Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I know that you are anxious to allow others to contribute, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I hope to encompass my remarks in two or three minutes. I also hope that the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) will forgive me, a reactionary, for being progressive, but occasionally that is what one has to do.

I think I could have made this point very simply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister in an intervention, but I was unable to catch his eye. The general tenor of his remarks was that this was an argument got up by lawyers, that he had tried to make more and more concessions, and that we were dancing on the head of a pin. I think that there is a fundamental point of principle that can be expressed very clearly by a Conservative. There has been a great deal of reportage this week about what the Conservative party stands for. In my view, it stands for a deep and abiding distrust of the state and its agencies, and a desire always to stand up for civil liberties. That is why our party was founded.

When the Minister leaves the House tonight, as he goes through the Members’ Entrance he will see on his right a small plaque which marks the site of the Court of Star Chamber. Why did Toryism develop in the 17th and 18th centuries? It was in retaliation against the powers of states encompassed in that secret court, whereby people could be tried without knowing the evidence against them. I know perfectly well that we are not talking about criminal cases now, but civil cases too are very important. Justice, in my view, is indivisible.

The principle of justice in this country as I understand it, and as maintained by the Conservative party for centuries, is that any citizen can go to a court of law as a litigant, and his case will be heard in public. He will give his evidence in public, the defendant will give his evidence in public, the plaintiff can cross-examine the defendant on that evidence, and the defendant will know the evidence that is adduced against him. That is a fundamental principle of our courts of law.

It is not good enough to say that the judges will be very careful, or that it will be just a matter of a few cases out of several thousand. Perceptions are important, and what does our country stand for, above all else? It stands for the principle that a defendant knows the evidence against him. It is not good enough that some judge, however careful, can cross-examine on the basis of that evidence, and it is not good enough that some special advocate can do the same, because the defendant alone knows his case, and he alone must be allowed to put it.

It is not good enough to say that the present system is unsatisfactory, and to talk about PIIs and all the rest of it. Of course a defendant can always choose not to adduce a particular piece of evidence, and of course the state can always decide that it would be dangerous, and inimical to its own interests, to reveal how it operates. We all know that, and the state may indeed lose the case, but that is its decision. This is something quite different. We are taking a fundamental step, and it is a dangerous step. That is why I will not support the Government tonight.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I will follow in the tradition of the progressives, and say that I opposed the Special Immigration Appeals Commission when it was introduced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) referred to Kafkaesque language and said that we should not exaggerate, but I opposed SIAC then because I thought that it was Kafkaesque. I think that the idea of being tried for something and not being entirely sure what it is, and of not hearing the evidence and not being able to respond to it, is typical of Kafka. I warned then that if we were not careful, there would be an incremental creeping extension of that into other areas of law. That is what we saw with control orders, and we are seeing it again tonight.

I fear that within five years we will be back here debating certain areas of the criminal law, unless we draw a line in the sand tonight and say that enough is enough. I think that we are undermining the basis of British law—as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said, the fundamental civil liberties that were fought for over generations. When the Supreme Court considered the matter, it made it clear that there should be compelling grounds if we are to take this step, but the only compelling ground we have been told about today is that the Government might have to shell out a few millions pounds in compensation every now and again. That is not compelling grounds for undermining our civil liberties in this way.

There seems to be a bizarre reversal of the history of why we are here. We are not here today to debate how we protect our security services; we are here because the security services were exposed as being associated with other regimes involved in rendition, torture and other human rights abuses. Rather than discussing how we protect our security forces, which of course is fundamental, we should also be debating how we hold them to account. That does not mean closing the doors of the courts; it means opening them to greater scrutiny and accountability. I am concerned that we seem to be heading for a complete reversal of the debate taking place outside across the country.

People have been shocked by the stories they have heard. A constituent of mine, a young man I have known since he was a child, went to Pakistan to work in a hospital voluntarily because he is a doctor. He was picked up by the Pakistani authorities and tortured for six weeks. He was then interrogated by British intelligence officers, after torture. That is unacceptable. He is now in such a state that he does not even want to pursue a claim. He is fearful—

[Hazel Blears]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[John McDonnell]

I understand why my right hon. Friend wants to intervene, and she has made good points, but I am really short of time and must conclude as best as I can, because the Minister still needs to respond.

On that basis, I thought that in reforming our legislation we would be considering measures that would make accountability more open and acceptable. That is why I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). In fact, a simpler amendment would just delete the whole part, not just each clause. That is supported not just by two minor parties, as the Minister suggested, but by a minor party, an individual and another party, and it might also have other support. If those amendments are not made, I support the fall-back protections that Opposition Front Benchers are trying to introduce, which is a commitment of last resort and a reference to open courts. Why can the judges not consider that as a factor as well, because it is one of the key factors they should look at?

I will refer briefly to new clauses 7 and 8, which stand in my name. They are based on the evidence that Dr Lawrence McNamara provided to the Committee when it considered this Bill. We discovered in this whole process that the media have played a fundamental role in exposing what has been happening in relation to the security services. We should recognise that role in statute. New clause 7 is therefore based on an amendment proposed in the Lords and recommended by Lawrence McNamara. It basically states that the media, as the eyes and ears of the general public, should be informed of these cases so that they can intervene if necessary and become involved in proceedings. They would be notified, but they would then also be able to seek a stay or sist of the civil proceedings and be party to at least some element of the debate on whether a closed procedure is necessary. When Ministers responded to that proposal elsewhere, they argued that it would not be suitable in civil damages cases. That was the only argument put up for not involving the media as a party in proceedings. In fact, these are not just normal civil proceedings; they are based on national interests and national security. That is why there needs to be some process to allow full engagement of the media and enable them to become involved and intervene in the proceedings.

New clause 8 also relates to Lawrence McNamara’s recommendations and a proposal considered in the Lords. Currently the Bill does not provide for the possibility of closed judgments being made open later. The reason they should be made open at a later stage, some would argue, is so that the courts and the process can be held to account publicly. The proceedings could be reported and then a view could be taken on whether it was correct that they went into secret court procedures. The argument is a recognition that there should be some procedure for opening closed judgments long after the secrecy is no longer necessary. The Government acknowledged on Report in the Lords that review of closed judgments is important, but they never came forward with the amendments necessary to enable that. That is why I tabled new clause 8.

The new clauses would make two minor amendments to the legislation to enable us to prise open the door of the secret proceedings a little bit more and involve the media, who have played such a fundamental role in exposing the operations of the security services that have led us to this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Huppert]

I wish first to put on the record my thanks to the Minister. In Committee he resisted many of my amendments, which was frustrating, but he did agree to take away my new clauses 1 and 2, which related to reporting and reviewing, and reflect on them. He has been true to his word, and new clauses 5 and 6 are the result. There are a couple of slight differences in the time scales, but, as I indicated in Committee, my aim was to try to achieve regular reporting and review, rather than being fixated on the exact number of months, and clearly reports that happen so quickly that there is not enough time to get information are not necessarily better. I am happy to settle for the annual report and pleased to see it.

I am also happy to see the five-yearly review, but I have a slight issue with it and would be grateful for clarification from the Minister. During a brief exchange earlier in the debate, he talked about the five-yearly approach being appropriate, and I think he said “once a Parliament”. As I read it, the wording of the clause indicates that the review would be done after five years and never again, so there is a difference between the two proposals. I hope that he will reflect on which it is intended to be.

The review might find that everything is working fine, and even those of us who are deeply uncomfortable with the whole concept might find that it does not work in the way we had anticipated, in which case we might not need regular reviews, but there might be things we need to consider, in which case we would like to see five-yearly reviews. I think it is important that each Parliament can reflect and conclude, for example, that this has gradually grown, that there are more and more cases, or fewer and fewer cases, or that something else has changed. I hope that the Minister will look at that. I am pleased that there will be the five-yearly review.

I would certainly support the idea of the independent reviewer being appointed more independently, as I think would my Liberal Democrat colleagues. I do not know whether the Government will be able to find a way to deliver that, but I hope that they will, because I do not think that that would cause any significant harm. I have some slight reservations about the five-yearly period.

New clause 4 is similar to the annual renewal proposal that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) made in Committee and to the one proposed by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who was apparently performing vaudeville at some stage in Committee—I am afraid I must have missed it. I am still keen to see some form of regular renewal. The Government are resistant to annual renewal. I will certainly be supporting such a renewal, but if it continues to be a stumbling block, will they consider five-yearly renewal? I had a similar discussion about that on the same terms with the Minister in respect of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill. In that case, he and the Home Secretary decided on a five-yearly renewal and perhaps he will make the same incredibly wise decision in this case, as it was clearly a good one.

Succession to the Crown Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I do not say this with any personal interest, but where does someone who has been excommunicated stand in all this?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am afraid to say to the hon. Gentleman, who I hope is not in that unhappy state, that an excommunicated Catholic would be excluded from succession to the Crown because that person would have been in communion with Rome at some point. It is an absolute. If at any moment in their whole life they were in communion with Rome, they are excluded from the throne, deemed to be dead. That cannot be the intention of the clause that allows a Catholic to marry an heir to the throne. That will simply create confusion and we will not know who the monarch is going to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I think the monarchy should be an hereditary monarchy and should go through the nearest line that is available. I do not think there should be a character test for the monarch. The great and weighty responsibilities of monarchs turn people into serious-minded individuals capable of that great honour who sometimes in their youth were not capable of it. One thinks immediately of Henry V and also of Edward VII, both men who, in their youth, were relatively irresponsible, but when that great honour of being King of England fell upon their shoulders, they rose to it magnificently—gloriously, regardless of their religion.

All I am trying to do is make sure that in future we know that the monarchy is safe and secure and to whom it has passed—that we do not open it up for the courts to say, “Well, this person once went to a Catholic church. This person had a Catholic baptism. Therefore let us go to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), who is 190th or some such in line to the throne, and who, having been perfectly Protestant all his life, might be very suitable.”

We need to be clear because so many functions of this nation would be thrown into doubt if there were no Crown. If we are risking people being ineligible for the Crown because of shoddy legislation, we then face the prospect of being unable to use the prerogative powers, which might make it quite difficult to open Parliament.

[John McDonnell]

I attached my name to these amendments because they reflect an amendment I tabled for last week’s debate that was not selected. I wish to explain why I did that, for the record and for some of my constituents and other supporters who might find it a bit bizarre.

Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), those who have participated in the debate so far have had an interest either as monarchists or, in the context of the amendment, as Catholics. I am not a monarchist—I am a republican; I see the monarchy as a complete anachronism—and I am, at best, a lapsed Catholic, as the parish priest optimistically describes me.

Over the past 10 or 15 years, I have sat in this Chamber on a number of occasions when successive Members have tried to remove anti-Catholic discrimination from our legislation. Dr Evan Harris and John Gummer did that when they were Members of this House. The simple reason, they argued—I fully agree—is that we in this House should not allow our institutions and our legislation to be founded on or framed by discrimination. This measure is the last remnant of anti-Catholic discrimination that sits within our laws. Frankly, it is offensive to discriminate on religious grounds, and every Government in recent years has said so. We have legislated time and again to remove such discrimination, so why can we not do it in this case?

The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) went through a trajectory of 300 years in the space of one speech; it has a been a major breakthrough to bring him into the 21st century. As he argued very eloquently, on whatever grounds this discrimination was introduced centuries ago, it is no longer relevant, and I am convinced that at some point it will be challengeable in other forums and courts. This is an ideal opportunity to say to the outside world that we will not tolerate discrimination of any sort. It is anti-Catholic discrimination that has historically been present in this kind of legislation, but such discrimination pertains to every other religion as well. We have heard potential successors to the Crown say that they are happy to be seen not as defenders of the faith but defenders of faith; if that is the case, so be it. We have an opportunity to send out a message that we are opposed to all discrimination, that we accept that the institutions we establish should not be founded on discriminatory legislation, and that we will remove this stain from the character of this House and our constitution.

John Gummer and Dr Evan Harris argued their cases extremely eloquently, more so than I can. When I left the Chamber after those debates, I thought, “If I were a member of a particular religion and that barred me from a particular office, I would find it offensive.” We might think that this debate is about something that is necessarily insubstantial in the everyday workings of our society and our lives, but it is not; it is about a symbol of past discrimination that must be removed. By removing that stain, we can go forward into a modern society

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The amendment is framed in anti-disestablishmentarianistic language, in that it creates a rather exotic formula, but is not the inevitable consequence of debating this matter that it will lead us towards a debate on establishment and the role of the Church of England as the state Church, the role of the Supreme Head of the Church of England, and the title of Defender of the Faith, which was awarded to Henry VIII during the time of his communion with Rome?

[John McDonnell]

I agree that this will lead to that debate, but I am happy to take these reforms one step at a time. That is why the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset is extremely clever, because it would enable those who wish to maintain the established Church and not to move towards the disestablishment debate to pause at this stage.

I think it is inevitable that that debate will come back, but it is not for today. Today is about removing the way in which we discriminate against those who are not members of, or in communion with, the Church of England. This is a way of removing the ostracism of the past. It is time to send out a message that this is a modern, multicultural society, with people of all faiths and of no faith, and that no one should be discriminated against at any level of society, from the monarchy right through to every other institution. Let us seize this opportunity.

[Michael Ellis]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman about the obnoxious nature of any legislation, however ancient it may be, that is prejudicial to any religion. Those of my faith and many others are also excluded in the same way, because of that legislation. Why does he think that, whereas other examples of bias towards or prejudice against other religions have been done away with centuries ago, in many cases, or certainly many decades ago, this one remains? Does he think it might be due to the internecine complexity of the issue, rather than any prejudice?

[John McDonnell]

That may well have been the case in the past, but I think we have moved on. When the issue was debated in a different form—I think it was on a private Member’s Bill promoted by Evan Harris—Lord Falconer did the maths, calculated the large number of descendants that could have a claim to the throne and argued that we did not have parliamentary time and that the issue was irrelevant anyway. If we change the proposal on marriage, however, it may soon become very relevant, because we would not want to bar a future monarch from marrying a Catholic, a Jew or a Muslim. I think that that will come on to the agenda very quickly, whereas in the past parliamentary time was not found for it because it was not seen to be relevant.

[Paul Flynn]

Does my hon. Friend agree, having been present at previous debates, that the objection to breaking the taboo about the royal succession comes from those who say that once we get rid of this particular indefensible idiocy, the other foolishness involved in the royal succession will be exposed and people will come up with suggestions to reform the whole system so that we can have a monarchy or Head or State who are electable?

[John McDonnell]

I assure the House that supporting the amendment is not my cunning plan to get rid of the monarchy overnight. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that there will be a debate as we move through this century about all our institutions, including the monarchy. That is why I was disappointed that his amendments were not selected, because I think we should have had a debate about alternative forms of Heads of State and the ways in which we can select them, rather than let the position be gained as a result of hereditary entitlement.

I will leave my argument there. I needed to put on the record why I put my name to the proposed new clause and why I tabled a similar amendment. It is about ending discrimination. On Saturday, I attended the annual dinner for pensioners organised by Botwell Catholic church St Vincent de Paul Society. When I told them about the two things that we were legislating on this week, the women cheered for ending gender discrimination, but everyone cheered for ending discrimination against Catholics. I say to hon. Members that this is not an historic thing—it is relevant. If someone in this country is born Catholic or into any other religion, or if they have no faith, and they are still discriminated against, that is unacceptable, as successive Governments and Members of this House have said. Now is the opportunity to legislate on it.

[Mr Leigh]

I start by echoing what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said. He has put the case simply: in this day and age, when it comes to a person’s suitability to become the Head of State, they should not be discriminated against because of their religion. That is why I was happy to put my name to the new clause, moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), and to his amendments.

I have been campaigning for years against barring Catholics from either marrying into the royal family or succeeding to the throne, particularly the first issue, which is bizarre. Indeed, I have introduced a ten-minute rule Bill and tabled early-day motions on the subject. We were constantly told that it was all too difficult and complicated to change, and that we would have to change hundreds of lines of legislation in hundreds of Acts of Parliament. But, hey presto! It is now being done. Although the Deputy Prime Minister gets a lot of stick in this House—including from Government Members —and in the media, I am on the record as warmly congratulating him on being the first leading member of this or any Government to get a grip on this issue and to try to solve it.

However, there is one final logical absurdity, which my hon. Friend is trying to address. I repeat this point because it is worth making: in this day and age, a person should not be barred from a position such as Head of State just because of their religion or lack of religion. There are many people in this House who have no religion and who do not wish to come to Prayers or who do so just to reserve their place. They are just as worth while as Members. There is no reason why we have to keep this bar in place.

I am a traditionalist, like my hon. Friend. Even if the new clause were accepted by the Government, it is extremely unlikely that it would be activated in our lifetimes, or indeed ever. As far as I know, there is no likelihood of Prince Charles or Prince William becoming a Catholic. It is therefore somewhat academic, but just because an amendment is academic does not mean that it is not worth debating and acting on if it is the logical and right thing to do. It is unlikely to be activated not just because of the nature of the likely successors to the throne, but because a person who is brought up as a member of the royal family is surely extremely unlikely to want to bar themselves from the throne or put their chances of succeeding to the throne at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leigh]

I, too, want to be absolutely clear about that. As I am speaking, people’s minds might be ticking over thinking, “Oh, here’s just another Catholic pushing his own religion.” This is not about my belief at all. I am very ecumenical. I am a member of Lincoln cathedral council. I think that the Anglican liturgy is wonderful in every single respect. My hon. Friend and I are traditionalists. In no way are we attacking the Anglican Church or, most importantly, the fact of this country having an established religion. That is important.

One of the single most dangerous aspects of modern life—the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will no longer follow my argument; indeed, he will strongly disagree with me—is the advance of secularism and the fact that religion is retreating from more and more aspects of national life. Even “The Sunday Half Hour” on Radio 2 on Sunday nights has been banished to 6.30 in the morning. Maintaining the established Church as a symbol—only a symbol—is terribly important, as is what my hon. Friend is doing today. He is trying to square the circle, to be absolutely fair and say that as a modern nation we should respect people’s conscience to maintain their own religion—or lack of it—and succeed to the headship of state. He is also trying to protect the established Church, and although other solutions might have been offered, including the one proposed earlier that the Archbishop of Canterbury could become the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the idea of a regency is good and squares the circle.

However, such a situation is extremely unlikely because, as I said, I am sure that anybody brought up in that environment would want to remain in the Anglican Church. I understand that James III of blessed memory, the Old Pretender, whose portrait, as you know Mr Deputy Speaker, hangs in Stonyhurst college in your constituency, was offered the throne on the condition that he renounced his faith. He refused to do that although he could have succeeded Queen Anne. In fact, I understand that about 50 people had a superior hereditary claim to George I, but they were all bypassed because, as my hon. Friend has made clear, there was in those days an absolute obsession about ensuring an Anglican Head of State.

We do not want to get too enmeshed in those arguments, but to be trapped at the beginning of the 21st century in arguments that raged at the beginning of the 18th century is frankly absurd. To remain trapped in the Act of Settlement, when there is absolutely no risk in a secular, modern, multicultural and multiracial nation of some sort of Catholic plot to take it over, is ridiculous.

[John McDonnell]

May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his earlier statement in which he was convinced that a person brought up in an Anglican environment will naturally become an Anglican? At some stage we will get to a situation where an Anglican Head of State says, “I don’t believe any more.” Are we asking them to abdicate?

[Mr Leigh]

Well, the Anglican Church is a very relaxed Church, and many Anglican bishops have fairly broad views about the existence of God. The hon. Gentleman’s point is apposite.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am very cautious about claiming agreement and support at any stage, but I thank my right hon. Friend for that. I am sure that he would acknowledge that, despite the demand for parliamentary oversight and the subsequent considerable reforms of the House of Commons—achieved mainly by the former hon. Member for Cannock Chase Tony Wright—where we now have elected Select Committees and a much greater sense of openness in our business, the Intelligence and Security Committee seems to have avoided the reform process altogether. It is the only Select Committee where its members are appointed by the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, and where the Chair is elected by the Committee rather than by a vote by party caucuses of the whole House. Its reports are published, yes, but one wonders how much is told to our colleagues on the Committee. I have no great ambitions or expectations of being appointed to it, but in an elected process all kinds of things could happen. Patronage is one of the great traditions of the British Parliament. It creates the illusion that the security services are accountable. I would have hoped that the Committee would have given the security services an extremely hard time over Sami al-Saadi, in whose case the British security services were clearly involved, over Guantanamo Bay, over Diego Garcia and over many other issues.

The second point I want to raise concerns the process that has led us to this pass of having a degree of secrecy in our courts. I opposed the establishment of the Special Immigration Appeals courts because they were anathema to everything we believe in: a special judge alone has access to the evidence; the defendant has no access to it; the defendant’s barrister has no access to evidence that he can share with his client; only the prosecutor has access to it. The whole issue is stacked against the defendant, and therein lies the potential for the most massive miscarriages of justice. Those of us who have spent much of our lives campaigning against miscarriages of justice will be well aware of past secrecy and the need for openness.

In opening, the Minister without Portfolio made much of the fact that the closed material procedure would be decided by a judge. Clause 6(2) states that

“a party to the proceedings (whether or not the Secretary of State) would be required to disclose material in the course of the proceedings to another person (whether or not another party to the proceedings)”,

where

“the degree of harm to the interests of national security if the material is disclosed would be likely to outweigh the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice, and”

where

“a fair determination of the proceedings is not possible by any other means.”

It seems to me that the Secretary of State would have considerable power in that situation.

I hope that the House understands the depth of feeling among many eminent people outside the House who have spent their lives campaigning for justice—against all the odds—and sometimes achieved it. Those who campaigned on Hillsborough eventually achieved justice, as did those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. I do not want us to create yet another situation in which future miscarriages of justice can take place.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Like me, my hon. Friend was here when the Special Immigration Appeals Commission procedures were introduced, about which we expressed some concern. He has referred to cases about which concerns have been expressed. Would he also like to comment on clause 12 with regard to SIAC? The case of (AHK and Ors) v. Secretary of State, which concerned a refusal of British citizenships on grounds of character, summed up what can go wrong in these procedures. Justice Ouseley said that

“he has been told nothing other than that naturalisation has been refused on the grounds of character and that it would be contrary to the public interest to give reasons.”

He continued:

“It is not so much that the case is untriable…it is simply that the evidence means that the Claimant cannot win.”

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Having dealt with cases of constituents who have been refused naturalisation or British nationality on the basis of evidence that is unavailable, I understand exactly my hon. Friend’s point and the point made by Judge Ouseley.

In its briefing on the Bill, Reprieve told us:

“The Bill, even as amended, would still mean that…Members of the public could lose their cases against the state without ever knowing why; or knowing what evidence was used against them”,

It also states that the

“Government would be able to cover up evidence of wrongdoing”,

and that

“Ministers and officials would be able to exclude the other side from court, effectively putting themselves beyond challenge and above the law.”

The Bill would allow Ministers to use secret courts in a wide range of cases, such as those of soldiers or their families bringing negligence claims against the Ministry of Defence over faulty equipment resulting in injury or death. Many colleagues have taken up cases of soldiers who have died in the most tragic circumstances and where, on the face of it, there is a case against the Government. It could also include victims of torture or rendition seeking redress in cases in which the Government have been involved and actions brought against the Government over corruption in arms deals, which was a point I raised with the Minister earlier.

Amnesty International has also expressed deep concern about the Bill. It is concerned that the move

“could potentially mean that individuals and their lawyers who are seeking to establish the extent of the involvement of UK officials in serious wrongdoing such as torture and enforced disappearances, will be prevented from seeing crucial documents on “national security” grounds. This secrecy could be maintained potentially indefinitely, even if there is an overwhelming public interest in disclosure.”

I appeal to the House to think carefully and seriously about what we are discussing and voting on here today.

A couple of months ago, I was in the High Court to hear the case being brought by the Mau Mau people from Kenya relating to the abominable way in which they had been tortured and ill-treated by the British armed forces in the 1950s. They finally won their case and were able to present their evidence to the court. That evidence had been hidden for 40 years. They had been denied access to it, and it was only their determination that brought it to light. It had been held using secrecy arguments, and I suspect that if legislation such as this had already been in operation, they would still not have been able to bring their case to court.

Before voting on the Bill, we must think seriously about the implications of creating an even stronger secret state and an even less accountable judicial system. We must also remember that our function as Members of Parliament is to represent people against power, so that they can get justice through an independent judicial system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Other Members have observed that there seems to be consensus on part 1 of the Bill, but I may be more of a doubting Thomas in that respect. I am not sure that part 1 will do all that it promises to do for the Intelligence and Security Committee, the House or the Bill itself.

I do not, of course, speak with experience of membership of the ISC, although I was offered membership a number of years ago, in bizarre circumstances. In fact, at one point my party was offered two seats on it, which seems bizarre even now. At that time we were negotiating the St Andrews agreement, and Tony Blair got it into his head that I might be prepared to accept annex E—which re-routed some of the Patten provisions relating to intelligence and national security—if I was offered a place on the ISC.

Hours later, I was advised that two places were on offer. I had said that it would be very difficult for a member of my party to sit on the Committee, supposedly to offer scrutiny and challenge, while being unable to tell anyone that he or she had done so or to say anything about it. The consolation was that we would have two members there, each of whom would vouch for the other in our secrecy. It was a bit like King Louie in “The Jungle Book”: “Have a banana; have two bananas.”

Members have said that the Bill is a significant advance on existing law, but I am not sure whether it is adequate or truly accountable. Part 2, obviously, has raised the more substantial issues and differences. I am at a bit of a loss, because I hear differing and confusing arguments. I hear those who commend part 2 saying that closed material procedures are not a particularly big departure because they are already used in cases of various types, and that the Bill merely codifies them in a particular area. I also hear the argument that PII is no good, that it cannot be used, that it stops cases being defended and that by its very nature it means that evidence cannot be brought. The reality is that PII can be dealt with on an evidence-by-evidence basis, and does not have to be done entirely wholesale. We have seen where it has worked in the past when the courts have granted immunity in relation to certain material, evidence and witnesses. They have protected their anonymity and secrecy and have protected material from being disclosed altogether. In other cases, they have protected material by due and measured redaction. The idea that PII is basically just a one-size-fits-all option is nonsense, as it can be used in a measured way.

I feel almost as though I am involved in some sort of closed material proceedings, because everyone else seems to be aware of why certain cases were settled as quickly as they were. I do not know why the al-Rawi case was settled in the way that it was. It had not even gone to the Supreme Court once appeal was allowed, yet settlement took place. Was it so compelling that the state had no other choice? Was there no way of having more measured terms? I do not know, but other people seem to. They seem to have been briefed and perhaps they are privy to such things, but I certainly am not and as a legislator I am not prepared to pass serious, significant legislation on spec based on somebody else’s hunch that the state would not have settled if it did not really have to.

I come from a part of the world where the state has done many things and failed to do many things. People attributed all sorts of reasons and pure motives to it, saying, “They wouldn’t have done that if they didn’t have to.” We know from last week’s revelations that that logic absolutely stinks. One of the worst things was that all down the years, when such things were happening, they were not sufficiently challenged by enough people in this Chamber and in other places.

When we receive such legislation, we must question it and ask what the compelling reason for it is. We must also look to those who know something about such things. Lord Justice Kerr has been widely quoted today on the subject of closed material proceedings, but he was not the only one to make significant statements in the al-Rawi judgment. Lord Dyson, giving the lead judgment, said that the introduction of closed proceedings in ordinary civil claims would involve

“an inroad into a fundamental common law right.”

He went on to say:

“The PII process is not perfect, but it works well enough. In some cases, it is cumbersome and costly to operate, but a closed material procedure would be no less so.”

Other hon. Members have quoted Lord Kerr’s concluding judgment. An additional point he made was:

“This would not be a development of the common law”

as the Government

“would have it. It would be, at a stroke, the deliberate forfeiture of a fundamental right which…has been established for more than three centuries.”

In those circumstances, I do not think that we should lightly pass the Bill on the basis that the other place has made a few amendments that make it good enough.

[John McDonnell]

The point has been made throughout the debate—I have not heard it all as I have been in a Westminster Hall debate—that in a piece of legislation that is actually flawed, we must ask whether the balance of interest lies in protecting the state or the individual. Clearly, the Bill protects the state rather than the individual.

[Mark Durkan]

That is exactly the nature of the Bill. It is a measure to ensure that the state will be protected in various litigations and that it will have an absolutely unequal power to use a procedure that will frustrate a case against it using a special secret procedure.

We are told—I have listened to other hon. Members say it—that the amendment to clause 6 in the other place that changed “must” to “may” now means that the proceedings are entirely a matter of judicial discretion and that we should therefore trust the courts. Of course, however, that is only in relation to clause 6. Once the national security case has been engaged by a judge under clause 6, clause 7 means that what happens is entirely in the hands of the state. That joker is played by the state and cannot be predicted. PII means that a judge can be selective and can scrutinise what evidence might compromise national security and what should or should not be admitted in balancing the interests of hearing the case and protecting national security, but that will no longer be the case. We are being sold a false argument about just how big a difference there is because of the change from “must” to “may”.

As well as listening to learned judges who have considered the matter, we should look to those who also have experience of closed material proceedings and such legislation—the special advocates. The Minister without Portfolio told us, in effect, that special advocates underestimate their own power—they do rather well under such provisions and have quite a good score rate. Let us listen to what the special advocates and other observers say. The late Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, described the role of a special advocate as akin to

“taking blind shots at a hidden target”.

Special advocates themselves have described it as “shadow boxing” in circumstances where

“you are speaking into a black hole because you have no idea if your strategy and points are on the money or wide of the mark”.

So special advocates are frustrated by their own professional standards. They must be particularly frustrated in relation to the interests and rights of their clients.

Remember, that is what we are talking about—people who have reason, good or ill, for taking a case against the state. If, in doing so, they are speaking of actions that have fundamentally affected their human rights, that have done damage or harm to them which in other circumstances and at the hands of someone else would be deemed to be illegal, that is serious. We should not treat the issue as a matter of administrative convenience. The argument should not be that it takes Ministers too long to decide whether they want to look for public interest immunity certificates in respect of all the different pieces of information, that it could take them a whole day to do so, and that we have to come up with something quicker, so we go for closed material proceedings. That is not the way in which we should legislate for justice to be done.

Others have quoted the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson. On one occasion he attended a session with representatives of the Government and of all three intelligence services and counsel. He was talked through seven significant cases and left with a bundle of top-secret material in each case, including evidence and internal and external advice, which he had taken the opportunity to read. Three of those seven cases were civil damages cases. His conclusion was that

“there is a small but indeterminate category of national security-related claims . . . for civil damages, in respect of which it is preferable that the option of a CMP . . . should exist”—

only preferable that the option of a CMP should exist, but the Bill goes down an almost compulsive route in relation to that and legislates too far.

There is the irony that the very procedure that the independent reviewer engaged in was a closed material procedure. He looked at files that were presented by Government. He listened to the representatives of the intelligence agencies and their legal advisers, and he formed an assessment with no other view being given from special advocates or anybody else, yet it is his advice and his conclusions that we are told we should listen to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart). I seem to remember studying some of the judgments of Justice Learned Hand myself when I was doing my jurisprudence course at the London School of Economics. I knew they would come in handy one day.

I was much impressed with the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), and I agreed with him entirely. He put it more elegantly than I could—that is why he is a Queen’s counsel and I am not. I also rather agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland).

I want to concentrate on part 2 of the Bill, because it relates to the area in which I have been interested as a lawyer. It seems to me that we should not allow the best to become the enemy of the good. The best, of course, is open hearings in court with the normal, full process. However, in a limited number of cases there are particular circumstances, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon rehearsed well, in which it is necessary to have a different procedure.

With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), who is not in his place at the moment, I do not accept the proposition that the Bill will be used to prevent people from bringing claims. Nothing that is currently available in open court will become secret as a consequence of it.

[John McDonnell]

Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example of how the argument about security is used—the Shrewsbury 24, the pickets who were imprisoned 40 years ago. When they sought the information upon which they were arrested and prosecuted by the Government, the letter sent back from the Secretary of State for Justice told them that a “security blanket” had been wrapped around that information, so the records would not be published on the grounds of national security. Is that the sort of issue that the Bill should cover?

[Robert Neill]

With respect, it seems to me that at the moment public interest immunity would be invoked in such a case, possibly by an ex parte application, without any notice to the claimant. I fail to see how that would assist people in such a situation. It is better at least to have the opportunity for any relevant and admissible material to be considered, albeit through the less than perfect closed material process.

In my 25 years at the Bar, I predominantly practised in the criminal jurisdiction, and it is right that the Government are not seeking to apply the closed material procedure to that jurisdiction. When I started, public interest immunity criminal cases were a little-developed area, and the jurisprudence grew as time went on to reflect, as other Members have said, the changing demands placed upon the courts system and the nature of how intelligence operations were conducted. The jurisprudence moved flexibly to reflect that, and the same is occurring in the Bill.

I know two things from my experience of the use of PII in criminal cases. First, the judges took extremely seriously their responsibilities in relation to PII applications, including their duty to review the material and their initial rulings. I have no reason whatever to doubt that the same judicial meticulousness will be applied to the closed material procedure in civil cases. It is right that there should be safeguards, which I think are broadly accepted and will be taken forward. I, too, am pleased that the discretion allowed for in clause 6 is widened by the use of the word “may”. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon that that is adequate, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to resist the temptation to refine the definition further by including certain factors in the Bill. The risk of that would be that jurisprudence would grow up around the definition of those factors, and case law would eventually erode the jurisdiction and make it worse than simply using the word “may”.

The second point that strikes me from my experience at the Bar is that, as has been observed, it is not always the individual who is the loser as the result of a PII application. I believe the same will apply to the closed material procedure. I remember, in a criminal case, invoking not PII but the court’s inherent jurisdiction to sit in camera. Part of the mitigation that I needed to advance on my client’s behalf related to his activities in relation to reputable freedom movements in the Soviet bloc. I could not advance that mitigation in open court, because the consul of the Communist-controlled country was represented in court and was sitting in the gallery, and there would have been serious consequences for my client and his family. Mr Justice Steyn—later Lord Steyn; a very eminent judge—acceded to the application, and important material in my client’s favour was put before the court. Again, the point is that the material could be ventilated, and it is better in a civil case that that is done through the closed material procedure than were it not ventilated at all. That is why we should not allow the best—an open procedure—to become the enemy of the good, or CMP, which is an improvement in civil cases on existing PII arrangements.

There is general consensus about the importance of removing the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction from such cases. We have to be realistic and concede that although many meritorious claims are brought against Government and Government agencies, many unmeritorious claims are brought in the courts. There is, as the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) suggested, a growing tendency for jurisdiction shopping in relation to the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, which has moved away from its original purpose in intellectual property cases to cases of this kind. It is not right that we should allow that to be abused in these cases.

Similarly, it is not right that the British taxpayer should pay millions of pounds when it is not possible to resist a claim in cases where, if the material were considered by the judge under the closed material procedure, it might be discredited. In the criminal jurisdiction, the choice facing the prosecutor is either to disclose material if ordered to do so or not to continue with the case. We have a tradition in this country of respecting assurances that have to be given in the interests of furthering justice. We have discussed that in relation to the assurances that we give the security services of our allies abroad.

We already do so in a different way in criminal cases in relation to informers, and have done so on more than one occasion. It is distasteful but necessary that we sometimes employ informers so that wrongdoers can be brought to book, and it is important that they are given assurances by the police that their anonymity will be protected. In certain circumstances, rather than disclose someone’s identity, I and other prosecuting barristers would offer no evidence so as not to put the informer’s identity at risk. Otherwise not only are they at risk, and not only is an undertaking breached, but there is a risk that other people will be less willing to come forward and provide information that might be helpful. The same applies even more strongly to assurances given in relation to our national security. I do not think that we should worry about that, subject to the proper safeguards.

In conclusion, it is important to stress again that we are not discussing secret courts. Yes, it is a less than satisfactory process, but ultimately it is one part of the process: the rest is an open process, and the hearing of the claim, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon set out, remains in the public domain. A number of hon. Members have cited Lord Kerr and the al-Rawi case, but to balance Lord Kerr’s judgment it is worth quoting the judgment of Lord Clarke, who took a different view:

“A closed procedure might also be necessary in a case in which…the non-state party…wishes to rely upon the material which would otherwise be subject to PII in order to defend itself in some way against the state. In such a case either party might seek an order for such a procedure based on necessity, namely that such a procedure would be necessary in order to permit a fair trial.”

That is a balanced statement on what is proposed in the Bill. I agree with Lord Clarke, and it seems to me that Mr Justice Ouseley, in the AHK case, made a similar proposition.

When he responds to the debate, I hope the Minister will take on board some of the legitimate concerns that have been raised. I shall support the Bill on Second Reading and we can examine the detail in Committee. We should not, however, allow ourselves to retreat from a necessary—albeit not always desirable—step in this class of case, and allow the best to become the enemy of the good. I therefore hope that the Bill will commend itself to the House.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill).

This debate has been about balance, and when the Minister responds I hope he will acknowledge the sense across the House that the Government are not yet in quite the right place regarding the balance between national security and the hard-won liberties of the individual. I hope that the Government will be open in Committee to amendments that make that balance more durable.

Justice systems across the United Kingdom have proven extremely adaptable to reforms such as the Human Rights Act 1998, which gave effect to the European convention on human rights in UK law. Such reforms provided what in some circumstances are universally applicable rights to people on UK territory, as well as recognising the growing importance of judicial review. Such proceedings can sometimes be inconvenient to Ministers and troublesome for the judiciary, but we should remember that the values of justice and fairness in our judicial system guarantee civil liberties and the rule of law.

The Bill deals with the conundrum of trying to strike a balance between the sometimes competing concerns and interests of the state and the individual, and it proposes the creation of closed material procedures in civil proceedings. As a national security measure that is reserved to Parliament under the devolution settlement, the Bill would apply to civil courts in Scotland. I know that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) read out some comments, and no doubt there will be discussions between this Government and the Scottish Government, but the Bill is clear that the measures would apply to civil courts in Scotland.

I welcome the amendments made in the other place that strengthen protection of the individual and, in the words of the noble Lord Pannick,

“help to ensure that, if we are to have CMPs, there are proper limits, proper controls, a proper balance and judicial discretion, and that CMPs are a last resort,”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1816.]

The Bill as originally presented in the other place would have permitted one party—the Government—to decide whether to use CMPs. Critically, if CMPs are to be introduced, it must be for the courts and not the Government to determine whether they should be used in any given case, and only as a last resort. Questions of fairness and relevancy of evidence are for the courts, not the Government, to determine, because one of the parties to a CMP should not be able to determine such matters on its own. It is therefore welcome that the Minister without Portfolio indicated that the Government are minded to accept the relevant amendment.

Having opposed the amendments with such vigour in the other place, I hope that the Government will now accept in their entirety all amendments accepted by their lordships. Although clause 6 as presented to this House appears to contain greater balance than the measure originally presented to the other place, I am concerned that such balance does not extend sufficiently to clause 7. In particular, the Bill does not create a statutory obligation on the courts to provide the gist of the argument to the excluded party, which is vital to their being able to advise adequately their special advocate. That protection has been sought by the Law Society and is crucial to ensure a better balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the state.

Natural justice is a key principle of civil law across the United Kingdom, and we have heard comments from Judge Learned Hand. Perhaps I may remind the House of the dictum of Lord Chief Justice Hewart from the 1924 case of R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy:

“Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

One key rule respected by that principle is the right to a fair hearing, which is underpinned in law by article 6(1) of the European convention on human rights.

[John McDonnell]

May I point my hon. Friend to information given by Nicholas Blake QC—he is a special advocate—on what happens after a judgment is given in a Special Immigration Appeals Commission case? He says:

“If the special advocate thinks there is an error in law in the closed judgment, he gets permission to say, to pass a message out to the other team to say ‘I think you should be appealing, I can’t tell you why’…So there is a sort of open appeal. ‘We think there is something wrong but we don’t know what it is.’ And then the court goes into closed session”

to consider the matter. That is farce, not justice.

Patrick Finucane Report

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

This report is about state collusion and state complicity. I cannot think of a country anywhere else in the world that would have revealed in more detail, with no holds barred and no documents held back, the full extent of that collusion, and stood up, put its hand up and said, “This is what went wrong. This is what we apologise for. This is how we will make sure it never takes place again.” I recommend that the hon. Lady look at paragraph 113, where de Silva talks about his “Lessons for the future” and states:

“It is essential that the involvement of agents in serious criminal offences can always be reviewed and investigated and that allegations of collusion with terrorist groups are rigorously pursued. Perhaps the most obvious and significant lesson of all, however, is that it should not take over 23 years to properly examine, unravel and publish a full account of collusion in the murder of a solicitor that took place in the United Kingdom.”

I believe that Desmond de Silva is saying that that is what has been done; that is what has been laid bare. It has not taken a public inquiry; it has taken a Government to open up everything and say, “Let’s get the truth out. And here it is.”

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

If the Lawrence and Hillsborough families have taught us anything, it is that the families will not go away until they see justice in their terms. In an Adjournment debate I sought in 1999, I read into the record statements made in 1989 by an Under-Secretary at the Home Office. He had said that “a number of solicitors” were “unduly sympathetic” to the cause of the IRA, adding that these statements were made on the basis of “advice” and “guidance” from people “dealing with the matters”. Pat Finucane was murdered three and a half weeks later. The inquiry has said that there is no basis for any claim that the then Under-Secretary intended his comments to provide a form of political encouragement for any attack on any solicitor, but these words were certainly unwise and they contributed to a climate in which solicitors were made vulnerable—not only Pat Finucane, but Rosemary Nelson. Because these were statements by a Government Minister, does the Prime Minister’s apology extend to an apology for those expressions by the then Under-Secretary?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me first respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point about Hillsborough. There was a public inquiry and an inquest, but they were, in effect, faulty. It took an act by Government, with the Bishop of Liverpool, to lay open all the information. The families have thus been able to see the truth and, hopefully, they will be able to get that new inquest. I would argue that in this case that is what has happened: there was this full police investigation, but instead of having a public inquiry we have opened up and given all the information that is necessary.

On Douglas Hogg, I ask the hon. Gentleman to read the report carefully. It finds that Douglas Hogg was briefed in a way that he should not have been briefed, that that compromised him and that therefore what he said was unfortunate. But the report does not find that he in any way encouraged the action that took place or in any way knew about it. I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to read the report very carefully in that regard.

Leveson Inquiry

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but also never forgotten, I call Mr John McDonnell.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

By the way, I support the idea of separate statements— I would have liked to make some myself in the past.

I think I know the answer, but, because it will strengthen the message, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the call that the Prime Minister has now backed for proprietors to meet the National Union of Journalists and others to start work immediately on the introduction of a conscience clause into journalists’ contracts?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Yes, that is one important part of a long list of issues that proprietors and editors now need to address. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the NUJ. I think I am right in saying that the NUJ has come out unambiguously in favour of a model of statutory underpinning. It is important to remember, therefore, that there are working journalists, who care as much as anybody in the House about the freedom of the press, who none the less recognise that this might be the right way to proceed.

Leveson Inquiry

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with some of what my hon. Friend says, but it is important that we lay down very clearly what is expected of the press in terms of the independent regulatory system that needs to be put in place. What we cannot have is a continuation of the status quo; we need a proper investigative arm of a regulatory body, which needs to be able to levy fines, to insist on apologies and to be far more independent than it has been up to now. Frankly, on behalf of the victims and the public, this House is perfectly entitled to ask for those things. We should do, and if they were not put in place, we would have to take further action. That is the key to the Leveson approach, and it is one that I want to follow.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I wonder whether we could achieve consensus on one of the recommendations in the report, where Leveson recommends the consideration by proprietors of the introduction of a conscience clause to protect journalists who refuse in any way to go against the code of practice. Will the Prime Minister join me in urging proprietors to meet the National Union of Journalists and whoever else to start working on introducing a conscience clause in contracts?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to agree to that. There are many sensible recommendations that can be put into place, I would hope, as quickly as possible—some of the recommendations about the police and the Association of Chief Police Officers, and many of the recommendations about politicians and our relationship with the press. Those do not have to wait for anything, and as I have said, the press do not have to wait for any further discussions; they can start putting this regulation in place straight away.

Oral Answers to Questions

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Where I would agree with my hon. Friend is that a free press is absolutely vital for a healthy democracy. We should recognise all that the press has done, and should continue to do, to uncover wrongdoing and to stand up to the powerful. That is vitally important and, whatever the changes we make, we want a robust and free press in our country.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Q15. Research by the charity Save the Children reveals, shockingly, that one in seven children in our country do not have a warm coat this winter. The Government are now cutting child benefit support to 100,000 families who look after disabled children—[Interruption.] Whatever our views on how our economic problems were brought about, surely it cannot be right that children, the poorest and the most vulnerable pay the most for this economic crisis.

[The Prime Minister]

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and the point that I would make is that we are removing child benefit from people earning over £60,000 a year. We think that that is the right step to take, because those with the broadest backs should be bearing the greatest burden. We have frozen child benefit for other families, but we have increased the child tax credit that goes to the poorest families.

Oral Answers to Questions

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As someone who represents a constituency that has frequently been subject to very bad flooding, I know how many frustrations there can be in local communities when things that need to be done do not get done quickly enough. Sometimes that is the fault of different agencies, sometimes that of landowners, sometimes that of local authorities. All sorts of issues have to be crunched through, but I am sure that the Environment Secretary will have listened closely to what my hon. Friend said.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister confirm, with no ifs or buts, that there will be no third runway at Heathrow airport while he leads his party?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me say clearly that, while I believe that we need to establish a form of review that will bring parties together and make a decision about airport capacity, I will not break my manifesto pledge.

Civil Service Reform

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend makes the point very well that it would not work if we tried to impose reform that went against the grain of the hard-working majority of civil servants, who come to work to do a good job and serve their fellow citizens, and who want to go home at the end of the day feeling that they have been able to make a difference. The plan would not have a chance of being successfully implemented. We need to call on the leadership of the civil service, but also on those throughout the civil service who see a need for change and want to be part of it.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

It is opportune that the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary reception is taking place at the moment, to which all Members, including the Minister, are invited. That union represents staff who have had job cuts, privatisation, pay cuts and pay freezes and who have had their pensions undermined. They have even had their redundancy payments cut. Will he call in and explain to those staff what is meant by “Departments will undertake a review of terms and conditions to identify those that go beyond what a good…employer would provide”? Does that mean that there will be more cuts to job security, maternity cover, paternity leave or sick pay? Will he explain precisely what it means?

[Mr Maude]

Depending on how long this statement goes on, I would be delighted to call in to the PCS reception and renew old acquaintances and friendships.

To which terms and conditions does the statement refer? Civil servants hate it when outlandish and archaic terms and conditions, many of which they will not have known exist, get picked up by the media and lampooned. Such terms and conditions enable the media to project civil servants—quite unfairly—as feather-bedded and pampered, which is demoralising for them. We want the civil service to be a good, modern employer, and among the best employers, but that means that such outlying terms and conditions, which are hard to defend in the modern world, must be addressed. They include, for example, the fact that as soon as people become civil servants, they are entitled to six months’ full sick pay. That is out of kilter with anything that exists in the wider public sector or the private sector. That sort of thing will need, over time, to be addressed.

Party Funding

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

The Deputy Prime Minister, for whom I know my hon. Friend has particular affection, has said on behalf of the Government that we think it is inappropriate at this stage, in this age of austerity, to contemplate another call on taxpayers’ funds being made to fill the pockets of political parties.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

In the past 12 months, there has been the most intensive lobby by the aviation industry of the Government to reverse their policy on the third runway at Heathrow. This weekend, senior members of the Conservative party briefed the media that they were reconsidering their position, and now we have the cash for access scandal. To dispel any doubt that that is anything other than a coincidence, will the Minister ensure that details of all meetings between aviation industry representatives, the Prime Minister, Ministers, civil servants, policy advisers and party officials are published on the register?

[Mr Maude]

As I have repeatedly made clear, this Government are very open about the meetings that Ministers have with outside organisations and individuals, so the answer is yes.