as the bishop in residence when I was Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham. Her conversation included concern for the welfare of her family, the nation, the Commonwealth and her beloved—that is the word that she used—Church of England. It was “education Sunday”, so there was some discussion with Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh on education in our nation. While Prince Philip took a fairly robust approach to the discussion, Her Majesty was entirely focused on wanting to know that the welfare of children as well- rounded human beings was at the heart of all our education.

Her commitment to welfare makes me note also that yesterday morning there was the wonderful news of the success of the malaria vaccine. Given Her Majesty’s love of the Commonwealth, and the scourge that malaria remains, might we consider that one memorial could be that this be known as the Elizabeth malaria vaccine, and that a significant sum be committed by us as a nation to its distribution through the Commonwealth nations that need it, in memory of her?

In conclusion, I celebrate, with others, the centrality of Her Majesty’s faith in Jesus Christ, and her life of prayer. I know that the people of the north-east of England, whom I have come to learn expect the Bishop of Durham to speak on their behalf, always valued Her Majesty’s visits to the region. They will want me to express on their behalf today their sorrow at Her Majesty’s passing, their prayers for the Royal Family in their grieving, their commitment to our new King, His Majesty King Charles III, and their deep thanksgiving for Her Majesty’s life of faith, service, kindness and duty. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, in heaven, we thank you. His Majesty King Charles III, we promise our loyalty.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Butler of Brockwell Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I was not planning to speak about Brexit at all today, on the grounds that my views on Brexit are very well known to the House, and I rather suspect that whatever I say today will not greatly affect the negotiation in Brussels—although I am sure they are following our debate intently.

The third reason I was against speaking about Brexit is because I am sure that we will have plenty of time. It is impossible that by 31 October there will be a completed treaty ready for ratification by the two Parliaments: this Parliament and the European Parliament. It is also, in my view, inconceivable that our Government will have acted illegally and against the Benn Act. It follows that will we have plenty of time.

I want to talk about foreign affairs. I am, however, tempted by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and invited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, so I will touch lightly on Brexit at the end. Your Lordships may leave before the end.

On foreign policy, I am struck by the tone and the content of the Speech. Of course, it says very little about foreign policy and of course that is wholly understandable because this is not a legislative programme or a programme for a Parliament; this is an election manifesto, and elections are not usually won on foreign policy, so of course there is not much there. What is there, however, is much less than is traditionally there.

I have been thinking about why, and I would like to go back into history a bit. In April 1991, John Major persuaded the European Council, meeting in Luxembourg, to declare a safe haven in Kurdistan. The Kurds were then under attack by Saddam Hussein and hundreds of thousands of them were fleeing into the mountains. It was a major humanitarian disaster. John Major persuaded the European Union that it should not stand idly by and that we would be prepared to send forces. The United States did not react. John Major spoke to the President of the United States. Three days later the United States came on board the initiative. US, British, Australian, French, Spanish and Italian forces went in, and the RAF flew in the skies, as did the US Air Force. Some 450,000 Kurds returned to their homes within three months. The operation was a remarkable success.

What is happening today? The General Affairs Council met in Luxembourg yesterday. Did the Foreign Secretary come up with an initiative? Well, actually, he did not go. He sent Dr Andrew Murrison, who is, I understand, a junior Minister in the Foreign Office. I have seen no reports of what he said. At the General Affairs Council, Foreign Ministers listened to the Foreign Minister of Ukraine talking about the continuing occupation and civil war in part of his country, fomented and funded by Moscow. I have seen no reports of what Dr Murrison said to him. Some in Ukraine remember the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, drafted by the British and agreed by John Major with his Russian, American and Ukrainian counterparts. In exchange for the Ukrainians giving up their nuclear weapons, we guaranteed the territorial integrity and political independence of Ukraine. Some in Ukraine remember that now. The negotiations, such as they are, over Ukraine’s future now take place in what is known as the Normandy format. We are not a party to it. The negotiations on our side are led by Chancellor Merkel, with President Macron. I find this rather shaming. We have excluded ourselves.

Then we read in the Speech that,

“my Government will ensure that it continues to play a leading role in global affairs, defending its interests and promoting its values … My Government will be at the forefront of efforts to solve the most complex international security issues. It will champion global free trade and work alongside international partners to solve the most pressing global challenges”.

I am not sure we are playing a leading role. I am not sure how we could ensure that we continued to do so unless we changed our views.

On Hong Kong, I very much agree with what the Foreign Secretary said in the other place on 26 September:

“Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy is what guarantees its future prosperity and success”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/9/19; col. 864.]


But in Hong Kong they are saying: what are the UK signatories of the 1984 joint declaration doing—as distinct from saying—to help preserve that autonomy? Are we playing a leading role? Hardly.

“Time hath, my lord, a wallet at his back,

Wherein he puts alms for oblivion …

Those scraps are good deeds past

… perseverance, dear my lord,

Keeps honour bright”.

How persevering are we now and how persevering can we be, despite the hubris of this Speech, as the twin pillars of our foreign policy crumble?

We say that we will champion free trade, but the greatest challenge to the global trading system is President Trump’s attack on the WTO and his belief that trade wars are good and easy to win. We say that we will be at the forefront of efforts to solve the most complex international security issues, but what are we doing to stop President Trump’s dismantling of the international arms control architecture which his predecessors—mainly his Republican Party predecessors—built? What are we doing to persuade him that alliances are not transactional but based on trust, and that NATO still matters to all of us, including America? Or that concerted action against global warming is not a conspiracy against America, but deserves American support? Or that help to Ukraine should not be held hostage to digging dirt on a political rival? Or that the Kurds should not be betrayed—or, come to that, that the Turks should not be totally destroyed and obliterated, according to the whim of his “great and unmatched wisdom”, to cite his weekend tweet? Of course, our apparent inability to influence a capricious White House may not be for want of trying—heroic efforts may be being made behind the scenes—but I wonder whether they are enough:

“perseverance, dear my lord,

Keeps honour bright”.

On 13 November 2016—just after the presidential election, President Trump’s victory—European Foreign Ministers met informally at an extra meeting to discuss the likely foreign policy consequences of the election. They thought them potentially serious. Our Foreign Secretary, Mr Johnson, chose not to go and denounced the meeting in public as a “collective whingearama”. Why? Perhaps he thought—wrongly, as it has turned out—that his colleagues’ worries were unnecessary, in which case, it should have been his duty to attend the meeting to persuade them of that. Perhaps he thought that deliberate distancing from continental Europe would bring future rewards in Washington. Perhaps it was the mirage of a generous free trade agreement with mercantilist Mr Trump. If so, it was a serious misjudgment. Whatever the reason, the fact is that we cut less ice in Washington today than at any time since Suez.

So too in Europe, where deliberate distancing from continental partners continues. We now have a senior adviser in No. 10 who feels licensed to tell the 27 that if they do not give us the Brexit terms we need we shall withdraw defence and security co-operation. That is an extraordinary statement. We boycotted the September General Affairs Council. We do not know what Mr Murrison said this week about the Kurds or Ukraine, but I do not think he put forward any initiatives. Are we really playing the leading role that the Speech tells us that we do?

Of course, a continuing aspiration towards a leading role in global affairs, even if we are not up for it, is perhaps a good thing, but ambition has to be matched by ability. We have chosen not to be centre stage in Brussels. If we leave the stage altogether we will have even less influence on policy decisions there. The twin pillars were mutually reinforcing: America listened because America believed that we could move Europe; Europe listened because we stuck by our friends and were thought to have America’s ear. I worry that the economic damage of Brexit will be accompanied by a further enforced retreat from a global leadership role into a truculent, transactional mercantilism in this country.

Perhaps the country is weary of well-doing. Perhaps perseverance is passive. Perhaps we do not care about keeping honour bright. I hope not, but what are the great global challenges that we should address if we are to live up to what the Speech says? I would say that the three biggest are: defending democracy and human rights in an age of authoritarianism; integrating China, the new economic superpower whose economy doubled in the previous decade, into the rules-based system; and maintaining our societies as open societies while climate change drives major population moves.

Clearly, we can do little against any of those three challenges on our own, so we need multipliers. We need to use the Commonwealth; curiously, it was not mentioned in the Speech, despite the Queen being the Head of the Commonwealth. We need to use what position we can still salvage in Europe and recreate that position in the United States. Then again, we might be able to make a contribution commensurate with our Security Council status, although I hope that we will talk about that less hubristically when it is real than we do now, in this Speech, while it is unreal.

I was almost invited to speak about Brexit by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. His reading of Article 50 is, of course, absolutely correct. The divorce negotiators are to take account of the framework for the future relationship; by definition, that is a separate document and a separate issue. However, if they were to take account of it, it follows that it should have existed and come first in the sequencing. Like Sir Ivan Rogers and Mr David Davis, I spoke up for not triggering Article 50 until we had some agreement on the future relationship—at least on what we wanted it to be. That advice was not followed so we ended up with an unsatisfactory, non-binding political declaration and the phrase about taking account of the framework was ignored in practice. Both sides of the negotiation were wrong in that, but I must say this to the noble and learned Lord: I fear that we are where we are and we cannot expect the negotiators to down tools and go back.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

Would it not be possible, if an agreement appears to emerge this week but cannot be put into legal form, to go ahead with the departure agreement, which leaves out that aspect, and thus satisfy the requirement to leave by 31 October? That seems to be the very valuable conclusion of the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

It would not be wise, on either side, or feasible to depart on the basis of an understanding that was being turned into a legal agreement but without that legal agreement existing. Legally, we would move into a very strange status. It is perfectly possible to envisage a deal that can be turned into a legal agreement during an extension period but it is impossible to do that by 31 October and it is unwise—I do not think that either side would want to do so—to go on the basis of a political understanding with no validity in law. I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, the idea that a 2016 vote, three Prime Ministers ago, can be permanently determinate does not seem to be the will of the people today. You can ask, “Do you want to be consulted or do you want to leave it to Parliament?” If you assume that there is a deal and you ask, “Do you want to be consulted?”, they say by a margin of almost two to one, “Yes, we want to be consulted”. If you assume that there is no deal and ask, “Do you want to be consulted or should it be left to Parliament?”, they say, “Yes, we want to be consulted”, by a margin of more than two to one. Moreover, it is a fact that since September 2017, the opinion polls have consistently shown that the country is now of the view that it would prefer to remain. This year more than 70 polls have been taken of which one gave a victory for leaving. I do not think that a second referendum is just the least worst way out of this fix; it is now the will of the people.

India: 1984 Operation in Sri Harmandir Sahib

Lord Butler of Brockwell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord may have heard in my Statement that the advice given was that entering the temple should be seen as a last resort and that a negotiated settlement was the right and the first way to proceed in these matters. In any event, it is clear what advice was given by the British officer and it is also clear that that advice was not followed. That is also an important element of the Cabinet Secretary’s report.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, I was the Prime Minister’s principal private secretary at the time of these events. One of the documents published today is the letter from the Foreign Secretary’s office seeking the Prime Minister’s assent on 3 February to the sending out of a military adviser. While it is clear from the extent of the underlinings made by the Prime Minister on that letter that she considered this proposal very carefully, will the Minister confirm that, beyond giving her assent and asking to be kept informed of subsequent developments, she took no initiative and no other action in relation to this matter between March and June, when the military action took place?

[Baroness Warsi]

That certainly appears to be the case and, of course, if the noble Lord’s reading and recollection is of that being the case, certainly I would take his word on that.

Project Tempora

Lord Butler of Brockwell Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

I go back to what I said at the outset. Accountability in relation to these sensitive matters takes a number of different formats. We have laws in this country which are completely compliant with the Human Rights Act and which set out the parameters and the remit of the intelligence services. Some of the highest politicians in this land—the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary—have to sign off on each and every warrant presented before them. We have parliamentary accountability in the form of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Again, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on what its views were after its visits. We also have the tribunal, where individual cases can be presented.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that GCHQ was candid to the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill about the unclassified aspects of what it can and cannot do in collecting communications metadata, and candid with the Intelligence and Security Committee about the classified aspects of it?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord makes an important point. The Intelligence and Security Committee conducted a thorough review of the Draft Communications Data Bill. This was done at the same time as a review by the Joint Committee. It is right that it is the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee, rather than other parliamentary committees, to look at sensitive information.

Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report for 2010-11

Lord Butler of Brockwell Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, it is an honour to represent your Lordships’ House on the Intelligence and Security Committee, not least because I share the view which has been expressed that the committee’s work is very important. It is also a pleasure to serve on such a distinguished and experienced committee, which is very ably chaired by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, with his experience as a former Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary, and is supported by a first-rate secretariat. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, refer to that. The committee also contains others with ministerial and Front-Bench experience in the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office, including, notably, the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, with whom it is a special pleasure for me to share the representation of your Lordships’ House.

As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has referred to the chairmanship of the committee, I see the argument that such committees should have a chairman drawn from an opposition party. However, I am absolutely confident that I speak for the whole committee when I say that when we have the good fortune to have a chairman of the calibre, energy and experience of Sir Malcolm Rifkind, that trumps every other argument.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Perhaps I may make two things clear. First, I was repeating the argument that the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, made last year; it was not I but he who was arguing for an opposition chairman. Secondly, having known Malcolm Rifkind since we served together on Edinburgh City Council, I wholly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has said.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, the importance of the work of the committee has grown because of the greatly increased salience that the intelligence services have gained in our national life. It is a long time—many decades—since their activities were directed only against foreign antagonists of this country. Sadly, the growth of terrorism—first Irish and then other forms of criminality and terrorism, not only Islamic—has meant that the activities of the intelligence services have had also to involve citizens of our own country. It is therefore right that the agencies should no longer operate wholly in the shadows but that legislation should have been passed to put them on a statutory basis, to regulate them and to hold them accountable to Parliament.

At the same time, much of their activity has to remain secret. On that secrecy their effectiveness and the trust and co-operation of allied countries and those who would help them depends. We have to combine accountability with the protection of legitimate secrecy, and that is where a committee of parliamentarians has an important role to play.

Two other circumstances have affected the role of the intelligence agencies in today’s world. One—and this point has not been made this afternoon—is that their work has become much more international. Terrorism, espionage and criminality no longer respect national boundaries, if they ever did. This means not only that we have to work much more closely with allies and other countries with shared interests, but that the agencies within our own country—both outward-looking and inward-looking—have to work much more closely together. The committee has seen that development and it welcomes and encourages it.

The second development is that the advance of technology means that the methods and instruments of intrusion into the lives of individuals and institutions have greatly expanded. The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, rightly referred to cybercrime and the threat that it presents to public and private institutions in our country. Other examples are the extraordinary development of satellite imagery and the more mundane but equally intrusive proliferation of close-circuit television cameras, through which those pursuing their legitimate business around the streets of London may these days be recorded several hundred times in a single day. Quite rightly, the Protection of Freedoms Bill before your Lordships’ House provides for regulation of the uses to which such recordings can be put.

I mention these developments because it must be the responsibility of those who supervise the agencies on behalf of Parliament, within the ring of secrecy, to ensure not only that the agencies are efficient and effective in their vital work, but that they use the instruments of intelligence-collection available to them both proportionately and responsibly. I want to refer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, picking up on the report, about the remuneration and character of those who work within the agencies. On the character of those people I think that I can reassure him. When one has the privilege of meeting staff of the agencies, one can be certain that it never has been the case that they are conventional, like any other civil servants. There are a lot of unconventional personalities.

Two other things hold them to the agencies—in addition to remuneration, which is very important. One is the importance with which they regard their work, which is a very important factor in morale, and the other is the excitement, originality and opportunities for enterprise within the law. They are the sort of people who can be relied on to operate in that way.

I was Cabinet Secretary when the legislation establishing the Intelligence and Security Committee was passed in 1994. I well remember the hesitation and anxiety with which the Government and agencies regarded the admission of parliamentarians into the ring of secrecy at that time—hesitation and anxiety which I confess I wholly shared. The committee has come a very long way since then in building the confidence of successive Governments and the intelligence community. The fact that it has done so has been due to the responsibility and wisdom shown by successive members of the committee, and I pay tribute to them. Over the past 17 years, there really has not been a major incident to damage that confidence, and that is essential to the work of the committee. The committee needs to be prepared to be a frank critic of the intelligence community when criticism is justified, but also—as was said earlier—its champion when external criticism and antagonism from those who know little of the agencies’ work is unjustified.

The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, made the point that, as the confidence of the intelligence community and the responsibility and discretion of successive members of the intelligence and security community have grown, the committee’s work has extended well beyond the restrictions in the original legislation. This has benefits for Parliament and the intelligence community itself. The committee’s surveillance is no longer restricted in practice to the administration, policy and expenditure of the Security Service, SIS and GCHQ, the terms in which the original legislation was expressed. It has extended more generally to the work of the intelligence community as a whole, including—retrospectively—specific operations. This has been of general benefit.

However, if the committee is to achieve its full value, it needs to command the confidence not only of the Government and the intelligence community but of Parliament and the public generally. What has happened de facto therefore now needs to be recognised in legislative changes while retaining the necessary safeguards. The committee should now become a parliamentary committee instead of a government-appointed committee of parliamentarians. The wider extent of its activities should be explicitly provided for. Picking up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, made, this would increase the independence of the secretariat of the committee who would then become servants of Parliament and not simply members of the Executive. I agree that that would be valuable. The committee should be able to reassure the public that it can require information from the intelligence community and not just request it—require it subject to the veto of a Secretary of State, without being at the mercy of the agencies in respect of the information they can obtain. These are changes that the committee has proposed; in fact, successive committees have proposed them. It is very welcome that the Government have endorsed them in their Justice and Security Green Paper.

As the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said, the Government have so far reserved their position on the extent to which the committee should oversee the operational activity of the agencies. Like the noble Marquess, I urge the Government to have confidence about this. I make one point in particular. The committee has already shown itself to be competent in examining specific episodes, often at the Government’s request. However, the public are much more naturally concerned with the operational activities of the agencies—such as their part in the treatment of terrorist suspects or the events leading up to 7/7—than in the agencies’ financing and administration. If the committee is to command the public’s confidence in holding the intelligence community to account, it must reassure them that the agencies are being properly supervised by Parliament. It is essential that the Intelligence and Security Committee be able to play a role in that, as indeed it already has done. It is not as though we want to look at such operations currently; we will always look at them retrospectively. Nor do we want to go as far as the US congressional committees, which are required by legislation to be informed of the agencies’ current operations. Does the Lord Chairman think I am going on too long?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)]

I was waiting to see if the noble Lord had finished because a Division has been called and we will have to adjourn the Committee. We will look forward to hearing the remainder of his speech when we reconvene at 7 pm.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

It will not take very long.

Committee adjourned at 6.49 pm for a Division in the House.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, I have only one other point to make, and it is the one that was covered by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. It is a very important part of the Government’s Justice and Security Green Paper and of the ISC’s annual report. It is the balance between the interests of justice and the protection of intelligence in court proceedings.

Civil litigation against the Government by those who claim to have been improperly treated at Guantanamo and elsewhere has introduced two new dimensions to this problem. One is the order of the judge in the Binyam Mohamed case referred to by the noble Marquess to disclose American-sourced material. As the noble Marquess said, it is difficult to overstress the effect that this has had on the attitude of the US authorities to sharing intelligence material with the UK. The other is the difficulty that the United Kingdom has had in defending actions against the Government when it can do so only by disclosing sensitive material. I fully understand the feelings of those who are reluctant to see the extension of closed material procedures or the greater use of special advocates. But I agree with the Government that the best interests of justice for all parties can be secured only by the extension of closed material procedures and the use of special advocates in those cases. But I also agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, that this needs to be buttressed by writing into the law a rebuttable presumption against the disclosure of sensitive material in such cases to provide guidance to judges about what is the will of Parliament. I agree with the noble Marquess about that as, indeed, I do on all the other points he made.

As has already been said, there are many other important matters covered by the ISC’s report: the creation of a National Security Council and its implications for the Joint Intelligence Committee and the rest of the Government’s central intelligence machinery; the security aspects of the Olympic Games and the challenges to the intelligence agencies in dealing with them at the same time as the other demands on their resources; the need to wake up government agencies and the private sector to the threat that cyber poses to them; and much else.

One of the great benefits of the ISC’s annual report is that it is a comprehensive annual report on current issues affecting our intelligence community. What is more, having had no part in drafting it, I think I can say that it is a good read. I feel grateful and privileged to be able to contribute to it in at least a small way.

Foreign Policy

Lord Butler of Brockwell Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, I do not often venture into the field of foreign affairs, and when I put my name down to speak in this debate I was not aware that it would coincide with a speech by the Foreign Secretary which, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, I have not had the opportunity to read, but which I heard reported on the radio this morning and found very encouraging. Anyway, the debate does coincide with that speech. I do not suppose that the noble and learned Lord knew that it was going to happen but I congratulate him on his timing and on providing the opportunity for this debate.

I want to make two suggestions which, in the light of the reports of Mr Hague’s speech, I do with more confidence than I would otherwise have done. It has been a great sadness to me as I have travelled in recent years to see the hollowing out of our Diplomatic Service and the cultural activities which have been such an important source of British influence overseas for so long.

When I was Cabinet Secretary, there was a proposal—it may well be that the noble Lords, Lord Wright and Lord Kerr, were among its architects—to produce a merged programme to embrace all the Government’s public expenditure that supported our overseas interests—defence, aid, diplomacy, cultural relations and intelligence. Its purpose would have been to enable a trade-off between these various types of expenditure to be made more easily—between weapons systems and the other means of promoting Britain’s overseas interests. The cancellation of a single fighter aircraft could have saved an embassy but, for obvious reasons, the Ministry of Defence did not support a proposal of this sort, and neither did the Treasury. Because the proposal was seen to be so self-interested on the part of the Foreign Office, the suggestion foundered. I was not in the Treasury at the time and I do not have to apologise for my part in its foundering.

Now, when I see in how many countries our diplomatic representation has been reduced or eliminated, and see visa activities in friendly countries having to be handled by posts in other countries—with all the inconvenience and alienation which that produces—I think that our methods of making trade-offs between the different forms in which Britain’s overseas interests are promoted need to be looked at again. We need a more rational system for making those trade-offs. I am not saying that that ought to be achieved through a merged public expenditure programme, but the mechanisms of public expenditure control and decision should not be put in the silos in which they have been put in the past.

That is particularly important at this time, because the House is very well aware that difficult choices will have to be made in the period ahead. Defence and foreign relations are not protected programmes, although overseas aid is. The strategic defence review will involve decisions which are difficult enough, but if the consequence of our public expenditure structure is that the review is carried out within the confines solely of the defence budget, and if the Foreign Office vote has to find a further 25 per cent in savings on top of what has already been taken from it—small change in relation to defence expenditure—I fear now that we will do irreparable harm to one of Britain’s greatest sources of overseas influence, which is the respect that is still felt for our diplomatic functions and cultural activities overseas.

The other area in which there is scope for better mechanisms for considering trade-offs is our policy in the European Union. The activity, speed and quick-footedness with which Britain was able to reach decisions and policy positions in European Union councils was widely admired throughout the world and did great credit to the Cabinet Office system and the work of UK representatives overseas. Two distinguished previous holders of those posts are in close proximity to me now. Where I always felt that we fell short compared with some of our partners was making the trade-offs at the most strategic levels. I take, for example, the French, and the House will know what I have in mind. Our policy positions were conducted too much on the basis of silos—of particular areas. We were not as good as particularly the French when considering Britain’s interests in the European Union in a synoptic way—by looking at what our most important objectives were, what we could concede and where we could use leverage to achieve the ends which were most important to us.

When I was Cabinet Secretary, we produced a committee of Permanent Secretaries who for a time looked at this issue and tried to give the Government some sense of priorities. That was during the time of the previous Conservative Government when there was insufficient unity at Cabinet level for colleagues to be particularly disposed to make trade-offs between each other. However, our system has lacked an ability to make trade-offs at a strategic level. Now that we have a national security adviser, I hope that we might have a national European adviser and that official machinery can be put in place, including a ministerial machinery, to make those trade-offs better.

As I have said, when I thought of making these suggestions I did not have very much hope that they would be very well or easily received by the Government. In the light of the reports on the Foreign Secretary’s speech today, I am more optimistic.