Detainee Inquiry
Lord Tyrie Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clarke
I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman and I have considerable sympathy with him for the frustrating personal position in which he finds himself. There has been briefing around this matter and allegations have been made, and he has had no opportunity of appearing before Sir Peter and giving evidence, which he was anxious to do, and helping Sir Peter and the panel establish what actually happened during the period in question. He will now have the opportunity to do so when the ISC looks into these matters. Obviously, I cannot give any opinion on the issues the right hon. Gentleman raises because they relate precisely to what we are trying to get someone to investigate and reach a conclusion on, but it is certainly the case, as Sir Peter’s report makes clear, that one of the issues that will have to be looked at is whether Ministers were properly informed in full about what was going on and what necessary ministerial authorisation there was.
I also share the right hon. Gentleman’s final sentiment. I hope that all Members agree that we want the toughest and most effective intelligence services we can get and that we want our intelligence services to be at least as effective as those of any other nation. But we are a democracy and we also want to know that what they do is proportionate, complies with essential ethical standards and is authorised by a Minister, and that all the activities are carried out by people who are accountable to the Ministers responsible and to Parliament as well, when possible. That is the conclusion I hope we will eventually reach.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The security services do a great job and they deserve our support, but I do not think this statement will help them. It is truly shocking that Britain has facilitated kidnap and torture, and the decision to abandon this judge-led inquiry will, I think, come to be seen as a mistake. Does the Minister agree that it is as essential for the standing of the intelligence services, on whom we depend, as it is for the wider public that we get to the truth about the extent of Britain’s involvement, as only that way can we restore trust? The Minister has said that the ISC will complete this work, but what confidence can the public have in its conclusions when that same body wrongly concluded that Britain was not involved in 2007, only to be flatly contradicted by a High Court ruling the following year? Is it not the case that the ISC’s new powers about which we have just heard are in any case heavily qualified—papers may be withheld on grounds of sensitivity and the ISC’s remit on operational matters is only permitted in certain circumstances?
Mr Clarke
First, I share my hon. Friend’s determination that we get to the truth of these matters and that they are investigated. Indeed, I share his concern that anybody from the United Kingdom should be involved in unlawful rendition, and I used to support his campaigns when we were both in opposition. I disagree with him about the way we are progressing now. The judge-led inquiry cannot proceed with taking evidence from people and publishing evidence alongside continuing police investigations which may or may not lead to some further criminal proceedings if anyone is eventually prosecuted. The question is do we, frustratingly, just continue to wait—I think it is more than three years since the Prime Minister made his statement—or do we seek to demonstrate that we really have now got a parliamentary Committee with the powers and authority required to do the job and report back to this House and the Prime Minister on its findings and recommendations?
I am sorry that my hon. Friend is dismissive of the Committee’s powers. He took part in the debates last year. We have considered them and the Committee has far more powers than it previously had. One of the things it will be looking at is how, when the previous Committee investigated treatment of detainees and rendition, it did not appear to have been supplied with information that was in fact being shared with others inside the Government and which had been assembled by the agencies for their own use. I think it is highly unlikely that that will be repeated and I think the present Committee can be relied upon to use the powers to demand papers and to go to the offices and look through the records of the agencies in order to revisit its conclusions on those matters.
Tributes to Baroness Thatcher
Lord Tyrie Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
We can see, from the speeches of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and others, the deep emotions that Margaret Thatcher still inspires.
So many us from the Government side are still here for this debate simply because Mrs Thatcher was the inspiration for our going into politics in the first place. There was her sense of public service and duty and her conviction that even the toughest task, including Britain’s ungovernability, could be tackled. There was her conviction that the state had lost sight of its essential role of protecting our freedoms, that it was encroaching on them and that it had to be rolled back. Above all, there was her patriotism—she wanted to restore pride in our country and others’ respect for it. As far as the last century is concerned, she will come to be seen as the greatest standard bearer for freedom that the House has produced.
My first meaningful encounter with Margaret Thatcher took place at 7.15 am in a windowless back room in Conservative central office just before a press conference during the 1984 European elections. Having been at central office for only a few months, I was unnerved to find myself placed opposite her. She had, it seemed, read all the extensive briefing that we had prepared for her. She fixed me with a stare. Her first question identified an apparent contradiction in the briefing. Before I had time to admit that I did not know the answer, Geoffrey Howe, who was sitting next to me and did, saved me by replying.
Margaret Thatcher was kind enough to add me to a lunch party at Chequers after those elections. No doubt identifying me as the junior man, she told me to sit next to her for lunch. Within minutes, she announced to the table that I was far too thin and insisted on overseeing my consumption of two puddings.
I met Mrs Thatcher sporadically over the following few years. I was at the Treasury, with a ringside seat for the Thatcher-Lawson row, the rights and wrongs of which—and there were both—are for another day. More generally, I had a chance to observe several of her well-known traits. At the heart of her approach was her instinctive understanding that the restoration of prosperity depended on supply-side reform: breaking down the entrenched privileges—of the professions as much as of the trade unions; simplifying and reducing taxes; cutting back the tangle of regulation; and enhancing individual opportunity and aspiration. She wanted to break with the consensus of an over-mighty state and a dependent people.
Some have been arguing recently that Mrs Thatcher’s reforms are responsible for the failings of the banks today. I doubt that. Whatever the merits of the prudential regulation that came with the big bang in the ’80s, those rules were no longer in place when the crisis broke five years ago; they had been replaced by another set of rules put there in the 1990s in both the US and the UK. In any case, the notion that Mrs Thatcher, who cared most of all about the consumer and the taxpayer, would be an apologist for the banks, is implausible. She would have found the abuse of market power by some bank leaderships for their own gain at the expense of the rest of us every bit as deplorable as the behaviour of trade union leaders.
Most of Mrs Thatcher’s legacy on the supply side survives, although her supply-side reforms were, to some degree, reversed by the last Government. Perhaps I should take this opportunity to say that, in my view, the importance of the supply side is still not yet fully recognised by this Administration.
It has been said today that Mrs Thatcher’s judgment faltered at the end, and there was perhaps a touch of that hubris that always lurks in No.10’s bunker after a long stay. The pain of her reforms still lingers. Over the longer view, none of that, I think, will detract from her legacy. What will linger in the memory is the single most extraordinary achievement of any leader in the post-war era—that of turning a failing country and a basket-case economy into a country that had recovered its self-respect and had a future.
Justice and Security Bill [Lords]
Lord Tyrie Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
I am very grateful indeed, in the circumstances, to the Minister for giving way. Did I hear him correctly? Perhaps I will give him the opportunity to correct the suggestion, which I think he pretty much made a moment ago, that the remaining opposition to the Bill has been got up by a few human rights lawyers. Will he explain, which he has still failed to do, why the only people who really understand the system—the people who have experience both of PII and CMPs; that is, the special advocates—have concluded absolutely clearly and unequivocally:
“The introduction of such a sweeping power could only be justified by the most compelling reasons and, in our view, none exists.”?
Mr Clarke
I do not think that I would conceivably use the language that my hon. Friend tries to attribute to me. Human rights Members are fervently opposed to the whole idea of CMP. They are extremely able lawyers and draftsmen. I am left in wonder and admiration at their ingenuity in producing an endless procession of amendments, so that every time their principles are adopted by the Government in amendments at various stages, a fresh set of amendments is tabled introducing new concepts that are designed to elaborate on the process. That is enough praise for my opponents, but it is ingenious.
We are not putting in the Wiley test, because we have three perfectly effective tests and complete discretion for the judge anyway. The Wiley test is used for PII, which is a quite different process that tries to exclude the evidence entirely from the judge, the claimant, the lawyers and everybody. PII is an application for total silence. We do not need to put the test in for that.
Amendment 31 is more difficult, as it requires that a CMP may be used only as a last resort. The circumstances I have described are getting pretty near to the last resort. We expect only a handful of cases, because we do not think our intelligence agencies will be sued very often. They are strictly enjoined to follow the principles of human rights, and not to connive at torture and everything else, but we do not know, and the conditions we have applied make it clear that we will only ever have CMPs in national security cases, unless a future Government try to relax them.
The trouble is that the last resort argument will undoubtedly be used for going through the whole PII process before starting on CMPs, and there are some people who want to do that. They say that they do not like the fact that the Secretary of State has to consider an application for PII. They want the Secretary of State to go through the whole process. They do not like the fact that the court has other tests for going to a CMP. They want the court to go through the whole PII process before it gets there. Why? Because it could take months or years. The Guantanamo Bay cases had hundreds of thousands of documents—it is a very elaborate process.
Mr Tyrie
It is rare that I find myself agreeing with the lion’s share of what Opposition Members are saying and not agreeing with much that I have heard from my Front-Bench team. This is particularly unusual because of who has been speaking from the Dispatch Box. I normally agree with a great deal of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio says, but I cannot agree with him tonight.
The amendments on closed material procedures may look technical but they are really about the kind of society we want to live in: they are about whether people can get to hear the case that is being made against them; they are about whether we can keep legal safeguards that we have had for generations; they are about whether we are committed to finding out how much Britain has facilitated the United States’ programme of rendition—kidnap and, in some cases, torture; and, above all, they are about what values this country is seeking to espouse and export.
Amendments 30, 31 and 34 would take us some way in the right direction, and I will be voting for them. Amendments 31 and 34 would ensure that CMP is used at the discretion of a judge only as a last resort and only if obtaining justice is impossible by other means. For the sake of clarity, let me say that that is certainly not what the Government originally intended. Clause 6(5) of their original Bill required only that
“the Secretary of State must consider whether to make…a claim for public interest immunity”
before making an application for a CMP. A moment’s thought can tell us that that was almost worthless, as I believe the Government knew right from the start; all the Secretary of State would have to do would be to think about this matter, and he could do that in the bath if he so chose.
The House of Lords rescued matters, adding another provision requiring the judge to consider whether a PII “could have been made”. That meant that the court would be required to see whether a fair trial would be possible using PII, and so it would be up to the judge, not the Secretary of State, to decide whether PII should apply. We need to be mindful—this point has not been raised today—that the Executive, in general, and Secretaries of State, in particular, advised by officials, have interests of their own to serve. Foolishly, the Government scrapped that sensible House of Lords provision in Committee and they even scrapped the then clause 6(5), which would have required a Secretary of State at least to consider a PII.
The Government now intend to replace all that with their amendment 47, about which there has just been an exchange. It will provide that before making an order for a CMP the judge must be “satisfied” that the Secretary of State has “considered” making a CMP application. How, in a secret area, consideration by the Secretary of State would really be demonstrated is still unclear. Earlier the Minister said that we do not know exactly what effect this new process will have. No doubt officials will be able to provide suitable documentation to the Secretary of State in order for him to make that judgment, but I am not yet convinced that he will not be able to consider that in the bath as well. In other words, the discretion and control will lie fully not with the judge, as Lord Woolf wrongly supposes it will in his letter in The Times, but to a significant extent with the Secretary of State.
We have been told several times, and I have also been told in correspondence with the Minister, that this is a crucial area of the Bill on which further concessions would damage the interests of both justice and security. It is worth pointing out that on this crucial issue the Government have already held three incompatible positions: first, that the Secretary of State must think about PII; then, after Committee, that the Secretary of State should not even think about PII; and now, if amendment 47 is accepted, that the Secretary of State must tell the judge that he has thought very carefully about PII. Frankly, if this were not so serious an issue, all this chopping and changing would look slightly comical.
Amendment 30 is equally important. It would enable the judge to exercise the discretion he or she has now to balance the interests of justice against those of national security in determining what evidence should be disclosed. That is what is known as the Wiley balancing test, which has been discussed and is supported by the JCHR and a large proportion of the legal profession. It is important to be clear that that should not mean that judges will permit disclosure of information that would prejudice our security. I have asked for, but have not yet been told of, any case in which a judge has made that mistake under PII so far. Judges might not be perfect, but so far they have done a very good job of protecting our security and balancing security with justice.
Hazel Blears
I, too, intend to speak briefly as I know that a range of Members want to contribute.
My speech follows that of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and I have the greatest respect for his point of view on this issue, for the depth of his knowledge and for how he has studied these matters. The sense in the House is that people hold varying views which, in many cases, cross party lines. People feel strongly about trying to strike the right balance between liberty and security, which has been the subject of many of our previous debates.
It is right that these matters should be controversial, because they go to the heart of our legal system, protecting the rights of applicants and respondents, ensuring that the role of the state is in the proper place to hold the balance between parties, and trying to ensure that our justice system retains its respect and integrity across the world. That balance is difficult to draw and is never easy to achieve, and I say that as the Minister with responsibility for counter-terrorism who took the controversial legislation on control orders through the House. We debated them until 5 am in one of our very rare all-night sittings, which was for me evidence of how strongly people felt about these issues and how much they wanted to protect the integrity of our legal system. I share that desire.
The Bill has been debated at length and the issues have been debated in great depth. It is perhaps almost otiose to be debating them again, but a few points need to be made.
We must not forget why we are debating the Bill. If we did not need to debate it, none of us would want to introduce it. Everybody in this House and in the country believes in the British system of open justice, an adversarial system in which evidence is brought into open court and tested by the parties, allowing the judge to deliberate on the evidence and make a judgment.
We are in this position for two reasons. First, legitimate concerns have been expressed by our intelligence liaison partners, particularly in the United States of America, about the breach of the control principle for intelligence, which has put sources, techniques and capabilities at risk. That is the issue of national security, which is very much about the assets that are at risk. I am delighted that the Norwich Pharmacal provisions have gone through with agreement on both sides, which has been extremely positive, but concerns nevertheless remain about the possibility of information being disclosed in open court proceedings that could damage our intelligence relationships. That is the first reason why we are debating this issue.
The second reason is that we have seen an increasing number of claims of unlawful detention and allegations of mistreatment or torture by the security services against people who have been held in a range of different circumstances. Those allegations amount to more than 20 outstanding cases and the number is likely to increase if there is a jurisdiction within which such claims can be ventilated freely. The position has been that many of those claims have had to be settled because the evidence necessary to prove the case either way impinges on national security. That is why we have seen payments made to some claimants without having the opportunity to decide whether their claims were well founded as the evidence has not been put into a judicial setting.
I feel particularly strongly about this matter. If the security agencies have been conducting operations in a way that falls outside our framework of human rights, I want those issues to be put before a court and to be litigated. The fact that they cannot be goes to the heart of the reputation of our intelligence services. People will always say, “Well, you are settling that case because something in it was well founded. That is why you are prepared to pay £2 million, £3 million or £4 million to avoid litigation in our courts.” I want that information; I want to know what happened. Equally, if these claims are unfounded and unfair allegations are being brought against our security services, I want them to be able to defend themselves and the good name and integrity of our intelligence agencies.
Hazel Blears
It may well be that some people take a principled position that paying out millions of pounds is a price worth paying if they do not want to have closed proceedings. That is a perfectly legitimate place to be, but it does not happen to be a situation with which I agree. My hon. Friend talks, as many Members do, about PII, which is about excluding information; I want to be in a position where we maximise the inclusion of information and bring it before the judge.
Mr Tyrie
The right hon. Lady and a number of others have fallen into the same trap as did the Advocate-General in the House of Lords, and the point was decisively knocked down by Lord Pannick when he said that the Advocate-General
“wrongly presents PII as a mechanism which, when it applies, necessarily means that the material is excluded from the trial. It is on that premise—a wrong premise…that he suggests a CMP is preferable…The reality…is that the court has an ability applying PII to devise means by which security and fairness can be reconciled”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 June 2012; Vol. 737, c. 1694.]—
by the use of other mechanisms. He then listed what they were. Because I am making an intervention, I will not list them, but they are obviously to do with redaction, the anonymising of witnesses and the use of confidentiality rings. There has been a serious misrepresentation of the effects of PII.
Mr Tyrie
I wish to echo the words used a moment ago in support of the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has done some excellent reporting on this matter—its investigations and inquiries have been very good—for which I am very grateful to its members.
There are three issues before us—reporting, renewal and review—but I will touch only on renewal and review. I have been arguing for some kind of renewal or sunset clause from the moment I first grasped the implications of the Bill. In the opinion of very many people, including, most notably, the special advocates, who are the only people with extensive experience both of CMPs and PII, CMPs will not make Britain more just, and neither, in my view, will they make Britain more secure. I will be supporting new clause 4, as proposed by the JCHR and tabled by the Opposition Front-Bench team, to introduce a renewal clause, and I will be doing so, above all, because of something the Minister without Portfolio said early on in his speech. He said that the Government did not know what effect the new process would have. That is the clearest indication of something that needs very careful and periodic renewal and review.
I recognise the force of some of the arguments against annual renewal put by the Minister this evening—his thought had occurred to me before he uttered it —particularly in respect of this type of legislation, where there would be so much litigation. Without having thought through all the arguments as carefully as some others, I have a preference for renewal once a Parliament, but the Government have not offered a renewal clause at all. That is a mistake and I hope that they will reconsider.
The Government are offering a review, but even that is defective. For a review to be credible, it must be independent, and be seen to be independent, of the Executive, but clearly that will not be the case with this review. Under new clause 6(1), the Secretary of State acting alone will appoint the reviewer. In another context, this is exactly the problem that the Treasury Select Committee faced when the Chancellor created the Office for Budget Responsibility to make forecasts for him. The Chancellor wanted those forecasts to be seen to be independently prepared, but the Treasury Committee pointed out to him that if he, acting alone, appointed the chairman of the OBR, nobody would believe in its independence.
After discussions with the Committee, the Chancellor decided that the chairman of the OBR should be appointed jointly by him and the Committee. I urge the Government, when they reconsider this matter in the Lords, and their lordships, when examining new clause 6, to make similar provision for the appointment of the reviewer of CMPs. In my view, the reviewer should be appointed only by agreement between the Secretary of State and the JCHR.
Dr Francis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about the work of my Joint Committee. I am very attracted to the idea he has proposed. It is not the first time I have heard it, because we had this discussion recently, but I am pleased that he has proposed it on the Floor of the House.
Dr Francis
I see at least one member of my Committee nodding. I will be putting it to my Committee next week that we ought to discuss the idea, and I hope that it will be endorsed and then officially become part of our work. After that, I hope that it will see the light of day and be endorsed by the Government—if not here, then in the other place.
Mr Slaughter
What the hon. Gentleman has said is very persuasive, as is what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis). I think that we would support such action, and that the Government should consider it seriously.
Mr Tyrie
Well, I have one Front Bench aboard; that leaves another one. I do not see any movement just yet, but if I keep going for a couple more minutes, who knows? I might receive a response.
I think that it is in the interests of the Government to adopt this route, because it would bolster public confidence that the review and the reviewer were truly independent of the Government. My personal view is that five-yearly renewals, informed by a five-yearly review clause, should be satisfactory or at least adequate, but that is certainly the minimum that is required. What the Government have offered so far, which is just some reporting plus a five-yearly review, is clearly not enough. If they do not indicate that they are prepared to move this evening, I will vote against them. However, I hope very much that their lordships are also listening to the debate. They will have an opportunity to improve the new clause in a number of ways, and I hope that those will include the ways that I have suggested.
John McDonnell
I tabled new clause 9, which, as has been said, was debated in Committee. I congratulate Lawrence McNamara on his work—on the advice that he gave the House overall, and the evidence that he gave to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He made a simple point. As we have seen tonight, this is an extremely contentious Bill concerning a contentious procedure, and it therefore warrants close monitoring. The best way of enabling that to happen is to establish a database at the earliest opportunity in order to ensure that the necessary information is recorded.
Lawrence McNamara made a fairly straightforward recommendation to the Committee. He suggested a template-form statement specifying the duration of open hearings and closed hearings, the number of witnesses heard in closed proceedings and the nature of those witnesses, the length of a closed judgment, and whether national security was an issue in the proceedings. The information whose collection is requested is not exactly highly controversial. The reason for requiring it is that it would inform the proposed review, and inform the wider media and the general public about the activities that were being undertaken as a result of the Bill. I am perplexed about why the Government did not simply accept that recommendation. Surely they would want to collect the information as well, in order to monitor their own legislation.
I welcome new clause 5. At least the Government are doing something about reporting. However, the report that they propose would be undertaken after 12 months of operation. I think that people need an ongoing database to which they can refer regularly, and which can be used when necessary to inform debates in the House and among the general public. The database would also feed into the review itself. It would enable a proper discussion to be held about whether the legislation was being implemented effectively, and about the scale of its implementation.
One of the arguments that we have heard tonight is that the CMPs will be used in only a small number of cases—15, according to the impact assessment, but that figure appeared to have been plucked out of the air when the Minister without Portfolio was interrogated further. Given the uncertainty about the import and breadth of the use of the legislation, there is obviously a need for an ongoing database to monitor the position, and that is all that the amendment does. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government are unwilling to accept it. I would expect a good Government to want to manage that information anyway.
With regard to the review, I wholeheartedly support the proposal for Joint Committee approval of the appointment. We had a similar discussion about the Bank of England, although without success, but the Treasury Committee was certainly successful with regard to the Office for Budget Responsibility. I suggest that this post is equally important and that, because the legislation is contentious, it is important that the person who reviews it has the full support of the House, and that could be secured by the Committee.
With regard to expiry and renewal, I remind Members that when the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was introduced, we secured an annual debate on renewal. I cannot remember it being argued at the time that that was because the legislation did not have sufficient scrutiny in its early days. I know that it was introduced as emergency legislation, but subsequently there was fairly intense debate about whether it needed to be amended at different stages. The annual renewal was intended to give us an opportunity to see whether it was working effectively and to estimate the consequences for human rights, a critical debate that a number of us have engaged in year in, year out. It did not mean that there were any major amendments as such; it meant that Members of this House, and through them the general public, could satisfy themselves as to whether the legislation was operating in accordance with the original intentions. That is what an expiry and renewal clause would enable us to do. Again, I cannot for the life of me see that as contentious; it is simply another democratic fall-back or long-stop mechanism to ensure that we are fully consulted and that we are satisfied that the legislation has been implemented effectively.
On that basis, I will support the amendments tabled by Opposition Front Benchers and will not press new clause 9 to a Division, but I must express my disappointment that the Government have not gone very far in accommodating what I think would simply be an exercise in openness and transparency for a particularly contentious piece of legislation.
James Brokenshire
It is difficult to answer my hon. Friend’s question. Parallels are difficult to draw in this respect. I can think of one European jurisdiction that is seeking to examine the appointment of an independent reviewer of its own terrorism legislation. We are unusual in having an individual who does such work. People are reflecting on the input from David Anderson, the current reviewer, and his predecessor, Lord Carlile, shining a light and having access to sensitive materials better to inform the debate on sensitive issues relating to terrorist legislation.
I am not seeking to avoid my hon. Friend’s question. It is genuinely difficult to draw parallels with the type of court processes and the review structure that we have in this country, and to say that another country deals with the issue by having an x year review or some sort of renewal system or independent reviewer. It is hard to make such an analysis, because countries and their systems are so different.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke about the provision of information and the need for a database. On closed proceedings and closed judgments, there is a database which is held and managed by the Home Office and will be updated three times a year in relation to closed judgments, to ensure that special advocates are able to look at summaries of legal principles in particularly sensitive judgments. Those will be added on a less routine basis to reduce the risk of the summary being linked to a particular case, because of the sensitivity of some of the details. It is intended that summaries of all future closed judgments will be entered into the database to inform debates and discussions and the work of the special advocates.
Part of the debate has been on the principle of whether there should be an annual sunset or renewal—whatever language we choose—or whether the system should be on a five-year basis, which I know that others have suggested as an alternative, although that option is not before the House tonight. The choice that the House has is whether to accept the Government’s new clauses on the provision of information and the review, which I hope it will, recognising that this is an addition that seeks to improve the Bill and the scrutiny and analysis that it provides.
Ultimately, if we were to introduce some form of renewal, we would have to face up to the message that that gives to some of our external partners on the control principle and the sharing of intelligence, given that one of the principles behind the changes being introduced is to give assurance to our external partners, recognising the point that David Anderson and others have made that, in essence, our relationship with a number of external partners has been affected by some cases. If we were to provide an annual renewal, it would materially impact on that. Equally, if we were to provide a further formal five-year renewal in the Bill, our judgment is that that would not provide the assurance to our external partners that is anticipated for our intelligence relationships.
Mr Tyrie
I am a little concerned that I am listening to a suggestion that the legislation is somehow for the benefit of our closest allies, the United States. It should be pointed out that the United States does not rewrite its law to take account of the fact that we send some of our intelligence material to it. Indeed, it is often argued that it is a good deal more leaky than we are. A former head of the CIA counter-terrorism centre recently remarked that he supposed that British intelligence must be very unhappy because it is often exasperated, quite reasonably, with its American friends, who are far more leak prone than it is. Nor has it sought to change its system of law to take account of our requests. Is that not one of my hon. Friend’s weakest arguments?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend says that it is a weak argument, but I disagree. An important part of the Bill is to ensure that justice is achieved in those cases where otherwise evidence would be excluded. Also, through the Norwich Pharmacal provisions, assurance is given that the control principle will be adhered to. That important provision needs to be considered as part of this segment of the Bill and when considering five-year renewal or otherwise. In essence, once we get towards the end of the five-year period, the assurance will not be there. People will be considering what the situation would be, and the issues around the control principle and the assurance that we seek to give to external partners are relevant factors for consideration in this context.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge on the ISC, under the Bill the ISC’s function will be to oversee the expenditure, administration, policy and operations of the security and intelligence agencies and other Government activities in relation to intelligence or security matters. In the course of that work, it may come across information relevant to this issue and it would be open to the committee to report on those matters to Parliament or to the Prime Minister if it found evidence that the Government may have been abusing the CMP. The ISC has the ability to examine some of these issues if that helps for the scrutiny that is applied in respect of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith highlighted the conditions for a declaration to be made. They can be met on material that a party other than the applicant is required to disclose. Amendment 46 makes it clear that the two conditions for a declaration to be made can be met and based on such material. I do not know whether that is helpful to him in the context of the points that he made.
Ultimately, the House will need to determine whether the Government’s new clauses are sufficient. We believe that they are; they allow for a reviewer to look at the legislation in five years’ time. Following the report that the reviewer provides, it is open to the House to re-legislate if it considers that change is needed. Equally, we judge that the legislation on the provision of information gives assurance within an appropriate period on how the Bill will be used.
Others may take a contrary view, but we judge that the new clauses are appropriate. We recommend them to the House, because it is important for us to have the transparency and that ability to consider. That is precisely what the new clauses will give us.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 6
Review of sections 6 to 11
‘(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to review the operation of sections 6 to 11 (the “reviewer”).
(2) The reviewer must carry out a review of the operation of sections 6 to 11 in respect of the period of five years beginning with the day on which section 6 comes into force.
(3) The review must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the period to which the review relates.
(4) As soon as reasonably practicable after completing a review under this section, the reviewer must send to the Secretary of State a report on its outcome.
(5) On receiving a report under subsection (4), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament.
(6) Before laying a copy of a report before Parliament under subsection (5), the Secretary of State may, after consulting the reviewer, exclude from the copy any part of the report that would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be damaging to the interests of national security if it were included in the copy laid before Parliament.
(7) The Secretary of State may pay to the reviewer—
(a) expenses incurred by the reviewer in carrying out functions under this section, and
(b) such allowances as the Secretary of State determines.’. —(James Brokenshire.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Expiry and renewal
‘(1) Sections 6 to 12 of this Act expire at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) The Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument, provide that sections 6 to 12 of this Act are not to expire at the time when they would otherwise expire under subsection (1) or in accordance with an order under this subsection but are to continue in force after that time for a period not exceeding one year.
(3) An order under this section may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.’.—(Mr Slaughter.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Justice and Security Bill [Lords]
Lord Tyrie Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clarke
Let me just explain. All of this is relevant.
Some of our critics appear to be arguing decisively that the status quo is somehow defensible and should continue, but I believe that that position is untenable now. It is simply not possible for a judge to hear these matters, and, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), all kinds of insinuations are made about cases in which it ought to be obvious to everyone that the intelligence agencies were in no position to call any evidence that would seriously address the issues.
The serious evidence that might be called and might be relevant—I am not commenting on the merits of any individual cases—might relate to the precise nature of the British intelligence agencies’ involvement in the issues concerned. What did our agents know about either an individual or an organisation at the time when the events being described were taking place? What collaboration was taking place between the British Government and partners in overseas agencies, and what information was being shared? Those are all very sensible questions, given the nature of some of the claims that have been made about the behaviour of British agents.
As I have told the House before, I do not think that any country in the world would tolerate a legal system in which our spies and our agents and their collaborators cheerily appeared in open court, in front of the parties, their lawyers and the press, and gave evidence on these matters. It would be exceedingly damaging. Public interest immunity, on which people now rely, has one obvious defect. If a Minister obtains it, that means that the material is entirely excluded from the court, and neither party can rely on it.
What continually happens, certainly in relation to defence evidence, is that—although there has been no proper hearing of all the evidence—the parties settle, the taxpayer pays up, claims are made which are damaging to the reputation of the service and no one knows whether or not they are justified, and we have to move on from there. I want us to reach a point at which cases are not being settled simply because our court procedures are not capable of allowing sensitive national security material to be heard in the few cases in which it is plainly relevant. It has always been obvious to me that what is needed in civil actions of this kind is the very limited use, in exceptional cases, of the closed procedures that were created by the last Government, which would enable a High Court judge to consider all the evidence from both sides, but to do so in necessarily closed conditions if national security was at risk.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
What inference does my right hon. and learned Friend think the public will draw if the Government win a case involving the closed material procedure in which the other party has had no chance to see or challenge the evidence—secret evidence—that the Government have introduced in support of that case?
Mr Clarke
The inference I would draw is that at least a judge, doing the best that he or she can, has had a chance to consider the evidence, and has delivered a judgment. If the judge is not allowed to consider the evidence, obviously no useful judgment can be pronounced at the end of the case. Of course it would be very much better if the evidence were given in an open procedure—in normal cases, the openness of justice is one of the proudest boasts of our system—but in cases in which national security will be jeopardised if evidence is given openly, it must be ensured that the evidence can be given in the best possible circumstances in the light of the obvious limitations of the case.
British judges are quite capable of deciding whether or not national security is involved. British judges do not need us to lecture them on the rule of law and the duty to be impartial between the parties. British judges will want to hear evidence openly if they think that that can possibly be practicable. British judges will be able to judge—they do it all the time—the weight to be given to evidence. Once the judges discover who was the source of the information, people can be challenged about the reliability of that source. Of course the system is not ideal—if we could only persuade all the country’s enemies to close their ears, there could be a perfectly ordinary single-action trial and we could hear everything—but I believe that the Bill will move us from what is currently a hopeless position to a better position that will allow us to hear the judgment of a judge in appropriate cases.
Mr Clarke
I keep giving way one last time, so, with apologies to my hon. Friend, let me turn to what I think is the subject matter of the serious debate that has been taking place since we consulted on the Green Paper.
It was our intention from the start to consult on the Green Paper. As what we are doing goes to the fundamentals of our legal system and our rule of law, we actively sought the widest possible support for what we are doing. Even before the Bill was introduced and before it went through the Lords, we narrowed its scope to make quite sure that CMPs could be made available only when disclosure of the material would be damaging to the interests of national security. Green Paper language that slightly implied that the police, Customs and Excise and all sorts of other people might start invoking them has gone completely away. We removed the Secretary of State’s power to extend the scope of the Bill by order, and excluded inquests after a campaign led by the Daily Mail got widespread support in this House. As I have already said, we never even contemplated that our proposals should cover criminal cases.
We also conceded—this is the key point, which I think we are still debating with most of the critics—very early on, after publishing the Green Paper, that the decision whether to allow a closed material procedure or not should be a matter for the judge and never for the Minister. That is an important principle and it is what most of the arguments, even about the JCHR’s amendments, are all about. We have all, I hope, now agreed that it is a judge’s decision whether or not to hold closed procedures. The question is how far we need to keep amending the Bill to clarify this and how we avoid unnecessary consequences if we overdo it. I shall return to that.
That is what most of the debate was about in the House of Lords and it is the point of the JCHR’s report. When it came to a Division in the House of Lords on the principle of closed material procedures, the Government had an enormous majority. The Labour party did not oppose the principles of CMP, even though it was a Back-Bench Labour amendment which the other place voted down. I trust that the Front-Bench Labour team and the right hon. Member for Tooting continue to be of that opinion. Unless his undoubted radical left-wing instincts have got the better of him, I do not think that is the position of any party in this House.
The concern of the House of Lords and of the JCHR was that the judge should have a real and substantive discretion about whether a CMP is necessary in any case. Many Members of the upper House made their support for CMPs contingent on changes being made to increase judicial discretion and ensure that it was clear on the face of the Bill that CMPs would be used only for a very small category of exceptional cases.
I begin by making it clear on behalf of the Government that I agree that the judge should have discretion. I agree that we should be talking about a small number of cases where any other process is impossible and it is necessary for it to be handled in this way. A strong and compelling case was made by those who argued that we ought to trust our judges to decide the right way to try the issues in any particular case. I agree. The debate—I suspect it will be the same debate today as it was in the House of Lords—starts from the fact that the Government’s case is that the Bill as it stood already accepted that principle. As we were defeated, we will consider what more we can do by way of reassurance. People are deeply suspicious of anything in this area and they are convinced that, despite what we put in the Bill, the judge will somehow be inhibited by what the Government propose to do.
Our judges are among the finest in the world. They are staunch defenders of the rule of law, and they have shown time and again that they can be trusted not to endanger the national security of this country. I know that they can be—
Mr Clarke
I close my case, as they say; there is no need for me to carry on addressing the House about Norwich Pharmacal. We wait to hear what points might be raised about it.
I move on to part 1 of the Bill, to which I think the House should have much more regard. It deals with the important issue of parliamentary oversight of our security and intelligence agencies. I suggest to both sides of the House that if we wish to be reassured about the accountability of our security services and really try to guarantee to ourselves that they are not misbehaving, we should look to stronger parliamentary oversight as well as to more accountability to the courts.
It is time to put the Intelligence and Security Committee, chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend, on a much stronger footing and to enhance its independence to strengthen the valuable work it has done so far. We have to give Parliament more effective oversight of the intelligence and security agencies.
The ISC operates within arrangements established by Parliament in 1994, but the nature of the Committee’s work has changed dramatically. In the past 18 years, particularly since 9/11, the public profile, budgets and operational demands on the agencies have all significantly increased, but there has been no change in the statutory arrangements for oversight. In the past, the ISC has overseen operational matters but has done so relatively infrequently and generally at the direct invitation of the Prime Minister. The ISC has no statutory powers to oversee such matters. Its statutory remit is also limited to oversight of the security and intelligence agencies, although it has long heard evidence from the wider intelligence community.
At the moment, the Prime Minister receives its report and appoints its members. Currently, the heads of the security and intelligence agencies are permitted, in certain circumstances, to withhold information from it. We can certainly improve on that. We need to give the ISC greater teeth to ensure that we can continue to have confidence in those who oversee the agencies on our behalf.
The Bill provides that the ISC will in future be able to oversee the agencies’ operations, within appropriate constraints. The Committee will also in future report to Parliament, as well as the Prime Minister. Its members will be appointed by Parliament, after nomination by the Prime Minister. The power to withhold information from the ISC will move from the agency heads to the Secretary of State responsible for that agency—a Minister accountable to the House. It will be a parliamentary Committee. We are greatly strengthening our powers to hold accountable those who do such vital work for our country.
Mr Tyrie
My right hon. and learned Friend said that the Intelligence and Security Committee will henceforth be accountable to Parliament. Will he be prepared to consider the proposals of the Wright Committee on parliamentary renewal—that the Chairman of the ISC should henceforth be elected by a secret ballot of the whole House, subject to a veto by the Prime Minister at the nomination stage? That was accepted unanimously by the Wright Committee and it has won widespread support. It would greatly enhance the credibility and sense of independence of the ISC Chairman.
Mr Clarke
I have the greatest respect for the Wright Committee and we will consider the matter further, although I am not instantly attracted by that proposal. We are moving to a situation in which the Chairman of the ISC will be elected by the Committee and the Committee itself will be elected by the whole House from a list approved first by the Prime Minister. On reflection, I think that the problem with a system whereby the House could elect whoever it liked, subject to a prime ministerial veto, is that it would be an Exocet that was hugely embarrassing to use. It is not impossible—I hope that it is not too fanciful—to envisage a case where the security services have satisfied the Prime Minister that there is some problem with a particular Member of this House of which the wider world is completely unaware. [Interruption.] That is not unknown; I am sure that it has happened in the experience of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). The idea that the Prime Minister must suddenly issue a veto on the result of an election carried out in this House is probably a step too far, and I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), the Chairman of the ISC, agreed with me when we discussed this very matter not too long ago.
Hazel Blears
I think the Americans have a great deal of concern about many legal jurisdictions when it results in information subject to the control principle being disclosed in open court.
Mr Tyrie
Is the right hon. Lady aware that the American courts do not provide that absolute level of protection and that there is no reciprocation of the control principle in US courts, so it is perfectly possible, through the US court system, that information that we have handed to the Americans could, in principle, find its way into the public domain? That point has been made once or twice already. It is crucial that both countries have a sense of balance and put their courts back at the centre of making that judgment.
Hazel Blears
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, clearly the control principle relates to relationships between different intelligence services and liaison countries. Also, in America, they have the states secret privilege, under which they can say, “This matter is not justiciable at all, because it covers matters relating to national intelligence”, so in some respects it is a more draconian system than ours. We are seeking to find a balance, rather than having an Executive veto, and I think that that is the right way to go.
The second issue on my “for” list was about revealing capabilities, techniques and methods. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I am in a privileged position and have had an opportunity to look at the current cases lodged for damages in civil proceedings. I have looked at the grounds from the applicants and the defence grounds from the agencies, and it is startlingly clear that, were the defence to be pursued, it would reveal techniques, methods, capabilities and networks of agents, and that it would be impossible for the security agencies to pursue their defence in those contemporary cases. Some people think that these cases are historical and that once we have dealt with the ones from Guantanamo Bay, which we have, there will not be any more coming down the track, but that is not the case. Many have happened recently, and, as the Minister without Portfolio said, this jurisdiction is now becoming an attractive place to bring a claim, because the agencies are not in a position to defend themselves.
Thirdly and fundamentally, the system of closed procedures will allow all the evidence to be put before the judge. That is the foundation here. If we have public interest immunity, we exclude information from the judge, which is the opposite of what we are trying to achieve, and I do not believe that partial justice, in which information that could go to the heart of the proceedings is excluded, is proper justice.
The final point that I weighed in the balance was about safeguarding the reputation of our agencies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East made the point very powerfully that these are people who, in some cases, put their lives on the line for our safety and that of those we represent, and when they have to settle cases, as they did last week in the claim by Mr al-Saadi, people will inevitably draw inferences. They will say, “There’s no smoke without fire. There must have been something in it, if the Government are prepared to pay £2 million”, and that puts the agencies in an invidious position. Men and women of integrity and honour who dedicate their lives to the protection of this country are smeared by the implication that they have been complicit in torture or mistreatment. It might have happened in some cases, but I would rather that all the information was before the judge, because at least then the services could get a proper decision, rather than have their integrity smeared, which I think is outrageous.
My final point is about taxpayers’ money. It is not our main issue, but many millions of pounds has been paid to people, some of whom might not have had legitimate claims had we been able to get them into court. If we are giving them millions of pounds, there is the prospect of some of it being used to fund further extremist or terrorist activity. That is totally unacceptable.
There are a number of outstanding questions, and I have no doubt that the Minister will explore them in fine detail in Committee. I look forward to the prospect of discussing them with him. I want to make a couple of final points now, however. The decisions to accept discretion and to move from “must” to “may” are welcome. If this is really to be a judge-led process, that is where we need to be. I also want to make a point to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, who is no longer in his place. He talked about the court being able to look at each piece of information; that is exactly what the court will be able to do. The judge will be able to look at each piece of evidence and ask whether it goes to the heart of the issue and whether it should be kept secret or disclosed. If there were a redacted paragraph that had no national security implications, for example, the judge would be able to determine that it could be disclosed. PII would be available, and the matter would not even be before the court, so the right hon. Gentleman’s point really did not support his argument. On the PII issue, I have misgivings about the length of time involved and the cumbersome nature of the process in every case. I want to explore the balancing judgment to get this in the right place.
This is a necessary Bill. As I have said, this is not a move that any of us relishes making. We are democrats in this country, and we believe in the rule of law, but if we are to protect our national security and get the balance right, it is essential that we support it.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
It has been an interesting debate, full of thoughtful interventions, and I have learned quite a bit.
I should like to make three initial points. First, I strongly support the work of the security services, which is essential for our safety. My concerns about the Bill need to be seen in that context. Secondly, I shall refer to the origins of the Bill, and thirdly, I shall deal with what might be at stake, even though we shall discuss it only to some extent this afternoon.
The Bill came about partly as a consequence of the recent exposure of Britain’s involvement in a programme of extraordinary rendition. Bringing all that into the public domain is a matter of deep concern to the Americans, particularly their security agencies. They are worried that our court proceedings could lead to the exposure of intelligence information handed to them by us. The Bill is a consequence, as we have just heard, of the cost and embarrassment of settling a number of civil actions brought by people who have alleged maltreatment. To deal with the first problem, the proposal is to close down the so-called Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction and, to deal with the second problem, the Government have decided to replace public interest immunity certificates with closed material procedures in most national security cases. I shall come on to the case for those proposals in a moment.
I should like to discuss briefly what is at stake in a broader perspective. All these issues may appear to be abstruse and technical, but they are about the kind of society that we want to live in. It is worth saying a little more about the trigger for the Bill—the issue of extraordinary rendition. We now know that Britain facilitated extraordinary rendition—we do not know its extent—and the Bill may make it more difficult to find out the degree of Britain’s complicity. Senior British public officials have facilitated the kidnapping of people and their transfer to places where our Government knew they might be maltreated or tortured. Last week, Britain paid £2.2 million in compensation to someone who was apparently rendered—and tortured—along with his family, to the Gaddafi regime by British intelligence in 2004. Britain also facilitated the rendition of Binyam Mohamed to Morocco, and apparently he, too, was horrifically tortured. There are other cases, possibly many more: we do not know.
If we do not get to the bottom of our complicity in such disgusting practices, we surrender the moral high ground. We must be wary about extending secret court proceedings for the same reason. Secret courts are usually held to be the tools of dictators, not of democracies, and their prevalence is often a test of whether a society can be called “free”. I am deeply saddened that my country has become involved in kidnap and torture, and I do not want it to be accused—rightly or wrongly—of covering up such things. That, however, is exactly what Britain’s detractors abroad might claim—fairly or unfairly—about this Bill.
Dr Julian Lewis
I appreciate the serious point about getting to the bottom of a given rendition. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are left with only PII, pay-offs will tend to be given and we will not get to the bottom of cases? However, if a pay-off is made when closed material procedure could have been used, one can deduce that something was amiss because although the Government could have used a more specific route, they chose not to do so.
Mr Tyrie
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The judge now has discretion on CMPs—at least, I hope that is where we will end up as a result of efforts in the other place—so we could arrive at a position where we have more justice and not less, which is the underlying principle we are discussing. With respect to Norwich Pharmacal, the case is unarguable. We would know less about rendition had the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction been closed down, because it was used to elicit information about the extent of Britain’s involvement.
The Government have argued that CMPs could deliver more justice because they will be able to introduce evidence that they cannot introduce at the moment for fear it will damage national security. How true is that? I do not know—very few Members present in the Chamber do. The special advocates, security-vetted lawyers who are responsible for making CMPs work, are the small group of people with access to the information required to know the answer. They have been unequivocal—the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) quoted them a moment ago. They say that CMPs are not
“capable of delivering procedural fairness”
and that their introduction
“could only be justified by the most compelling reasons and, in our view, none exists.”
It is worth reading the report by the special advocates in full as it is pretty blistering.
I am grateful to the Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), for returning to the Chamber, as he also said that PII was deeply flawed. It is certainly not perfect but, again, the special advocates have expressed a view and said that
“there is as yet no example of a civil claim involving national security that has proved untriable using PII and the flexible use of ancillary procedures (such as confidentiality rings and “in private” hearings from which the public, but not the parties, are excluded).”
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
That statement may be accurate in so far as it goes, but one case—the Carnduff case—was stayed because it could not be properly tried, albeit that it was not directly in the national security arena. The Supreme Court has said that the principle exists, in which case there will be cases where there is no trial at all unless we use CMPs. Surely my hon. Friend will agree that it is better to go down that route than to have the possibility of no trial for very serious cases.
Mr Tyrie
I agree that a CMP could be of use in some cases. My point is that the special advocates, who are well placed to judge, have looked at the proposals and said that, so far, they have seen no cases in which PII could not do the job.
A cynic would argue that the special advocates have an interest in arguing for more legal work and more CMPs, but it is significant that they have spoken in the opposite direction—against the extension of CMPs. Their lordships shared the concerns of the special advocates, and by majorities or more than 100, shredded that part of the Bill.
The Lords amendments included two crucial safeguards that I consider to be essential. The first, which we have discussed, is that they gave the judge rather than the Minister discretion on whether to hold a CMP. The original Bill clearly gave the lion’s share of that discretion to the Minister, and it is not true, as the Minister said a moment ago, that he gave up that position “months ago”. If he gave it up “months ago”, why on earth did their lordships debate replacing the word “must” with the word “may” only a fortnight ago?
The second crucial Lords amendment was a measure—clause 6(6)—to ensure that a judge should be able to exhaust PII in his search for justice before considering CMPs. Unfortunately, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister did not say that he would accept it. On the contrary, he used a number of phrases to suggest that he would do no more than consider it, and that he had not yet finished his consideration. I regret that and the fact that we are discussing the Bill so quickly. It needs further consideration and I agree with him on that. The debate should have taken place in January. That it is being rushed through just before Christmas adds to my concerns.
A third safeguard would be valuable. A review should be held after a period to see whether CMPs have led to more rather than less justice. To ensure that the review happens properly, it should be accompanied by a sunset clause—in perhaps seven, eight or 10 years. That proposal was a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Chairman of which is not in the Chamber at the moment. I would like it included in the Bill.
Having said that, my concluding thought is this: we should remain deeply sceptical of the utility of holding a hearing in which one party is shut out of the case. This is what the former Director of Public Prosecutions has to say on that—I shall quote it in full, because it is so forceful. He said:
“I have spent many years in criminal courts watching evidence that at first sight seemed persuasive, truthful and accurate disintegrating under cross-examination conducted upon the instructions of one of the parties…That is the risk that we are facing, that we are introducing into civil justice—in the most sensitive and controversial cases, where deeply serious allegations are made against the Government and the security services—a process that expels the claimant and gives him a form of justice that is not better than nothing. It is worse than nothing because it may be justice that is based on entirely misleading evidence.”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1989-1900.]
I accept that, in some very restricted circumstances, one can conceive of more justice being achieved with a CMP than without one, but I am clear in my mind that that must come only after all other existing routes to try to obtain justice, including PII, have been exhausted. The Minister has not accepted clause 6(6) as amended by the other place. For that reason, above all, I cannot accept the Bill.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who speaks consistently on this and other civil rights issues, even if he does not often agree with the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). I suspect that, on this occasion, he is also unlikely to agree with me.
I have to confess that I hesitated before deciding to speak in this Second Reading debate, partly because I see a Bill Committee looming and the prospect of 12 days in the spring with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) is not particularly attractive to any of us, and partly because consensus seems to be emerging among the majority of Members that, unsatisfactory though the Bill might be, it is none the less a necessary measure.
There is little disagreement on the first part of the Bill, which will establish a regime for the oversight of the intelligence services that has long been called for. That is much to be welcomed. It is the second part of the Bill, which deals with the closed material proceedings—wrongly, in my view, called secret courts—that appears to cause controversy. I shall focus my remarks on that part of the Bill, although not at length as consensus is emerging and many of the points that I wanted to raise have already been discussed. The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), for example, identified many of the arguments that I would deploy in support of the Bill being given a Second Reading.
Many lawyers, myself included, regard the Bill as at best undesirable and possibly pernicious. The obvious reason for that is that the principle that has served us well for many years is that we do justice publicly. We also permit full access to the evidence for those against whom allegations are made—whether serious or not; in these cases, they usually are—and for those who make those allegations, in order that a fair adjudication can be openly and publicly be made of their complaint and of what has been said against the accused.
The Government need to persuade those who have expressed concerns that the mischief against which the Bill is said to be directed is so serious that, in the limited number of cases to which closed material proceedings would apply, we need to take a fundamentally different approach from the one that has traditionally applied to the administration of public justice. The Government have identified four problems, although they have not always been clearly articulated. It is worth identifying them, for the sake of those such as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) who are troubled by the Bill, in order for me to explain why I think the Bill should be given a Second Reading.
The first is the continued necessity in the security climate in which we the United Kingdom and, indeed, the western world find ourselves to have access to very good intelligence material—material gathered not only from our sources and by our own agencies, but by the agencies and sources that are available to our allies overseas. The difficulty the Government face as regards those agencies capable of providing us with information that is essential for the defence and security of this country is that when something is secret and comes from a foreign intelligence agency and potentially a source of that intelligence agency that might be exposed or, if it is a live source, even threatened, the Government need to be able to give an absolute assurance that that material will remain closed and will remain secret. Without that assurance—this applies not only to the United States but to other intelligence agencies, too—the Government face real difficulties in ensuring that the intelligence necessary to protect all our constituents will be available in this country.
There is, of course, a related point—that the intelligence services here need to be able to recruit their own agents and need to be able to assure those agents from the very first that their identity and anything connected to anything that might reveal their identity will remain secret. That is the first issue that calls to be dealt with, and it supports the Government’s position on part 2.
The second problem, as I see it, is that undoubtedly in the past the Government—perhaps not only this Government but the preceding one—have been obliged to settle cases where they had legitimate defences to the accusations that were made against them, but in respect of which they felt, for the reasons I have already given, that those defences could not properly be advanced, usually for the simple reason that it would expose intelligence sources and, potentially, the way in which intelligence is gathered.
Those settlements are wrong for two reasons. First, there is never any adjudication whatever of the underlying merits of the case, and from the perspective of justice as a whole—and, I might add, from the perspective of claimants as well as that of the Government—that is totally unsatisfactory. Secondly, because the Government have been obliged to settle these cases—a point touched on by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles—large sums of taxpayers’ money have had to be paid out. In many cases, they might have been lost by the Government and perhaps the damages were justified, but we do not know where the money has gone in other cases and we do not know, for example, that it has not gone to fund activities that are, putting them at their very lowest, detrimental to the interests of this country. That is the second reason why the Bill, and particularly part 2, is deserving of a Second Reading.
There is a related third point—the reputational risk to this country. These cases are settled, albeit with no admission of liability, in circumstances where, as was said earlier, much of the world will say that there is no smoke without fire. People might say that the British Government would not settle these cases unless there was some truth in the allegations, which does this country enormous damage overseas. It also runs the risk—I say this particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester—of encouraging those who would see this country damaged by radicalising young Muslim men overseas who will believe that this country has no respect for the rights it is trying to push on the Islamic world.
Stephen Phillips
I accept my hon. Friend’s point, but for my own part I do not think the risk is nearly as great, and I would go further than that. If we carry on calling CMPs “secret courts”, there might be that risk, but we are not talking about secret courts. We are talking about courts in which defendants and claimants are properly represented, where there is access to the information necessary to ensure as fair a resolution of the issues between the parties as possible and, indeed, where the proceedings are overseen by a judge. I shall come back to this in a moment, but the alternative in many of these cases is, as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend, that there is no justice at all—either because they are struck out or because the Government have to settle them. That is totally unsatisfactory—much more so than the Government’s proposals in the Bill. I think it was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation who said that we were in the world of second-best solutions, and indeed we are. No one wishes to see this legislation. I myself have described it as at best undesirable, and possibly pernicious. However, we are where we are. We face the threats that we face, and we have to deal with them.
My fourth reason for thinking that the Bill deserves a Second Reading is that, at present, justice is not done at all in many cases of this kind. As I said earlier, the Government, because they cannot disclose information, are obliged to settle some cases when a perfectly good defence is available to the security services. There are, potentially, other cases—and at least one, which I mentioned earlier, may have already arisen—in which a claimant has a legitimate cause of action which may or may not be capable of being sustained at trial, but owing to the success of a public interest immunity application, information that would otherwise have enabled the issues between the parties to be properly resolved is not available.
In a third group of cases, such as the Carnduff case, there is the possibility of a stay if the public interest immunity application fails, and those are the cases that trouble me particularly. Claimants are essentially being told, “You may have a perfectly good cause of action, but the public interest of protecting national security outweighs the public interest of doing justice in your case.” That seems to me much more undesirable than saying to a claimant, “You may press ahead, but part of the proceedings will take place in a forum that is no longer open to the public.”
The Bill may indeed be a second-best or an undesirable solution, and part 2, at least, may even constitute a pernicious piece of legislation. However, for the four reasons that I have given, I approve of the principle behind it. I believe that that principle has been generally accepted throughout this House, and was finally accepted by their lordships, subject to the amendments that they made. It is a principle from which I do not believe parliamentarians can legitimately distance themselves. It is the principle that we need to be here to protect our constituents, and it is the principle that no matter how unsatisfactory the Bill is, it is the right Bill, and, regrettably, a necessary measure.
Informal European Council
Lord Tyrie Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady makes a serious point. I have read the agreement that these countries have come to, and I completely understand the need for fiscal discipline within the eurozone. Clearly, we cannot have countries building up excessive deficits year after year, and one can understand the concern of Germany and other northern countries, but on the text of the treaty, it is actually very concerning that some countries will struggle to meet it. Of course, Europe needs not only arrangements for fiscal discipline but, above all, arrangements for additional competitiveness, for opening up markets and for getting economies growing. That was the subject of the first half of the EU meeting, in which we were major participants, and we are very much driving that agenda to help Greece, Spain and other countries in the south of Europe.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The eurozone crisis has now become a major global risk, but the member countries seem wholly incapable of addressing it and its root causes properly. Will the need for IMF intervention and direction of the crisis be discussed at the G20 summit that the Prime Minister will be attending on 25 February, and was it discussed at the summit from which he has just come?
Parliamentary Standards Act 2009
Lord Tyrie Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adam Afriyie
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his work on the Committee. I think that together we came to a very moderate view that we hope will, if the recommendations are accepted, move the whole thing forward.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the key message that must come out of today’s debate and go to the Front Bench as well as to IPSA is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) has just said, that IPSA’s primary duty must be to ensure that we can do our job, and the plain fact is that many of us find it has become an obstacle to our doing that? That is why the legislation needs to be changed. Does he also agree that it is extremely important that these recommendations are not kicked into the long grass, and does he share my hope that Front Benchers will do nothing to obstruct this early implementation, which is clearly sensible?
Adam Afriyie
That is another point well made. I will tackle the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) first and then move on to deal with that made by my hon. Friend.
If we think about the rest of society and the work we do as MPs—this is not a sob story, but I am sure that it will be reported as such—we will realise that every other body has a pressure group, a trade association, a trade union or a communications or public relations company working for them. We want our great British democracy to be an icon of honesty, transparency and straightforwardness around the world, so it is curious that Parliament appears to be the only organisation that does not have a similar function. IPSA, which is a small organisation, has two or three people dealing with its communications, but in Parliament there is no one to give the other side of the story. That is not a recommendation of the report, but simply my own observation to back up what the hon. Gentleman said.
EU Council
Lord Tyrie Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The Prime Minister must be right to do whatever is required to protect the 1.3 million jobs in our financial services sector. Will he confirm that the current EU proposals for the so-called maximum harmonisation of bank regulations could prevent us from implementing the conclusions of the Vickers commission to make our banks safer with a ring-fence?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the things that we are concerned about is that if we want to take the extra action in this country to make our banks safe, including what Vickers is recommending, there is a danger—and this is the current advice—that the current European regulatory framework could stop us doing that. That is exactly the sort of safeguard—it is entirely reasonable, modest and relevant—to ask for in these negotiations. We did not get it, so, as a result, I was not content to go ahead with the treaty.
G20
Lord Tyrie Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. Given the intense interest in this statement and the fact that there are two further statements to follow, brevity is essential.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The European Commission has estimated that implementation of the financial transactions tax would reduce gross domestic product in the euro area by 1.8%. Of course, that would hit the UK disproportionately hard at a time when we need more growth, not less. Does the Prime Minister agree that, of all times, now is not the appropriate moment to consider such a controversial measure?
The Prime Minister
It is important for people to see the European Commission report on the financial transactions tax, which shows the figures that my hon. Friend talks about, and shows that it would cost jobs. As I have said, if we could achieve global agreement for a tax of that nature there would be a case for it, but it is very hard to see that happening. I think that the focus of politicians in Europe should be to meet the promises they have already made about development rather than to hide behind a financial transactions tax that they know is very unlikely to come into being.
Libya
Lord Tyrie Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier, I see all these issues as being linked. Just as we want to see greater democracy, peace and progress in middle eastern countries across the board, so we want to see the Palestinians have the dignity of their own state. However, we believe in the two-state solution, so it must be a Palestine alongside a secure Israel. When it comes to the whole issue of recognition, the test for us is: are we doing something that will help to push forward the peace process? That is the most important thing. In the end, we cannot compel Israel and Palestine to reach peace between themselves; they have to want to do it.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
As the Prime Minister knows, I have called for several years for an inquiry into rendition, but I have to say that Sir Peter Gibson’s preparatory work is already a source of concern. Is the Prime Minister aware that he has already decided not to follow the same certification process that Lord Butler used in his inquiry to ensure that he got the right papers, that he has decided against appointing an independent investigator and that, contrary to the spirit of the reply that the Prime Minister gave me when setting up the Gibson inquiry, he will not be looking at detainee transfers in theatre? Will the Prime Minister look again at the protocol, to ensure that Sir Peter can do a proper job?
The Prime Minister
I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend says, because he has been pursuing this issue with dogged determination over the years, and quite right too. What I would say though is that we are dealing with an inquiry that is almost entirely concerned with the security and intelligence services. This is an extremely difficult area to inquire into, and it has to be done with great sensitivity. I do not want to do anything that puts our country at risk or jeopardises the work of our security and intelligence services. I see this as a package: there was the clearing of the Guantanamo Bay detainee cases, which was vital so that the security services could get on with their work; there was the new guidance, so that our officers in the field knew what they should and should not do; and there is this inquiry to try to clear up the problems of the past. Yes, it is about uncovering any mistreatment or malpractice, which is not to be justified in any way, but it is also about enabling our security services to get on with the job of keeping us safe.
Public Confidence in the Media and Police
Lord Tyrie Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The point I was going to make, which is important, is that in my understanding, the reopening of the investigation was in response to new information from News International, and that it was not in response to the April article. The point about Andy Coulson’s resignation, which had been under discussion for some weeks, was that he recognised that he could not go on doing his job. It was not, to the best of my memory, connected with any single event. It was literally: “I can’t go on being an effective communications spokesman. I have to resign. Let’s just make sure we get on with it and do it in an orderly way.” [Interruption.] I know that that does not fit the many conspiracy theories that hon. Members have tried to produce, but that is actually what happened.
Let me make three suggestions on media plurality and power. One: it is right that there are good and proper legal processes for considering media mergers, but we should ask whether politicians should be abstracted from them altogether. Two: it is right that there is a plurality test, but we should ask whether that test should be ongoing, rather than just considered at the time of takeover. Three: plurality is difficult to measure, especially in the modern internet age, but we should not rule out the idea of limits, and it is right that the inquiry should look at this issue.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
What the Prime Minister has said about plurality is extremely interesting and important, and it will have a bearing on the future structure of Ofcom, but does he agree that we need to think carefully before tearing up the main provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002, which keeps Ministers out of decisions on takeovers and mergers?