Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Debate between Hazel Blears and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Minister without Portfolio (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

Before dealing with Government amendment 58, which provides the Government with the necessary powers to make a financial contribution to the Committee, I will add a few words to the interesting and lively debate that we have had on the election of the Chair. I will not repeat every argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) put the case robustly and had some pretty strong support. However, every member of the ISC who is here has responded and he has had to take on some of the more formidable Members on both sides of the House. He is also facing the opposition of all three of the major parties.

I assure him that this is not an establishment stitch-up—quite the reverse. Perhaps the best way of illustrating that is by putting everything in the context of what we are trying to do in this part of the Bill. We are making a remarkable advance in strengthening the powers of this Committee to hold our security and intelligence services to account. For 20 years the Committee has steadily contributed on that front, and we are marching forward considerably in the Bill. This part of it is just as important as the part we debated on Monday, as we are stepping towards making our security services more accountable to Parliament. We are enabling judges, in exceptional cases, to take all the evidence into account and make an adjudication when allegations are made by individuals; and we are committing to holding judicial inquiries when worrying circumstances occur—subject, of course, to those inquiries being able to get under way once police investigations have been properly completed.

These amendments are important, and they are being proposed in the context of a situation where all parties agree that they want this Committee to be a parliamentary Committee and no longer a creature of the Government. We therefore wish to give it more resources and the structure that enables it to do an even better job. The only thing that distinguishes the Committee from a Joint Committee or Select Committee of this House is this problem of the extremely sensitive nature of some of the information that it sees. Only where it is unavoidable are we departing from the normal process of allowing the House of Commons to have a powerful Committee of its own choosing and to exhort it to do its job and report back properly on what is and is not happening in this area.

[Hazel Blears]

I think we are all agreed that strengthening the scrutiny of the Secret Intelligence Service is an important and welcome step forward. However, I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that simply saying that we want to increase scrutiny is not enough. Instead of having the right to request information we are moving to a situation where we would be able to require it. We need additional investigators and that will require a substantial increase in the resources available to the Committee. Simply saying that we want increased scrutiny is not enough. I know he understands that, so will he tell us now that we will be getting an increase in resources to enable us to do the job he wants us to do?

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Debate between Hazel Blears and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hazel Blears]

The hon. Gentleman, as ever, speaks with passion on these issues and I respect his point of view. I was a lawyer a long time ago and I understand how important it is to have open justice, but it is also important to get the balance right.

Amendment 30 is about the Wiley balance. I have some difficulty with the amendment because I feel that the Wiley balance is perfectly appropriate for PII, because it is used to decide whether to include or exclude material and whether or not there should be an open hearing. It strikes me that in relation to closed material proceedings there is a more complex and nuanced decision to make which contains different factors. I am keen that we get a balance and that we get the balance right, but I am convinced that the Wiley balance is one that we can simply transpose into the new legislation and that it will be effective.

Amendments 34 and 37 are about whether every other method has to be exhausted before we can get to a closed material proceeding. I am disappointed that there is not more agreement across the House on this. We all want to see whether cases can be dealt with in another way, because closed material proceedings should be the absolute minimum—an irreducible core, as I put it, of cases. I wonder whether the determination could be made by the Secretary of State, having considered whether PII would be suitable, and whether there could be some mechanism for the court to exercise a scrutiny function on whether the Secretary of State’s consideration had been more than cursory.

There will be concerns if the Secretary of State just ticks a box and says, “I’ve considered PII, in my bath”—as the hon. Member for Chichester said—rather than going through a proper process. I would like to see, whether or not we end up in ping-pong with the Lords, something in the Bill that says that the court has to take a proper look at the Secretary of State’s consideration of PII. That would not be exhaustive, but would have some substance to it. I ask the Minister to consider taking that into account.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

The judge will have to be satisfied that the Secretary of State has considered the matter. He will not take that as just having thought about it in the bath; that is not how the judge will test whether the Secretary of State has seriously considered it. The judge has such a wide discretion that he could decide that in the fair and effective administration of justice, for some peculiar reason the case should be PII; he should not be listening to a CMP application. That would be one reason for using his discretion. Having listened to the two principal advocates of these further tests, I think they are advocating that the court and the Secretary of State should go through the whole process of PII first. That is not what the Opposition intend, but that is what their amendments would do. The Government have met the right hon. Lady’s case perfectly satisfactorily in the Bill.

[Hazel Blears]

I hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. He has been very inventive and creative in trying to table amendments, and it would not be beyond him to put something in the Bill that reassured people that there was a proper check on whether the Secretary of State had properly considered whether other methods could be used. I leave him to reflect on that.

Amendment 70 seeks to add inquests to the Bill. It originates from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and he will speak to it with his depth of knowledge, experience and appreciation of the issue, and I simply say that I will support him on it 100%.

It is important in a justice system for people to have sufficient notification of the circumstance to be able to give instructions, but at the moment the bar is set a little high, because there may well be circumstances in which the gisting goes right to the heart of national security. Therefore, by giving a gist that is wide enough to enable instructions to be given, the national security case is given away. Again I wonder whether something could be included about there being a presumption in favour of gisting that could be subject to rebuttal in circumstances that merited it. I would feel more reassured if there were something along those lines. The process adopted so far has been an attempt to try to get some agreement and consensus on these issues. It is difficult to do so, but the issues at stake are so important, both for our national security and for the integrity of our justice system, that we need to keep trying to see whether, on a couple of those issues, even at this stage, there is room for a little more movement to get us to a better place.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Debate between Hazel Blears and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

Minded to? Certainly—we will accept some of them. I speak warmly of the Joint Committee because I do not believe it was pursuing objectives that differed from mine or those of my colleagues. I think it will probably fall to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) to explain in Committee why we are not wholly convinced that every one of the amendments is quite right, or even that some of them would have the effect that the Joint Committee proposed. I will not, however, get into that level of detail so early in a Second Reading speech, if I may be allowed not to do so.

We discussed the Green Paper about a year ago, and I recall that it was a comparatively non-controversial occasion. Such was the general satisfaction and understanding on all sides that I left the Chamber wondering whether I needed to have bothered to make an oral statement. Quite a lot has happened since then, but I trust it has not shifted the opinion of the Members who joined in the debate at that time, particularly that of the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). I still strongly agree with what he said, which I shall quote:

“We need, as a matter of urgency, to bolster the safeguards and scrutiny mechanisms concerning issues of security and intelligence.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 901.]

I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman nodding his head in response to his own quotation. I was glad to read in a recent interview in The Guardian that he still believes that, as he said:

“In two and a half years’ time, it could be me in that seat making that tough decision. So it is very important for ministers to have the opportunity to protect sources, to protect delicate operations and all the rest of it. They shouldn’t be jeopardised by a civil action.”

I will not comment on the right hon. Gentleman’s political optimism and ambition to occupy any seat at all, but he is certainly right, in my opinion, to identify a serious problem with the current arrangements. At the moment, total secrecy is all that happens to the sensitive intelligence information in far too many cases and no judicial judgment is pronounced on the merits of plaintiff versus defendant. I believe that the present system needs to be reformed urgently. That is why the principle of the Bill is certainly necessary.

In support of the need for change, let me remind the House of a letter written to The Times newspaper last month by a number of individuals for whom I personally have the greatest respect. The signatories included the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord Woolf; the former Home Secretary, Lord Reid; and my right hon. Friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, a former Lord Chancellor. I am sure we all agree that all those people are totally committed to the rule of law and the principles of justice. In their letter they explained:

“In national security matters our legal system relies upon a procedure known as public interest immunity…Under PII, evidence which is deemed to be national security sensitive is excluded from the courtroom. The judge may not take it into account when coming to his or her judgment.”

This procedure, they say, is

“resulting in a damaging gap in the rule of law.”

They are right to say that.

In my opinion, it has become well nigh impossible for British judges to untangle, and adjudicate on, claims and counter-claims of alleged British involvement in the mistreatment of detainees. If we, as citizens, want to know whether the Security Service could challenge and rebut what is claimed against it, no judge can give us guidance as things stand. Some of the allegations of British involvement in the mistreatment of detainees are really serious, and I do not think that the system should continue to prevent judges from scrutinising the secret actions of the state in such cases.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Not only will judges not have the full information, but when cases are settled, adverse inferences will inevitably be drawn about behaviour that may or may not have taken place, and that affects the reputation of our agencies. Is it not therefore essential that we can get to the heart of the matter, so that the agencies can at least put their case?

[Mr Clarke]

I entirely agree. We keep being reminded of that. The fact is that the reputational damage is probably more significant than the millions of pounds that have been involved in some of these cases, and we need to ensure that some way can be found of trying them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

Yes, because we want a process whereby the judge can hear the evidence of the intelligence agencies in a closed—secret, if one likes—process, and that is not the purpose of PII. PII is a very old process that has developed over the years from simple beginnings, and I imagine that in the early cases—before my time—it was probably rather straightforward: if a Minister said he wanted public interest immunity, it was granted. The findings of Lord Justice Scott in the arms to Iraq inquiry —not at my expense, I am glad to say—rather upset that approach. PII is of course used flexibly in proper cases because judges and lawyers all want to hear evidence in open court whenever possible, but I think that we need to update all this. We are not abolishing public interest immunity, but I think that in many cases extending closed material procedures, which is what we are proposing, would be an altogether more sensible way of getting a proper judgment in the case.

Let me turn to the provisions of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction.

[Hazel Blears]

I want to tease out the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s view on the balancing test, which is part of the House of Lords amendments. At the moment there is a test stating that the judge, when deciding whether closed material procedures can be applied for, has to balance the degree of harm to the interests of national security with the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice. Balancing tests are notoriously difficult. One of the main problems with the Chahal case, which led to significant issues for this country’s national security, was whether the balancing test was in the right place, and most of us felt that it was not. If we are to have a balancing test in the legislation, it is in the part about whether proceedings are suitable; it is not in the part about when an application can be made. We need some clarity on the Government’s position with regard to the balancing test, because clearly the interests of national security are not always equivalent to the interests of an open proceeding, and that is a difficult balance to strike.

[Mr Clarke]

The balance is indeed difficult to draw. We have debated the balancing test on various occasions and in the past I have rather resisted it because it gives rise to the possibility of the judge saying, “Oh yes, there is a risk to national security. What a pity, never mind. I wish open justice to be done, so let’s take a chance with national security.” That is probably a somewhat broad-brush piece of opposition, and we are reflecting on the issue. The proper response to the right hon. Lady’s entirely sensible and pertinent question is probably best given in Committee, when we will have had more time to decide the position.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hazel Blears and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

Compensation is for criminal offences, and it depends on the severity of the injury. We are concentrating on the most severe injuries that can be suffered. It would be very nice to extend it to all road traffic cases, particularly those that cause outrage or particular damage, but it would be impossible to ask the taxpayer to pay compensation in such cases.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Last week, I had the opportunity to have an excellent meeting with the courageous and very impressive chief crown prosecutor of Greater Manchester, Mr Nazir Afzal. He has given his full personal backing to the pilot of Clare’s law, which will identify serial perpetrators of domestic violence and is due to be launched in Greater Manchester in the next few weeks. Will the Minister ensure that criminal justice systems across the country support those pilots so that we can protect people from domestic violence?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hazel Blears and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I share my hon. Friend’s view of the significance of this issue so that, wherever possible, criminals should make reparation for their crime and compensation should be paid to the victim. We are looking to take further action to reinforce the need for courts to try to make a compensation order whenever possible, and we are looking at ways of steadily improving how we collect the money from compensation orders when they are made. We are seeing steady improvement, but we need to go further.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State may be aware of the tragic case of my constituent, Clare Wood, who was murdered by a violent partner. It turned out that he had a huge history of domestic violence against other women. Will the Secretary of State support amendments to the Bill in the other place to ensure that victims like Clare can in future know about the history of their violent partners and make an informed decision on whether to continue in the relationship?

[Mr Clarke]

That is a familiar subject, which I believe is being reviewed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The right of women to know whether their partner or intended husband has a long history of domestic violence sounds like a worthwhile cause. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be looking to the practical issues that would be involved in introducing an effective system.

Detainee Inquiry

Debate between Hazel Blears and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I will continue the conversations I have been having with my hon. Friend and others about the basis on which the Gibson inquiry is proceeding. I have been trying to persuade people to be more co-operative with the Gibson inquiry, but I am also quite happy to listen to points that people make to me about why they have reservations. The Government wanted to proceed with the Gibson inquiry on the present terms of reference and would have done so if we had not had this final delay. We have more time to consider the matter, although we did not want more time, and I am happy to discuss these matters with my hon. Friend and others again.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Our intelligence agencies do a hugely important job for this country, but it is essential that they operate and are seen to operate within the highest standards of human rights ethics and a proper legal framework. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is essential in the current circumstances to take forward his proposals in the Green Paper on justice and security to strengthen the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee so that we can have the legal powers and the necessary resources to be able to scrutinise fully the work of our intelligence agencies?

[Mr Clarke]

I assure the right hon. Lady that there is no delay to that aspect of our policy. We will shortly be responding to the consultations on our Green Paper, the first of which concerned the basis on which courts and other proceedings can handle intelligence material in a way that improves their ability to try cases without jeopardising national security. The second concerned the important matter that she raises of the supervision by this House and elsewhere of the security services.

Justice and Security Green Paper

Debate between Hazel Blears and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I am grateful for that authoritative response to the Green Paper. I think that it matters on both sides of the House that the ISC becomes a Committee of Parliament and, in a fuller sense, is accountable to Parliament as well as to the Prime Minister. We can build on the excellent work it has done since it was first established.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Green paper and its proposals. Maintaining the confidence of our allies in sharing their information is absolutely key, but so is maintaining the British public’s confidence in our legal system. If closed proceedings are to be extended, there will be controversy about the role of special advocates, not only in the House, but more broadly among the public, so the proposals to strengthen their role are particularly important. We must ensure that we get that right so that the public, defendants and the whole system have confidence in a fair trial and at the same time protect and maintain the necessary secret intelligence we have. It is a difficult balance to strike, but I am sure that the Secretary of State is up to it.

[Mr Clarke]

The right hon. Lady is also a member of the ISC, so I am grateful for her support for our proposals. She is quite right to stress the need for public confidence generally. The present situation is wholly unsatisfactory. The Guantanamo Bay case, which we settled recently, showed exactly what can go wrong. I had to come to the House to announce that we had paid out a total of £20 million, together with costs, because we had ceased to defend the action. Everyone who was inclined to believe the detainees thought that there was secret information that would confirm everything they said, and everyone who was against the detainees thought that the security services had been crippled, that they could have defended themselves and that we were paying money to worthless people. Every conspiracy theory could flourish, depending on temperament, before we even started. That is no way to retain public confidence. In our view that definitely requires closed material procedures, which means that we must have special advocates, so we welcome views on how to improve the way in which they carry out that very difficult task.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hazel Blears and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

Not surprisingly, everyone is trying to anticipate tomorrow’s announcements. We will have to make fairly marked reductions to the budget of the Ministry of Justice and the various services for which we are responsible. Against that background, we will need to take an approach to how we tackle these problems that is more radical and reforming than the previous one, which involved simply paying for more and more places for more and more people, leading to overcrowded prisons. Our approach will underline the need to take a particular look at drugs, mental health, illiteracy, innumeracy, foreign national prisoners and all the other things to ensure that we find better ways of dealing with rehabilitation problems whenever possible.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with the Sentencing Guidelines Council on its guidance on short custodial sentences.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

The Sentencing Guidelines Council has not issued any specific guidance on short custodial sentences. We have had no discussions with the council on this topic, which we are considering as part of our assessment of sentencing policy.

[Hazel Blears]

The Secretary of State may be aware of a recent case in my constituency in which a young man suffering from autism and Asperger’s syndrome was subjected to a series of horrific attacks by three other young men. The judge said that the attacks could almost amount to torture, yet the three perpetrators were given community orders. During the general election, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), now the Prime Minister, told the country that we are not convicting enough. He then explicitly said that

“when we do convict them, they’re not getting long enough sentences.”

Just two weeks ago, in his speech to the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister said that

“offenders who should go to prison will go to prison”.

I agree with the Prime Minister—does the Secretary of State?

[Mr Clarke]

One of the failings of the last Government was to take a popular subject from the popular press and make rather shallow partisan points out of it. Sentencing in individual cases is not a matter for Ministers, and should not be a matter for sensational comment to the newspapers by Ministers with the frequency that it was. We have to ensure that justice is done, particularly to the victims of crime, and that justice is carried out in such a way as to reduce the risk of reoffending. We have made our approach to crime perfectly clear: we must punish the guilty. Prison is the right place for serious criminals—they will not commit more crimes while inside—but we also strive to avoid reoffending. The case that the right hon. Lady mentions was obviously a serious case for the victim, but newspaper cuttings from Salford are not the source of future criminal justice reform.