All 1 Debates between Sadiq Khan and Hazel Blears

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Debate between Sadiq Khan and Hazel Blears
Monday 4th March 2013

(11 years, 7 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hazel Blears Portrait Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sadiq Khan Portrait Sadiq Khan
- Hansard - -

I keep saying that I will give way for the last time. This really is the last time.

Hazel Blears Portrait Hazel Blears
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

For the sake of clarity, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be circumstances in which it would be appropriate, in the interests of the fair administration of justice, for there to be a closed material proceeding hearing? If there are allegations that the security services have acted improperly, that information ought to be before the court rather than having the option of settling the case and the information never being subjected to judicial scrutiny?

Sadiq Khan Portrait Sadiq Khan
- Hansard - -

I agree with my right hon. Friend. She basically paraphrases the words of David Anderson, who said that there are a small number of cases where it is preferable for there to be closed material proceedings, imperfect as that is. She is right to remind the House of what David Anderson said, albeit in her own words, and I agree.

The Wiley balance is a tried and tested legal mechanism by which courts can balance these competing interests, and there is considerable case law history to back that up. It was supported by the House of Lords, as I said, including by Lord Phillips, the former president of the Supreme Court. The Government’s changes remove from the Bill all reference to open justice. The fear is that by not taking open justice into account, the likelihood of a CMP taking place will increase to more than the exceptional that the Government have talked about. As I have said, the Government also tabled amendment 55 in Committee, which replaced “open” with “effective”. It is our view, shared by the JCHR and the special advocates, that this is a retrograde step. As I said, the Supreme Court in al-Rawi confirmed that both natural justice and open justice are important but separate fundamental principles, hence our amendment seeks to reintroduce to the Bill the Wiley test of fair and open justice.