Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Lord Pannick and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I too welcome these amendments, which introduce judicial control. The Government have listened to the Constitution Committee and the independent reviewer. They have also listened to the observations made from all sides of the other place and indeed here at Second Reading.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, raised a concern about paragraph 3(2) in the proposed new schedule set out in government Amendment 44 and the reference to whether the decision is “obviously flawed”. I draw her attention to the fact that its paragraph 5(1) states that:

“In determining a reference under paragraph 3, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review”.

So my understanding—I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation—is that when the court asks whether the decision itself is obviously flawed, it will apply the principles of judicial review. It will ask whether the decision has been made on a lawful and proportionate basis, for a proper purpose and other matters of that sort, although of course the court will not look at the merits of whether a lawful decision has been made.

There is one other matter to which I draw attention in the schedule being introduced by government Amendment 45. Paragraph 5 of the proposed new schedule expressly confirms that:

“Nothing in paragraphs 2 to 4, or in rules of court … is to be read as requiring the relevant court to act in a manner inconsistent with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention”.

That is very important indeed and I welcome the fact that the schedule expressly confirms that the court should comply with Article 6. I ask the Minister to tell me if I am wrong, but I am not aware of anything in the Bill which suggests that the courts, in exercising their judicial control powers, should be required to depart from our obligations under the human rights convention, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Bates, has made a statement on the front page of the Bill under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that in his view the provisions of this Bill,

“are compatible with the Convention rights”.

I hope that that will give some further reassurance to those who are concerned about these powers.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I welcome the government amendments and I thank the Minister for his explanation of them. I also welcome the Government’s conversion to the principle of judicial oversight in regard to temporary exclusion orders. That is because it has to be said that any measure which seeks to restrict the movements of an individual and restrict their right to return to the country of which they are a citizen is a hugely significant power. I will not go into the other points that have been raised because we have yet to discuss the detail of how the exclusion orders will work, but the noble Baroness said that they would remain in force for two days. My information suggests that they can remain in force for two years from the date they are first imposed.

The Government previously insisted that this was a power for the Home Secretary alone, but that was not a view we could share. Both the Home Secretary and the noble Lord have referred in their comments to judicial review. That was already in place, but judicial oversight is, as we have heard, something that the Constitution Committee referred to and the Joint Committee on Human Rights said would be a necessity. Indeed, from the beginning we have been convinced of the need for parliamentary scrutiny of this aspect of the Bill. At Second Reading in the other place on 2 December, the shadow Home Secretary, my colleague the right honourable Yvette Cooper, rightly pointed out that there is such a judicial process for TPIMs and stated that we would be tabling amendments on judicial oversight. The Home Secretary responded in Committee on 15 December saying that such oversight was not necessary because it was the operation of a royal prerogative in terms of cancelling a passport, and that it was less restrictive than the conditions under TPIMs. The debate continued through to the Report stage, where again we tabled amendments which both the government parties voted against on the explanation from the Minister that there had not been,

“the chance properly to consider the Opposition amendments”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/1/15; col. 208.]

Three weeks has been long enough for noble Lords to consider the Bill, but it was not long enough for Home Office Ministers to consider our amendments. That is why I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord. In the 10 days since it was voted down in the House of Commons, the Government have found time to consider the issues and table amendments. It is a minor point, but I received an e-mail about this last Friday evening, which was a little late. Also, it would have been nice to have had the amendments with that e-mail. Perhaps that could be considered for the future when letters about new amendments are sent out at a late stage.

However, those are minor matters as compared with the fact that the Government have come around, and we greatly welcome that. The case for judicial oversight of this has been clear from the beginning. We understand and appreciate that there are times when a swift application and decision have to be made, but the Government have rightly recognised in their amendments that that should be subject to judicial processes.

Perhaps I may raise a couple of points for clarification. There are some differences between the amendments we tabled at the start of the process and government Amendment 52. First, the new amendment does not require the Secretary of State to set out a draft of the proposed notice in the temporary exclusion order application, unlike subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in our Amendment 54. Why do the Government not think it necessary to set out the draft of the proposed TEO notice, as we propose? Secondly, proposed new subsection (2) provides that the court may, in addition to giving the Secretary of State permission to impose a TEO,

“give directions to the Secretary of State in relation to the measures to be imposed on the individual”,

who is subject to such an order. That is not in the government amendment. There may be good reasons for that, but it would be helpful to know from the noble Lord the reasons for those changes.

We are committed to judicial oversight along with the other measures we have proposed. We have not had total success, although the Minister has agreed to reconsider some of them. These measures should be subject to a sunset clause; that is, a renewal requirement for Parliament to look at them again. We also think that Parliament should be assisted in that consideration. There should be further scrutiny in the form of a report from the independent reviewer and a report on their use from the Home Secretary. All these measures are important, but we are pleased that the Government have accepted the need for judicial oversight. It will not threaten the ability of the Home Secretary to impose a TEO where there is intelligence and evidence to support that measure, as the noble Lord has clarified. However, what judicial oversight does provide is legitimacy and validity to the order. That, I think, will provide the public with greater reassurance when they see these orders being imposed.

We support these amendments, but it would be helpful if the noble Lord could give us an explanation of the differences between our proposals and those set out in the government amendments.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Pannick and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I add my support to the general concerns expressed so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I have two questions for the Minister. First, can he confirm, as I assume he will, that nothing in Clause 14 is intended to detract from the important principle of law that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration for decision-makers in this context? It is important for Pepper v Hart purposes that the noble and learned Lord makes the position unambiguously clear.

Secondly, before Report, will the Minister please undertake to give further consideration to the advantages of referring in Clause 14 to the best interests of the child? I ask that question as I have some difficulty in understanding how the test in new Section 117C(5)—that is, exception 2: the test of whether the effect of deportation on the child would be unduly harsh—is compatible with looking to the best interests of the child as a primary consideration.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, this is one of three groups of amendments around Article 8 that we have tabled to Clause 14. I wish to make a couple of brief comments. I want to put on record, and make very clear, that we fully support Article 8. We understand that it is not an absolute right. It is a qualified right and those qualifications also have to be understood. Any interference with that right has to be within those qualifications. However, we share concerns about how Article 8, and those qualifications, have been interpreted in some cases involving foreign criminals convicted in the UK and then put up for deportation. There are problems with criminals who we cannot deport who have committed serious crimes, and where Article 8 has been considered to be used inappropriately, and where the question has to be asked whether the qualifications have been fully considered. The balance is one to be reached by the courts in individual cases, but we consider it right that Parliament should set out how qualified rights should be balanced in different areas.

There is wider concern about the Government’s failure to deport foreign criminals and the gap between the inflammatory rhetoric used on some occasions with regard to immigration issues and the reality of those issues. Since the Home Secretary took office, the number of foreign criminals being released into the community has gone up and the number of people removed from our country for breaking the rules has gone down by 13% in the past three years. I say to the Minister that it is important for the Government to get the basics right before looking at new areas—for example, ensuring that we have the right staff and the right number of staff in place to deal with these issues.

I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and I was relieved when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that he was slightly confused about a contradiction that appears to have arisen in this context. I am a non-lawyer and I was confused as well. I was relieved to hear that lawyers can also be confused about the Government’s intentions in this regard. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made a very powerful speech and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on it.

I welcomed the comments of the then Minister, Mark Harper, to the JCHR about the Government’s responsibilities under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. There was absolute confirmation that the best interests of the child will be considered. However, other comments have been made that appear to qualify that. That would seem to undermine the concept that the best interests of the child will be considered. I do not mean to be facetious when I say that it sounds as if the best interests of some children will be considered. I do not understand the contradiction between what is in the Bill and the very welcome comments made by the former Minister that the Government will always consider the best interests of the child. How does that conflict, confirm, or work with what is in Clause 14? Confirmation from the noble and learned Lord that the best interests of the child will be considered would be very welcome.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Pannick and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. As he said, it is very difficult effectively to pursue an appeal from abroad. As I understand the clause that the noble Lord seeks to amend, the Secretary of State may take advantage of the temporary absence abroad of an individual. He or she may wait for the individual to go abroad, and may act even though the individual may be abroad—as often happens—for compassionate reasons such as the ill health of a child or an aged relative. The clause is very unjust and very arbitrary.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised this issue in Committee, I raised with the Minister some questions about the process that the Government were seeking to introduce. Like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I was not entirely satisfied with the replies I received. In fact, I did not receive responses to some of the questions that I raised. I hope that in the time that has expired since 4 July this year the Home Office has been able to provide some answers to those questions.

The point was raised about someone’s leave to remain being cancelled while they were out of the country. I am still unclear—because I have not had a satisfactory response—about the criteria for cancelling someone’s leave to remain while they are out of the country. Is it a purely administrative decision because the decision-making time has come up for that person—they were going to be denied leave to remain and they happened to be out of the country—or is it the case, as the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Avebury, suggested, that the Home Secretary will lie in wait for somebody to leave the country, possibly on compassionate grounds, whereupon their leave to remain will be cancelled? It would be helpful to know what the criteria will be and how the decision will be made.

It would also be useful to have information on what proportion of cancelled leave to remain is cancelled when the subject is outside the country as opposed to when the subject is in the country. I asked that in July in Committee and did not receive an answer. There has been some time since July to get that information; I hope that the noble Lord will have it available.

Another issue is the definition of “public good”. The legislation refers to a decision on removing the right to remain as being taken,

“wholly or partly on the ground that it is no longer conducive to the public good for the person to have leave to … remain”.

Is there a definition of when the public good is no longer there, or when it should be decided that there is no public good and that leave to remain should be withdrawn? The Government need to answer questions on this. I was disappointed not to get responses from the previous Minister—I am not suggesting that the present Minister did not answer me in July—and I hope to get some responses today.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Pannick and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, one of the main concerns with Norwich Pharmacal provisions is the breadth of the definition of “sensitive information” contained in Clause 13(3). Amendment 73 would confine the scope of the relevant information to that which needs to be protected. I entirely accept that it may be appropriate to expand the drafting of Amendment 73, but I am quite sure that what we have at the moment in Clause 13(3) is far too broad. I hope that the Government will be able before the Bill is enacted to consider this matter again; I hope that the other place will give specific consideration to this issue. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I shall speak to our amendments on this clause, Amendments 69, 70, 71, 72 and 76. I do not wish to detain the House and I shall not press our amendments to a vote at this late stage, but there are some important issues of principle that I want to put on the record and to which I seek a response from the Minister. I hope that he can take some of the points away and consider the issues.

The purpose behind the amendments is to suggest an alternative definition for the “sensitive information” ouster of the court’s jurisdiction. The reality is that less information is being shared with the UK as a result of fears that the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction might mean that the UK Government were forced to disclose intelligence shared with us, thereby breaching the control principle. We have heard that from the reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, to whom the Minister referred, as well as from members of the ISC and the Government. I know that we have assurances from the US that we will never be denied life-saving intelligence, but I refer the House to the comments made on this issue in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, who said that that was no consolation to her, given the position that she has held. She went on:

“The nature of intelligence work is putting together information from perhaps five or six different countries and 20 different organisations—little bits and pieces of a jigsaw that, together, might save lives”.—[Official Report, 23/7/12; col. 553.]

The question of whether a UK court would ever in practice authorise the disclosure of such information has been widely debated. I do not intend to go into that tonight, because I do not believe that that is the question now facing this House.

Rightly or wrongly, the flow of intelligence to the UK has been restricted—we understand and accept that. The two questions for the House are: should the UK respond in order to deal with the concerns of our intelligence partners and, if so, what is a proportionate response? The Opposition’s response to the first question is emphatically yes; it is on the second question that I think we would have a difference with the Government; namely, whether it is a proportionate response. We take the view that any restriction of intelligence to the UK is a serious problem and we would agree with David Anderson QC who said of Clause 13 that there was “an element of overkill”. The ouster proposed by the Government reaches far wider than simply the control principle. While we recognise—there is no question about this at all—that there is a need to ensure the absolute protection of information related to our national security, this clause goes wider.

We therefore propose to restrict the definition of “sensitive information” to cover material whose publication would represent a clear breach of the control principle. We would amend Clause 13(3)(b) and (c) to refer only to “foreign” intelligence and to where that intelligence is such that it would jeopardise our national security or strategic national interests.

When we proposed similar amendments in Committee, the Minister described the practicalities, as he did just a moment ago, as being “challenging” and referred to the difficulties of being able to define and separate the two. We took note of what the Minister had to say and, as a consequence, the limitations that we propose in these amendments would retain the ouster for all the examples to which he referred.

Correspondence commenting on control principle material would presumably be covered by amended paragraph (c), which would remain an ouster for information derived in whole or in part from information obtained from or held on behalf of foreign intelligence services. That would allow for either the part of the correspondence that referred to foreign intelligence to be prevented from disclosure, or the entire correspondence, if it solely referred to that intelligence and would represent a disclosure of that information. As I understand it, that is much the same way as the original PII for certain redacted paragraphs in the court’s judgment on the Mohamed case argued.