15/03/2016 House of Commons

Myers. -- Mars. I received an update that a signal has been received and

we can successfully say that the launch has been a success. Thank

you. Order! We come now to the urgent question. Mr Hilary Benn.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. To ask the Secretary of State for

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the

announcement by Russia that it is redeploying the main part of its

force from Syria, and the implications of this for the peace

process? We have of course seen the media reports of Russian withdrawal

of forces, including this morning that the first group of Russian

planes have left the airbase to return to Russia. However, I should

tell the House that none of the members of the International Syria

support group, as far as I have been able to determine, had any advance

notice of this Russian announcement, and we are yet to see any detailed

plans behind Russia's announcement yesterday. We do not yet have any

independent evidence to verify Russia's claims that military

withdrawals have already begun. We are monitoring developments closely.

It would be important to judge Russia by its actions. It is worth

remembering that Russia announced withdrawal of forces in the Ukraine,

which later turned out to be routine rotation of forces. So if there's

announcement represents a genuine decision by Russia to continue to

de-escalate the military conflict, to ensure compliance with the

Association of hostilities, and to encourage the Syrian regime and to

participate in peace negotiations in good faith, then it would be

welcome. Now is the time for all parties to focus on political

negotiations, which resumed yesterday in Geneva. Because only a

political transition away from Asad's rolled to a Government

representative of all Syrians will deliver the peace that Syrians are

desperately need. It will give us a Government in Damascus able to focus

on defeating terrorism and rebuilding Syria. There can be no

peace in Syria while Asad remains in power. Russia has unique influence

to help make these negotiations succeed, and we sincerely hope that

they will use it. Since it came into force on the 27th of February, the

cessation of hostilities has resulted in a significant reduction

in violence in Syria. However, there have been a significant number of

reports of violations, including the continued use of barrel bombs, which

we have been discussing with our partners in the ceasefire task force

in Geneva. We have serious concerns that the Assad regime has been using

the cessation of hostilities to pursue its military objectives and

that it is not serious about political negotiations. Swift action

to address these violations is therefore vital to reduce the

violence and show the Syrian people, including the Syrian opposition,

that both Russia and the Assad regime are abiding by the terms of

the cessation of hostilities. Failure to do so threatened the

prospects for big continued political negotiations. We look to

rush up as guarantor with the regime and its backers to use its unique

influence to use compliance and to make very clear to the Assad regime

that their expectations, that they must negotiate in good faith. After

investing so much an aside, Mr must show the world that he can exercise

control over his protege. At the same time, we called for a complete

and unfettered humanitarian access across Syria, and an end to all

violations of international humanitarian law in accordance with

the security council resolution. We are relieved that desperately needed

aid convoys are now arriving in some besieged areas in Syria, including

some of those named in the Munich ISG agreement. It is imperative that

this continues, that in particular access is provided to the town has

not seen any aid yet. We must sustain humanitarian access across

Syria. Mr Speaker, no one would be more delighted than me if after five

months of relentless bombing Russia is genuinely winding down its

military support to the brutal Assad regime. But, as in all matters

related to Russia, it is the actions, rather than the words, that

count. We should be watching carefully over the coming days to

see if the potential promise of this announcement turns into reality. And

very grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that reply. The

conflict in Syria has now raged for five years. Half the population have

fled their homes and neighbouring countries have borne the brunt of

the refugee crisis and according to the Syrian Observatory, over 360

thousand people have lost their lives, mostly at the hands of

President Assad. In the past six months, Russian districts alone have

killed 1700 civilians. The withdrawal of Russian forces will be

cautiously welcomed by all of us, but I agree with the Foreign

Secretary that it needs to be carried through, in particular if it

is going to be support the ceasefire. The secretary has told

the House that he has not received any direct information about the

likely timescale and extent of the withdrawal. Could he however comment

on the statement reported and attributed to a Russian defence

Minister, who said that Russian forces will continue to attack

so-called terrorists, a term that they have used in the past to cover

its tracks and the Syrian opposition? Can he tell has what

discussions he has had about the Russian Foreign Minister about this?

How might this change the type of missions that the RAF and others in

the anti Dyas coalition and taking in Syria? Given the latest extent of

the ceasefire, what action is the British Government and other

Government is proposing to take about this? Does he agree that a

full withdrawal would improve the confidence of opposition forces

within the ceasefire and help to ensure that their book is

participation in the process. What does he think will be the impact of

the ceasefire and the withdrawal of the international community to

safely provide the humanitarian aid he has referred to, in particular to

the towns and areas that have been besieged, given the continuing

concerns that the international committee have expressed. Potential

war crimes committed by to the council this week, what does he

think about any war crimes being committed to the courts? Finally,

what discussions has he had with other members of the International

Syria support group about the prospects for the latest round of

peace talks taking place in Geneva? Does he agree with me that both

Russia and Syria needs to ensure that all issues are on the table if

the Syrian people are to seek peace and stability finally returned to

their war-torn country? I'm grateful to the right honourable gentleman,

and as he rightly says, it is now five years since this terrible civil

War began and he set out absolutely correctly the scale of attrition

that the Syrian people have faced in that time. He referred to the

remarks attributed to the defence Minister of Russia saying that

Russia would continue to attack terrorists. This is exactly the

formula that the Russians have used in the past when attacking the

moderate opposition. They have always asserted that they only

conduct air strikes against terrorists, so it's not terribly

reassuring that if you hours after the announcement of a withdrawal of

their military forces, the defence minister as saying that they will

continue to attack terrorists. He asked me about discussions with the

Foreign Minister of Russia. I have had no such discussions since the

announcement was made, although I have spoken to American colleagues

to assess what information they have. The UK mission in Syria will

not change as a result of withdrawal of Russian forces. UK air strikes

are primarily targeted against, exclusively targeted against the

east of the country. They will continue to be so targeted. He asked

about the latest assessment of the ceasefire. We held a meeting in

Paris on Sunday, in which we reviewed the situation on the

ground. The reality is that after a lull in the level of air strikes

immediately after the cessation of hostilities, they have grown

steadily and on March the 10th, we assessed Russian air strike threat

the same level as priest as priest decision of hostilities.

If Russia carries out a full withdrawal of its forces which I

don't think is what even the Russian announcement is suggesting, but if

it were to carry out a full withdrawal of forces, that would

certainly change the balance of power and military advantage on the

ground in a very significant way. With regard to access for

humanitarian aid, it is not the Russians that have been impeding

access for humanitarian aid, but the Syrian regime. Therefore the

question is around how much leveraged the Russians have over the

regime, and how much they are prepared to exercise, and one could

speculate about whether this announcement is in fact an exercise

by Russia in reminding the regime of its position as a client operating

at Russia's will. On the International Criminal Court the two

major impediments, the first is that Syria is not a signatory to the ICC

Convention, the second is that of course Russia holds a veto in the

Security Council. So whilst we all seek to bring those responsible for

the terrible crimes committed in Syria to justice, I would advise the

right honourable gentleman not to hold his breath just for this

moment. Finally, the eye S SG hasn't met in ISSG format recently, but we

have had opportunities to talk about the agenda for the peace talks at

Geneva, we are very satisfied with the approach taken, it is a very

sensible approach which recognises that bluntly as soon as we get to

the difficult subjects, the talks may run into extreme difficulty, and

therefore seeks to begin by discussing some rather less

controversial subjects to try to at least generate some momentum before

we come to the rather more difficult issues. But I have to say again that

the sticking point is transition. We are clear, resolutions of the ISSG

are clear, that the way forward has to be through a transitional regime.

Which moves us from the current position with Assad in power to a

new position with Assad out of power. The Russians, the Syrians,

the Iranians, still do not accept that principle, and unless and until

it is accepted, the talks going on in Geneva may linger for a while but

they will not ultimately be able to make significant progress.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree in so far as he refers to Russia

sending him a message to -- a message to Assad that this is

potentially helpful as far as the peace process is concerned by

ensuring that Assad doesn't overplay his hand in the peace talks? But the

actual threat to the peace process comes from across the border in

Turkey, which is no longer led by a constructive and rational partner in

the process, and the actions of the president should be giving all of us

the gravest concern as he presides over a disintegrating democracy and

a war on part of his own people. It is possible that the Russian

announcement is intended as a message to the Assad regime. Don't

overplay your hand, get to the negotiating table and engage. It is

also possible that it is intended as a message to the moderate opposition

that if they do what is expected of them, because it has not been that

easy to persuade them to attend the Geneva talks when Russian bombs are

still raining down on their positions, then that is all

positive. But unfortunately none of us knows what the intent of Mr Putin

is when he carries out any action, which is why he is a very difficult

partner in any situation. On the question of Turkey, I would just say

this. Turkey remains an important Nato ally, and a vital security

partner for the UK. And I think when we look at events in Turkey, whilst

he can refer as he did to recent legislative changes and actions of

the administration, we should also acknowledge the terrible challenge

that the Turkish people are facing from terrorism, with multiple deaths

on the attack on Sunday in Ankara, hundreds of security force members

killed over the last nine months, 100 or so, many more than 100

civilians also dead. So we have got to understand the challenge that

Turkey faces, and I would assert as we do in relation to every country,

the right of the Turkish people and the Turkish Government to defend

themselves against attack, when they face this kind of terrorist attack.

It is almost five years to the day since the uprising against a side.

11 million displaced, 80% of severe's children damaged by the

civil conflict. -- Syria's children. When we debated this two weeks ago

there was scepticism across the chamber about the ceasefire,

although there have been significant breaches it has resulted in a huge

elimination of violence. It is the only ceasefire we have got. -- and

mean you should -- diminishing. Is it not the most credible explanation

for the Russian announcement, is that it is going to pressurise Assad

into taking a more flexible attack -- approach in the peace talks? And

if that is the case, it would be better if the Foreign Secretary had

the welcome and then the caveats, since it is not only the only

ceasefire we have got, it is also the only peace process we have got.

I think we all start out with hope and we end up with experience, and

in dealing with Russia I think putting the caveat first is probably

always sensible. It is a credible interpretation of what Mr Putin has

done, but unfortunately, unlike almost every other party with which

we work in these situations, we have no insight at all into Russia's

strategy, Russia's thinking, tactics, so we are left guessing.

And here we are 24 hours later, none of us including the Americans, who

Russia apparently craves a bilateral partnership with over Syria, having

any insight into what the purpose of this move is.

Can I invite my right honourable friend to admit that we have

probably be -- been unwise to become hooked on the simplest at notion

that the removal of Assad is a prerequisite for any solution at all

in Syria's is it not the case that even with this change in Russian

tactics, any progress towards peace is bound to retain any messy

elements within it? What is the Foreign Secretary think this

supposedly it from it for all the Syrian people is actually going to

come from? I can't agree, -- we assert that the removal of a side is

a prerequisite for peace, that is not a moral judgment -- Assad.

Somebody who has killed 360,000 of his people.

We also want a reconciliation between the different factions in

Syria, and those fighting against the regime are not going to lay down

their arms, they are not going to lay down their arms, unless and

until they are given an assurance that Bashar al-Assad will not be

part of the future in Syria, and yes of course it will be messy. And of

course he is right that there will be many stumbling blocks along the

way. But it is possible to envisage a transition which will see the

infrastructure of the state remain in place, but replace Bashar

al-Assad himself with another figure, possibly from within the

Alawite community as a head of a transitional administration.

The Foreign Secretary is quite right to treat this Russian announcement

along with all Russian announcements with extreme caution. But if this

does turn out to be positive, would that not vindicate the robust

approach that Britain and the European Union have taken towards

President Putin, and vindicate the decision taken by this House to

extend the highly successful IVF mission in Iraq, to Syria?

-- aria. I'm convinced myself that President Putin only recognises

strength. Everything is black and white, you are either standing up to

him or you have caved in. The action that the European Union took in

imposing sanctions against Russia over Ukraine surprised the Russians,

we know that, they didn't expect that the EU would be able to

establish unanimity to do this. It is so -- it surprised them even more

that we have managed to renew those distinctions twice and we are coming

up to the point that we will renew them again, -- sanctions. It has

surprised the Russians that the Coalition has held together in

respect of the battle against. Sticking to our guns, working with

the Russians where they are prepared to align with our objectives, and

being clear about our requirement of the Russians to comply with their

obligations under international law. That is the right way to proceed, I

don't think that seeking concessions to or favours from Mr Putin is a way

forward, it simply doesn't work like that.

In these very early days of the ceasefire and the talks in Geneva,

would my right honourable friend agree that in cautiously welcoming

this reported withdrawal of Russian troops we should not lose sight of

the need for the ongoing humanitarian aid to make sure it is

delivered to those in Syria and the region who need it, and to securing

a peaceful, long-term political solution to this problem.

The two reasons why the humanitarian aid has to go on being delivered,

and getting into parts it hasn't yet reached, first the obvious reason

that people on the ground desperately need it, but also to

enable the opposition who are at Geneva to stay there and carry on

talking. They are finding it very hard to maintain their legitimacy,

their credibility, with their supporters on the ground, if no

humanitarian aid is getting through and regime bombs, Russian bombs are

still falling on them. The Foreign Secretary said he has

not talked to Mr Lavrov. Why is that? Again, experience. I

haven't tried, and I have no doubt that I could predict quite confident

leave the outcome of a call to Foreign Minister Lavrov. I have had

many calls with him on the course of our regular meetings over Syria

related events, none of them fruitful.

It is depressing to calculate the sum total of human misery that has

resulted from Russia's intervention in this bloody civil war. Which has

gone right from vetoing attempts by countries to get an early resolution

to Assad and a transition Government in the early days, right through to,

as one NGO put it to me, the bombing of a hospital for time by Russian

planes. Can I reemphasise by asking my right honourable friend to treat

with huge caution this move, and hold Russia responsible for any war

crimes they have risen -- committed? My honourable friend reminds of

cosmopolitan fact, somebody goes in -- an important fact, somebody

starts bombing civilian populations and destroy hospitals and schools.

If they do decide five months later that they have done enough, let us

not give them too much praise. It is a bit like, you know, did you stop

beating his wife? The fact they are there in the first place is

something we have to continually protest about, and we shouldn't give

them any credit for St Brelade withdrawing from these illegal

activities. -- simply withdrawing. Despite

Russia's announcement many countries remain fully committed to military

action in Syria, we have seen an escalation over five years of the

humanitarian crisis and the refugee crisis across Europe. Can the

Secretary of State tell the House, what proportion of Government

spending relating to the crisis has been spent on military action? As

compared to the provision of humanitarian aid. And building a

long-term peace solution for the people of Syria.

I can't give the lady the precise figures, but we have contributed

over ?1.1 billion of humanitarian aid to Syria and the neighbouring

countries to is support displaced persons and refugees. Military

operation, which has been running in Syria since the boat of this House a

mere month ago -- the vote. I am quite certain it will be in the

double figures of millions. Given Russia's past history in the last 30

years of changing horses at the last moment, would he now be advising

President Assad to double his bodyguard? Well, the relationship

between President Assad and President Putin is a subject of

great speculation among colleagues on the ISS G circuit. I am clear

that the situation is the same as it has always been. President Putin

could have ended all this years ago I a single phone call to President

Assad, offering him some fraternal advice about his future health and

well-being. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree with the Foreign Secretary

that we should be cautious about these latest developments, but can I

ask him whether he thinks that Assad is in a stronger position now than

he was six months ago? In military terms, certainly. The Russian

intervention has prevented the collapse of regime forces, restored

morale among regime forces, allowed the regime to take ground,

consolidate decisions, move forces around in a strategically

significant way in the country, and has damaged and demoralised

opposition groups. There is no doubt at all about that. The question of

course, if there is a genuine withdrawal of Russian air cover, how

long that improvement can be sustained, because we know that the

Syrian regime forces are fundamentally hollowed out after

five years of civil war. Without the Russians there to stiffen the spine,

it is not clear how long they would be able to maintain the initiative.

Assuming that the Russian withdrawal does take place, I and there is no

certainty in fact, will be UK air forces be taking over Russian

targets against Daesh, with the intensity of the arguments against

Daesh is not Russian withdrawal? I can't comment about what will drive

US and UK targeting decisions. What I can say is that the Russian air

force operates largely within a part of Syria which is heavily protected

by the Syrian integrated air defence system. The Russians are able to

apply there because they are operating in a permissive

environment for them, not least because Russian technicians

controlled the Syrian defence system. It would not be the same

situation for US, UK and other coalition partners. I don't think

there can be an assumption that Western members of the coalition

would be able to take over all of the targeting activity against Daesh

that is currently being taken out by the Russians. Whilst acknowledging

that Assad is principally to blame for the submission of his own

citizens, and therefore the departure of the Russians is

unlikely to have an effect on the humanitarian aid system, does the

Foreign Secretary envisage any new initiatives to ensure that aid does

reach the parts of Syria that are currently being stars? The situation

on humanitarian aid is that it is there. It is ready to move. The

world food programme has got the resources it needs, the food and

other medical supplies ready to go. The issue is simply access,

principally that is an issue of regime obstruction. In some places,

it has been overcome. In other places, it is still a problem. This

is something that UN people are working on day and night on the

ground to try and resolve. It is literally progressing through one

checkpoint and then trying to negotiate through the next

checkpoint. Following on from the question from my honourable friends

from Huntington, the Kremlin say that the Russian presence in Syria

is to counter terrorism, but there are no terrorism groups with fighter

jets. Is it not the case that if Russia are serious about

de-escalating the situation and moving towards a peaceful solution,

that they will also withdraw the S 400 system? I think our

understanding is that the S 400 system was probably deployed in

order to protect the Russian installation, so it was part of the

protective bubble that the Russians delivered into Syria around their

own installations to their bases and a naval port. We will obviously have

to wait and see the extent, if any, of the withdrawal that has been

announced, and whether it includes those weapons. In seeking further

clarity on this deeply cynical announcement, can he or his US

allies clarify that the Russians Government has set out any

conditions linked to their withdrawal that will negatively

impact on the political negotiations. Given the tens of

thousands of vulnerable Syrians that exists up and down the country,

should we be looking at a bombing zone, particularly along the border

of Turkey. As far as we're aware, there is conditionality appointed

with it. It was a unilateral action announced by Russia, so the

withdrawal is a unilateral action. No negotiations or conditionality.

She me about no bombing zones. The problem with a no bombing zone is

essentially the point I have just made to my honourable friends, that

Syria has a very capable ground to air integrated defence Systems,

which makes it difficult for anybody's invoiced in a

non-permissive environment to enforce such a no bombing zone. --

enforce. It is possible to enforce a no bombing zone around Syria, but

they would be complex issues involved. It has been raised and

discussed, but so far volunteers to police such a no bombing zone have

not been rushing forward. The Foreign Secretary referred to Iran

earlier. People know that the two regional powers of Iran and Saudi

Arabia have vastly contradictory views of Syria, and in particular

the future of president Assad. We'll use has good offices to make sure

that these two countries get around the table to negotiate like we saw

in Vienna? Until there is greater dialogue between these two powers,

they will continue to be the tensions that we have seen over the

last five years will stop he is right that Iran and Saudi Arabia

have fundamentally different views about the future trajectory of

Syria, but they are both part of the ISS G. They both did come to the

table in Vienna and sit there for two days, or wherever it was, and

talked to each other, and they are still both showing up to regular

ISSG meetings. It doesn't mean they agree with each other, but it is

progress, that they are at least sitting around the same table. Thank

you. The Foreign Secretary has mentioned the humanitarian convoys

on the ground in Syria. More of them are getting through, but it is

nowhere near the access the United Nations would need. What is the

Foreign Secretary's assessment of how this latest Russian announcement

may give further opportunities to put pressure on the Syrian regime

itself to allow more aid through? As I have already said, I don't think

that even if the Russians do withdraw forces, I don't think

that'll make any direct impact the ability of human supplies to get in.

Obviously, the things that almost assist the humanitarian supplies is

the continuation of a cessation of hostilities. What actually happens

on the ground next will depend on how any Russian withdrawal takes

place, over what time period, and how the regime 's response to that.

The cynic may suggest that the Syrian regime may have use the last

two weeks to prepare for this moment. Perhaps the Syrian regime

did know it was coming and perhaps they are prepared for it. The

intervention by Russia in Syria was a surprise to the west. This

withdrawal, if it is genuine, is also a surprise. Russia's

interventions have been unhelpful but influential. Can he advise me

what steps we can and are taking with our allies to stop Russia

setting the agenda in Syria? It is a good question. It very difficult one

to answer. The fact is, that all the other partners, the Western partners

in this enterprise play by the rules of the international system. They

are transparent about their intentions. We had a debate in this

Parliament, a discussion that went on for a couple of years, before we

got to the point of deciding to engage in air strikes in Syria. The

entire world knew about the debate in the UK and where is the fault

lines were in that debate. Unfortunately, Russia is a state in

which all power is concentrated in the hands of one man. Decisions are

made apparently arbitrarily, without any advance signalling, and as we

are now seeing, they can be and made just as quickly. This is not a

recipe for enhancing stability and predictability and the international

scene. It makes the world a more dangerous place, not a less

dangerous place. The Foreign Secretary is right not to spin

Putin's announcement, but to wait for the evidence. If however it does

serve to recondition some of Assad's assumptions about the negotiations,

and if it does mean that elements in the opposition feel a bit more

encouraged about the worth of their purpose in the negotiations, we

should also be looking at it as an opportunity to make the dialogue

more inclusive, not least for women. Our intention is that the dialogue

showed the inclusive, representative of all faith groups, all ethnicities

within the Syria, and also representative of civil society,

including, of course, women. We shouldn't forget that before this

horror started, Syria was in, bizarrely, one of the most liberal

countries in terms of tolerance of religious minorities, tolerance of

secular behaviour, the role of women, participation of women in

society and the professions and employment. That is something that

we would certainly need to get back to you, as Syria Read normalises in

the future. Would he agree with me that one of the greatest problems we

face in this situation, we have no real idea of the military resources

that Russia put into Syria, so have no idea whether they have really

withdrawn from Syria. Have you taken this into account in the coming

months? I'm not sure I entirely agree. I think we have quite a

reasonable assessment of the military resource that Russia has in

Syria and we will be able to now monitor whether that resource is

being genuinely withdrawn, or simply rotated. Given that Daesh has not

been the main focus of Russian air strikes, to what extent does my

friends think that the Russians would advocate a petition of Syria?

It's a subject of speculation, whether the immediate objective of

the Assad regime and indeed of the Russians is to carve out some kind

of mini state in the north-west of Syria, but, as I have said many

times this morning, because we have no dialogue about these things,

because Russia is completely and transparent about its motives and

its plans, we can only speculate. For any peaceful transition in

Syria, along with the Russian withdrawal, Iran would also need to

withdraw its militia, military personnel, military advisers, which

had been supporting the brutal Assad regime. Do we have any news on that?

Well, our views are that my honourable friend is right. Clearly,

for there to be a sustainable peace in Syria, the militias and the

Iranian sponsors and advisers will have to be stood down, just as the

Russians will have two withdraw their forces. But we have no

indication yet that we are going to see a matching announcement from

withdrawal of Iranians back to withdrawal of Iranians back to

forces from Syria. Given the experience we had in Crimea and

eastern Ukraine, when forces that looked like Russian forces were and

like Russian forces and behaved like them arrived and then disavowed,

what confidence do we have that this will be a genuine withdrawal and we

won't see forces carrying a Russian flag disappeared, only to be replace

on the ground by first-ever suspiciously like them?

What we are primarily talking about here is a forces, and that trick is

a little more difficult to perform when we are talking about advanced

strike aircraft. But we can't roll out the possibility of Russian

sponsored irregular forces playing some future role in this conflict.

-- ruler. Before we come to points of order

only to make a short statement which I hope will help the hosts in the

matter to come. Owing to a printing error, and incorrect version of the

programme motion has been printed on the order paper. The collection will

be in the vote office and online shortly. -- correction. The

significant difference is that two days are proposed for consideration

and third Reading, rather than the one day referred to incorrectly on

the order paper. -- third reading. And the motion will be moved in this

correct form after second reading. My understanding is that two days we

wanted by all parties, so they should I think be rejoicing about

this matter. It wasn't a point of order, it was a

statement at the right honourable gentleman's usually got points of

order before breakfast, lunch and dinner so I am happy to hear his

point of order. His statement that the two days was

agreed by all parties is actually agreed by the frontbenchers. Many of

us believe that this enormous constitutional Bill about privacy

and security requires four days, that is at least a dozen major

things that need to be dealt with, and we will not be able to do it in

committee. I ask him actually, can he give his advice to us as front

bench -- backbenchers, how do we get this Bill debated properly? I

respect the right honourable gentleman's sincerity, and what is

wanted by the frontbenchers is not necessarily the same as what is

wanted by the back. I have no control over the programme motion.

And that is a matter for the House. All I can say is that if there is

very strong cross-party feeling, I have a sense that ministers will

inevitably be on the roof and -- receiving end of it. And having got

the list in front of me is the right honourable gentleman is subtly in

the process advertising his own interest in being called to speak, I

think his effort has been successful. Part of order, Mr Andrew

Griffiths. A few moments ago amongst all the excitement of hearing what

the Government were doing to support the pubs industry, and in event

today forgot to draw the House's attention to my register of

interests. -- inadvertently. Good I rectify the mistake? He has found

his own salvation. I am deeply indebted to him, as of course is the

House. On March the 8th, the Member for Birmingham Yardley made a very

powerful speech in this chamber which you yourself described as

moving. And the most striking part of that speech is when she read out

a list of the names of women who have died in the past year as a

result of domestic violence. In 2009, after lists of those who had

fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan had been read in this chamber,

prohibition was introduced from the chair saying that no longer would

members be allowed to read out lists of the fallen, and we are now in the

strange permission where it is permissible to read at those who

have died as a result of domestic violence, but prohibited to read out

the lists of those who have fallen in the service of this country.

Could you reflect on this, and introduce perhaps a rule that would

allow members to make the speeches they decide to make rather than the

limited by conditions laid out by the chair? I thank the honourable

gentleman for his point of order, and for his characteristic courtesy

in giving the advance notice of it. I appreciate that the honourable

member feels that there is inconsistency between the latitude

allowed by the chair to the honourable lady, the Member for

Birmingham Yardley, in the debate to mark International women's's day,

and earlier rulings from the chair on his own attempts to read out the

names of members of the Armed Forces who had died in operations overseas.

These are matters of judgment for the chair. And my immediate response

to him, I am happy to reflect upon it further, is that they are I think

best approached on a case-by-case basis. My concern is that there

should be reasonable -- reasonableness and balance in this

-- these matters. I don't think the House would receive it well if list

reading became a very regular phenomenon. Or indeed if I may say

so, a repetitive campaign tool. However, I simply say to the

honourable gentleman that it is open to members to seek my thoughts in

advance on these matters, if they have such an intention in mind. And

I think I will if I may leave it there for today, I appreciate his

sincerity and I hope he appreciates mine. If there are no further points

of order, we come now to the ten minute rule motion. Caroline Flint.

I beg to move that need be given to bringing in a Bill to reply --

require certain multinationals to include within the annual financial

reporting specified information prepared in accordance with the

organisation for economic cooperation on a country by country

basis and for connected purposes. My thanks for the opportunity to

prevent -- present this modest Bill, which seeks to move in tackling tax

avoidance but takes it one step further. One small step for this

House, but the results of which will be a huge step forward for those who

believe in tax justice, fairness and transparency in the UK and globally.

My Bill will ensure the important -- that important information about

large companies is published by a -- companies house. Information that by

UK law, such companies will have two provide to HMIC from the first

January this year. I'm delighted my Bill has received cross-party

support and is being backed by the tax Justice network, Oxfam,

Christian Aid and others. We all shared concerns that the way in

which multinational companies shift profits to low tax dominions,

sometimes even when the employees there are zero. The headlines caused

by the recent Google tax deal reflected public consternation. How

could a company with thousands of UK employees, five offices, a new ?1

billion headquarters to be built near King's Cross with the UK only

second to the US in terms of revenues, only pay up ?130 million

in tax after six years of investigation into a tax period of

ten years? Bear in mind their global revenues for 2015 were $74 billion.

With my colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee, we questioned

both Google and HMIC. But we are still unclear as to whether the

hundred 30 -- ?130 -- 100 ?30 million represented a good deal. I

understand the protection of tax Prevacid, especially when it comes

to individuals. But we live in a world where multinationals you

transfer pricing and shell companies to shift profits from one country to

another. -- tax provision. Isn't it extraordinary that in 2010 Bermuda

had total reported corporate profits that were the equivalent of 1643% of

their actual GDP? Could that be because Bermuda has a zero rate of

corporation tax? Isn't it extraordinary that sales staff for

Google in the UK sell an advert to a company in the UK, yet the

transaction is confirmed online via Ireland, where the prevailing

corporate tax rate is 12.5% as opposed to 20% in the UK? This

problem is not confined to Google or online businesses. Coffey chains,

oil companies, drinks companies, pharmaceuticals, what they all have

in common is that they are multinationals. The back -- the

impact of entirely lawful manipulation of different countries

proposed tax rules is that countries find the tax base is undermined and

profits are shifted not through any real economic activity but through

arbitrary internal charges between different units of the same company.

The impact is to create unfair competition providing a competitive

advantage over say, a domestic UK rival paying 20% tax on its profits.

It is these strange arrangements that enabled Facebook to pay just

?4377 in corporation tax in 2014. The same year it paid 35mm pounds in

bonuses to UK-based staff. That is a very, very strange form of

performance pay. AstraZeneca paid no corporation tax in 2014, 2015, yet

2014 was a remarkable year for them according to its CEO. It had full

year revenues of over $26 billion. Vodafone, British American Tobacco,

the list of corporate giants with like UK tax bills goes on. I fully

support the Chancellor's legislation to require financial reporting to

HMIC from UK-based multinationals with revenues in excess of

approximately ?600 million, and UK units of such companies, whether

parent company is based in a country which does not yet agreed to country

by country reporting. This reporting in accordance to OECD guidelines

would include showing for each tax jurisdiction in which they do

business, the amount of revenue, profit before income tax and income

tax paid and approved. And their total employment capital of retained

earnings and tangible assets. They would also be required to identify

each entity within the group doing business in a particular tax

jurisdiction, and provide an indication of business activities

within a selection of broad areas which each entity is engaged in. The

Government's proposals would make about 400 companies share some or

all of its -- their activities worth world from -- worldwide, but we can

do more. By requiring this information to be published, not

only will HMIC see the bigger picture so will we. Publication is

one way to ensure that these companies explain their tax planning

but also restore the tarnished reputations. I believe it would

deter companies from using tax havens and shell companies, sent a

strong signal to developing countries. Charities say that

developing countries lose more in potential revenue each year owing to

corporate tax dodging than the amount given annually in overseas

aid by all richer countries. That made me stop and think. Stop and

think about how much more we could do to enable developing countries to

prosper and be more self-sufficient through measures such as my Bill. Ed

is vital for pro-relations, but just as important is a hand-out, -- hand

up, not just a hand-out. That will not happen unless we force this

companies to come clean. I looked the Chancellor for support with my

Bill, and I may be onto a winner when the budget is announced

tomorrow. I reminded the Chancellor in the letter that this Bill is in

keeping with his own sentiments, when in February he told an

international meeting of finance ministers, "I think we should be

moving to more public, country by country reporting, this is something

the UK will seek to promote internationally." I agree, but I say

to the Chancellor, why wait? The tide is turning against secrecy,

with business led organisations encouraging firms to be open about

their taxes and not to use tax havens. It's immoral's budget or the

Finance Bill that follows, the Government can adopt this measure

and be in front of the pack. -- in tomorrow's budget. We all want

successful companies in the UK, as do our constituents. But we want

them to pay fair tax. Too many multinational companies seem to be

choosing the tax they want to pay, rather than paying the tax they

should pay, by a complicated international arrangement. The

winners from public reporting are the Government, HMIC, those

businesses and taxpayers who have already paid fair taxes, and

developing countries who are losing out. But multinationals should not

see this as a threat, but as an opportunity to

restore the reputation of their brand. They can be winners as well.

My Bill has received support from right honourable and honourable

members across the House, I am so delighted to have received support

from ten of my colleagues reflecting all the political parties on the

Public Accounts Committee. Members from five separate parties have

agreed to sponsor the Bill. And I thank them for that. It is time for

multinational corporations to come clean and play fair with Government

and the public. And we can start with the UK. In the interests of

social justice, fairness and yes, it -- good business, I commend the Bill

to the House. Vote-macro As many as are of the

opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no".

I think the ayes have it. Who will repair -- prepare and bring in the

Bill. Karen Smith, Anne-Marie Trevelyan,

Nigel Mills, Dame Margaret Hodge, Stephen Kinnock, Jeremy Lefroy,

Doctor Philippa Whitford, Mark Durkan and myself.

Multinational Eterprises financial transparency. Friday, 22nd of April.

Clark will now read the orders. Investigated powers. How he received

a communication from the government, about the interception of

Communications department, under those bill, if the government

decides to intercept the communications of members of

Parliament, they have got to consult the Prime Minister, is it not wise

we consider you as well? You have to ensure the independence of this

Parliament, it is surely not correct that one part of the executive

should and does it communications, and the head should authorise?

Nobody should be judged, in his or her own course. I am here merely to

serve. It is good, of the honourable gentleman, to put me for this

voluntarily rule. Those should be the judge. But I do note the

substantive point, and if you sure that the Home Secretary will have

heard what he has to say. If she does not respond to his point, he

will probably make it again, and again, and conceivably, again. To

move the second reading, the Home Secretary. Thank you Mr Speaker. Mr

Speaker, before I began, members of the house will be aware of the death

of a prison officer attacked ten days ago in east Belfast. The

deepest sympathies, to his friends, family and colleagues. Consolidating

the country's investigative powers, inner wheel all that will stand the

test of time. Over the last two years, detailed analysis of those

investigatory powers,, consultation with law enforcement, intelligence

agencies, and industry. And following the publication of the

draft last autumn, scrutiny by a joint committee of both Houses of

Parliament, and the science and technology committee. I want to

begin by placing an Rickard, my gratitude to the cheer people of

those committees, and noble lord Murphy, for the work that those

members have undertaken. The scrutiny has helped to improve the

bill, reflecting the majority of recommendations. The revised bill is

clearer. It includes stronger privacy, bolstering protection, and

prevents agencies from asking foreign agencies to intercept

communications, unless the other one and approved by the Secretary of

State. It reduces the amount of ten, in which urgent warrants must be

reviewed, from five to three. And it strengthens the perils of the

Commissioner. Alongside introduction of the bill, also records of

practice, so that they could be reviewed. Under this bill... The

present system, to be reduced to one, can the Secretary of State

convince the house, it is in the interests of freedom and democracy,

that we reduce the number of commissioners? I have to say to the

honourable gentleman, one person overseeing the commission, they will

have an dobbing a number of judicial commissioners. Extensive expedience,

undertaking tasks, the question of the new process of authorisation.

Also, undertaking the inspection and review of the operation of the

agencies. In the way the three have so far. This is actually going to

enhance the oversight. Mr Speaker, the scrutiny that this bill has

undergone, builds upon the previous work of the Intelligence and

Security Committee, the independent enquiry, into the practices,

convened by the Royal United services, and carried out by David

Allison QC. All the reviews made clear, that legislation made clear

the of communications needed to be consolidated and made clear. Taken

together, the scrutiny that this has received could be without

precedence. Three reports informed the drafting. The committees then

scrutinise that, I now that precedes, for proper consideration

by both Houses of Parliament. This bill will provide world leading

information. It is going to provide unparalleled openness, treat the

stronger safeguards and establish a rigorous oversight fishing. The data

prevention act, which it intends to replace, contains a sunset clause,

requiring us to pass legislation by the end of 2016. This is the team

table set by Parliament. And threats we face mean we have to. Terrorists

are operating online, with the region that has never existed

before. They will continue to do so, so long as it gives them a perceived

advantage. We must ensure that those charged with keeping us safe are

able to keep his. This will provide the intelligence agencies with the

peril that they need, and it will ensure that they can continue the

tremendous work that so often goes unreported. To protect the people of

this country, from those who mean heart. -- harm. The Intelligence and

Security Committee concluded that privacy protection should form the

backbone of the legislation, that is indeed the case. It's strictly

limits the public authorities can use these investigatory powers, has

the sort, and sets it in more detail the safeguards that are to the

material obtained. Bill starts with an assumption of privacy, and

communication, part one provides an offence for unlawful interception,

it can be resulting in a custodial sentence. Recklessly obtaining

communication data, without lawful organisation. Misuse of these

powers, by police, and other authorities would be the penalties.

And it abolishes the powers, to obtain communications data. Public

authorities would in future only be able to obtain the minute you

through the powers, in this Bill. Can I thank the Home Secretary. We

know that their internet service providers are vulnerable, to

hacking. Some newspapers, not adverse to passing brown envelopes.

Is the Home Secretary satisfied that this can prevent, that hacking,

access to an individual's personal information? In relation to the

investigatory powers,, it sets out enhanced safeguards, for those

arrangements. As the honourable gentleman will know, issues of

inappropriate access to information have been a matter of court cases.

It is tightly correct that these matters are being accessed

criminally, that should be good with. What I have just set out, new

offences with this. Dealing with questions, or people obtaining

knowingly or recklessly, communications data. She will know

that I am a supporter of this. But does she have my concerns, looking

at international human rights, Imogen European crevasses, --

emerging European privacy laws, even if this bill became an act of

Parliament, could she foresee any problems, internationally? The

honourable gentleman raises an important point. Many of the

internet service providers, based in other countries. One of the other

issues that we have been continuing to progress, discussions with the

United States authorities, about the Christian under which circumstances

it is possible to ensure that warrants issued there, can be

exercised across the United States. We are always have had territorial

jurisdiction, the previously pro-government that introduced the

legislation also establish that jurisdiction. It has never been

tested but we have that discussion with the united states. The Home

Secretary recently met with my constituents. Barry. 14-year-old

son, groomed online then murdered. Could the Home Secretary explain how

the bill would help prevent any similar cases? Absolutely tragic

case. I know the enormous distress that was caused. Not just by the

grooming. But other actions, that have taken place and is. What we are

doing with them this legislation, I think is ensuring that the

authorities, more enforcement, the police, will have powers to be able

to better investigate those sort of incidents. Sadly, the incident that

led to that date. Restricting the use of powers outside of the

legislation, for equipment interference. The police or

intelligence agencies, wishing to interfere with the smartphone, to

obtain vital evidence, I warrant would be required. And it also

responds to the recommendations of the Intelligence and Security

Committee, placing a statutory suspension, for other countries to

intercept communications of somebody and United Kingdom. No suggestion

that the agencies could use international relationships to avoid

the safeguards. And for the avoidance of doubt, to answer some

questions, I cultivate the territorial jurisdiction, I meant

extraterritorial destruction. The house is going to know that the

interception of community should, listening to a telephone, is one of

the most sensitive and intrusive capabilities available to more

enforcement. It is also one of the most valuable. Over the past

decades, interception has played a part in every top piracy, --

priortity MI5 cases. In the interests of national security,

economic well-being the United Kingdom. Authorising warrants is one

of the most important means, by which the secretaries can hold

law-enforcement to account for their actions. We had accountable to the

host, through elected representatives to the public. But

part two is going to introduce an important new safeguards. As

Secretary of State, they will need to be satisfied that the activity is

proportionate. But in future, it cannot be issued until a decision to

issue it has been formally approved by the judicial Commissioner. This

will place a double what, organisation, preserving the vital

element of democratic accountability, but introduce

independent judicial authorisation. I am grateful to the honourable

lady. She may have seen a letter in today's Guardian from a number of

lawyers, which suggested that this legislation was intended to give

generalised access to electronic communications content. Which she

agree that that is the very thing which this Bill does not actually do

at all? And that the double lock mechanism is there as an assurance

that it doesn't happen. My right honourable friend is right, the

point about this Bill is that it will only be possible to access, to

intercept communications, under this dual authority, this double lock

that has been put into place, and it is not the case that the authorities

are looking for a generalised access to the contents of communications. I

thank my right honourable friend for bringing that to the attention of

the House. I will give way to my right honourable friend. As she

quite rightly says, should -- this is an important power but also a

very sensitive one. She exercised it about two and a thousand times a

year, about ten times a working day. How long does she take typically

over one of these decisions? It is impossible to put a time on it

because each decision differs. The amount of information that's

available, the type of case, the extent to which it we refer -- may

refer to a matter already being considered, so the amount of time

and give to each case is the amount of time necessary to make the right

judgment each case. -- to each case. There have also been cases where

police misconduct is alleged and intercept has been used, and

subsequently it has been hard to use that in the -- evidence in front of

a jury, particularly one in a coroner's court. Does she envisage

any change in relation to that, is she minded to put that on the face

of the legislation? He has raised an important point, he will be aware of

one particular case in recent years where this has been the case,

whether question of the admissibility of evidence at an

inquest has been an issue. This is a matter we are not putting on the

face of this Bill, it is a matter that was explored previously when

the closed material proceedings were in certain cases, but we are looking

actively at whether there are other means in which we can ensure that

the appropriate information is available when those sorts of cases

are being considered. And someone who also has signed thousands of

these warrants, I think I would have welcomed this judicial commissioner

having a look as well, and I congratulate my right honourable

friend on making this very significant came -- change. Does she

recall in the Bill, which additional commissioner who will only have the

powers to act in the same way that a judge might act in a case of

judicial review? Which means only overruling her if she is behaving in

some completely unreasonable way. Does she think that is necessary,

and should not accept that might be some value if age additional

commissioner disagrees with her in at least having a discussion which

covers broader principles of judgment and doesn't just base it on

the fact that she is somehow behaving in a way no reasonable man

or woman otherwise would. My right honourable friend, with a degree of

prescience, has referred to the next issue I was going to address. I was

going to point out that I know that some honourable and right honourable

members had scrutinised the language in the Bill and had raised exactly

this issue. I want to be clear about this. Under the Bill it will be for

the traditional commissioner to decide the nature and extent of the

scrutiny that he or she wishes to apply. And crucially I think I can

reassure honourable and right honourable members that

commissioners will have access to all of the material that was put the

Secretary of State. So the traditional commissioner will not

just be looking at the process but will actually be able to look at the

excessive -- proportionality of the warrant being proposed. I would like

to make a little progress... A little supplementary, if I may? It

is more than my life's worth not to give way to for my cube -- Home

Secretary! Sometimes the information is very simple, very limited. Will

the traditional commissioner have the ability to ask for more

information which has not gone before the Home Secretary, if he or

she, the Jewish additional commissioner really wishes to know a

bit more about this one, to check what has been put towards -- for the

Home Secretary? -- traditional commissioner. It is important that

the Secretary of State of age additional commissioner make

decisions on the basis of the same information being available. If the

traditional commissioner decides there is not sufficient information,

he or she would refuse that warrant. It would be open to the Secretary of

State to appeal to the investigatory Powers commissioner to look at that

particular one again, or it might be if it had been refused in that

circumstance that actually the Secretary of State would say

themselves, take the warrant back, put more information back and

resubmit that warrant. I will give way to the Scottish national

spokesman. On a point of clarification, regarding the letter

to the Guardian, is the honourable lady aware that what this letter is

taking issue with is bulk interception warrants and bulk

equipment interference warrants, which even the ISC said should be

removed from the Bill? I will come onto the issue of mock warrants, but

what was clear from the committee reports that came forward was that

the powers that are in this Bill are necessary. The ISC raised a question

the bulky equipment interception warrants. The Government has been

able to produce further information on all bog cases, following that. We

published some case studies, examples of how these powers would

be used. -- bulk cases. I will give way to the honourable lady.

Can I take her to the other end of the telescope on this matter,

because one of the concerns people have about a generalised access

point is not with the warrants, but with the notion that you can

separate out contact and content. But the idea that there would be

access to content date -- contact -- contact data, which would be blurred

with content data online. Does she accept there is a challenge Re:

separating contact and content data. It is not the same as a phone record

when you look at somebody's intimate correspondence.

I know this issue was -- Internet correspondence.

I know this issue was raised, and has been raised in relation to the

Internet connection records power. But it is absolutely possible, and

we have been talking at length with the companies, to be able to

separate in Internet connection records for example the device or a

website that a particular device has accessed, and not then go into the

content of whatever it is that is being looked at in relation to that.

It is very important that I make that clear, because when -- we're

not talking about looking at people's Web browsing history,

simply that initial of contact. Can I also say in relation to the

authorisation process we have been discussing in relation to questions

raised by my right honourable and learned member for Rushcliffe, but I

welcome the joint committees clear endorsement of the double knock

regime. And I have to say to members of this House that those who think

that the senior division should -- judiciary will simply rubber-stamp

decisions, have simply never with protest judges. The provisions have

also been tightened in response to pre-legislative scrutiny, in

response -- in regard to urgent warrants. If I may make a little

more progress. In urgent circumstances such as a fast-moving

kidnap investigation, a warrant can still come into force as soon as the

Secretary of State has authorised it, but if this -- commissioner

disagrees with the Secretary's decision, he can agree that all

material will be destroyed. The Bill also provides sufficient safeguards

for parliamentarians and lawyers' communications. In any case where it

is proposed to intercept parliamentarians' communications,

the Prime Minister would be consulted. As for legally privileged

communications, it can also -- only be accessed in specific situations.

Such as in the context of the loss of life. But of course members of

Parliament should not be above the law, and the procedure would ensure

that members -- we all recognise that. But in some of the most dodgy

regimes of which I was of course is not one, governments do intercept

communications of members of Parliament, so surely an extra

safeguard to be absolutely assured would be that the Speaker looked at

this as well. Why not? I heard his exchange with the Mr Speaker

earlier. I think the important extra safeguard being put in, there are

two, the first is on the face of the Bill that the Prime Minister will be

consulted, but also it has that double knock authorisation, so it is

the case that in future interception of anybody's warrant, including

members of parliament, should that be the case, will not just be

subject to the determination of a democratically elected individual

but will also be subject to the independent decision of the

judiciary, through the judicial commissioners. I think that is an

important safeguard. She was right to point to the patchy relationship

between the judiciary and governments of all colours, but I

think the Bill strikes the right balance. It strikes me as being

absolutely imperative, somebody who is democratically accountable this

House in the country, has almost the first say on whether these things

are going to be done. Perfectly right for a judge properly trained

to have an overdue asthma overview of it, -- but if we were to lose

this provision, that would be a retrograde step. I think we have got

the balance right, many people have said just have judicial

authorisation, some believe it should just be Secretary of State

authorisation. I think having the two we get that Democratic began --

accountability. I will make some progress if I may, my honourable

friend may try again but I will make some progress because I wanted to

know to communications data. That is the who, when, where, and how of a

communication. Such communications data is vital to investigations

carried out by the police and security agencies. It has been used

and 95% of all organised crime prosecutions by the CPO, it is used

to investigate, understand and disrupt terrorist prompts -- plots,

it has played a part in the investigation of some very serious

crime cases, it can tie suspects and victims to a crime scene, proved or

disproved alibis, and it can help to locate a missing child or adult.

Part three and four of the Bill will therefore proved -- preserve this

power for the police and security agencies, but also provide strong

privacy safeguards. Requests for communications data will require the

approval of an independent designated senior officer. In

addition, requests by local authorities also require

authorisation by a magistrate, and requests by any public authority,

including the security and intelligence agencies, to identify a

journalist's source, will require the authorisation knowledge

additional commissioner. It doesn't make sense that were communication

takes place using social media communications applications, those

communications are currently out of reach. In respect of our -- online

child sexual exploitation, the absence of these records often makes

it impossible to identify abusers. Such an approach defies logic and

ignores the realities of today's digital age. So the only new power

in the Bill is the ability to acquire communications services

providers to retain Internet service connection records. I want to be

quite clear and reiterate what I said earlier, the Internet

connection records do not provide access to a person's full web

browsing history. It is a record of what Internet services, a device or

a person has connected to, not every web page they have visited. I am

pleased that the joint committee agreed with the Government on the

necessity of this power and concluded that on balance, there is

a case for Internet connection records as an important tool for law

enforcement. Is a indeed, the committee went

further, and said law enforcement should be able to investigate for a

wider range of purposes, that reflects the recommendations. I

generally don't much -- give way to the honourable gentleman. The joint

committee also wanted clarification, on what those records were, and I

would welcome the Home Secretary's students, that the capability was

available for the retention of those records. At at whose course? We have

clarified definitions, that was a point that was clarified not only by

the committee, but the science and technology committee. Also, add

looking at this particular issue, we have spent a long time, and continue

to spend a long time, discussing with the companies who will

potentially be subject to such notices, the technicalities. But

different companies operate in different ways, I reiterate the

point that I have made previously, that the government will reimburse

the operational cost that these companies will be subject to. As has

been cynically deviously. -- said previously. It is important, because

I support the Home Secretary's objectives, but then fell is going

to cost about 180 million. As she satisfied, that that would cover the

cost of implementation of such that skill? -- scale? The raised that

with me. We have been discussing in detail, issues about the technical

arrangements, for intimate detection to lawful record, but also that the

costs that the government is going to be prepared, as it is just now,

to provide for those costs. The Home Secretary has been very generous. We

welcome the improvements that have been made, but I hope the Home

Secretary received my letter, the concerns, because we think that the

technology capability notices, remain an earlier of uncertainty. --

area. Despite the commitments that have been made from the dispatch

box, we need long-term certainty, regarding reimbursement of costs.

This would be central to the loving the court heard and legislation, fit

for a fast moving area of the economy. We need the still with as

quickly as possible. Can I reiterate, to my honourable friend,

100% of the compliance costs will be met by the government. She has asked

me to provide a long-term commitment, we have been clearer in

terms of the legislation, but it is not possible for one government to

buy into the hands of any future government. In addition, alongside

the codes of practice, I have at the request of the joint committee,

published by comparison, those set out by Denmark. And I have held

discussions, with united States communication providers, and we will

continue to work closely with them as we implement this. As a guarantee

of this, we have included a commitment that the Home Secretary

will report to Parliament on how the bill has been operating after six

years, if Parliament agrees it is the intention that the joint

committee of both houses will be formed after five years of the bill

receiving joint ascent, we can inform the Home Secretary's report.

Part five deals with increment. Such as computers, smartphones. I'm

bringing existing powers, and responding to the recommendations

made by David Anderson QC. It makes the use subject to the use of

warrants, approved by the judicial Commissioner. Honourable member is

well-known that not only are these available to more enforcement, but

vital to so much work. This capability is also used in

exceptional circumstances, most typically to identify missing

people. For example, when a child goes missing, and parents know the

passwords to social media, they should be able to use that. It makes

clear that they can be used to save lives. Nevertheless, intrusive, and

it must be limited. In future, all of this will require the approval of

the judicial Commissioner. Equipment interference wants me only be of

documentation service providers with the agreement of the Secretary of

State. Alongside these codes of practice, in response to

recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee, we published

a case, about how it can be used, and is more necessary than ever

before. Of course, limits to how much can be said about these

capabilities, without having an advantage given to criminals. For

that reason, intelligence agencies have provided more detail on this,

to the committee. Bulk powers are vital. They have played a

significant part in every major counterterrorism event, in each of

the seven plots stopped since November 20 14. Detecting 95% of

cyber attacks, identified by GCHQ. And they have enabled over 90% of

the targeted military operations, during the campaign in the south of

Afghanistan. Part six places these powers on a clear footing. In

future, bulk warrants will need to be issued by double lock. And it

would need to be for operational purposes, and an independent judge.

Although all liberal members will the Home Secretary agree, it is not

in fact prevent parliamentarians, Skip top by collection provisions,

or with communications data, or at internet connection records, that

could lead to result was being identified. A variety of responses

that I would give. She needs to know, that predominantly, bulk

powers, used for foreign usage. In the use of bulk powers, still that

doubletalk authorisation. It is subject to the same case, the

proportionality. Mr Speaker, part seven applies the same safeguards.

Information of this tape is already used by the security and

intelligence agencies, to keep us safe, and could be required under

existing powers, but it uses the seat detections, so that it is

always subject to strong safeguards, irrespective of how was required. I

have said that the privacy safeguards are part of this, and the

guarantors will be adhered to, the new investigatory Commissioner. The

Commissioner, who will hold, or her field judicial office, will oversee

a new body, bringing together existing responsibilities, the

interception of communication, and the Chief surveillance Commissioner.

The new powers Commissioner will be given an enhanced budget, and a

dedicated staff of inspectors, as well as technical experts and

independent advisers. They will have access to the agencies, and remit to

provide Parliament and the public with meaningful the assurance about

how it has been used. When somebody has suffered, as a result of serious

error, they can inform the victim, without the need to consult the

tribunal. It can award compensation, take other action and fuse

appropriate. I turn to part nine. That provides for request to be made

to internet service providers, for technical capabilities in order to

give warrants, and maintain the ability to provide communications,

let me be clear, this provision only maintains the status quo. It allows

law enforcement and security agencies to ask companies, to remove

encryption, that has been applied for on the behalf. It could not be

used to ask companies to do anything it is not reasonably practical for

them to do. Finally, alongside the bill, we have taken for the

recommendation made to develop an international framework, so that

international companies can do so, and we are in discussion. It is

drafted to accommodate any such agreement, any company call

operating, would not be subject to enforcement action through the

courts. Mr Speaker, this bill provides unparalleled transparency,

on the most robust safeguards, but it will also provide law enforcement

and intelligence agencies with the powers that they need to keep us

safe. Because it is important, it has been subject to unprecedented

levels of scrutiny, it has resulted in a bill that protects privacy and

security. It is truly world leading. I look forward to the revised bill,

receiving cheerful consideration, and I commend it to the house. The

question, the Bill be read a second time. Andy Burnham. I echo the

condolences, paid to the police officer, who lost his life on his

duties. Let me start with the principle, that I think we have

broad agreement. From those ventures, to these, from the party

to the security services, we have a consensus that the country needs to

update its laws in this area. If the police and security services are to

be given these powers, broad agreement that those powers be

balanced, with stronger safeguards for the public that previously

existed. That seems a good platform from which to start. This bill is

commonly seen, through the prism of terrorism, bucket is much more, if

you were the parents of a missing child, you would want the police to

have access to all the information to bring them to safety. This is

about the ability to locate missing children, preventing extremists,

creating hatred, and though defending the liberties that we all

enjoy. But we are some way, from finding a consensus, in the form

that this legislation should take. The months after I was elected, two

planes flew into the WTC in New York. 15 years since, we have always

been engaged in a frantic search, the right balance between privacy,

and collective security. As of yet, we have not managed to find out. The

arguments in this bill, the last Parliament, loom over the debate

today, as does the stand-off between Apple and the FBI. That is an

unhelpful backdrop to this debate, it suggests that it is in

reconcilable, a question of either or, choosing one or the other. I do

not fully that is the case. We all have an interest in maximising

individual privacy, and collective security. At the House of Commons,

the objective should be to give constituents both. Finding that

balance, it should be the task over the next nine months. The simple

fact, Britain needs a new law in this area. A great opposition, risks

sinking this, leaving the interim laws in place. To go along with

that, abdicate responsibility to the police, security services and most

importantly the public. I am not prepared to do that. Just as

importantly, it would leave the public with weaker safeguards, and I

am not prepared to do that. He rightly says that this bill will

help fight terrorism. Will he join me in welcoming these powers to

fight cyber crime and financial crime and join me to vote for it? I

won't be joining him in the lobby tonight because I don't believe the

bill is acceptable in its current form, as I will go on to explain. As

he will have heard from my opening remarks, I have broad agreement with

the objectives of the government and I do not seek to play politics with

the bill or drag it down and I hope you will find some assurance in

those words. I am grateful. His position doesn't sound particularly

persuasive or tenable cobber certainly to those outside this

place. I wonder what he thinks about the message it sends, from the

supposedly government in waiting, that instead of thrashing out the

detail when the bill goes to report, by abstaining this evening the

message will be clear of what the Labour Party things on this

important issue. I disappear entirely -- disagree. We will not

oppose it, we will be responsible. I recognise that the country needs a

new law but I also think that the government will is not yet worthy of

the support, because there are significant weaknesses in the bill.

I am not prepared, I am sorry, to go through the lobby tonight and give

his government a blank cheque. I want to see changes in the Bill, to

strengthen the bill, and when they listen they will earn our support

and that seems to me to be into highly appropriate and responsible

for an opposition party. The higher degree of consensus we can establish

behind the bill, the more we will create the right climate in the

country for its introduction. As the Home Secretary said, possibly create

a template that can be copied around the world, advancing the cause of

human rights in the 21st-century. The prize is great and that is why I

ask this side to work constructively towards it and why I will repeat

today that I don't think our mission is helped by misrepresentation. In

my view it is lazy to label this bill a snooper's charter or a plan

for mass surveillance. Worse, it is insulting to people who work in the

police and security services. It implies they choose to do the jobs

they do because they are busybodies who like to spy on the public rather

than serve the public. I don't accept that characterisation, it is

fair and it do ministry -- diminishes the difficult work they

do to keep us safe. I will give way. Thank you. Will he agree that the

three independent reviewers all agreed that our services

categorically don't carry out mass surveillance and work within the

boundaries of the legislation. I agree, and the idea that they might

do, that they have time to do that is fanciable -- fanciful. They go to

the people that they need to be concerned about and that is why I

reject the characterisation often placed on this legislation. What

does he make on the United Nations special member for privacy, who last

week criticised the bill, saying authorising this interception would

legitimise mass surveillance? We need to explore the plans in detail

as part of this bill. As I said, I don't accept that this is a plan for

mass surveillance but we need to work harder in the next nine months

to take those concerns are away. In a moment. With all of the concerns,

all of the points I have made, I have to say that there are concerns

that people have about this bill that are well founded. There is a

genuine worry, we just heard it, that providing for the accumulation

of large amounts of personal data presents risks to people's privacy

and online security. In a moment. There is a more specific worry, that

investigatory powers can be of -- abused and in fact have been in the

past. In recent years they have been revelations about how bereaved

families, Justice campaigners, environmental campaigners,

journalists and trade unionists have all been subject to inappropriate

police investigation. What justification could there ever have

been for the Metropolitan Police to put the noble Baroness Lawrence and

her family under surveillance? Although it has not been proven, I

know the Hillsborough strongly suspect that the same was done to

them. I give way to the honourable gentleman. I thank him. A lot of the

debate has been about looking into people's files. This should be about

victims, it should be about children who have been victims of crime. Has

he had any representations from most charities that wrecked -- represent

victims of crime and children's charities? I have had them, the

government has had them. This is about more than terrorism, it is

about giving the police and security services the tools they need to keep

us safe in the 21st-century. That is why I am not playing politics with

this bill. I actually take quite a careful and considered approach. But

the government has not yet done enough to earn my support. I have a

lot of respect for the honourable gentleman. Can I congratulate him on

what he said about rejecting the conspiracy theories about this being

a snooper's charter. A second reading of the bill is when you

agree or disagree with the principle of the bill. He has said he agrees

with the principle and there are many behind him, or in the Labour

Party, who agree with that. Surely the opportunity today is to vote for

the principal Bill at second reading and then scrutinise it upstairs. The

right thing would be to support the government tonight. I will let him

form his own view on the right parliamentary tactics but I will be

deciding that position and I say to him that I don't think I will be

serving the public simply to give the government a blank check this

evening. It is my job, wait a second, my job to hold them to

account, to protect the public as best I can through this bill, and I

am approaching the job of Her Majesty's opposition with the utmost

responsibility. Alongside bereaved families there have been cases of

journalists claiming material was inappropriately seized from them,

most recently in connection with the Plebgate affair. Last year a senior

police officer turned whistle-blower came to an event in Parliament and

said that he and a colleague had been involved in supplying

information that led to the blacklisting of construction

workers. For those who claim that these fears are exaggerated, I would

refer them to the biggest unresolved case of this kind, the 1972 National

building workers' strike and the convictions of 24 pickets known as

the Shrewsbury 24. It is widely believed that their prosecution was

politically orchestrated with the help of the police and the security

services. I will give way to somebody, my honourable friend who

knows a great deal and has been a champion of those fighting for

justice. I thank him and he mentions the Shrewsbury pickets, a stark

example of the misuse and abuse of state power, so therefore does he

agree that it is essential that there are the strongest possible

safeguards within the bill that would specifically make sure that

such historic injustices can never happen again, such as the

politically motivated incarceration of pickets in 1972? He puts it very

well and that is why fears about legislation of this kind, indeed on

these benches, because we know the truth of what happened, even though

it is not widely known by the public, because we have seen

documents in relation to it. I have here a memo from the security

services to a senior Foreign Office official. It is headed, secret, and

it talks about the preparation of a TV programme that went out about the

trial of the Shrewsbury pickets. At the top it says, we had a discreet

but considerable hand in this programme. That is from the security

services, so why wouldn't people on these benches fear the handing of

more power to the police and security services without there

being adequate safeguards? I am grateful. Before the honourable

member for wreaking intervenes, everything is being done perfectly

right but I advise the House that 48 backbenchers wish to contribute.

Those who have the floor or seek the floor might wish to take account of

that. I will be brief, but the Shadow Home Secretary is right to

point out where abuses have taken place but does he also recognise

that in this bill is a new offence of misusing communications data,

something he should welcome? I am going to come onto that very point,

but these are not historical matters because the convictions still stand

today. What I would say to him, and I pay tribute to his government,

because they have a good record on this, but we need to go further in

giving the full truth about some of the darkest chapters in our past so

we can learn from them and build the right safeguards into this

legislation. This bill will have failed unless it entirely rules out

the possibility that abuses of the kind I have mentioned could ever

happen again and that is the clear test I am setting for this bill but

also why I welcome the principle of it. It leaves behind the murky world

of policing in the 1970s, 80s and 90s and creates the possibility of

having an open framework that includes much improved safeguards

for ordinary people. We are far from that goal yet. It is clear that the

Home Secretary has been listening and has responded to the reports of

the three parliamentary committees but of the 122 recommendations in

the three reports the government has reflect dead less than half of them

in this revised bill. I say to the Home Secretary she will need to be

prepared to listen more and make further significant changes to the

bill if she is to achieve her goal of getting it onto the statute book

by December. Today I take the House through six specific concerns. The

first is on privacy. As I said at the beginning, people have a right

to want to maximise their personal privacy. Given the worries people

have about the misuse of data, the intelligence and to committee was

surely right to put privacy concerns at the heart of this bill.

Presumption of Agassi would provide the basis from which exceptional

powers are drawn. -- the presumption of privacy. It would ensure clarity

that any intrusions into it would require exceptional justification.

The Home Secretary said that privacy was hard-wired into the bill. I find

it hard to accept that statement from the changes that have been

made. I see them as more cosmetic changes and they have not directly

answered the concerns of the committee. I asked the government to

reflect further and include much stronger, overwrite Ching privacy

requirement as requested by the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Also on privacy, we do not yet believe the government has gone far

enough to protect the role of sensitive professions. The committee

noted that the safeguards for some professions must be provided right

across the bill Mamat what investigative repower is being used.

It is hard to see how that is being achieved at the moment. On MPs and

other elected representatives, there is a question as to why the bill

stops short of requiring the Prime Minister to rip -- to approve a

warrant and only be consulted upon one. It could be -- strengthened

there. On legal privilege, the Law Society have said they previewed --

please do see the government has abolished legal and professional or

village they say it should be on the face of the bill, not just in the

codes. -- professional privilege. Relations between Members of

Parliament and whistle-blower out -- whistle-blowers, mammals of

Parliament and each other, they should all be protected. -- Members

of Parliament. It does need to be strengthened in respect of Prime

Minister real approval but also in the way he describes, to give

people, our constituents, that extra trust that if they come to speak to

us in our surgery they will be speaking to us and nobody else. I

give way. Matters of acute public concern,

whistle-blowers, does he think that one member of the government should

authorise that, and it should be revealed to the Prime Minister,

effectively his own court? It is at least arguable, some of scrutiny? I

think the Home Secretary indicated, there would be, because the decision

of the Home Secretary would also be applicable to the double lock. My

point, why should the Prime Minister only be consulted as part of that

process? It seems to me, a role for the Prime Minister to be approving.

Also, I question about journalists, and the National union believes it

has been weakening, clause 66 out the revelation of the process, with

regards to sources, and given the degree of trust that people need,

given that importance to democracy, to win the trust and support and

also the use of communications data, and internet connection records, to

intercept the equivalent interviewed inside the other. It is a real

concern, that the thresholds are either too, low, or too vague. The

Home Secretary, has previously described ICRs, as the phone bill,

that is the detection and prevention of any crime. But the joint

committee noted that is not a helpful description, ICRs will

reveal much more than an itemised telephone bill, revealing places

that people have visited. So the question, is it acceptable for this

level of personal information to be accessed, in relation to any crime,

anti-social behaviour, and motoring offences. I do not think so. And I

think a higher hurdle is needed. This is a critical question that the

government have to respond for. People believe that if ICRs become

sufficient, then it could be the potential for this to be must used.

They have two set stricter tests, for prevention of seedy as crimes,

missing people. That should be the case, and the other end of the

skill, the justification for using the most intrusive powers, national

security or economic well-being. I understand the need for operational

flexibility, but a long-standing concern that those tests are too

broad. Our feeling that national security has been used, to cover a

multitude of sins. And official papers, from that building work

straight, in 1972, still papers with field. How could that be justified?

Clearly, a point that is being brought up about proportionality.

Slightly odd. The bill itself mentions proportionality. It seems

odd. It is actually in the bill. I do not believe that it is. National

security, very broad term. It is not defined. Activities carried out in

the past, under the banner of national security. He would struggle

to justify as such. The problem with the economic well-being test, a

potentially opens up a much wider range of activities, it must only be

relevant, to national security. Just relevant, to national security. It