Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Lord Soley Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

My Lords, I intervene as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee, to which my noble friend Lord Beecham has already referred and which has been referred to on the other side of the Chamber. I do not speak for the Committee, but I can say quite clearly that we spent some considerable time on this and were very concerned about it. We all know the powers as Henry VIII powers. Whenever we have these, we look at them carefully and with considerable concern about the power of Parliament being sidelined in relation to the power of the Government.

The context of all this is my own involvement in many of these issues, going right back to the 1970s and 1980s when I first started working with some of the legislation dealing with the emergencies in Northern Ireland and with other prevention of terrorism Acts. The tendency in all these things is for the Government to require the extra powers, for reasons which we all understand and are very sympathetic to, because on one side of the equation is the need to deal with the difficult situations but to do so by exercising the proper rule of law, and on the other is the right of Parliament to oversee what the Government have done.

I have made this point before but I make it again simply to reinforce the context of this. If we look at the history of these sorts of Acts, we see that they have a long involvement in the Government taking additional powers, very often in difficult situations, and then extending those powers into other areas. I have referred in the past to the Official Secrets Act 1911. Not long after that Act, MI5 and MI6 were created. However, neither MI5 nor MI6 had a legal existence until the 1980s; we literally did not put them into law. If we look at the prevention of terrorism Acts in the 1970s and 1980s, we see that we often legislated for drastic situations in which we needed to protect the public but did so in a way in which Parliament was increasingly marginalised. I had a great objection to one of the prevention of terrorism Acts, which had in effect a more than Henry VIII power whereby the Home Secretary alone could exclude a person from one part of the United Kingdom to another part without reference to Parliament.

What did the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee focus on here? It was on this very issue of the power that the Government are taking. I refer here not so much to the report which my noble friend Lord Beecham has dealt with very well, but to the notes provided to the Delegated Powers Committee: the Home Office and Ministry of Justice memorandum. This is not new material.

Paragraph 47 of the memorandum says:

“It is appropriate to make provision in the Bill for this power”—

that is, the power to define the relevant civil proceedings in a court, excluding the criminal courts of course—

“because it is possible that a case not within the scope of the current definition of ‘relevant civil proceedings’ will arise, such that a CMP is needed for the just consideration of the case to be heard before a different court or tribunal”—

a point that we are all aware of—

“whilst at the same time there is a need to protect national security sensitive evidence from disclosure”.

Again, that is something we are all very aware of. It continues:

“Furthermore, if this happens, the need to provide for the possibility of a CMP in such proceedings will be pressing in terms of time”.

The last sentence says:

“For these two reasons it is considered appropriate to provide for this power, since the changes can be made more quickly than amending primary legislation”.

The concern of the Delegated Powers Committee in this respect was what form of parliamentary control could be had over this sort of extension. This is the sort of creeping power that I have described and which any Government, not just this one, could in the future extend to other courts. The exception in the Bill itself is of course criminal courts. The Delegated Powers Committee took the view that there was no reason why this should not extend to coroners’ courts, even though the Government have, as I understand it, expressed the view that it should not in fact do so. However, there is nothing in the Bill to say that it does not. My worry would be that, given that there is a whole range of issues—including the point just made by my noble friend about trade unions, although this might be less likely in the nature of the information required—this would extend to tribunals as well. It could be extended across the board to many other areas of the law, which would be damaging and dangerous.

In the Delegated Powers Committee report we asked why, if there was urgency of time, we were looking at an affirmative procedure. An affirmative procedure is not fast; nor, incidentally, is the super-affirmative procedure referred to in the constitutional law report by the Constitution Committee, which suggested a super-affirmative procedure to deal with this. That is not a fast procedure either. If we need a rapid response—and I for one accept that a rapid change will be needed at times to deal with a case—one begins to look for a different way of addressing these urgent and difficult situations.

I have often felt, particularly as a member of the Delegated Powers Committee, that we do not really have the best system available to look at delegated powers. We almost need additional ways of doing this, and perhaps there will be a discussion on that when we come to another report issued by the Delegated Powers Committee on another occasion. I would simply say that, in the current situation, a Bill put through both Houses as a fast reaction to this would be a better way of dealing with it, not least because a Bill that is put before both Houses in the expedited system that we are quite used to when dealing with terrorist situations can also have a sunset clause in it. In other words, the action given to the Government and approved by Parliament to allow the Government to take this additional power could have a finite lifespan.

If we suddenly felt that we needed this power for a coroner’s court hearing, for example, there is no reason why a Bill could not be moved through this House quite rapidly and have a sunset clause in it so that it would expire after a certain period of time. We have done that before; we did it with the prevention of terrorism Act in the 1980s, so it is perfectly possible to do this. My concern, and that of most other members of the Delegated Powers Committee, was that this is a very real Henry VIII power that gives the Government great powers which Parliament is not given sufficient control over. That is the history of this sort of legislation. Parliament always needs to be alert to its duty—and it is a duty—to protect the citizens of a country from a Government having excessive powers.

In following up my noble friend’s comments on all this, I would certainly ask the Government for an explanation of why an expedited Bill through both Houses would not be a better option than an affirmative order, whether a super-affirmative order or a conventional affirmative order; or, indeed, whether the Government agree that there is considerable danger in any Government, with the best will in the world, faced with serious problems of the type that we have these days, being content to allow for a situation that is not only not fast—because the affirmative procedure is not fast—but that extends considerable power to the Government, which in most circumstances we would not accept.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 70A and 70B in my name and the names of my noble friends Lady Williams of Crosby and Lord Thomas of Gresford. I speak as a member—a very new member—of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

Our amendments are in narrower terms than the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and those of the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Dubs. Amendment 70A is prompted by the concern mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Soley. Clause 11(2) and (3) gives the Secretary of State the power to add courts and tribunals to the very restricted list of courts that may hold closed material proceedings. That list comprises the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Court of Session. That plainly involves the power to add coroners’ courts.

It is in that respect that the Joint Committee on Human Rights took the view that there was no case for inquests to be made the subject of closed material procedures. Not only did the committee reject the argument that coroners were liable to be disabled from conducting full investigations by the exclusion of sensitive material, but it pointed out, rightly in my view, that the use of CMPs in inquests would probably be a breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That right to life article carries with it a procedural requirement for states to investigate suspicious deaths. On the basis of cases both here and in the European Court of Human Rights, such investigation has to be open and enable the families of the deceased to be involved in the proceedings. Compliance with those requirements would not be possible in any meaningful way where an inquest was held with a CMP.

The Government’s response to the JCHR report was to concede that there would be no inquests held under the closed material procedure. In his foreword to the Government’s response, my right honourable friend Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary, went further and said that CMPs,

“will only be extended to civil cases in the Court of Appeal and High Court, and the equivalent courts in Scotland and Northern Ireland”.

That is in accordance with the Bill as drafted. That extra concession to exclude the lower courts was rightly made. It is important that this extremely sensitive procedure, where it has to occur, should be managed at the highest level. I suggest that both concessions should be made binding and should not be capable of being removed in effect by executive action.

Even if one could envisage the extension of CMPs to other proceedings, there is no reason, as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, pointed out, why that should not be achieved by further primary legislation. I disagree slightly with the noble Lord in that I would suggest that there is no case based on urgency. It is inherent in the nature of inquests that there is no extreme urgency. Indeed, we have all seen that inquests are frequently adjourned for very long periods to allow other proceedings or investigations to take their course. In the case of other civil proceedings, if CMPs are warranted they can be instituted in the High Court, where a CMP application can be made. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, pointed out, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee drew our attention to the scope of the powers conferred so that we in this Committee could appreciate the unconstrained nature and extent of the provision that might be made under them by this or a future Government. I suggest that the committee was right to do so.

Amendment 70B would remove from Clause 11(3)(b) the Henry VIII provision in relation to the power to change the definition of “relevant civil proceedings”. There would be no power for the Secretary of State to amend, repeal or otherwise modify any enactment, leaving the Secretary of State with a power to make only minor provisions, such as those that might be necessary to take into account the passage of other legislation. Taken together with Amendment 70A, this amendment would draw the sting from Clause 11(2) and (3) as it stands. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Soley]

The key point is that instead of doing it with a delegated power, we do it with a fast-tracked Bill. I hope that the Minister will deal with that because I would point out to him that the information given by both the Ministry of Justice’s own department and the Cabinet Office suggest that it is necessary that it be done quickly. However, that is not in the notes to this Bill. It is almost as though they have not thought about it.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I certainly will come on to that. Both the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee raised means of proceeding as alternatives to the power. The Constitution Committee asked whether the super-affirmative procedure was more appropriate, similar to that set out in Part 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. In particular, that procedure would enable parliamentary representations to be made about a draft instrument and for the Minister to make changes to the instrument in the light of those representations. The Government indicated in their response to the committee that they do not agree with that approach. The powers in Part 1 of the 2006 Act are wide-ranging. Under the order-making power in the Bill, there will be at the heart a simple question: should the CMP procedure under the Bill, then the Act, be available for a particular court or tribunal? The affirmative procedure allows for a straightforward yes or no answer.

As the noble Lord, Lord Soley, has indicated, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee asked what would be the advantage of the affirmative procedure over a short emergency Bill. Another Bill to address a narrow problem may well be unnecessary given that the detail of how CMPs should work will have been discussed during the passage of this Bill. Although such legislation might be passed quickly if the circumstances required it—it is always possible to bring forward emergency legislation—the affirmative procedure may also be exercised in urgent circumstances. While it is not for me to say what the agenda of the Constitution Committee would be, it would not seem to be beyond the wit of appropriate parliamentary committees to consider an affirmative order if one were brought forward.

On the whole, the Government consider that the affirmative procedure has the right mix of speed and accountability. However, in situations like this where people have put forward important points following deliberation in the various committees as to what the balance should be, we should reflect on them. The Government believe that they have struck the right balance, but there has been an important elaboration in the course of your Lordships’ debate of the understanding of what lay behind the committee’s considerations.