Queen’s Speech

Marquess of Lothian Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Marquess of Lothian (Con)]

My Lords, with a new Government in place and at a time of severe international tension, it must be right to start looking for a new foreign policy, as whatever passed for one before stopped working a long time ago—no more so than in that traditional cauldron of the Middle East. After years of drift, of reacting to events and of sheltering in the afterburn of the United States, the time has come for a new foreign policy based on genuine strategic forward thinking. For the first time in years, we should seek a vision and a strategy of our own.

To begin with, we should formally eschew the use of targeted assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. What happened in Baghdad last week was ethically unacceptable. This was no strategic military act. This was a foolhardy act of policy, which historical precedent teaches can lead to dramatic and dangerously unpredictable consequences. It was wrong and we should be no part of it.

We are already living with the consequences of a generation of misjudged and mismanaged adventures in the Middle East. Afghanistan 15 years on is still in bloody turmoil. After 14 years Iraq is still rocked by the aftershocks of violent civil war. After nine years, Libya is still racked by lethal division. Syria’s insurgency is still suffering from ill-judged western interventions, including almost complicity with terrorists, and the Middle East peace process is inexorably sinking into the sand. It has been a litany of failure.

In nearly every case, we chose military intervention over dialogue, despite the fact that in Northern Ireland, after a quarter of a century of armed conflict and against very strong political opposition, we decided to try dialogue with our enemies instead. I was part of those initial tentative exploratory steps towards dialogue, and I saw it beginning to work. Yet genuine exploratory dialogue has been the absent component in nearly all the expensive failures of policy since then.

We need rapidly to change this. We should begin swiftly in Iran to seek again the common ground on which understanding might be built—we already have something to build on from the JCPOA negotiations of recent years—and if the US continues with its confrontational policy towards Iran, we should again have no part in it. From now on we must make our own judgments and take our own course. Our shared values will mean that more often than not we will be together, but that shall no longer be taken for granted, and I think that that is right. As our relative military clout regrettably continues to diminish, we should equip ourselves to be masters of dialogue, always prepared to explore, even with terrorists, the options for peace before supporting military action. A serious and much respected elderly Israeli statesman once told me that at his age he had learned that it was a better use of his time to talk to his enemies than to his friends. I hope that it is not too late for us to learn that lesson.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Marquess of Lothian Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 3rd December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My Lords, I want to put on record my thanks to the Government for listening to the concerns expressed in Committee on this issue and welcome the amendment with the caveats that we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

[The Marquess of Lothian (Con)]

My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister will know, the committee which I have the honour to serve on behalf of this House along with the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, produced a report 10 days ago on the lessons to be learned from terrorism incidents last year. One of the points that we made was that in most of, if not all, those incidents, the perpetrators had had access to the type of extreme material covered by this Bill and clause. We therefore support the way in which the Bill is being amended and developed today, because it provides another safeguard against one area where radicalisation can take place leading to terrorism incidents in due course. That is the position of my committee—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, would accept that.

Can we have a definition of “academic”? I presume that it is not limited just to professional academics, because that would be very restrictive. There is a lot to be said for learning lessons from terrorism incidents, with those doing that type of work, including the committee of which I am a member, having access in order to see what type of material is leading to the radicalisation taking place. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that “academic” would cover that area.

My other point relates to “journalist”. I may be behind the times and not know how it is defined in law, but “journalist” seems a very broad definition. There are professional journalists—I quite accept that this amendment should cover them—but there are in my experience other journalists, some of whom call themselves bloggers and others who call themselves contributors to particular types of publications. It might not be in the interests of security that those people have access to such material. Can the Minister respond to those two points?

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling the amendment. It is hard to think of any reason other than journalism or academic research, but it is good that the legislation as it will be drafted allows for that possibility. As for my noble friend’s point about journalism, it has never been accurately defined. Other terrorism legislation refers to journalism, but the drafting of my noble friend’s amendment makes it quite clear that it has to be journalistic work.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Marquess of Lothian Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 201A I shall speak at the same time to the other proposed new clauses tabled in my name in the group, which have a similar purpose. These proposed new clauses would implement a recommendation of the Intelligence and Security Committee that misuse of the intrusive powers in the Bill should be subject to an adequate penalty. I think that that is a concern that is generally agreed with in the House.

I am aware that before the Summer Recess my noble friend Lord Janvrin moved Amendment 15, which sought to achieve this purpose. It would have done that by creating a single, overarching criminal offence for the misuse of any of the powers in the Bill. In response the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, speaking for the Government, argued against that proposed new clause on the grounds that a single overarching offence for the misuse of any of the powers covered by the Bill would not be appropriate since it would be a case of one size fits all.

Of course certain of the activities covered by the Bill have an appropriate offence for their misuse, such as the misuse of the powers of interception and access to communications data. Other activities such as equipment interference are already covered by offences in other legislation such as the Computer Misuse Act 1990. But it is a curious fact that there is a gap in relation to bulk powers, which is the subject we are debating today. Given that these bulk powers have been the cause of such concern in themselves, it is anomalous that the misuse of those powers should not constitute a serious offence and carry a suitably robust penalty. As the Bill stands, the misuse of these bulk powers merely constitutes a relatively minor offence under the Data Protection Act or in some cases it is only an internal disciplinary matter. Neither of those penalties would appear to be appropriate in the case of the misuse of these bulk powers.

It may be argued against these three proposed new clauses that they would have a chilling effect on members of the intelligence agencies, but I draw attention to the drafting, which states that the offence would apply only if:

“A relevant person … without lawful authority, knowingly or recklessly failed to comply with the safeguards”,

set out in the Bill, so this is not something that a member of the intelligence services would stumble into accidentally. In those circumstances, this is not something which need deter or prevent the satisfactory operation of the activities of members of the intelligence services. This would apply where there has been serious, knowing and deliberate misuse of the bulk powers in the Bill. It seems appropriate that in those cases a serious penalty should be applied. With that intention, I beg to move.

[The Marquess of Lothian (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in these proposed new clauses. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee I can confirm that we felt very strongly that there was a gap here which needed to be filled. I am conscious of the fact that the major consideration behind this Bill was to create a balance between privacy on the one side and security on the other. The way we did that was by ensuring that the security aspects were well and properly covered, as indeed they are in terms of the bulk powers in this Bill, but equally that confidence on the privacy side was sufficient for people to accept that where they were misused there would be an adequate penalty against that. But looking at the Bill and the other offences that can be committed and the penalties available for them, in the case of bulk powers, which is what most of the public in the evidence we took in the ISC were concerned about, there seems to be a gap that is covered only by minor results of a criminal offence.

I suggest to the Government and to my noble and learned friend that whether or not he agrees completely with the precise criminal penalties suggested in the amendments, the principle of having a stronger set of criminal provisions relating to these powers should be considered very seriously.

[Lord Rooker]

Perhaps I may put a strictly non-lawyer’s question to the noble Lord, Lord Butler. Who decides where the court action takes place? Bearing in mind that these are slightly different circumstances and given that, as I understand it, a conviction takes place in a court, who decides where the person who has been charged should stand trial? I am not clear on that point. They might say, “I would rather go to Northern Ireland, please, because I would get only six months there”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I do not for a moment accept that it contradicts the argument. The objective is to ensure that we minimise any overlap in the context of such criminal offences.

[The Marquess of Lothian]

In the interests of public confidence, can my noble and learned friend give an indication of what sorts of penalties there would be for the offence of misconduct in public office? It is important that the public know this is being taken seriously.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The extent of the penalty would depend on the level at which the particular offence was prosecuted. I do not think I can give an absolute answer to that but I would be content to write to the noble Lord to set out the scope for such a prosecution.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Marquess of Lothian Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Janvrin (CB)]

I rise to speak to Amendment 194 in my name. I remind the House of my membership of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Obviously, we support government Amendment 193. Our very small additional amendment suggests that there should be a further subsection which will ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee has sight of the commissioner’s findings or report, subject to the rules governing the ISC’s access to information under the Justice and Security Act 2013, to which we make reference in the amendment. This seems to us a small but sensible addition to the Government’s amendment.

[The Marquess of Lothian (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the government amendment and support Amendment 194. I, too, am a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Indeed, I have to admit to having been a member of that committee for more than 10 years now.

The Government have tabled a very sensible amendment. There have been times during our investigations when we have come across issues which were really not for the committee to look at in detail but much more for the commissioners. This power for us to refer to the commissioners is a very valuable addition to the way in which we can make sure that the scrutiny of how this legislation works is done fairly and on a broad basis.

I support Amendment 194 because it is the additional element to what the Government are proposing, and makes total sense. For the committee to refer something to the commissioner yet not be able to hear the result of that investigation after it has been carried out does not seem very sensible. Indeed, as many of these issues will arise in the process of the committee investigating rather broader, more strategic interests, while needing to know the result of the commissioner’s investigation, it really would make logical sense to accept the addition made by Amendment 194.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we, too, very much welcome the Government’s amendment but we also support Amendment 194, for the reasons outlined by noble Lords. Surely, if there is an investigation, the committee deserves to know the result of that investigation as well.

UK Armed Forces in Iraq

Marquess of Lothian Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I agree with my noble friend. We have absolutely no plans for mission creep. We have previously announced our intention to support the Iraqis with training their forces and, as I said earlier, the Iraqi Prime Minister has been very clear that they do not want to see western ground combat forces.

[The Marquess of Lothian (Con)]

Can my noble friend tell the House whether the number of air strikes being carried out by Her Majesty’s forces in Iraq are at the moment increasing or decreasing?