National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Pannick and Baroness Ludford

Report stage
Tuesday 7th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to amendments in this group. I declare my interest as a practising barrister, sometimes representing clients on legal aid. The harmony that has broken out in this afternoon’s debates does not apply to this group, although I do thank the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for engaging with me and others on this subject and for tabling an amendment that mitigates, to a limited extent, the mischief of Clause 89.

I will first cite some history. At the legal aid Bill’s Second Reading on 15 December 1948, the Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, told the House of Commons that civil legal aid was so important because it would

“open the doors of His Majesty’s courts and make British justice more readily accessible to the great mass of the population who hitherto have too frequently, I am afraid, had to regard these elementary rights—as they ought to be—as luxuries which were beyond their reach”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/1948; col. 1223.]

Sadly, the scope of legal aid has been much reduced in recent years by Labour Governments, Conservative Governments and by the coalition Government. But, where civil legal aid is still available, it remains a vital legal protection for individuals and their families. It is a noble scheme that goes some way, although not far enough, towards ensuring that a lack of financial resources is not a bar to access to justice. So it is objectionable in principle for the Bill to propose to remove eligibility, even subject to exceptions, for a category of people who are defined simply by the nature of the criminal offence of which they have been convicted.

Clause 89 is simply indefensible for three main reasons. First, it will apply irrespective of the seriousness of the criminal offence of terrorism of which the individual is convicted, so long as that offence is capable of being punished by up to two years’ imprisonment. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who cannot be in his place, pointed out in Committee that terrorism offences include such matters as

“inviting … support for a proscribed organisation”

and

“‘failure to disclose professional belief or suspicion about’ the commission of terrorist offences by others”.—[Official Report, 18/1/23; col. 1868.]

Now such criminal conduct is wrongful, but it may, and often does, lead to a short custodial sentence or even a community sentence. But, under Clause 89, any such conviction excludes a person from civil legal aid, subject to narrow exceptions, for 30 years, whatever sentence the court thinks is appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case. This is indefensible, and it is particularly so when, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, also pointed out, the recidivism rates for terrorist offenders are very low indeed: he gave the figure of 3%.

The second reason that Clause 89 is simply indefensible is that there is no exclusion from civil legal aid for those convicted of murder and rape, people who may receive life sentences and who normally receive very serious sentences for their offence. To single out terrorist offences, and to do so irrespective of the gravity of the individual offence, suggests to me, and I may not be the only one in this House, that the Government are more interested in political gestures than they are in pursuing any coherent principle.

The third reason that Clause 89 is simply indefensible is the one given by the noble Lord, Lord Marks: it will exclude persons from civil legal aid in cases which have no connection to the offence of terrorism of which they were convicted. A woman may be convicted of giving support to a proscribed organisation and receive a short custodial sentence or a community sentence, but 10 or 20 years later, she may be evicted, or face eviction, from her flat and face homelessness. The idea that she should be denied civil legal aid—and denied eligibility for civil legal aid—because of the terrorist conviction frustrates the very purpose of civil legal aid in a civilised society. Let us suppose the terrorist offender is beaten up in prison by prison officers—it does happen. Should he be excluded from eligibility for civil legal aid if he otherwise satisfies the relevant criteria? The idea that this proposal is brought forward by a Ministry of Justice defies credulity.

The only question in my mind is how best to remove or dilute the stain of Clause 89, and the Marshalled List contains a number of possible amendments, to some of which I have added my name: that Clause 89 should not stand part of the Bill, that it should be confined to those who are sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment or more, or that it should be confined to legal aid for a matter connected to the terrorism offence, which is the amendment preferred by the noble Lord, Lord Marks.

I am very sorry indeed that the Labour Front Bench is unwilling—as I understand it; I would welcome correction from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—to support any of these amendments, and has itself tabled what can only be described as a weak amendment, Amendment 188A, which would require a review within 60 days of Clause 89 coming into force. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby spoke eloquently about Clause 89 in Committee; he is far too sensible and fair-minded to think personally that Clause 89 makes any sense. I assume, although I welcome correction, that the Opposition in the other place fear that they will be accused of being soft on terrorism if they support any of the substantive amendments. I think we all know what Sir Hartley Shawcross or the great Labour Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, would have said about that.

If, as I hope, the noble Lord, Lord Marks decides to test the opinion of the House on one of these amendments, he will certainly have my support.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I can speak briefly because my noble friend Lord Marks and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have spoken forcefully on this matter. The amendments to remove Clauses 89 and 90 are in my name and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I spoke at some length on this in Committee, and I believe it is a matter of principle—a very flawed principle, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said—to bar anybody with a terrorism offence, however minor, from being granted civil legal aid.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, admitted in Committee that this proposal was “symbolic”— I think he said it more than once. In other words, it is gesture politics. The hope must be, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, just said, to paint those of us opposing it as somehow soft on terrorism, but I put it to the Government that they could be regarded as soft on murder, rape and sexual offences. They are apparently content that major offenders against women, of the likes of Wayne Couzens and David Carrick, variously guilty of abduction, rape and murder, could one day be eligible for civil legal aid, but not someone who is a minor offender under terrorism laws. If they try to throw at us in the Daily Mail that we are soft on terrorists, the Government ought to be prepared for a counter charge that they are soft on murderers and rapists. Given the huge public concern in recent weeks, months and years about the volume and the type of offences against women, I do not think that the Government are going to come out of this well.

National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Pannick and Baroness Ludford

Committee stage
Monday 19th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Of course; the example in the JCHR report was of a French national in the UK—an ordinary person working in a bar or a bank who alerts the French intelligence authorities to a terrorist threat in the UK. It may or may not be hugely realistic, but that would be criminalised, which does not seem very sensible. The focus of Amendment 16 is to add a test of

“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”,

always with the caveat that we want that test to get further attention and elaboration.

Amendment 21 concerns the offence of entering a prohibited place, which is punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment. Clause 5 is about accessing a prohibited place where

“the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that their conduct is unauthorised.”

There is no requirement in this offence for any prejudice to the safety or interests of the UK. The JCHR suggests that it is more akin to an offence of criminal trespass—it will have nothing to do with national security, unless there is some sort of test of national security.

All the amendments I have spoken to today are about tightening up definitions so that we do not inadvertently catch what ought not to be criminalised behaviour and avoid any clash with human rights under the HRA and the ECHR.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about the breadth of Clause 3, particularly Clause 3(1), and the absence of any requirement that the defendant intends that the conduct will prejudice the safety or security or defence interests of the United Kingdom.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, gave a practical example relating to Mossad which I will not repeat. I have a concern because of my professional interest as a practising barrister, and I would welcome advice from the Minister as to whether I will be committing a criminal offence under Clause 3(1) if I give legal advice to a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities. Clause 3(1) refers to “conduct of any kind”; it is a criminal offence, punishable with 14 years’ imprisonment, for me to materially assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities. My advice, of course, may be to say to that foreign intelligence service, “You can’t do this in the United Kingdom, it would be unlawful, and you should be aware of that”, but what are the potential defences if I am prosecuted? Under Clause 3(7), it is a defence for me to show that I am acting

“in compliance with a legal obligation under the law of the United Kingdom which is not a legal obligation under private law”.

I am very doubtful that my actions as a practising barrister fall within that provision. It is a defence, however, under Clause 3(7)(b)

“in the case of a person having functions of a public nature under the law of the United Kingdom”.

I do not have that; I am a mere practising barrister. Clause 3(7)(c) relates to some agreement with the United Kingdom; that does not apply.

The only other defence that I could offer when I am prosecuted at the Old Bailey for giving legal advice is the exemptions for legal activity which are in Schedule 14, but they seem to me—and I would be delighted to be corrected if I am wrong—to be exemptions confined to the provisions to which we will come which concern requirements to register foreign activity arrangements and foreign influence arrangements. We are not talking about that; Clause 3 is not concerned with any of that. My question to the Minister is please can I be told whether the legal advice that I give as counsel to a foreign intelligence service falls within the scope of Clause 3(1). I raise this not just because I am very concerned not to end up at the Old Bailey but because that demonstrates that Clause 3(1) is far too wide. It really needs to be redrafted to ensure that it addresses only matters of national security.