Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

My right hon. Friend makes that point very clearly. I will return to my argument, because I am conscious that other Members wish to speak about later proposals.

The Opposition are of course sympathetic to attempts to widen accountability and open the ISC as much as possible. In Committee, we supported a number of amendments to do just that. We tabled amendments so that we could consider whether an Opposition Member should always chair the Committee, as with the Public Accounts Committee, and whether there should be a majority of MPs—elected representatives—on the ISC.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have some experience of that point. I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for nine years. The Chair of that Committee is the sole auditor of the accounts of the security services, so he sees in great detail all the accounts of the security services. He is not vetted by anybody, including the Prime Minister. He is elected by all Members of the House. Nobody has ever suggested that an elected or appointed Chair of the Public Accounts Committee is a threat to national security, so this is a fuss about nothing.

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience as the former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. However, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee deals with far more than just the finances of the security agencies, so it is not quite the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

Part 1 of this Bill is a logical extension of a process that began approximately 20 years ago. The development of the relationship between the Intelligence and Security Committee and the services, based on respect but also on a clear understanding of their respective responsibilities, has been a substantial and important constitutional development, and nothing should take away from that.

The Minister without Portfolio described me as a heavyweight. It is a description I have been trying to avoid as I get older, for reasons he will readily understand, but there is no doubt that the matter we are discussing causes considerable controversy, and let me begin by saying I do not like part 2 of the Bill. Quite often we have to pass legislation that we do not like, however, because in our judgment it is necessary to do so, as the balance favours having the legislation. That is the principle on which I base my conclusion in this case, for which I will not be the darling of the Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton, not least because I am going back to my constituency—not to prepare for government, but to explain the consequences of the Government’s decision to close the Royal Air Force base there, which has been a source of great pride and has made an enormous contribution to the life of the community. What I will say and do is contrary to the expressed—and potential—views of the Liberal Democrat conference. I respect those views, but I think I am entitled to expect in return that my party colleagues will respect mine.

I base my views on this difficult matter on three influences: first, the fact that I have been a member of the ISC for some years; secondly, my experience as a Member of this House; and, thirdly, the fact that the law has been my trade since 1968 and I believe I know and understand it as well as any other Member of this House. I also believe that I have done as much as anyone to pursue the objectives of ensuring the protection of the citizen and the preservation of human rights.

The implication that those of us who support this legislation do so out of a slavish willingness to advance the interests of the United States has caused me some resentment, as has the suggestion that we are a cat’s-paw of the intelligence services. Not only are these claims insulting, but in my case they are palpably wrong. In recent years, for example, I have argued very strongly for an alteration in the extradition arrangements between our two countries, and 10 years ago almost to the day I and the then leader of my party were leading the opposition to the too-close association with George W. Bush and the United States in the unhappy venture into Iraq.

However, when senior officials in the current American Administration look us in the eye and tell us that their apprehension about the confidentiality of their sources is influencing the quality of the intelligence they are willing to share with the United Kingdom, should we ignore or dismiss that? If that position is then supported by American agencies themselves, should we ignore or dismiss it? When the UK’s agencies confirm under cross-examination their impression that the quality of shared intelligence with the United States has diminished, should we ignore or dismiss that? When the Americans say they are concerned about the risk to the lives of their agents or the revealing of techniques and procedures, should we ignore or dismiss that?

Do I like closed material proceedings? I do not. But do I think public interest immunity certificates are the answer? I most certainly do not. I have re-read chapter 13 of the Scott inquiry into arms to Iraq. It is heavyweight reading, but if any Members wish to become advocates for the value and validity of PII, I recommend they read it and find out the true implications.

If one wants to avoid embarrassment, a PII certificate is one of the most effective ways of doing so. If one wants to prevent a litigant from accessing evidence that might assist that person in establishing a case, PII is a very convenient way of doing so. One thing that has interested me more than anything else in this rather controversial debate has been the fact that many of the interested parties that now express confidence in public interest immunity certificates have previously been the first to criticise them.

The Bill has improved. Has it improved as much as I would prefer? Of course not, but how many times can any one of us put our hand on our heart and say that the piece of legislation for which we have voted is precisely and exactly as we would have wished? We are at a crossroads between principle and necessity, and we have to ask whether the balance that has now been struck is acceptable. That, essentially, is a question of individual judgement and it is that individual judgement that our constituents send us to this place to exercise every time we are faced with a dilemma of the kind the Bill obviously creates. Why do I say that? The balance struck is sufficient because of the developed and controlling role of the judiciary or the judge in any case and because of the palpable independence of the judiciary in these matters. We need only consider the Binyam Mohamed case, the observations of the Master of the Rolls and the extent to which the Government of the day were unable to escape the consequences of the action raised against them.

As is often the case, distinguished lawyers of sound judgment take different views of these matters. Sometimes, it seems to me that it is like a game of political contract bridge: “If you play your 700 lawyers and my good friend Baroness Kennedy, I will play my Ken Clarke and my Lord Woolf in an attempt to outbid you.” Such decisions are often as much a matter of instinct as logic.

Closed material proceedings have been described as Kafkaesque, but I doubt that those who say so have read Kafka. Others have said that they illustrate a form of Soviet-style justice, but a many litigants and accused persons in the Soviet system would be perfectly happy to swap their arrangements for those in this country, both north and south of the border. I would prefer not to have closed material proceedings, but I am satisfied that in this case the protections are such that they are justified.

[Mr Leigh]

I very much respect the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but is he satisfied, as a Liberal, with the notion that from now on a litigant will not be allowed to look at the evidence in their case and cross-examine it on the basis that it will be made available to them? After all, is that not quite a serious procedure that is quite different from the defence withdrawing a piece of evidence or not adducing it at all?

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

It is a procedure that already exists in our law. If my hon. Friend is concerned about the universal application of the principle, that argument was lost some time ago.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

Since the hon. Gentleman puts the point that way, let us turn it around and ask what he would do. Would he have elements of the conduct and the sources of the security services—sensitive, and perhaps at great risk to those who provide human intelligence—exposed in our courts? That seems to me the only possible alternative, or else, as has been suggested, we simply say there is a financial cost to be borne and we will settle any case that may have the consequence of causing such sensitive information to be revealed. That is not justice, as I understand it. That is the failure of the judicial system to reflect the reality of the proceedings which are brought before us.

[Mr Leigh]

It is always open to the defendant to choose not to adduce evidence to support his case. If the state does not want to adduce the evidence, nobody is suggesting that it has to reveal the sources of agents or information. The state simply does not produce it.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

But if the case raises the kind of issues that were raised in the case of Binyam Mohamed, what does my hon. Friend think the response would be if the state said, “We’re not producing any evidence at all”? What inference does he think people would draw if no defence was mounted? Of course the inference drawn would inevitably be one of guilt.

I finish by saying this: a lot has happened since the twin towers in New York were bombed and thousands of people died. Not all of it could be described as something of which we are proud, but the one thing that certainly happened then and which was reflected in many of the speeches that were made here on the special occasion when Parliament was summoned, and much of what has happened since then, has demonstrated that things were irretrievably and irrevocably changed as a result of that. We have only to look at the incidence of proceedings being taken in this country in relation to acts of terrorism or proposed acts of terrorism to realise the extent of that change. That is why, although I have no love for this legislation, I believe it is appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leigh]

I want to have a conversation with my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). We all know that the Bill is about civil cases and not criminal cases, but as he well knows, because he has been a litigant, civil cases are very important and can affect a person’s whole life. They should therefore be treated with great seriousness.

We should not approach debates where human rights are involved by saying that the litigants belong to a class of people whom we find reprehensible. It may be that they are reprehensible, but that argument is often used about minorities. It is used at the moment about Islamists and it would have been used about the IRA in the 20th century, the civilian German nationals who were interned in 1940, the Fenians in the 19th century, the French earlier than that, the Jesuits in the 17th century, the Chartists and John Wilkes. So let us not get into the mindset of, “These are unpleasant people.” They also have a right to justice.

We should sometimes imagine how we would feel if we were the litigant. Let us suppose that we felt that something terrible had happened and our rights had been infringed in some way. How would we like a procedure whereby we went to court and halfway through the defence suddenly said, “This is all very secret and we cannot share it with you” and the judge said, “Okay, I’ll adjourn that and listen to the evidence on your behalf Member for New Forest East. You can trust me. I am appointed by the state. Or perhaps we can get some barrister appointed by the state and he can hear it”?

Let us then suppose that a few hours or days later the judge says, “You haven’t heard this evidence against you, but I think your case doesn’t stand up.” What happens when he sums up at the end of the case, as of course in public he cannot adduce all this secret evidence? How would hon. Members feel if they were the litigant? Would they feel that they had received justice? What does it say for our worldwide reputation if serious allegations about torture and so on are made and a large part of the case—and the reason why the litigant did not win his case—is determined on the basis of secret evidence?

We are then told that we are putting our security services at risk. That is nonsense, because the security services are like any other defendant, in that they can choose what evidence to submit to defend themselves. Is it really beyond the wit of man to defend these cases satisfactorily, for the most part? A question of the identity of agents may arise, but nobody is suggesting that the agent has to be brought before the court of law, or to have himself or his practices identified. Surely there are ways in which the case can be defended a lot of the time. I leave that point with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East. I know he takes the rights of litigants and human rights seriously, and we are taking a serious step today—

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Leigh]

I was about to finish, but I will give way.

[Mr Cox]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a rule of law that if the Government are not able to defend an action and the evidence they are not able to put into court goes to the heart of the case, thus making the case unfair, they have the right to apply to strike the case out? If a case is untriable, the Government are able to strike the case out.

[Mr Leigh]

Yes, my hon. and learned Friend is an experienced leading counsel. I would have thought that there are various ways in which this problem could be resolved. The sky will not fall in. Our security services are not going to be put at risk. But there is a principle of natural justice and I think that we should proclaim it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.