Energy: Security

Earl of Erroll Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I wonder if I could speak in the gap, since the debate is rattling on quite quickly. I have two points. First, having lived in a world some time ago when we were not worried about terrorism or problems like that—and I now live in an IT world—how on earth one secures the transmission of the gas or whatever it might be through potentially hostile territories, particularly in an internet world where these things are controlled electronically, is extremely difficult. Since one has no power, particularly to enforce certain security levels in other countries that might be travelled through, there are huge vulnerabilities. I feel very sorry for the people who try to do this. I know that we have some very good people working on it, and I just hope that they manage to keep us secure, because we are highly vulnerable with the route from some of the supply fields all the way to the UK. At the end of the day, we are at the end of the line.

Secondly, I want to put in a plug for something. This morning, I was speaking at the Institution of Engineering and Technology on the internet of things, and one of the interesting things that came out of this with machine-to-machine communication was the concept of the virtual power station. I ought to declare an interest as chairman of HyperCat. That is short for Hyper-Catalogue, which it is about machines communicating interoperability on the internet of things. This might sound off the point, but if we can start to look at the energy requirements and start to move it around a little, we can save ourselves the need to fire up a power station at certain moments. I throw that in because we were talking about alternative supplies, whereas this is far more important: the high-level stuff and the negotiation of treaties.

At the practical end, where I live a lot of the time—I am not expecting any answer to this at all because it is left of field for this particular debate—there are technologies out there and new things coming along. The Government should look at some of the funding for what we call the internet of things, which, at the moment—although it sounds techie—is climbing up the degree of importance. It could really help in areas such as this when talking about alternative supplies: not because of the supplies, but because of the savings that can be made. Therefore, I make a quick plug for new technology and perhaps government funding in the next spending round. That area is doing quite well thus far; it could do better.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Earl of Erroll Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Marquess of Lothian]

My Lords, I have very mixed feelings about this amendment. I said in my speech at Second Reading that national security should not be so widely interpreted as to give cover for embarrassment or incompetence. I am sure that is absolutely correct. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Hodgson made that point. However, I am very worried when we begin to interpret something such as national security in terms of specific operations or departments. In passing, I make the point that the Diplomatic Service may do many things overseas that affect national security. Many embassies that I have been to have protected rooms where such matters can be discussed. It would be naive to say that because they were done by the Diplomatic Service and not the intelligence service, those matters were not, in the terms of the Bill, ones of national security.

I do not have an answer. All I can say is that you know national security when you see it. The difficulty of looking at this in terms of legislation is that you cannot see it. To give one example, we debated earlier the activities of the Intelligence and Security Committee and the process of redactions. When a suggestion to redact is made by the Prime Minister, it has to be on the basis of national security. There have been cases in which the committee has argued that national security was not affected. In the course of a practical argument you can come to an answer about what is national security and what is not. This does not help the Minister on the Front Bench. However, I feel it is somehow better to leave the definition more open and allow it to be interpreted in the context of the individual circumstances of each event than to curtail it within the definition of the activities of various departments. In the end, we might find that we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we proceed in that way.

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I shall make a couple of topical points in support of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. This is very complex. In the old days, in a less complex world, we knew how to finesse these things in a common-law society. Now we are moving towards statute law. The French know how to disobey the law sensibly in view of local circumstances. They know that you cannot slavishly obey every rule. We have not learnt that yet, so we should be very careful about how we set the rules in case they are slavishly obeyed. Somehow blurring the boundaries is much more sensible. I am not sure that having this whole thing of national security quite works. We have seen photographers being stopped for photographing perfectly innocent targets in the name of national security. I am very worried about the way that certain people will use these rules to stop normal activities. We regard ourselves as a free country but, if we are not careful, we might cease to be free. We have to worry about how other people, less sensible than us, may interpret rules in a very strict way in the future.

[Baroness Manningham-Buller]

My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that I certainly did not say that I knew all there was to know on the subject. I understand the concern over the misuse of this phrase to which everyone has referred. No one in this Committee would support what happened to the son of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and his dog or the use of the phrase to cover embarrassment. These things are absolutely not to do with national security, which is being used as blanket cover.

--- Later in debate ---

In this Bill, it seems to me that we are talking not necessarily about the operations—the noble Lord’s definition and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson— but about protecting the sources and methods of intelligence, for which the threshold needs to be very high. I know I have said this before in the House, and I hope noble Lords will excuse me for repeating it, but sources of information are vulnerable. They can be killed, and they then cannot produce intelligence that might be life-saving. Techniques can be damaged overnight, rapidly. What we are trying to do here is to protect the most sensitive sources and methods but not the picture of what has happened, the material that should be available to the court which may be sensitive. I would say that it is actually narrower than what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is suggesting for the purposes of this legislation. However, the difficulty with a waterproof definition, however attractive, is that this is a moving picture. At one stage, natural hazards and disasters—pandemics and so on—were never in a national security strategy. We can argue whether they should be, but successive Governments, rightly, take different interpretations of the breadth or narrowness of the subject.

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, there was one thing I forgot to say. It is important to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I think Pepper v Hart applies only where there is a conflict between European directives or regulations and UK law and the interpretation of it. Therefore you may not be able to get a Pepper v Hart —as you might say—pronouncement from the Minister tonight.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I think that is too narrow a definition of the Pepper v Hart principle. I seem to recollect that when this Bill was first discussed and promulgated, the Government were intending not to use the test of the interests of national security but what was in the public interest. That was thought to be extremely wide. The leader of my party and my noble and learned friend’s party, apparently—at least he claimed—fought for its reduction to the interests to national security. Where the public interest stops and national security begins is a fine line, or perhaps it is a fuzzy one, but it is up to the Minister to give to a judge who has to consider applications of this sort positive guidelines as to what the Government have in mind now they have reconsidered the original purpose of their Bill.