Justice and Security Bill [HL] Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Attorney General
Tuesday 6th November 2012

(11 years, 6 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Asked By
Lord Clinton-Davis Portrait Lord Clinton-Davis
- Hansard - -



To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will respond to the view expressed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission that the proposals in the Justice and Security Bill [HL] regarding closed material procedures are incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Portrait The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government disagree with the EHRC’s analysis. Case law shows that closed material proceedings can occur compatibly with the right to a fair trial in Article 6 and the other rights contained in the convention. CMPs are explicitly made subject to Article 6 in the Bill. The UK Supreme Court affirmed as recently as last year in the case of Tariq that a procedure involving CMPs was compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lord Clinton-Davis Portrait Lord Clinton-Davis
- Hansard - -

The proposals regarding CMPs are controversial and difficult, are they not? How do the Government now propose, as they must, to deal with the powerful criticism of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and others that CMPs are incompatible with a fair trial, in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and fail to define clearly the national security concerns which are claimed to lie at the heart of the Government’s proposals? Are we too late to intervene and discuss the position with this body?