Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 14. This is one of those moments when I feel, as I suspect other noble Lords also feel, quite frustrated by the procedures of this House. In a way, it is a pity that we cannot hear from my noble friend the Minister about his amendment ahead of the debate. If that were possible we could perhaps give our reasons why some of us feel that, although we are hugely grateful to him for tabling it, his amendment is still—to put it politely—a little timid. There remains a lack of clarity. But there we are; we have the situation as it stands.

Obviously, I support Amendment 14. As a fellow member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I will not seek to repeat everything that other JCHR members—including the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady O’Loan and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—have said already. We looked at this subject extremely carefully when we considered the legislation as a committee.

Although we are, as I say, grateful that my noble friend has brought forward his amendment, he will not be surprised to hear that there is still a lack of clarity. I think that that was demonstrated by the letter in the Guardian yesterday. It was sent by 500 signatories who are genuinely concerned about academic freedom. I would point out one part of the letter in particular. It states:

“Ensuring colleges and universities can continue to debate difficult and unpopular issues is a vital part”—

of responding—

“to acts of terror against UK”,

citizens. It said that it is important,

“to maintain and defend an open, democratic society in which discriminatory behaviour of any kind is effectively challenged”.

We want to be sure that when this legislation leaves your Lordships’ House, there is real clarity and an acceptance and understanding among the academic community and others that we have done all that we can to ensure that the Prevent duty cannot be used to prevent lawful speech. As I said on Second Reading and again in Committee, for so many young people, university is their first opportunity away from home to be able to debate openly and freely and to hear other points of view from different cultures. Therefore, to send out a message that that possibility has been diffused in any way would be a great mistake.

I wonder why—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has said—my noble friend the Minister’s amendment does not deal with Scotland. Perhaps that silence is due to the Bill team’s lack of time to respond to our request for referencing Scotland. Perhaps it is to do with negotiations; perhaps it is because the Minister has a strong argument for why Scotland should not be included. We are, as I said, somewhat compromised, because although we will hear from my noble friend, we will not be able to respond.

I hope my noble friend is able to take on board the fact—I think that this feeling is shared around your Lordships’ House—that we have come an awfully long way since the meeting that took place only, probably, three weeks ago. My noble friend as well as the Minister from another place came and gave us and others in another part of your Lordships’ House the time to listen to the concerns of the academic community and others about these clauses. I should perhaps declare that I am not a member of the academic community. We very much hope that we can be more persuasive today.

[Lord Morgan (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a long and fascinating debate and, like other speakers, I pay tribute to the Minister for his rationality, willingness to conciliate and awareness of the seriousness of these issues. Like my noble friends who have spoken, I wish that we were able to go further and to have a government amendment which expressed terms such as “statutory duty” and “the role of university personnel” with much greater clarity. As on previous occasions, I wish our Front Bench had not been less than wholehearted on this matter and taken a view, which many of us knew nothing about, which apparently has guaranteed academic freedom—so that is all right then. It is not a satisfactory position.

I speak not as a party person but as someone who has spent his entire career in the university world. I was a university teacher—I am a university teacher now in my retirement in King’s College—and I was a vice-chancellor for seven years. Universities are a unique marketplace for ideas—that is their ultimate purpose. They may additionally assist with creating wealth and giving local employment but their main function is to be uninhibitedly and courageously involved in ideas, particularly language. If we are talking about terms such as “terrorism” or elements which are conducive or similar to terrorism, you need extreme clarity, including the capacity to debate these matters.

I was concerned when we had a helpful meeting the other day that the reasonableness of the Minister was not paralleled by his government colleague, who talked not about terrorism but about pathways to terrorism. It seems that if you produce a concept which is in the mind of terrorists you are automatically creating a pathway. However, pathways cover many things. They can emerge in an unexpected way and can lead nowhere or everywhere. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred to the University of Wales, where he knows I had the pleasure of working with him, and how a pathway, when we were talking about the theme of nationalism, led to one or two misguided people blowing up buildings. That was not a necessary consequence of that debate. The effect of opening up the theme of what nationalism was—its different political and cultural expressions and so on—had a civilising effect and nationalism resulted not in bombs but in devolution being debated in this House and on the statute book. Pathway is a dangerous concept. Non-violent extremism has been dismissed as nonsensical by other noble Lords and I need not stress that again.

I wish to make two more points: this duty is unworkable and it is wrong. It is unworkable because I can say that as a vice-chancellor—perhaps other vice-chancellors will disagree—it would not have been possible to carry out this role, this statutory duty: we would be obliged by the nature of our professional role not to apply it. As I say, the purpose is for universities to be free to debate ideas. You would be forced to discuss with student societies who they were going to invite, whether alternative views would be presented and what the general tone would be. You would, in effect, be censoring or monitoring the interchange of ideas in a way which is not compatible with being the head of or a senior figure in a university.

The nature and the force of the statutory duty and the way in which it would be exercised are still not clear in the Bill. It appears to have satisfied our Front Bench but it has not satisfied me or people such as my noble friends who have first-hand experience of working in universities. So, first, it is completely unworkable. It would destroy the very essence of collegial collaboration within a university institution and the element of trust which is absolutely essential to the way in which a university operates.

Finally, this duty is wrong. It is trying to undermine precious, unique and special institutions in this country which are honoured all over the world. These institutions do different things: they are impressive for their intellectual standards, which are widely acknowledged and admired, and for their internationalism. The whole point of being in a university is that everyone is equal there; you do not identify or marginalise any particular minority groups. To even suggest that universities should do anything other than what they do and act as a kind of thought police is deeply damaging to something which has been a pride of the history of this country for many centuries.

I hope that the Minister, with the tolerance, rationality and courtesy that he has shown, will feel able to go further and pursue the path suggested by other noble Lords of removing universities from the Bill.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the former Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, in which role I received complaints from students from every university. So I have that experience in addition to having spent decades at Oxford.

I take the unusual position that whether or not these amendments are passed it will make absolutely no difference to the law. They are tautologous. They say that one has to have regard to freedom of speech within the law. However, if the Bill is passed, freedom of speech within the law will mean that the law in this Bill is incorporated, so it will not take you any further.

Sadly, over the past 30 years academic freedom, which is one thing, and freedom of speech in the universities, which is another, have been savaged. I wish I could share the rosy view of academic freedom put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Morgan and Lord Elystan-Morgan. Some noble Lords may recall that in 1988 all university statutes were arbitrarily removed and new ones imposed without consent which removed academic tenure. The House must know that the selection of students is controlled, one way and another, by the state to the nth degree, as is the direction of research. I do not have the time to go into it but academic freedom has been greatly undermined.

As to freedom of speech, again, sadly, there are umpteen laws that reduce it in the university. I do not have time to go into all of them but they include protection against harassment and racial and religious hatred. Can your Lordships imagine what would happen if someone turned up as a lecturer or as a visitor to say that one race was inferior to another? They would not get to the end of their lecture, I can assure you. There are some things that ought not to be said—and, indeed, are not said—but there is no absolute freedom of speech. The Equality Act 2010 put special duties on universities to promote racial harmony between different groups on campus and the Terrorism Acts of 2000 and 2006 likewise curbed freedom of speech. I am sorry to shatter the illusion but it is not there any more, not as we would wish it to be. To say that in promoting the objects of this Act, as it will be, the universities will have to have regard to freedom of speech within the law simply means that they will have to have regard, whatever that means, to freedom of speech as already curtailed as I have described, plus as it will be curtailed, for good or ill, by this Act. So I do not mind whether or not the amendments are accepted because they do not mean much legally.

I remind the House that it is not in the academic arena where the trouble, if any, arises; it is with the visiting speakers and the societies. Under the Education Act 1986 universities already have onerous duties in regard to risk assessment, stopping speeches if necessary and checking on visiting speakers. They have codes of practice on this which, I have to say, are very often ignored. There is nothing new about this. They chafe, but it has been the law for 20 or 30 years that there have to be checks on visiting speakers.

However, this has not stopped some speakers from being howled down. Again, I have not the time to give examples, but I can assure noble Lords that visiting ambassadors sometimes get howled down; that other speakers get hassled and jostled; that there are meetings where cries go up of “Kill the Jews” and that sort of thing, when the Middle East is debated. It is not a happy situation. I wish it were better, but it is not. Basically, I am saying that this will not make much difference. We should also recall that some 30% of those convicted of offence—

Student Visas

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, how universities deal with this is largely a matter for them. I believe that I was right to draw the attention of the House to those measures which we eventually agreed in the Immigration Act to deal with this matter. It should make it much easier to monitor and deal with in future, but we have to deal with things at present. I emphasise that the vast majority of students here are genuine and are here to study. We want to make sure that we give them our support. We want to make sure that the vast majority of educational institutions are genuine and doing their best for their students’ education. We will invite the Department for Education, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, the Scottish funding agencies, Universities UK and the National Union of Students to join a working group on how we offer support to genuine students who find themselves in situations not of their making as a result of the measures that we are taking today.

[Lord Morgan (Lab)]

My Lords, it is very pleasing that the Minister managed to make some sympathetic remarks about overseas students. I thought that the initial Statement, which, I appreciate, was read in the House of Commons, was deeply depressing, seeing students as a threat and not an opportunity or enrichment of this country, and seeing the issue in terms of immigration and not of educational policy. Is not the real explanation of this problem to do with privatisation? We are not talking about universities; we are talking about a whole range of privately funded colleges and institutions, many of them in London, which do not observe the strict academic and educational standards of our universities, of one of which I had the privilege of being a vice-chancellor. The institution that is under criticism is a hived-off institution to deal with English language teaching. I hope that the Minister, who I know to be a very progressive-minded man, will take the opportunity to affirm that real universities observe the highest standards in inquiring into the educational and personal background of students. It is really quite unfair of the Statement made in the House of Commons to confuse them with a number of far inferior institutions.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sorry that the noble Lord has taken that view of the Statement. I think that it described why we were taking action this day to deal with particular institutions. I stayed for the questions after seeing my honourable friend Mr Brokenshire make his Statement, and he was at pains to emphasise that our relationship with universities is very important to us, because £2.8 billion—or is it 2.8%?—of the British economy is in the educational sector. I shall not rise to the fly that the noble Lord has cast across me about privatisation. I do not think that that matters. The truth of the matter is that all education institutions, whether public or private, must conduct themselves in a proper fashion. That is what we are seeking to emphasise. However, as I think I made clear earlier, I believe in the universities of this country. They enhance our lives and prosperity and enable us to have a presence in the world that we would not have without their international role.

Immigration: Home Office Meetings

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not think that I used that word. In fact, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. The Government made funds available to ensure that students could continue their studies because we understand that the problem lay with the university, not with the students there.

[Lord Morgan]

Is the Minister aware of the appalling damage done to graduate studies at our universities, both academically and financially? The figures that we saw last week indicate very clearly that tens of thousands of graduate students have not come to this country, not because they are bogus but because of other qualifications—including financial—imposed by the Border Agency, whose policies have proven to be crass and philistine.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not agree with that description. The arrangements for graduate students are that they can come, but they have to show that they have an appointment that is capable of earning £20,000 a year. That is a reasonable expectation that we should have for people coming in as graduate students.

Police and Crime Commissioners

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Noble Lords will know that we are capable in this House of a certain amount of last-minute legislation but I think that it is too late for this election. My noble friend and I have homes in the same county. He will know that local television and newspapers are covering this election strongly. Here in the metropolis there are no elections and it may seem to those who are based here that there is not much going on. But I assure noble Lords that this election is a very live issue in the provinces.

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords, is not one group of electors particularly disadvantaged in this election? I refer to those who are Welsh speaking. What progress are the Government making in answer to the excellent points raised by my noble friend Lord Touhig?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The website is bilingual in Wales. All the forms for the election are bilingual and the ballot papers are bilingual. I hope that that shows our proper respect for the Welsh language.

Migration: University-sponsored Students

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My noble friend is right to point out that quite a large number of students stay on, but the other point to make to her is that quite a number of people coming over in the past—not the university students that we are talking about—were coming over to colleges that did not really exist and were there purely as a scam to get around migration statistics. That is what we have been trying to deal with.

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords, is this policy not the result of a basic intellectual confusion that has very serious and harmful effects? First, it distorts the statistics on immigration, which causes concern. Secondly, as we have heard, it is extremely harmful to universities and deters many would-be bona fide students from overseas countries, with a great loss of revenue. Thirdly, it seriously imperils relations with Commonwealth countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and India. Should we not think again?

[Lord Henley]

I think that if the noble Lord looks at the statistics he will find that there has actually been an increase in the number of students from Malaysia and Singapore. I appreciate that there has been a decline in the number from India, but there have been increases from elsewhere. Here we are talking about university students, and we have not seen an overall drop in those numbers.

Again I go back to the point that it is quite obvious that the noble Lord seeks to ask me to fiddle the figures. I do not want to do that.

Police: Custody

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, again, I note the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. I join him in agreeing that every death in police custody is a tragedy. If he looks at the figures that the IPCC published, he will find that the deaths in custody—sad though every single one of them was—are generally proportionate to the ethnic make-up of the detainees as a whole. As regards the appointment of a new chairman to the IPCC, I hope that we will be able to make an announcement shortly.

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords, the Minister has frequently referred to the need for more in-depth analysis and more research. However, we have had masses of it. The Runnymede Trust in the 1980s spelt out precisely this issue—the disproportionate amount of sentencing of people of Afro-Caribbean background. When on earth will the authorities take any action?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, a great deal of research has been done. The noble Lord refers to research that was done as long ago as the 1980s. We are talking about the figures we have at the moment, which deserve further in-depth analysis. However, I do not think that the mere fact that there are disproportionate numbers being either arrested or charged necessarily amounts to racism. That is wrong. They are disproportionate in a whole host of other ways, whether by age, gender, socio-economic factors or whatever.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goodhart]

My Lords, this country has for centuries—going back 800 years to Magna Carta—recognised the rule of law. Part of the rule of law is that those who are tried for crime must be convicted in court by a judge. For a criminal conviction, there must be evidence beyond reasonable doubt that a defendant who is charged with terrorist action cannot be convicted of it if there is reasonable doubt as to his involvement. Under the rule of law, those who are convicted of misconduct short of crime may be subject to civil penalties. I know that terrorism is a terrible crime. I accept that someone who is found to be guilty of terrorism on the balance of probabilities but cannot be held to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt should be subject to civil penalties such as TPIM notices, even though those penalties are very serious.

What I do not accept is that penalties as serious as those imposed under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, or those that are to be imposed under the TPIM Bill, can be imposed by a Secretary of State, who is the prosecutor, without the prior approval of a judge. It is an absolute principle of British law that trials must be fair. I refer to chapter 9 of the late Tom Bingham’s classic book, The Rule of Law. A case where the prosecutor is also the judge cannot be fair, even if a court has a power subsequently to quash the measure if the court finds the application to be obviously flawed—whatever that may mean. It is very far from obvious.

This is doubly the case if, as in this Bill, the defendant does not know what the evidence is against him and cannot therefore provide any evidence to be heard in the process against him. It cannot be fair for someone who is not found by a court to be guilty on the balance of probabilities to have TPIM notices imposed on him. Before a notice can be imposed, there has to be at least a probability of terrorist action. If there is a possibility short of probability, it is surely a matter only for surveillance and not for TPIM notices.

I note with great interest the extremely powerful report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights published this morning at 11 o’clock. I refer to three extracts from that report. Paragraph 1.6 states that,

“the well-established principle is that executive restrictions on liberty are such a radical departure from our common law tradition that they always require prior judicial authorisation after proper legal process. It is for the Government to justify this Bill’s departure from that fundamental principle”.

There is a fundamental principle, and I can see no justification for the departure from it. We, as Members of the House of Lords, should recognise that. Paragraph 1.8 states:

“We also note that Lord Lloyd has tabled amendments to the Bill which have the effect that TPIMs are imposed by the court on the application of the Home Secretary. We support those amendments which in our view replace executive orders with prior judicial authorisation of the kind which both human rights law and our common law constitutional tradition require”.

Surely we all recognise that we in this country recognise as part of our common law what is spelt out in paragraph 1.8.

Finally, before I move elsewhere, paragraph 1.14 states:

“In our view, reasonable belief is too low a threshold for the imposition of such intrusive measures as are envisaged in the TPIMs Bill. The standard should be the balance of probabilities. We support the amendment to clauses 3 and 6 to be moved in Committee by Lord Lloyd, to the effect that the decision of the court as to whether the individual is, or has been involved in terrorism-related activity is to be taken on the civil standard of proof, that is, the balance of probabilities”.

Again, that is a fundamental matter. There must be a balance of probabilities. It is no good saying that this might be probable; there has to be a balance of probabilities. Those whose cases fall short of the balance of probabilities are not to be treated to orders or measures under the TPIM Bill; that is a matter only for study and surveillance.

I completely support what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I have known him for many years. He has been one of the outstanding judicial figures in this country in the past 20 or 30 years.

Britain has a great tradition of recognising the rule of law. We are failing that tradition if the proposals made by the Secretary of State do not have to have the full support of a court and may be imposed on people whose actions fall short of the balance of probabilities. In March 2005, during the final stages of the passing of the Prevention of Terrorism Act of that year, the greatly missed Lord Kingsland, leading for the Conservatives, and my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and I, leading for the Liberal Democrats, tried to ensure that control orders could be imposed only by a court. We failed. Six and a half years later, we have a chance to achieve what we failed to achieve then. Let us, in these difficult times, not lose that.

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords, I have attached my name to the amendments and shall speak briefly about them. I am not a lawyer; there are distinguished and learned lawyers in this House. To me it is a simple matter of justice. That is why I support the amendments. That is why I am in the Labour Party. The Labour Party I thought of believes in justice. That is why I am still a member of it, and I look forward to the Labour Party reflecting that outlook in our discussions and votes on this measure. It just seems to me profoundly unjust that someone who is innocent under the law, who is shown to have committed no offence, should be treated procedurally and in his mode of life in this way. It is basically unjust.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

Which was one of the reasons why it was so unjust, because a very large number of people were made the subject of Regulation 18B and almost none of them had any evidence of any kind whatever against them. When we are dealing with TPIMs or control orders, we have individuals against whom there is very robust intelligence. I do not think my noble friend has had the opportunity to read that intelligence, but had he done so he would undoubtedly be so satisfied, being a reasonable person.

[Lord Morgan]

I do not propose to review the noble Lord’s review of my version of history, but I think it worth pointing out that the ignorance of the evidence against them is precisely one of the problems in this case. The noble Lord rightly says that there is intercept evidence, but it is evidence denied to the person. I agree that the person is not incarcerated but he is seriously restricted.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I do not know whether the noble Lord has studied the effect of the case of AF (No. 3), but if he were so to do, he would find that there is a requirement for the court. Successive Home Secretaries, close to whose department I have worked, have always been assiduous to ensure that there was sufficient material—particularly since AF (No. 3)—so that the individual concerned knew the case he had to meet, at least in gisting terms. I urge the noble Lord to read the Green Paper published today by the Ministry of Justice, Justice and Security, which deals in part with these matters.

I would like to move on to the substance of these amendments. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, called into his argument the requirement for a court to approve a derogating control order under the 2005 Act. In deploying that argument, surely we should remember that, first, there have been no derogating control orders under the 2005 Act; and secondly, had there been a derogating control order, it would have been so dramatic that we would have had to derogate from part of the European Convention on Human Rights. This would have required, in effect, a change to our constitution which plainly ought to be passed through the courts at the earliest possible phase. I am afraid that, with real respect, I reject that argument.

In dismissing deportation applications and deportation decisions that are made daily by Home Secretaries, the noble and learned Lord said that they are made against foreigners so it is less significant, but if he thinks back to the Belmarsh case that was decided at the end of 2004, he will recall that the Judicial Committee of this House, of which he was a most distinguished member at one time, held that discriminating in that way against foreigners was unlawful. Indeed, the so-called Belmarsh provisions were struck down because they were disproportionate and discriminated against foreigners by treating them differently from United Kingdom citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

We do not share the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the courts are the best judges of what needs to be done to protect national security, and thus of when and on whom to impose specified terrorism prevention and investigation measures. However, we want the courts to have a vital and extensive role in ensuring that the Secretary of State has not exceeded the powers given by Parliament and has neither acted, nor proposes to act, in an unreasonable manner in the light of the information available. Neither do we sense that the amendments transferring responsibilities to the courts are prompted by a view that Secretaries of State have exercised their powers in relation to control orders in an irresponsible and unacceptable way, and that such powers should therefore be taken away from them. It remains our view that when and on whom to impose such measures as control orders—to address the exceptional situation in which we now find ourselves—is in essence a ministerial decision, based on the intelligence available, and should be made by a Minister responsible for national security, accountable to Parliament and the electorate, and open to challenge in the media.

[Lord Morgan]

Is my noble friend aware that the view he has expressed is totally contrary to those of such figures as Attlee and Aneurin Bevan, who were among the founders of the National Council for Civil Liberty, which discussed the rights of working men, including the right to demonstrate and the right to speak? He is taking a contrary view, which is very sad.

[Lord Rosser]

I have no doubt that the views that I am expressing are not in line with those of a great many people, but perhaps they did not have to deal with the situation that we face today—the threat of acts of terrorism. I repeat that we regard this as a ministerial decision. It should be made by a Minister responsible for national security, accountable to Parliament and the electorate, and open to challenge in the media. Such a decision is subject to scrutiny by and in the courts but it is the Secretary of State who should make the decision. The Government, not the courts, will be held accountable for the top priority of protecting the public from terrorism. Governments, not judges, pay the price for failing to protect the nation from terrorism, and people look to their Government, not the courts, to protect them from acts of terrorism.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 5th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords, like all other speakers I congratulate the Minister on his new responsibility. I hope that the fact that I am the 23rd speaker in an almost empty House does not in any way impugn the sincerity of what I have to say.

The Minister takes office on the basis or against the background of a very unhappy period of British history for civil liberties. We have seen a very dark chapter of our history, and all three main parties were responsible for it. It was the weakest aspect of the domestic policy of the last Labour Government, along externally with the war in Iraq, with which it was of course closely connected. That Government did many splendid things—they passed the Human Rights Act. But they also pursued a policy of control and surveillance which curtailed our liberties and significantly lost electoral support. It is a major reason why many people switched from Labour to the Liberal Democrats at the last election.

I joined the Labour Party in the 1950s, believing that it was a libertarian party. It was led then by Hugh Gaitskell and Nye Bevan, who disagreed about many things but were shoulder to shoulder on civil liberties. I remember reading books by Harold Laski, a great civil libertarian and a long-forgotten figure. His correspondence with Oliver Wendell Holmes is great testament to his strength of view. As a democratic socialist, Harold Laski rejected the tyranny of capitalism and of the state. I wonder quite where the Labour Party is now.

The coalition gave evidence of a fresh approach in this area. Although I do not support the coalition at all, I welcomed the fact that it abolished ID cards, cut down the number of names on databases and promised to repeal the previous legislation on control orders—legislation which along with 23 other Labour Peers, headed by my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine, I voted against back in 2005. I welcome the fact that the coalition took advice from Liberty and Justice and other groups of that kind. The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, proposed that the regime of control would come to an end. Sadly, it has not come to an end at all, and I totally agree with the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. The Conservatives have pushed on with a measure that is in essentials very similar to its unfortunate predecessor, and in the party conference we have heard blood-curdling threats to the Human Rights Act in some rather bizarre comments from the Home Secretary. I think back with some fondness to remarks in this area made by the late Lord Kingsland, who was a friend of mine. I am afraid that the Liberal Democrats have reversed their policy on this, as on so many other issues. This is a regrettable story. It is not surprising that Lord Bingham, in his wonderful book on the rule of law, cites the former chief justice of South Africa, who compares restrictions of this kind to the house arrests and other disagreeable features of the regime under apartheid in that country.

The Bill deals with a very serious situation. I happily and readily concede that improvements have been made. I certainly welcome the diminution of detention without trial, which was a great tarnishing of our reputation previously. But as one or two other noble Lords have said, it stands outside the criminal justice system and, in fundamental respects, flouts the rule of law. It does not, I believe, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, strike a balance; I do not see a balance here. It creates a system in which decisions about the deprivation of liberty reside not with law or legal authorities but with the Executive. To that extent, in my view, it distorts the workings and balance of our constitution. Fundamental restrictions on liberty are decided not by judges or the police, but by the instruments of the state, without any charge being formulated in so doing. Further, it is based on a subjective proof. We are told it is now based on the reasonable belief of the Home Secretary, which is said to be an improvement—and perhaps semantically it is—but I think it is a distinction without a real difference. We have a system imposed, therefore, that is based on raison d’état, which has had a grim history in the history of mankind and was wonderfully challenged by one of our greatest figures, Sir Winston Churchill, who described it as,

“in the highest degree odious”.

He said that in the course of the Second World War, when we had a few threats to security in this country.

The controls of the court over the actions of the Executive in this respect are somewhat strengthened, but only in a very general way. The judiciary are given broad supervision over whether the Government have or have not acted properly, but there is no real way for the courts to examine in detail what is happening or what the basis of a Minister’s belief is. In this sense, the Home Secretary is placed above and beyond the law.

A fact that I find particularly detestable is that the whole process is secret. The individual detained, perhaps for a long period and very likely released without charge at the end of it, will not be able to find out in detail the case against him or her. They will not be able to communicate properly with their legal representative; the special advocate cannot take instructions from a client. So you have a situation in which these people—who are innocent under the law, have committed no offence and are charged with nothing—will not have the same rights as criminal defendants, who are charged but are told in detail about the evidence against them and can communicate with their legal representatives.

The restrictions against them will be extremely severe and punitive. The old phrase was “the punishment should fit the crime”; now we have the punishment before the crime. This, it seems to me, is an abuse of justice. These people cannot have anything like a normal life; they cannot go out properly, meet other people, conduct a normal existence. They are treated like convicted criminals, yet they are not criminals. They have had no trial, they have been charged with no offence, they have not been prosecuted. It does seem to me an abuse of government that this should happen, and now we are going to have it made an extended process of our procedures. I am very glad to hear there is going to be a two-year time limit, but it remains shrouded in secrecy and subject to minimal judicial and legal control. I certainly support the views of those who have said there should be an annual review of how these very draconian, illiberal and severe restrictions should be imposed.

It is said, of course—and correctly so—that these are extraordinary measures to deal with extraordinary threats. None of us needs reminding of the terrible experiences there have been in relation to terrorism, but it is important to say that this opposition is not just a matter of woolly-minded principle, Guardian readers having their head or the civil liberties lobby behaving in a self-indulgent way. The fact is, as other speakers—notably the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald—have said, such measures actually make it more difficult to protect the public and to obtain evidence. There is evidence, notably intercept evidence, that is currently not being used. We already have perfectly workable systems of police operations, such as police bail, which operate in normal criminal cases. They are not operating here and one can only conclude that institutional convenience is being placed above what seems to me the sacred cause of human liberty. I find this all deeply tragic.

My wife and I attended a meeting convened by a Conservative MP—I forget her name, I am afraid —a few weeks ago about Magna Carta and how we were to celebrate it in 2015. Well, we do celebrate it. President Obama celebrated it in his great speech here. He celebrated the Petition of Right and the role of habeas corpus in our affairs as he celebrated views that were reaffirmed by that great man, Sir Edward Coke, in the 17th century. How ironic that we are commemorating Magna Carta by trampling on the fundamental freedoms of free-born British citizens.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Morgan Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dear]

My Lords, I spent a great part of my working life protecting the freedom of speech, which is one of the most important things that anyone can do in a democracy. I also vigorously resisted the thought police. I now find that I have to consider the blanket police, the cardboard box police, the sleeping bag police, and a vision of shaking people out of sleeping bags in the middle of the night and wondering whether you log them as lost or found property.

I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. It is very much in the public interest that we should do something—if not what the noble Lord suggests then something closely akin to it. As has already been alluded to, we are in the cradle of democracy. I find it difficult to walk into your Lordships’ House—as do many noble Lords—because of the mass of tourists who are here at the moment. Tourists flock from all parts of the world to look at us and the buildings around us, and they have to step over 20, 30 or more tents and placards. This is not only repugnant but quite unacceptable.

We should not overcomplicate matters, as the Government’s Bill suggests at the moment. I am a great believer in keeping things simple. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is a solution which goes a long way towards the simplicity we are looking for and we should support it. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, I hope the Minister will take this away and come back at Third Reading with something workable which is closely akin to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. I certainly support the amendment. It is extremely clear, giving a clear chain of command to deal with these matters.

My complaint is not that these demonstrations are visually offensive. People who demonstrate against the established order are not likely to be immaculate in their appearance or even, with all respect, in their conception. My problem is that these demonstrations offend the right to demonstrate. It is a very precious venue for demonstrations to occur. The imperishable rights of free speech, for which people have given their lives over the centuries in this country, should be preserved. The problem is that these demonstrations take root. They took root in the most obvious, physical way by people sleeping there. That not merely causes offence, which I understand, but obstructs and cheapens the right to demonstrate.

I am all in favour of large numbers of demonstrations taking place in Parliament Square. There are lots of things in our country to demonstrate about and lots of evils to complain about. We should cherish the right to protest but I am against monopoly. This is a self-centred, self-indulgent form of monopoly that is harmful to the rights of free speech. For that reason particularly, I support the excellent amendment.

[Lord Desai]

My Lords, I have spoken every time that Parliament Square has come up in your Lordships’ House. I rise once again, as sort of the sole defender of the unlimited right of people to demonstrate, despite all the ugliness that they might display. What I like about the proposed new clause in the noble Lord’s Amendment 306B is subsection (1), which asserts that the committee will,

“facilitate lawful, authorised demonstrations in the controlled area of Parliament Square”.

As I have said before in your Lordships’ House, one reason why people stay overnight is that they are not quite sure that they will be allowed to come the next morning to demonstrate. Once a committee has been established and lays down the rules under which people can lawfully demonstrate—that is, between 6 am and midnight—that situation will be clarified. Then the rest of Amendment 306B will ensure what everyone else wants—tidiness in Parliament Square. I have never been a great fan of tidiness. I have seen far too many tidy parliamentary squares in various eastern European and other regimes. I much prefer untidiness. It is characteristic of democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we have had a number of opportunities to discuss the issues that have been raised this afternoon. Indeed, there will be more because while we are still waiting for Committee stages on both Private Members’ Bills to come through, we have the debate today and one more opportunity on this Bill to try and resolve this. The issue itself is not difficult to encapsulate. As many people have suggested, we need some imaginative thinking about the relationship between Parliament, the abbey, the church, the public buildings and the public spaces around them that goes across the various dimensions that have been mentioned in this debate—security, access, traffic, tourism, history, heritage and, of course, the absolute requirement to ensure that demonstrations can take place.

The good thing about the amendment—indeed, it was in the Bill that we discussed last week—is that there is a laser-like focus on the two issues that we have been focusing on today. They are that we want to have a clear space within which the buildings that I mentioned can exist and the activities that we have been talking about can happen, but we also want to encourage demonstration—a very important aspect of this amendment. That far, we agree with everybody who has spoken that that is what we are trying to do but, as has been said already, the problem is that we do not seem able to solve it.

It seems to me and to our side that, as again has been mentioned, we have to be a bit careful that we do not rush into action here. That may seem odd given the number of years we have been working on it but I detect a sense of—what shall we call it?—tentism springing up. We should not do that without thinking very carefully what we are doing. As was said earlier, there are many different ways of demonstrating and it just seems to happen that tents seem to be the vogue at the moment. What that has to do with modern life, I have no idea.

It is also rather sad, in some senses, that the extraordinary contribution to public life which Brian Haw made before his untimely death has been swept away as something that we are against, even though it is in some ways a peculiarly British way of trying to express a view by a sort of silent protest in the face of all possible opposition. With the whole establishment and everybody against it, he continued to make his point. It may not have been to everybody's liking or as effective as he might have wanted it to be but it was there, it was different and it was distinctive. We should worry if we were to squeeze it out by a rush to some form of arrangement.

We also have to be a bit careful about what is happening here. I have never been of the view that a committee is the answer to the problem that we have, and I am a bit surprised to hear other people saying it. Committees do not really solve many things. We had a rather strange intervention last week from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who said that the military would have recommended a committee in this situation. I thought that was a contradiction in terms. The other thing that we have to be careful about is that the evening round of the vehicles under Westminster City Council's jurisdiction will be picking up the tents and other materials, if the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is to be believed. That is really a form of theft, is it not? Again, we should be careful before Parliament legislates in that way. There are people who own those things and we cannot act completely without the rights involved in that.

Noble Lords will detect from what I say that I am sympathetic to what is proposed and would like to support it. The problem is that the amendment in its present form has not been subject to sufficient scrutiny. We had a little of that during Second Reading; in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised a number of points which he felt would improve that Bill. An important way to take forward the aims and objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is to have the Committee stage at the right time, to try to go through that Bill and improve it. Unfortunately, the timing would not fit with the present Bill. I do not know how we resolve that but I will come back to it in a minute.

However, it seems to me that there are ways in which the elements that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is putting forward do fit with the intentions of the Government. It would be sensible to try and bolt together the two impulses so that at Third Reading, before the Bill leaves this House, the Minister can bring forward proposals. I note that when she responded to the debate last week, she said of discussions and meetings that:

“Those are ongoing and I do not rule out the possibility of bringing forward further measures before the Bill completes its passage through this House. I do not think I can give more detail at the moment”.

She always says that, doesn’t she? It is a bit irritating, and I hope that this time we can get down to it. She went on,

“but it is certainly a matter under consideration and the talks are ongoing”.—[Official Report, 1/7/11; col. 2014.]

Well, more time has passed and presumably talks have taken place. Now let us hear where they are, as the time as come for us to try to resolve this, at least in the first stage.

We on this side would like to support the intention behind the Bill. In summary, we think that provision would be better incorporated within this Bill and taken forward as one piece of legislation. However, it will need—

[Lord Morgan]

The noble Lord constantly says, “We on this side believe”. I do not recognise his views as at all representative of me. I have been a member of the Labour Party since 1955 and I see no relation between my long-held opinions and what are supposed to be the views of our Front Bench. I think that our Front Bench should cover itself with a fig leaf of modesty.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I was trying to cover myself with a fig leaf of invisibility—and I will do that now.