Hugo Rosemont on Changes to the British Green Paper Proposal

A couple of months ago, Hugo Rosemont, a Security Policy Adviser to the UK security industry and a doctoral student, sent in this account of the controversy in Britain over a government proposal to allow secret evidence in certain civil cases. Rosemont, who blogs at www.hugorosemont.com, yesterday sent in an update describing recent developments and modifications to the proposal:

Following the publication last October of a Green Paper on Justice and Security issues, and the strong opposition in some quarters to the proposal to introduce a form of closed procedure to allow and protect the use of sensitive intelligence information in civil judicial proceedings (as reported here for Lawfare), on 9 May the Queen’s Speech (i.e. the event launching her Government's annual programme each year) made clear the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition's intention to legislate on the issue. The Government’s response to the consultation and a Justice and Security Bill were subsequently published over the past 48 hours. Alongside this morning’s wide-ranging interview with the Justice Secretary on the BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme - it not only focussed on this issue but also the crucial matter of his ability to “chillax” in front of the cricket - it has been widely reported throughout the day that the Government has given in to political pressure and that the original proposals have been “watered down” in the Bill. In short, the proposals to hear evidence in closed session will now not extend to inquests and such a procedure will only be considered in cases where “a disclosure would be damaging to the interests of national security” (rather than the wider public interest). It has also been stated that the Judiciary rather than the Executive will make the final call on whether evidence should be heard in such a way. For more detail on the changes, see the FT’s analysis and the BBC’s coverage. Whilst the implications of the changes must be considered it is also important to understand the reasons for them. In his Op-Ed for the Daily Mail, the Justice Secretary explains: “The reaction to the consultation has persuaded me that some of the suggestions we made for solving the undoubted problems were too broad.” It seems that this is a clear case of the Government responding to the criticism leveled against it. Some of this has arisen from within the coalition itself. It is worth noting, however, that despite the concessions, many of those who oppose the plans are not satisfied with the Bill. For example, the influential civil liberties and human rights membership organisation, Liberty, has today lambasted the current form of the proposals as “even worse than first imagined.” On the other side of the debate, supporters of the Government’s plans have also been making their voices heard. Professor Anthony Glees of the University of Buckingham argued forcefully this morning that the proposals are “turning up the volume on accountability” of the intelligence agencies - this dimension of the Bill is frequently overlooked by the critics. Whilst today clearly marks a form of victory for the opponents of the original proposals, as things stand the Bill retains the central idea of introducing a closed procedure in certain circumstances. Whilst far from certain the fate of the Government's plan to legislate to allow for the consideration and then protection of sensitive information in civil judicial proceedings - some of which may not originate from the UK’s own intelligence agencies - remains on course.