With the leave of the House, I will respond on behalf of the Government. I will briefly address the comments of those Members who have, with great passion and sincerity, opposed the whole policy of the Bill; who think that closed procedures
should not be permitted and are simply incompatible with our standards of justice; and who plainly wish things to stay as they are. They include the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and even the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) got very near to that at one point, rather to my alarm.
I share the exasperation expressed by many Members who are more supportive of the Bill that much of the opposition to it is based on the idea that the present law does not call for amendment and that what happens now is satisfactory. Three or four Members expressed the exasperation I sometimes feel in these debates, because a growing number of people who seem to be more liberal than me, at least on this point, think that PII certificates are the ideal way of handling these cases. Most of the people who have tried to argue that point with me outside the Chamber, I am quite sure, would not have defended the PII certificate system 12 months ago and instead would have attacked it.
As we—the Bill’s defenders—have repeatedly pointed out, the whole point of PII is to exclude from anybody’s use in a case the evidence that is sensitive. Of course, one can gist and redact such as one can, but what one leaves out is anything that obviously threatens national security, which is the very information that everyone says ought to be heard. I do not accept all those allegations. I would like the civil courts to be able to decide some more of those allegations. To those who, like the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, are convinced that our security services have been torturing and mistreating people and that we are trying to suppress all kinds of outrageous allegations, I can only say that if we stay with the law as it is, none of that will ever appear in a court before a judge.
The problem at the moment is that where a Government wish to bring forward their records and witnesses to try to answer these claims, there is no closed material procedure in civil proceedings to enable them to do so. We used to think that the court did that out of its own volition, but I am afraid that there have been rulings making it quite clear that that is for Parliament to decide. I will not repeat what people said a few moments ago. The absolutism of the people on the ultra-liberal wing is quite extraordinary. They are demanding silence. They are demanding no judgment from a judge. They wish things to stay as they are. I ask them to reflect on the deeply unsatisfactory nature of that. It is not true that there are other countries where one can do that.
I do not think—I am open to correction—that there is any jurisdiction in the world in which someone is trying to create a procedure whereby one can bring in highly sensitive evidence of this kind in a civil claim against the Government. Somebody calmly said that the Americans allow that. I can assure them that the Americans are extremely alarmed about the fact that we are giving those powers to our judges and wish to be reassured that national security will be protected. As has been said, they are already reducing their co-operation with us, and they will reduce it further if they think that we are opening some kind of sieve in their information. Where they issue a certificate of state security it is not challengeable. People are bringing actions in our courts claiming that we are sometimes complicit with what they say American agencies have done because they cannot bring those actions in America. They come here
under Norwich Pharmacal trying to get documents from us to support action in other countries because they think we have the only courts in the world where they might be able to get hold of American intelligence material—and to do so for other people. So in supporting our approach in principle, the Government, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are demonstrating how committed we all are to the rule of law, human rights and the wish to be accountable to our courts. We think that we can contrive a process that does secure national security and does respect the interests of our allies while allowing a judge to consider all the relevant evidence and give a judgment.
My next point will be the final one I make on this, because I realise that the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) has to wind up the debate. I still hope that we get the widest possible all-party support on this important constitutional matter, and I think that the Liberals are with us. Nobody in this House has given views that are contrary to the interests of justice or anything of that kind, but we are almost quibbling about rather important amendments; we are talking about how we can best frame our response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and so on without actually compromising the process and making it unworkable.
I had the formidable support of the Ministers in the former Government who were responsible for these matters at various times and in various ways: the right hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr Straw), for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). I think that the latter was right in saying that I am probably the most liberal of the five of us on most issues that come before this House. I spent my time opposing the right hon. Members when I was in opposition and they still have not persuaded me that 90 days’ detention without charge was remotely justifiable—we sat up all night arguing about that. The fact is that we are moving to resolve a serious problem, and the Labour party should give careful consideration to whether they press these measures.
I am asked by Labour Members and by others whether there is any further that we can go. I have already described the number of amendments that we have made, and the huge discretion and control that we have now given to the judge. I have indicated that we will have a look at the rules of court. I cannot be persuaded that putting “as a last resort” in the Bill is not risky. The Wiley balancing test as it is on the amendment paper is not the Wiley balancing test but a stronger version of that test, and it has been argued about interminably. It is totally unsuitable for a closed proceeding; it is designed as a stiff test when one is proposing to take all the evidence out of consideration altogether.
I urge restraint on the Opposition, who claim to wish to be in government one day—needless to say, I regard that proposition with dread. If they take some of these objections to bizarre lengths when there is complete agreement on principle between us, I can say only that were they to succeed, they would regret it. I also think that, for the reputation of our security services, for the reputation of our justice system and for the confidence of our allies, it would be very helpful if we had the support of the bulk of the three major parties. I have
tried to explain why people of utmost sincerity who take the more purist view are actually living in a dream world. We will do better in holding our agents to account by having this Bill.