Extradition

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is also assiduous in standing up for his constituent and I recognise the campaign that has been fought over the years by many people. As I said earlier, however, my decision was based on the material that was available to me.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

I understand the difficult nature of the decision that my right hon. Friend has had to take. Extracts of some of the medical reports have been circulating in the House of Commons today and it seems to me that under the terms of the medical advice she received there was no other conclusion to reach that was consistent with Mr McKinnon’s human rights but that she should bring an end to the extradition process. As we have already heard, that is subject to universal acceptance.

I also agree with what my right hon. Friend said about a forum bar and the need, even with such a procedure embodied in our law, to ensure that it does not become the source of undue delay. Regrettably, however, I must disagree with her on the question of standard of proof. Once again, I respectfully disagree with the conclusions reached in the Baker report. In that, I am supported by a large body of credible legal opinion, not to mention many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Does she understand that sooner or later it will not be the perception that will be challenged but the substance of the distinction? Would not the protocol to which she referred as being necessary between the United Kingdom and the United States be an exact and appropriate vehicle in which to state that no one will be extradited from Great Britain to the United States unless there is probable cause for doing so?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend’s remarks on a number of my announcements today. I fully recognise the concern expressed in this House and elsewhere about the perception that there is a difference. Sir Scott Baker considered the issue very carefully and came to the conclusion that there was no significant difference between the requirements on either side of the Atlantic and that in effect there was no practical difference between the two. I recognise, however, the opinion expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the recent comment made by the chief constable of Greater Manchester. Referring to the police authority’s decision on the council tax grant, he thanked the authority for

“agreeing the budget which will allow us to start recruiting again and to continue to reduce crime and disorder.”

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

In the light of the discussions last week—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he deserves to be heard in an atmosphere of quietude.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

In the light of the discussions last week between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States about extradition, is the Home Secretary now in a position to tell the House when she expects to respond to the Baker report?

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. As he will have seen from the Prime Minister’s comments following his discussions with the President, discussions are taking place between this Government and the American Government about the extradition treaty, and I will report shortly.

Extradition

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing it. Like others, I believe that this debate should be held in the main Chamber. We are discussing fundamental constitutional rights. There is only one forum where those rights should be discussed, and that is the Floor of the House of Commons. The Leader of the House was with us a little while ago, and I have no doubt that he heard what many Members said, but I shall make a point of going to see him after this debate to reinforce the view that the Chamber is the place for such issues.

I first took an interest in these matters in July 2006, when at Prime Minister’s questions in two consecutive weeks, I sought to interrogate Tony Blair. I said then what I say now: the extradition treaty with the United States puts United Kingdom citizens in a position of disadvantage compared with their US counterparts. It is implied that the United States embraced the treaty, but that is not true. The Senate waited until autumn 2006 before ratifying it. The purported reason was that the strength of the Irish lobby in the United States was such that senators were concerned that the treaty, if ratified, might cause alleged terrorists from Ireland in the United States to be extradited to the United Kingdom. The treaty did not have an immaculate conception.

The treaty is wrong in principle. Extradition is based on the principle of reciprocity. For a state to give up one of its citizens to another jurisdiction can be justified only by the confident knowledge that citizens of both states have equal rights. I know that, here in the United Kingdom, the representatives of the United States have some reservations about what I and others are saying today. They need have no anxieties. I wish not for a levelling down but a levelling up. I seek equivalence, not exceptionalism.

I have sought to test the integrity of my position by asking myself what a United States member of Congress would do if the positions were reversed. We all know that such is the strength of feeling on Capitol hill about such issues that, if United Kingdom citizens were in a better constitutional position than Americans, there is no member of Congress who would not seek, as we do, to protect their own citizens. One thinks, for example, of Robert Byrd, the longest serving senator in the history of the United States and a constitutional expert to his fingertips. Faced with the situation that we face, I have absolutely no doubt how vehement and articulate his opposition would be.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is precisely because of the traditions of jurisprudence and respect for habeas corpus in both the United Kingdom and the United States that it is extremely important that we work together to level up the rules on extradition, as he says, so that we can send a message to other countries that are trying to achieve the same level of justice to which we have aspired and that we are achieving?

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I agree entirely. I can say this as a Scots lawyer, because we have a civil law rather than a common law system: one important export, even as long ago as our colonisation of the United States, was the common law. Habeas corpus is a fundamental principle of the law in the United States. Not only in federal law but in the laws of each state, habeas corpus occupies exactly the same important position, as my hon. Friend suggests.

I fancy that there is not much patience in the Chamber for an analytical exercise in the interpretation of the Baker report, but in order to provide some further reading to Members who have not yet had the opportunity to do so, I refer them to part 7, pages 231 to 243, paragraphs 728, 729, 735, 739 and 742, the burden of which is that the Baker report concluded that there was no significant difference between “reasonable suspicion,” which is the standard applicable in the United Kingdom under the treaty, and “probable cause,” which is the standard necessary in the United States and which is enshrined in the fourth amendment to the United States constitution.

I have the misfortune to disagree with the conclusions of the Baker report. I believe that probable cause is a requirement that has to be met before any United Kingdom citizen should be extradited to the United States. Why do I believe that? Because before surrendering a British citizen to a foreign jurisdiction, the state—our state—should reasonably require to ensure that there is a case requiring to be answered, not a suspicion. To borrow an illustration from my own experience as a prosecutor and from domestic law on both sides of the border, suspicion justifies arrest, but suspicion does not justify charge or prosecution. Probable cause, in my view, is necessary before prosecution can be justified.

I think that my argument is underpinned by the conclusions of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which reference has already been made. It concluded, rather as I have suggested, that it is necessary that the standard of proof on both sides of the Atlantic should be the same. Those arguments are properly set out on page 4 of the report. That the issue might require adjustment of the treaty was recognised by the Committee, whose Chair, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), is present, and by Baroness Neville-Jones, who gave evidence on behalf of the Government and who appeared to be optimistic that adjustment could be achieved.

I am persuaded by one other element of the consideration of these matters. There is a considerable predisposition on the part of the courts of the United States to invoke extraterritorial jurisdiction to an extent that we simply do not apply in this country. We have, therefore, in practice, no reciprocity in the application of extraterritorial jurisdiction. It is my view, however, that if the significant difference in the approach in the United States is, as we know, common, that is all the more reason that the standards of proof should be equivalent.

Let me deal quickly with three further issues. First, on the matter of forum, it is surely correct in principle that there should be an effective statutory presumption that a case be tried in the country where the crime is committed, and that only in the most special circumstances should there be a departure from that principle. Secondly, on legal representation—this is also recognised by the JCHR—someone who is being sought to be extradited needs good representation not just in this country, but in the country to which they are extradited. We know that the availability of public funds, or indeed of public defenders, is to different standards in different states of the United States.

Finally, on the application of the Human Rights Act 1998, which is, of course, a statutory requirement for the Home Secretary, I do not believe that there is any justification for the Baker committee’s recommendation that the Home Secretary’s authority on that should be transferred to the legal system. Baker says that there should be a removal because of delay being caused if it is invoked and because determination of extradition should be exclusively a judicial process. That, I think, fails to understand the nature of extradition, notwithstanding the detailed historical analysis that the Baker report contains. Extradition is diplomatic in the first instance. It becomes judicial and ultimately it is political.

In exercising that power, the Home Secretary is not acting ultra vires; she is exercising the power conferred on her by Parliament—the same sovereign Parliament that resolved that other parts of the procedure should be exercised by the courts. I see nothing wrong in principle with the Home Secretary exercising a power conferred on her by Parliament additional to the powers of the court. Parliament has chosen not to grant exclusive jurisdiction in matters of extradition to the courts, as Parliament is entitled to do. The truth is that the Home Secretary is exercising an administrative function in furtherance of the duties incumbent on her by the Human Rights Act.

It has been suggested that it would perhaps be helpful if the considerations that the Home Secretary is obliged to take into account were more fully described in legislation, such as the health of the person being considered for extradition, which is relevant to the speech we heard a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), the impact on family life, the quality of treatment that a person might receive in the penal system, and, of course, the proportionality of the likely sentence that might be imposed.

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for securing this debate. We have talked a lot about extradition treaties between the USA and the UK, and the European arrest warrant. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a case for looking at extradition treaties with countries in category 2 territories, such as South Africa, where my constituent, Shrien Dewani, may face trial, and at considerations such as the health of the person and whether they will face a fair trial, given, in the case of my constituent, the high media coverage that his case has received in the country to which he may be extradited?

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

My hon. Friend underlines the need for the Home Secretary to have the jurisdiction and the discretion that the law presently allows. It is a powerful argument in support of the view that that discretion should remain.

I have not sought to deal with any particular case or set of circumstances, but my interest in this matter was first aroused by the case of the NatWest three, one of whom, Mr Gary Mulgrew, was a constituent of mine. I think that one has to be careful about changing the law in response to particular cases—there is an old legal dictum that hard cases make hard law—but today this is an opportunity to define principle, and I for one am delighted that so many Members have chosen to be present for that purpose. I look forward to the occasion when we have a resolution on the Floor of the House to which we can give effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My right hon. and learned Friend may want to intervene to provide clarity on when the panel will report.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

As soon as possible.

[Tom Brake]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend, who has responded in true ministerial mode. The panel will respond as soon as possible.

Sir Scott Baker’s conclusions do not take into account the emotional strain that is put on individuals and families involved in extradition cases. His findings draw conclusions about, for example, whether a forum bar would have been used in historic cases, which are difficult to substantiate. He also suggests a periodic review of arrangements with certain countries, such as Russia or Azerbaijan, with which I feel very uncomfortable. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, has asked my right hon. and learned Friend to set up a panel, which will report as soon as possible.

I will not refer to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, because many other hon. Members have done so. I shall simply conclude by thanking Sir Scott Baker for his review, although I do not accept his findings. I therefore welcome and endorse the panel that is being established under the leadership of my right hon. and learned Friend. I hope that that panel will make recommendations to address the imbalances that we identified in opposition and which, because we have taken no action so far, remain and must be rectified.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Leigh, to follow the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on this important subject. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate. I agree that it would have been better to have this debate on the Floor of the House. These important matters have been of concern to many Members, hence the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who have attended the debate.

I want to re-emphasise the decisions taken so far by the Home Affairs Committee. Before I do so, I want to commend the excellent report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It was fair and balanced. It provided Members with an insight into the struggles faced not only by individuals, but by members of families who support those individuals not only in the normal legal process, but against Governments of other countries. It certainly will help my Committee in the work that we do.

I have an apology to make. We started our inquiry into extradition a year ago, but unfortunately events in the Home Affairs Committee tend to gather pace and different issues occupy us. We were therefore not able to conclude our report, partly because of the Committee’s heavy workload, but also because we were waiting for the outcome of Sir Scott Baker’s review. I am pleased to tell the House that Sir Scott Baker will be appearing before the Committee on 20 December. We have been trying to get him before us for a while, but we thought it best that he should report first before we questioned him on his conclusions. This debate will provide us with a great deal of information about individual cases, which I hope will assist the Committee and Parliament once we publish our report in February.

I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats will be having their own review. Judging by what the chairman of the panel has told the House today, I have a fair idea what the conclusions will be even before the review has begun. It would be very odd if we had conclusions from a review chaired by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) that were different from what he has said today and different from the principled stand that he took on the Gary McKinnon case. It would certainly be a shock to us all if they were different from the words of the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, and the words of the Deputy Prime Minister when in opposition, when he was clear that in his view Gary McKinnon should not be allowed to go to America to face trial.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I am loth to cause a shock to the right hon. Gentleman. He can assume that my views have been formed for a long time and are unlikely to be changed. However, there is an important element, to which I made reference earlier, about how one would effect the changes in the treaty arrangements between this country and the United States to ensure that a system that we find acceptable was put in place.

[Keith Vaz]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. That is the fundamental basis for what should happen next. There is consensus across the House about what is wrong with the treaty. I have spoken to previous Home Secretaries under the previous Government, one of whom expressed regret about the way in which the original treaty was negotiated. The next step, therefore, must be to look again at the treaty and see what changes can be made.

We have heard some extraordinary stories—I should say case histories, not stories—from the hon. Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). We have heard about the excellent work by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). The Home Affairs Committee listened carefully to the evidence given by the father of Babar Ahmad when he appeared. He spoke with great dignity. If someone’s son has been in custody for as long as Babar Ahmad, I would expect anger and outrage, but the way in which he gave evidence to the Committee was absolutely commendable.

The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who is not in his place at the moment, has done an outstanding job in protecting his constituent and in advancing the cause of Gary McKinnon. I do not think that we would have been discussing these issues had it not been for the case studies that we have had in Tooting and Southgate.

The Home Affairs Committee has unanimously written to the Minister. We wrote to the previous Minister with responsibility for immigration and the previous Home Secretary under the previous Government to urge them to write to the United States to express a view and conclude this matter. That is my plea to the Minister. We are told that politics is not included in such matters because of their legal nature, but we know that the Prime Minister spoke to President Obama about these matters when the President came to the United Kingdom, so there is politics in this. I cannot see why it has taken 18 months for the Home Secretary to make a decision about this case. I have written to her regularly on behalf of the Committee. Each time she has replied to tell me that the medical evidence cannot be agreed, but the medical evidence, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, has not changed over the past 18 months. I hope that we can reach a conclusion on this. Once we conclude on Gary McKinnon, and then when we hear the views of the Deputy Prime Minister, we will know the coalition Government’s position on the Act and the treaty. That is why the McKinnon case is so important.

I hope that we will have closure on this matter. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who have other cases will be able to get satisfaction. I do not know whether our report will be as brilliant as the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but I hope that, when we report in February, after we have taken evidence from Sir Scott Baker, we will be able to assist the House in deciding what the next steps will be.

Intelligence and Security Committee

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

I should begin with an apology because it has been my misfortune to miss a large part of the debate owing to a prior commitment, which was on behalf of Parliament but outside the House. However, I have had the opportunity to listen to the debate and hear some very fine and perceptive speeches. I hope that I may be excused for singling out the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who made a very wise contribution. I was also pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), with whom I serve on the Committee, because his four years in the Northern Ireland Office undoubtedly qualify him to speak with common sense and great knowledge of the problems Northern Ireland presents, not least in recent times. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Chair. I think that the Chair should be the best person for the job because any kind of preference, however well intentioned, could stand in the way of the Committee’s efficient working.

As for what the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) said, or at least implied, anyone who doubts the independence of the Committee over the years should come to the office and look at the photographs on the wall of the people who have constituted the Committee over 20 odd years. He will not find one of them, man or woman, who could be described in any way as less than fully independent. My experience as a relatively new member led me to believe from the very beginning that the quality I had to demonstrate most of all was independence.

Despite the independence of those who have served on the Committee, it is interesting to note the extent to which its role has been misunderstood, and often in circles where one would have hoped that its role would be much better appreciated. That is one of the most compelling arguments for the changes in the Committee that the Committee itself has recommended and that now form part of the Green Paper.

[Mr Winnick]

When I made my criticism of the Committee, I cited what the Joint Committee on Human Rights reported last year—that the Committee had not been sufficiently robust in dealing with the allegations of complicity in torture.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

That is a matter of judgment. Members of the Committee sign the Official Secrets Act and are subject to constraints when it comes to any criticism directed at them either collectively or individually. Based on my experience, however, I have never seen any action—or lack of action—on the part of the Committee which suggested a lack of independence of thought.

[Paul Murphy]

indicated assent.

[Mr George Howarth]

indicated assent.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I see members of the Committee, both past and present, nodding in agreement.

I talked about independence a moment or two ago, but two other elements are important to the Committee’s membership: experience and judgment. The assessment of these is of enormous significance and importance, and, given that the ultimate responsibility for security in this country rests with the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister ought to play a significant part in the formation of the Committee. We can argue about whether he should play a part after or in advance of an election, but that is a detail for another day. I am in no doubt about the principle, however, that as the Prime Minister answers to the nation—to the country—for the security of the country, in this matter at least he ought to have a determining role.

One other thing that has been brought rather remarkably to my attention is that the success of the three agencies depends on their co-operation. Those with longer—or perhaps not that much longer—memories than I will remember that there have been occasions in the not-so-distant past when the agencies have to some extent seemed at odds, when there has been a certain amount of competition and when they have found it difficult to share common objectives and, indeed, common information.

The greater effectiveness of the services collectively has come about because of increasing co-operation. In the four years or so that I have been a member of the Committee, I have seen that co-operation grow and blossom. Co-operation is necessary because no one agency can hope to be the fount of all intelligence wisdom any more than one country can. That is why our relations with our allies are of very considerable significance, and why the debate and, indeed, controversy about the control principle have become so salient.

I echo what others have said. When we last went to the United States, there was strong anecdotal evidence from people in positions of authority and responsibility that their anxiety about the control principle, or the lack of its application, might—if it had not already—inhibit the volume and quality of intelligence that they were willing to share.

If someone has that anxiety and concern, they have a simple way of dealing with it: they just stop giving significant information. The problem is that if ours is the country expecting to receive information of that quality, we have no way of knowing that they have stopped. The supplier can simply turn off the tap, and we have no way of knowing whether what we still receive is of quality or, indeed, the sort of worth that the arrangements between our closest allies have often provided.

It has been said—it is an entirely logical position to take—that if there is to be protection of information provided to us under the control principle, that enhances the argument for scrutiny at the instance of the Committee of the services. I certainly agree with that principle. That is why I hope that I am in the vanguard of those who support the proposal that the Committee become a Committee of Parliament, perhaps selected using the same method as that used by the Standards and Privileges Committee. However, as I have said, an important role and responsibility should rest with the Prime Minister.

Like some more long-standing Members, I remember the debates that surrounded the creation of the Intelligence and Security Committee and the atmosphere in which it was launched, which was very different from that now surrounding the Committee’s activities. Although I was not a member of the Committee at the time of its inception, I imagine that the atmosphere was also very different then between the Committee and the services. I do not doubt for a moment that the services were perhaps suspicious but certainly apprehensive about the extent to which the Committee might inhibit or create some kind of obstacle to their activities.

For that reason, we are entitled not only to change the form of the Committee but certainly to increase its powers. That is why the recommendation that we be able to “require” information rather than request it seems an essential part of the change that the Green Paper envisages. However, as others have said, the Committee staff is very modest in number. If the Committee is to fulfil this wider remit, it must have many more resources; otherwise it will have greater responsibility but less capability. That would be bound to reduce not only the quantity but the quality of scrutiny.

I am amused by the suggestion that rogue elements of Parliament might be keeping tabs on rogue members of the security services. It occurred to me that perhaps the best way to keep tabs on rogue elements of Parliament would be to employ the services of rogue elements of the security services. The latter proposition may prove more powerful than the first.

This is an annual debate of great importance. It is true that the quality of the Committee’s work depends to a large extent on the quality of the work done by its staff. That in turn depends on the quality of the activities carried out by those who work for the agencies. My experience of these people is that they are professional, unassuming and that they essentially live in the shade. There is no glory attached to what they do and there is hardly ever any public recognition. It is not the most generously remunerated occupation and it necessarily imposes considerable restrictions on personal life, on the ability to live in a normal way and even sometimes on someone being able to say what their occupation is. These are people of enormous quality. If one were looking for a fictional comparison, which is always dangerous, it is rather less like Ian Fleming and rather more like John le Carré.

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East very properly paid tribute to the quality of the members of the agencies, and I would most certainly like to do so too. I also pay tribute to the leadership in the agencies, because that has not been expressly referred to. Daily challenges have to be faced. One substantial challenge coming down the track is the Olympic games. I am not an entirely impartial observer of that because I attend the Olympic Board under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and, indeed, the Mayor. The Olympics will be a very formidable challenge.

Let me say, in parenthesis, that everyone with any interest in sport remembers the horrific outrage of Munich. If anything of that kind were to happen in any other games, it would inevitably be definitive. Therefore, in the next 12 months or so these unassuming professional people will, perhaps from a domestic point of view, face a more severe challenge than they have ever faced before. I am confident that they will meet that challenge.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who has demonstrated the qualities that we have all come to respect in him: first, he has good judgment; and secondly, he is unerringly fair in the judgments that he exercises. It is a pleasure to serve with him. I think we are now the two old lags of the Committee.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

But look how young we look!

[Mr Howarth]

In my case, yes. [Interruption.] We are both certainly young in our outlook.

I should like to echo the praise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave to the agencies and to the staff of the ISC, who are very open with us, very helpful, and enable us to do the job that we have been appointed to do. When we go to visit the agencies—sometimes we do have to make visits, like other Committees—or when they come to give evidence, those events are invariably well organised and well informed. Our most recent visit, which was to GCHQ, was no exception, and I learned a lot from it. It was well structured and well organised, and it is important to acknowledge that.

Before I move on to the three key issues that I want to cover, it is important to recognise that the impartiality, or independence, of the Committee is paramount and, in my experience, can be relied on. Michael Mates, a former member of the Committee who, until he retired at the last election, served on it from the outset, used to say that when the Committee meets, our political affiliations are left at the door. In my experience, that is the exactly the case. We are seeking not to score party political points, but to get at the truth and carry out the job of scrutinising the work of the agencies concerned.

That leads me on to my first point, which is about the reform of the Committee. A great deal has been said about that already, and I will not repeat it all, but I want to make two observations. First, I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife and my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) in that I am unconcerned about whether the Chairman of the Committee is a member of the governing party or of the Opposition party. I have served under four Chairmen—their downfall, in three cases, had nothing whatsoever to do with me—and I have found them all to be extremely capable and experienced. Whatever their political affiliation was, it never influenced how the Committee was conducted. The most important thing is that we get the right man or woman in the job. I hope, like the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), that we might have some continuity with the current Chairman during the course of this Parliament, because that is helpful.

Secondly, I support the reforms of the Committee set out in the Green Paper and covered in our report. Let us be brutally frank: there are now two Prime Ministers who have wanted reforms in this direction, and it would be a very foolish Committee that did not notice that they were both from different parties and that perhaps the time for change had arrived. I therefore have no problem with the reforms.

However, we need to be careful about one thing. We should not set up the expectation that these reforms will make the whole operation of the services and everything that they do a matter of public knowledge. As the Chairman of the Committee said at the outset, there is information that we are party to that we can never make public because we sign the Official Secrets Act and, by and large, retain the trust of the agencies. That is why we sometimes, reluctantly, have to put redactions in our annual reports. Principled critics of the Committee criticise it because we have access to privileged and secret information. States will always have secrets, and necessarily so. We should not lead anybody to believe that everything that we know will be made public as a result of the reforms of the Committee. I know that nobody is claiming that and I do not mean this as a criticism of the Government or other Committee members. However, it is important, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) made clear at the outset, that there will not be a free-for-all in relation to the information that the state has and what can be made public. The brutal truth is that a state secret that becomes public is no longer a state secret and is therefore useless.

My second point is about cyber-security. That issue has been covered extensively, but I want to cover it in a slightly different way. It is not a new issue. In June 2009, the Cabinet Office produced the “Cyber Security Strategy of the United Kingdom”, which rightly stated that it was an urgent, high-level issue that could not be ignored. More recently, in October 2010, the national security strategy cited

“Hostile attacks upon UK cyber space by other states and large scale cyber crime”

as a tier-one risk, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington has said. For several years, the importance of this issue has been acknowledged. However, for national security and diplomatic reasons, the UK has been coy about naming those responsible, at least until recently. I will say a little more about the recent developments where those responsible have been named in a moment.

First, I want to use this opportunity to emphasise how important this issue is for our country. Our annual report makes it clear that we generally approve of the cross-cutting approach that the Government are taking on cyber-security. It states rightly that the Government’s decision to move ministerial responsibility for the issue to the Cabinet Office, which is better placed to deal with such issues across Departments, is appropriate. That was a good move on the part of the Government.

It is also important that we seek better international cyber-security controls against cyber-attacks. I do not underestimate the difficulties that that presents. I am well aware that the Foreign Secretary is on the case and is raising this issue in international forums, no doubt discretely. I believe that we need to develop international protocols and controls over the coming years to make it easier to get control over what is going on across the world. I do not make that point in a spirit of criticism, I merely say that the matter has to be given some prominence. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), might be able to support that point of view when he winds up the debate. It is in the interests of our national security, and of businesses in the UK, that we take such an approach.

I wish to make one further point on cyber-security that is perhaps less driven by consensus than those that I have already made. It concerns the role and status of the Prime Minister’s official representative to business on cyber-security, Baroness Neville-Jones, who was of course Security Minister until May. Over recent years, our Committee has struggled with both the current and previous Government on whether those primarily responsible for attacks could be named in our reports. I am sure the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife would bear me out on that. Up until this year, we were losing that struggle. However, there has been movement. In his recent signed article in The Times, the head of GCHQ, Mr Iain Lobban, flagged up the importance of the issue, but sensibly declined to say which countries were responsible.

In our report, published in July, we went further, stating:

“The greatest threat of electronic attack continues to be posed by State actors and, of those, Russia and China are”

suspected of carrying out “the majority of attacks.” That form of words, carefully nuanced and the product of thorough negotiations between the services, the Government and our Committee, was the best way of putting it. Certainly the Government and the agencies concerned seemed to believe that that was the right way to describe the situation. However, when Baroness Neville-Jones was pressed in an interview on Radio 4’s “The World at One” about whether China and Russia were involved in such attacks, she responded, “They certainly are”. That is rather further than anybody else has gone.

The reason for highlighting that is straightforward. Either it is right to be circumspect about naming the states concerned, or it is not. It is not clear to me whether Baroness Neville-Jones speaks for the Government or whether she is, as it were, a free spirit in these matters. We need to know with what authority she speaks, and to what extent anything she says can be attributed to the Government or to the agencies concerned. Perhaps the Minister might be able to say a little about the noble Lady’s position, and what her status and authority is.

I turn to the use of intelligence material as evidence. The issue has arisen principally from the Binyam Mohamed case, and the Government have brought forward a way of dealing with it that may or may not work. I agree with the points made in our annual report about the matter, but what concerns me is that, no matter how Parliament may express itself on the issue, what guidance is given to the judiciary or what clauses are put in Bills, at the end of the day judges who will handle such cases will have to make a choice between, on the one hand, what is in the national interest and important for national security, and on the other hand the conduct of the court and the particular trial that is taking place. My fear is that the conduct of the trial and the proceedings of the court will, in some cases, as in the Binyam Mohamed case, take precedence over what Parliament intended, anything in any particular Act of Parliament, and the national interest. This is not an attack on judges. I have tried to think of this by asking myself, “What if I were sitting in that chair and had to make that choice,” but they might ask, “What am I responsible for?” The answer is that they are responsible for the good conduct of that trial.

Why is that important? Several hon. Members, including the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, who chairs the Committee, have made the point that it is hugely important that the co-operation we have with foreign Governments on intelligence remains something on which we can rely. In turn, it is vital that those Governments feel that intelligence that is passed to the UK will not be made public in court proceedings. I would go slightly further than the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife. I believe that the amount and quality of intelligence that we have received from the US since the Binyam Mohamed case has declined. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that is a difficult case to prove, and I cannot within the confines of this debate give chapter and verse on it—certain issues of which I am aware cannot be discussed in public—but most well informed people who have made a judgment on the matter believe that co-operation between the US and the UK has declined.

That is important not from the point of view of the volume of information that we receive, but because incidents have been prevented on the basis of intelligence co-operation not only with the US, but with other close allies. The reputation of the UK could become such that foreign agencies and Governments feel they cannot share information with us because it will end up being broadcast all over the place in a court case. As has already been said, there is evidence that fishing trips are being made in the British courts to support cases elsewhere.

I am not necessarily saying that the Government have got it wrong. My point is that we need to think long and hard about how we will handle this, not because of any political matter that might attach itself to the problem, and not even because of day-to-day political relationships with other Governments, but because getting as much information as we can is in our national interest and the interests of the security of our people. I hope that will be addressed fully and sustainably as things develop and in legislation. It should be addressed in a way that does not leave the courts feeling that they can do what they like regardless.

As other hon. Members have said, it is an enormous privilege to be a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee—it is now six years since I was fortunate to be appointed to it. The Committee is sometimes criticised not for what we do, but for what we cannot say. We should be careful in how we deal with that. Hopefully, we are all big enough and experienced enough to know that we sometimes have to take a hit as a Committee and as individuals because some sections of the press and the media want to know what we know and we cannot tell them, but at the end of the day, being able properly to oversee the activities of the agencies and knowing why the public need to be protected overrides our concerns about any criticism we might get in the media.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

The Government have opted for legislation rather than for the order-making procedure, but by introducing new clause 13 the Minister demonstrates that the legislative approach is a principle that can be departed from in certain circumstances. The Committee found that an essential way to create a pragmatic response would be to apply the order-making procedure in all circumstances. So far, the Government’s response on the matter has been exiguous to say the least.

The first problem is that if we recalled Parliament for a statement and a debate, we would be doing something quite different from recalling Parliament in order to make primary legislation, remembering that that would have had to pass through not only this House but the other place. But there is a further point, and it seems even more significant as a matter of principle. How could one be assured that, in the course of a debate here about such primary legislation, nothing would take place that did not have the effect of prejudicing the right to a fair trial?

[James Brokenshire]

Parliament has shown itself capable in the past of conducting debates about sensitive issues and of being recalled quickly in exceptional circumstances. The current consideration of issues such as phone hacking illustrates how Parliament can consider and discuss very sensitive issues, and Parliament’s response to the riots over the summer also highlighted the fact that it is possible for the House to be recalled and to return at very short notice.

We return, however, to the principle that maintaining 14 days in primary legislation, rather than having a general order-making power, represents a clear expression of the very exceptional nature of the powers sought, gives Parliament the opportunity to debate the issues and, crucially, avoids 28 days becoming the maximum by default, as it appeared to be under the previous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

The power to dissolve Parliament and, for that matter, the power to hold the Queen’s Speech, is held by the Crown, by Government. It seems bizarre that in that exceptional moment, when the Government have more power than at any other time, we would give them the power to allow an extension to 28 days—corralled around in the various ways that the Minister provided for—but not in other circumstances, when Parliament can hold the Crown to account. The amendment relating to the power of Dissolution is ludicrously over-complicated. It certainly would not pass any “easy English” rule, given the number of sub-clauses and intricacies.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

What’s new?

Counter-terrorism Review

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is an extremely important matter and a great many right hon. and hon. Members understandably wish to question the Home Secretary about it. However, there is also important business to follow, and therefore considerable pressure on time. Brevity in questions and answers alike is therefore imperative, a fine example of which can now be provided by Sir Menzies Campbell.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

May I remind the Home Secretary that it was a Labour Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, who put through emergency legislation in relation to terrorism in Northern Ireland in the course of one parliamentary day, demonstrating that, if there is consensus, a way can be found to legislate? May I also say to her that, in this finely balanced package—particularly in relation to control orders—she provides a welcome alternative to, and relief from, what often seemed to be the unbridled authoritarianism of the previous Government? Does she further understand that she strikes a particularly welcome note in continuing to pursue the possibility of intercept evidence, and in her emphasis on surveillance, investigation and prosecution?

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his contribution. I am particularly grateful to him for pointing out, from his experience, that it is perfectly possible to pass legislation in one parliamentary day, as did a Labour Home Secretary. Of course, the crucial factor then was consensus across the House, and I hope that we shall be able to achieve that again, should it be necessary to bring forward the emergency legislation to which I referred in my statement.

My right hon. and learned Friend also reminds us that is has been important for the coalition Government to ensure that we rebalance the needs of our national security with our civil liberties. I was disappointed that the shadow Home Secretary made no attempt to apologise for the way in which the previous Labour Government infringed people’s civil liberties.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I reflect, as he does, on the importance of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States of America, but I am also aware, obviously, of comments that have been made outside the House and inside this Chamber about the extradition treaty between the UK and the USA. That is why I think it entirely right for the coalition Government to have agreed that we will not only review that treaty but address the issue more widely and review the operation of European arrest warrants, about which hon. Members—particularly my right hon. and hon. Friends—have also expressed some concerns in this Chamber. I do not wish to prejudge the outcome of the review, but, as I said, I will be making more details of the review available to the House shortly.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Does the Home Secretary understand that, in addition to the lop-sided nature of the legislation, there is a further issue that prejudices British citizens, namely the willingness of American courts to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction and entertain prosecutions in circumstances where doing so would simply not be permitted in this country? Will that second issue also form part of her review?

[Mrs May]

Let me say to my right hon. and learned Friend that, as I have indicated, I am well aware of the range of concerns that exist in relation to the extradition treaty between the UK and the USA. That is why the coalition Government have agreed that we should have this review of the extradition treaty and take it more widely, looking at all our extradition arrangements to ensure that they operate effectively and in the interests of justice.