Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful for the clarification from the Minister in relation to the exclusion of inquests for this particular reason: I understand that, outside of Northern Ireland, there are currently only two inquests outstanding in England and Wales—the case of Azelle Rodney and that of Mark Duggan from last summer. I am certain that, in the first case, the proposal is to use the Tribunals and Inquiries Act to conduct that inquest, and I believe that that is also to be the suggestion in the Mark Duggan case. The reasoning behind that is, I believe, that intercept evidence is to be considered.

One can see that it is a small step in the argument to say, “We are using the Tribunals and Inquiries Act and intercept evidence so why not, because we can under this Bill as it stands, use intercept evidence in a closed material procedure?”. It is a small step of reasoning to move into closed material procedures in inquests.

In relation to the issue of procedure and having legislation that goes quickly through the House, one can understand the concerns that exist at the moment in relation to the Mark Duggan situation. In those instances, Parliament should reconsider the matter. We would need to consider all the impacts on public confidence and the outworkings of using a secret procedure in such a high-profile case and an inquest of that significance.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords, I first apologise that I missed the first few speeches because I was unavoidably detained, but I have listened to quite a few of the speeches over the period and I have tried to read as much as possible of these debates when I have missed them. I have been impressed by the commentary on legal matters, matters of process and by the justice side of what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to earlier—the balance of justice and security—but I am afraid that I have searched in vain for anyone outside of the Front Bench doing anything in detail to analyse the security context. In other words, we cannot possibly judge whether these are appropriate measures in general unless we judge them in the circumstances of today. As the noble Lord just said, the situation with a coalition Government means that we are living in different times from previously, but the situation of living with the threat that we have today means that we are also living in different times from previously.

I have read with great interest the legal commentaries. I have found them outstanding in their quality and certainly outstanding in their quantity. I always defer to noble Lords with expertise in the human rights area and in the legal area on matters of law and advice on human rights, but I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not defer on deciding on matters of security. I would have been horrified when I was Home Secretary had it been suggested to me that the overall strategic position on security and defence, for which the noble Lord, Lord King, and I had responsibility, was better served by having a lawyer decide rather than an accountable politician. Therefore, although this may be a minority speech, it is one worth bearing in mind for those who are speaking to these amendments today, not least on closed material procedures but not exclusively on them.

My starting point is to ask why these proposals are coming forward in the form that they are today. I am not a lawyer. I am a historian and therefore the two important questions to me are “Why is something happening?” and “Why is it happening when it is happening?”. Of course, there can be motivations ascribed. I have heard it said that this is merely mission creep. I have heard that it is the malevolence of the intelligence services: it is their guilt and wish to cover up future proceedings. But there may be a simpler answer: that circumstances have changed, and in particular that the nature of the threat has changed.

I say that on an evening when, unpopular as it may be to certain elements of the press, the chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction debate seems to have been put back on our front pages. It is now widely recognised that they are sitting just across from Iraq. People are naturally very worried about what would happen if they fell into the hands of some of the terrorist groups at present operating in Syria. That is an example of the nature of the modern threat.

Noble Lords will know that there are two essential elements of threat: intention and capability. After 9/11, there can be no doubt that there are people in the world who have an unconstrained intent to commit unconstrained mass murder, including in this country. Whereas 60 years ago there were states with that intention, they lacked the capability. The scientific and technological basis on which they might operate their intent was limited to CO₂ from the fumes of cars or vans or to Zyklon B canisters. That is not the case today. Chemical, biological and radiological weapons are also capable of extending unconstrained massacre of human beings. That is what has been in the minds of those charged with the security of the country since 9/11—unconstrained intent and unconstrained capability.

The second feature of that, which brings me to the amendments today and the Bill before us, is that there is now a seamless threat. This is not a threat in one country. It is not a threat that appears only in two countries. I did not deal with one threat that was in fewer than two or three countries, and in one it involved people in 29 different countries. If you have a seamless threat, you have to have a seamless response.

We are no longer, if we ever were, an island fortress, not just with cyber but with some of the potential threats that face the citizens of this country, whom the Front Bench are charged with protecting. If we are to have a seamless response, above all it requires absolute trust between those agencies and those Governments who are working together. That trust and dependence are now far greater than 30 or 40 years ago. Therefore, the breach of that trust, inadvertently or otherwise, through institutions or processes, legal or other operations, becomes a huge hole in the creation of a holistic security policy.

I am not suggesting today that any of the ideas that have been put forward or the amendments are necessarily wrong, and I am certainly not suggesting that they are badly motivated. They are not malevolent; they spring from a natural inclination to oversee government, particularly when government exercise powers that are abnormal. Sometimes, they will be based on first principles and sometimes you will ask where the logic to this is, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, asked earlier. To that particular question I will tell him that there is no logic. It is a political decision taken for political reasons. It is the result of political discussions. It has been decided to concede in order to gain what is left. I do not expect the Minister to say that, but it is obvious to all of us.

At the end of the day, political decisions have to be made. All I want to do today is put in the minds of everyone who speaks, from every background, the experience in making decisions such as this of those of us who have had the privilege—and burden, in some ways—of being charged with the security of the country. It is not because we are Cromwellian in character; it is not because we have a blind spot for mission creep; it is not because Ministers on the Front Bench will not question the agencies—it is quite proper that they do so. It is because the first premise on which they should base the balance of justice and security is an understanding of the security element, as well as the details of the justice element and the justice process.

[Lord Soley]

My Lords, I think my noble friend misunderstands a key point of what we are saying. I agree almost absolutely with everything that he has said—and, indeed, we have discussed this on many occasions before. However, I want to bring the purpose here to his attention. The government document from the Ministry of Justice said that these powers are wanted so that changes can be made more quickly than by amending primary legislation. I know that Parliament and parliamentary control is important to him. However, if he had been Home Secretary, what would he have decided if I had come to him and said, “Look, you need to change this legislation. Ask for an affirmative order, which will take a month or two; try to amend it, which will take a couple of months; or have a quick Bill going through both Houses”? If he would have decided the latter, he is on my side.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

The noble Lord knows that I always listened and, for the most part, conceded when he made representations on these matters. I have no problem with what he suggested earlier. I was careful not to attack or to try to criticise any particular amendment. The great omission is not the quality or substance of the amendments put forward, but the fact that we have been debating this in a vacuum.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that there has to be a balance between justice and security. I completely accept that. It is never an easy balance. There have been times in our history where the security situation has been such that we have had to take abnormal measures to constrain or expedite the justice element of that. I accept that it is much more difficult to perceive that today because we do not have a war. However, there is undoubtedly a conflict of sorts, which is a threat to the people of this country. What if—and I hope to God it is an “if”—something happens which could have been prevented by the exchange of intelligence of which we were not in receipt because we had not maintained trust? I do not just mean the trust of the United States but of all our allies. The great tragedy that was avoided in August 2006 involved intelligence sharing not just between the United States and ourselves but on a much wider basis. Two and a half thousand British citizens were at risk in that single event.

All I ask is that noble Lords and colleagues bear that in mind, so that we do not approach this purely from the position of legalism or legal principles. These principles are extremely important; certainly, do not abandon oversight. However, recognise that lying behind the proposals brought by the Government is a motivation which I at least—having been there and seen it with one or two other noble Lords who are here today—judge more benevolently than some of the critics of the Government.

[Lord Pannick]

Does the noble Lord accept that most of the amendments debated so far have been resisted by the Government not on the basis that they would undermine national security but rather, as I understand it, because they are unnecessary safeguards?

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

The Government must speak for themselves. I am not a member of the coalition—though, with every passing day, it looks as though they may want others to join in place of those who leave. The Government must phrase their own reaction to the noble Lord’s position. I would much rather that we were transparent, out at the front and talked about it. I have just noticed other people here who are much better versed in matters of intelligence than I am. However, in listening to the speeches in here and reading those that I did not hear, I noticed a dearth, if not a complete absence, of one element of the balance we are trying to find—that is, a description of the security circumstances and an explanation of why these proposals might be brought forward at this time. I hope that the Government will perhaps do a little more of that, because we could all learn with a little education.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

Does the noble Lord accept that there is no monopoly of knowledge about national security? I served a Home Secretary long before the noble Lord and we fashioned the first anti-terrorist legislation in 1974. Would he accept that one of the worst things we can do is to fashion legislation in this country that gives colour to the idea that British justice is second-rate or discriminatory in balancing national security and liberty?

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

On the noble Lord’s first point, I not only accept that but I recognised in my opening remarks that people here other than me had discharged that responsibility. I agree entirely with his second point. At heart, the struggle—not the only struggle but the major one—is a battle of values. It is an ideological battle. Certainly, it displays itself in acts of terrorism, bombs or death but at heart it is a clash of values. Therefore, everything we do has to be seen in that context. There is a propaganda weapon for those who oppose the very essence of our values if we conduct our affairs so that there is an obvious contradiction between the values we espouse and what we do. However, that has to sit alongside the fact that, on some occasions, these values have to be defended as a whole. That has meant that we have had to take abnormal measures on occasions. The key thing is accepting that they are abnormal and extraordinary, rather than trying to pretend that somehow they are just run of the mill or justifying them on the existing system. The second thing is to make the argument about why they are necessary. If one fails to make this argument, one will end up in the position indicated by the noble Lord, where what one does appears to contradict what one says.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

The noble Lord has not been able to be with us in our deliberations. However, does he appreciate that, thus far in the Bill, the Government have not suggested that there is any risk to security at all? Does he appreciate that the purpose of the provisions discussed until now concerns the fairness of trials? Security arises in what we are about to debate very shortly. Up to this point, security has not featured because it is not an issue on the provisions we have discussed.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

I thank the noble Lord for that remark. Again, I am not on the Front Bench so I am not making their arguments for them. I am making my argument. As far as the security situation is concerned, whatever is said by the Front Bench, for more than half of the past 10 years we have been either at “severe”—the second highest level—or “critical”, which is not only a likely but an imminent threat of terrorist attack. This demonstrates the fact that we are discussing not a normal security situation but a very difficult one—not least as we approach the Olympics.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have tabled these amendments and who have taken part in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, has given a context to these deliberations. I think that he would agree with us—and I mention here the intervention of my noble friend Lord Lester—that justice or security is not a binary choice. This is a justice and security Bill, not a justice or security Bill. As we deliberate and go through these provisions, it is important that we seek to uphold the national security, which is a responsibility above all on the Executive, and also ensure that the values of justice—which is a cornerstone of what we believe in and what makes us as a nation—are upheld.

The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Reid, may also have some pertinence as we move to the next stage of the Bill, which deals with the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. He pointed to the importance of trust and the consequences of breach of trust.

As an introductory comment, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that my noble friend and I will write to him about the point he raised about the last set of amendments. I do not think it would be appropriate, when dealing with these amendments, to rerun the arguments put forward for the previous group. However, before Report stage, we will write to noble Lords who took part in that debate.

Understandable concerns have been raised. In many Bills I have taken part in, quite proper discussion takes place about the use of secondary legislation, its appropriateness, the circumstances under which it should be used, and its actual nature. If Amendments 69A or 70 were to be accepted, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson has said, it would remove the order-making power entirely. The question posed by the amendments is this: why do we need the order-making power at all?

Perhaps I may set out why the Government arrived at the approach we have taken in the Bill with regard to the definition of “relevant civil proceedings”. In the Green Paper, the Government consulted on making closed material proceedings an option for any civil proceedings in which sensitive material was relevant. However, the firm steer from the consultation exercise was that the scope of the Bill should be narrowly focused. That was a point made by my noble friend Lord Marks and in the comments of my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor. After careful consideration of the consultation responses, the Bill provides that closed material proceedings can be used only for hearings in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Court of Session. It is in these courts that the difficult cases have arisen, so the Government have defined relevant civil proceedings narrowly in the Bill.

If that is the case, why do we need an order-making power to extend the definition? As was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, when he quoted from the memorandum that was submitted to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the point is that the case for extending CMPs to another civil context may emerge in the future. Where there is a case for change, it is important that there is a mechanism that will allow CMPs to be used swiftly in relevant proceedings. Naturally, we may be asked if we have any particular case in mind. I reassure your Lordships that if there was an obvious example of a difficult area, we would be making the case for its inclusion in the definition of relevant civil proceedings today. But it is possible that difficulties may arise in areas wholly unexpected or unanticipated, and it would then be important that CMPs were available as a matter of some urgency. Noble Lords may be aware that Parliament has already legislated 14 times to provide CMPs in different contexts, and therefore it is not inconceivable that some new context that we cannot foresee today will arise in the future in which they will be necessary.

Perhaps I may say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, who asked about employment tribunals, that legislation is already in place with regard to closed material proceedings in such tribunals. Indeed, it was the subject matter of the deliberations of the Supreme Court in the case of Tariq, the judgment of which was reported either last year or earlier this year. The current review of employment tribunals by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills does not have anything to do with closed material proceedings.

The crucial thing about the power is that it is subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that the exercise of the power would have to be debated and approved in both Houses before being made. Before gaining that approval, the case for change would have to be made to each House on the basis of evidence that is sufficient to convince both Houses. I cannot for a moment imagine that it would be given a clear ride. That is a safeguard and it means that rather than standing here and trying to persuade your Lordships that a broader definition of relevant civil proceedings is needed for the sake of flexibility, the Government will have to put their case at the time of seeking approval of an order.

As has been said, the order-making power has been the subject of scrutiny by both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and my noble friend Lord Marks are members, and the Constitution Committee. The Government appreciate the careful consideration that both committees have given the power. I note that neither committee recommended the removal of the power, but it is fair to note, and as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had reservations about the scope of the power. However, it concluded tentatively but nevertheless clearly that it would not recommend that the delegation of powers is inappropriate.

No doubt members of the committee will know better, and I will come on to address the issue of coroners’ courts shortly, but paragraph 6 of its report indicated that one of the concerns was extending the use of this power to those courts.