Browse content similar to 06/06/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Line | From | To | |
---|---|---|---|
that we are living longer but it is ultimately local authorities key | :00:00. | :00:00. | |
jobs to provide the housing needs for their local residents. We must | :00:00. | :00:08. | |
move on. Urgent question Sir William Cash. Will be Home Secretary explain | :00:09. | :00:16. | |
how she would addressed her continued failure to remove 13,000 | :00:17. | :00:21. | |
foreign national offenders are remaining in UK's prisons and | :00:22. | :00:25. | |
communities and specifically the removal of EU prisoners who make up | :00:26. | :00:29. | |
as much as 42% of all foreign national offenders in prison back to | :00:30. | :00:38. | |
their EU countries of origin? In the first instance, he should stick to | :00:39. | :00:42. | |
the terms of the question. The grin on his face means he knows he has | :00:43. | :00:53. | |
gone a bit beyond the boundary. He certainly should not be locked up! | :00:54. | :01:05. | |
The Home Secretary. Mr Speaker, since 2010, the Government has | :01:06. | :01:11. | |
removed over 30,000 foreign national offenders including 5692 in the year | :01:12. | :01:18. | |
2015-2016, the highest number since records began. The number of | :01:19. | :01:22. | |
removals to other EU countries has more than tripled from 1019 in | :01:23. | :01:32. | |
2010-2011 to over 3000. We aim to deport all foreign national | :01:33. | :01:35. | |
offenders at the earliest opportunity, however the | :01:36. | :01:41. | |
documentation barriers can frustrate immediate deportation. Over 6500 of | :01:42. | :01:53. | |
the F and Os are still serving a custodial sentence. The Ministry of | :01:54. | :01:58. | |
Justice has been working to remove EU prisoners and the framework | :01:59. | :02:02. | |
decision which is a compulsory means of prisoner transfer that allows us | :02:03. | :02:07. | |
to send foreign criminals back to their home countries to serve their | :02:08. | :02:12. | |
sentences. The record number of deportations achieved has been due | :02:13. | :02:19. | |
to changes made by the Government. We have introduced to deport first | :02:20. | :02:24. | |
appeal later power which means offenders may only appeal against | :02:25. | :02:27. | |
deportation from their home country unless they will face a real risk of | :02:28. | :02:31. | |
serious irreversible harm there. More than 3000 foreign national | :02:32. | :02:37. | |
offenders have been removed since this came into force and many more | :02:38. | :02:40. | |
are going through the system. The police now routinely carry out | :02:41. | :02:44. | |
checks for overseas criminal convictions on foreign nationals | :02:45. | :02:47. | |
arrested and referred them for deportation. In 2015, the UK made | :02:48. | :02:52. | |
over 100,000 requests for EU criminal record checks, an increase | :02:53. | :03:01. | |
of 1000% compared with 2010 and in December, the European Council | :03:02. | :03:05. | |
agreed conviction data relating to terrorists should be shared | :03:06. | :03:08. | |
systematically. We must never give up trying to improve our ability to | :03:09. | :03:14. | |
deal with foreign national offenders. We have legislated to GPS | :03:15. | :03:19. | |
tag foreign national offenders and we are legislating to establish | :03:20. | :03:24. | |
nationality as early as possible to avoid delays. Before 2010, there was | :03:25. | :03:31. | |
no plan for deporting national offenders. The rights were given a | :03:32. | :03:40. | |
greater weight than the public care. This Government has put in place a | :03:41. | :03:44. | |
strategy for removing foreign national offenders which has | :03:45. | :03:49. | |
increased removals, protecting the public and saving the taxpayer | :03:50. | :03:55. | |
money. Does the Home Secretary agreed that given that today the 6th | :03:56. | :04:00. | |
of June is the anniversary of the Normandy landings that those who | :04:01. | :04:04. | |
fought and died there did not do so to enable convicted EU rapists, | :04:05. | :04:08. | |
paedophiles and drug dealers who are now here in prison to be protected | :04:09. | :04:15. | |
under the new European human rights laws, including the European Charter | :04:16. | :04:19. | |
and the European Court and that they should be deported and the home | :04:20. | :04:22. | |
affairs committee were clearly right to indicate and I quote, that the | :04:23. | :04:29. | |
public will question the circumstances of the UK remaining in | :04:30. | :04:33. | |
the EU. Why has the Government failed to bring in our own bill of | :04:34. | :04:37. | |
rights and remove ourselves from the EU Charter and does this not make a | :04:38. | :04:41. | |
mockery of the Queen'sspeech that the Government is continuing to | :04:42. | :04:46. | |
uphold the sovereignty of Parliament in the privacy of the House of | :04:47. | :04:52. | |
Commons? I recognise that my honourable friend has his own | :04:53. | :04:56. | |
personal reasons for remembering very much the impact of the D-Day | :04:57. | :05:02. | |
landings and it is true that those who gave their lives on the beaches | :05:03. | :05:07. | |
of Normandy did so to protect our freedoms. This Government as I have | :05:08. | :05:13. | |
indicated have put in place a number of measures and we continue to work | :05:14. | :05:17. | |
to do more to ensure they can protect the public from those | :05:18. | :05:21. | |
serious criminals, rapists and others who may choose to come here | :05:22. | :05:24. | |
from whichever country of the world they choose to come here too. He | :05:25. | :05:30. | |
refers to the bill of rights, it is the Government's intention to bring | :05:31. | :05:39. | |
forward a bill of rights. I can assure him that the action the | :05:40. | :05:44. | |
Government has taken in rebalancing the interests of the public and the | :05:45. | :05:51. | |
interests of FNOs shows we take seriously ensuring the human rights | :05:52. | :05:54. | |
of the British public are recognised when we are dealing with these | :05:55. | :06:03. | |
issues. Whilst I congratulate the honourable member on securing this | :06:04. | :06:06. | |
question, I hope he won't be offended when I say I did not agree | :06:07. | :06:11. | |
with every word of his opportunistic election broadcast on behalf of the | :06:12. | :06:15. | |
leave campaign. Is it not plainly the case that this is not an EU | :06:16. | :06:20. | |
question but a question of the competence or lack of it of his | :06:21. | :06:24. | |
government and his Home Secretary? As last week's report makes clear, | :06:25. | :06:29. | |
while there has been progress on the deportation of foreign national | :06:30. | :06:33. | |
offenders, it has been too slow. Does the Home Secretary agreed with | :06:34. | :06:38. | |
what the Prime Minister told the committee in May when he said that | :06:39. | :06:42. | |
she and the Home Office should have done better on this issue? This is | :06:43. | :06:49. | |
not the first time she has been warned about these failings. The | :06:50. | :06:51. | |
National Audit Office found more than a third of failed removals were | :06:52. | :06:59. | |
in the Home Office's control and now we learn the problem is getting | :07:00. | :07:03. | |
worse. The select committee said it was concerned that there are nearly | :07:04. | :07:09. | |
6000 FNOs living in the community. Can the Home Secretary explain why | :07:10. | :07:15. | |
this figure is so high, how many are still subject to active deportation | :07:16. | :07:20. | |
proceedings, what is she doing to bring it down? She needs to get a | :07:21. | :07:23. | |
grip on this issue but will she agree with me that it's must each | :07:24. | :07:28. | |
year to do that whilst remaining part of the European Union and that | :07:29. | :07:32. | |
the thing would make it harder to deport people? Is it not the case | :07:33. | :07:38. | |
that the transfer agreement provides a framework to speed up the process | :07:39. | :07:45. | |
and is it not also true that access to the Schengen information system | :07:46. | :07:49. | |
and the European criminal records system help us stop criminals | :07:50. | :07:53. | |
arriving here and the European arrest warrant means they can be | :07:54. | :07:59. | |
brought to justice. Wouldn't give it is people be better off listening to | :08:00. | :08:03. | |
the police who said our membership of the EU helps us fight crime | :08:04. | :08:09. | |
rather than the scaremongering of the leave campaign? I have to say | :08:10. | :08:15. | |
that his earlier remarks don't sit very well with the facts are | :08:16. | :08:19. | |
presented to the Commons which is that last year, we deported a record | :08:20. | :08:22. | |
number of foreign national offenders. Should the Government be | :08:23. | :08:29. | |
doing more? Of course, you should always be doing more and looking to | :08:30. | :08:32. | |
ensure we can improve our ability to do that. He talks about the numbers | :08:33. | :08:38. | |
of people in the community, of course it is also the case that | :08:39. | :08:42. | |
because of the number of criminal record checks we are now taking with | :08:43. | :08:48. | |
other countries, we are getting a higher level of identification of | :08:49. | :08:52. | |
FNOs which is increasing the number that are available for us to deal | :08:53. | :08:57. | |
with and for all of them, we make every effort to deport them. On the | :08:58. | :09:02. | |
last point, I agree that actually it is easier for us to deal with these | :09:03. | :09:09. | |
issues as a member of the EU. He mentioned a number of tools | :09:10. | :09:15. | |
available to us. The figure I quoted, he has talked about that | :09:16. | :09:20. | |
Chris which means there is available information at the border which | :09:21. | :09:21. | |
would otherwise not be available. Who when I was the Home Secretary's | :09:22. | :09:36. | |
Justice Secretary, it was my job to get this EU wide agreement that | :09:37. | :09:40. | |
prisoners could be compulsorily returned to their own country whilst | :09:41. | :09:47. | |
serving prison sentences, and progress stems from the | :09:48. | :09:53. | |
bureaucracies from every Government from Europe, but I congratulate her | :09:54. | :09:56. | |
on the progress being made here. Would she point out to the member | :09:57. | :10:02. | |
for Stafford that if we were not members of the European Union, we | :10:03. | :10:05. | |
would go back to a system where we would have no ability to deport | :10:06. | :10:10. | |
anybody to the country of their origin, unless we could persuade the | :10:11. | :10:14. | |
Government of that country to accept them? I thank my right honourable | :10:15. | :10:21. | |
friend, and can I also thank him for the work that he did an allusion to | :10:22. | :10:25. | |
the prison transfer framework decision, which was an important | :10:26. | :10:29. | |
step forward. And I think it crucially relates to the latter part | :10:30. | :10:34. | |
of his comments are questioned, which is of course that is what the | :10:35. | :10:37. | |
prisoner transfer framework decision does is it enables us to deport | :10:38. | :10:46. | |
people, will slowly -- compulsorily to serve their sentence elsewhere, | :10:47. | :10:50. | |
whilst other frameworks were in place were about voluntary transfer. | :10:51. | :10:54. | |
This gives us far greater scope in order to be able to remove people | :10:55. | :10:57. | |
from the United Kingdom, and is another reason why it is important | :10:58. | :11:01. | |
to remain part of the European Union. Removing foreign national | :11:02. | :11:09. | |
offenders is important and brightly attracts public interest, but it | :11:10. | :11:12. | |
does require sensible and measured debate. As the report pointed out | :11:13. | :11:18. | |
last week, the Government has been making some progress on this issue. | :11:19. | :11:22. | |
Does the Home Secretary agree with me that being in the European Union | :11:23. | :11:26. | |
gives us access to criminal record sharing and prison transfer | :11:27. | :11:33. | |
agreements, as the Right Honourable member for Rushcliffe has just said, | :11:34. | :11:37. | |
and helps us better identify people with criminal records and allow us | :11:38. | :11:42. | |
to send back to their countries. Does she agree with me that there is | :11:43. | :11:46. | |
really no evidence that leaving the European Union would help rather | :11:47. | :11:50. | |
than hinder the removal of offenders. It's really a shame that | :11:51. | :11:57. | |
some good work and powerful recommendations made by the home | :11:58. | :12:09. | |
affairs committee has... I agree with the honourable and Leonard lady | :12:10. | :12:12. | |
that being a member of the EU does give us access to certain tools and | :12:13. | :12:16. | |
instruments that help us to share information that otherwise would not | :12:17. | :12:20. | |
be available to ask, and in the sharing of criminal records, that is | :12:21. | :12:23. | |
very important. There is more frustrated and I am working with | :12:24. | :12:27. | |
others to ensure that we can enhance our ability to share that | :12:28. | :12:31. | |
information, so we have more information available to us. On her | :12:32. | :12:34. | |
latter point, I think that the Right Honourable chairman of the select | :12:35. | :12:40. | |
committee really allows himself to be overshadowed. I congratulate the | :12:41. | :12:49. | |
Home Secretary on the changes to UK law, and success on non-EU | :12:50. | :12:54. | |
criminals. But isn't it the case that free movement and court | :12:55. | :12:57. | |
decisions by the European authorities have made it much more | :12:58. | :12:59. | |
difficult to tackle the problem of EU criminals? The important issue | :13:00. | :13:06. | |
for us in being able to prevent people from entering the UK, should | :13:07. | :13:11. | |
we consider that they are individuals who we do not wish to | :13:12. | :13:14. | |
have in the country, or for deporting people, part of that is | :13:15. | :13:18. | |
retaining our borders, which we do. It is important that we have at our | :13:19. | :13:22. | |
border controls information available to us to make those | :13:23. | :13:27. | |
decisions. That's why membership is an important part of the tools of | :13:28. | :13:31. | |
the agreement that we have, to be able to deal with criminality. In | :13:32. | :13:34. | |
the deal that was negotiated by my right honourable friend, the Prime | :13:35. | :13:39. | |
Minister, in relation to our membership of the European Union, we | :13:40. | :13:44. | |
have enhanced our ability to deport people with criminal records and | :13:45. | :13:46. | |
prevent people coming here with criminal records. It will also be | :13:47. | :13:50. | |
ensuring that certain decisions taken by the European Court of | :13:51. | :13:59. | |
Justice will be overturned. The home affairs select committee has warned | :14:00. | :14:04. | |
again and again successive governments, not just this | :14:05. | :14:06. | |
Government, weight back to the last Labour Government, about the need to | :14:07. | :14:10. | |
remove foreign national offenders. In fact, credited the Home | :14:11. | :14:17. | |
Secretary. She has pursued people bloodlessly out of the country. In | :14:18. | :14:20. | |
fact, I suppose you wasn't piloting the plane to take that man back to | :14:21. | :14:25. | |
Jordan after that Sager. The fact remains that eight out of the ten | :14:26. | :14:32. | |
countries represented in the top ten are either Commonwealth or EU | :14:33. | :14:38. | |
countries, and there is no excuse for friendly countries and key | :14:39. | :14:43. | |
allies not to take data systems -- they are citizens back to their | :14:44. | :14:47. | |
countries when they have committed offences. 18 months ago we made a | :14:48. | :14:52. | |
very simple suggestion that the passports of foreign national | :14:53. | :14:55. | |
offenders should be taken away from them at the time of sentencing. That | :14:56. | :15:00. | |
was 18 months ago. Has that now been implemented? I have to say that he | :15:01. | :15:09. | |
and his committee had been consistent in raising this issue, | :15:10. | :15:13. | |
and I'm sure he welcomes the fact that we are now removing record | :15:14. | :15:16. | |
numbers of foreign national offenders. We are taking a number of | :15:17. | :15:20. | |
steps in relation to the identity and identification of FNOs. In | :15:21. | :15:27. | |
certainly most cases the passports will be taken away. Some | :15:28. | :15:30. | |
individuals, they will have destroyed the documentation that | :15:31. | :15:34. | |
they have, and this is one of the difficulties in returning people to | :15:35. | :15:37. | |
countries where they have no documentation, where identifying | :15:38. | :15:41. | |
them and getting the correct identity is one of the challenges | :15:42. | :15:46. | |
that is faced by the recipient country, regardless of whereabouts | :15:47. | :15:52. | |
in the world that country is. The Home Secretary will be aware of how | :15:53. | :15:57. | |
difficult it is to deport a boring criminal to any country, and in some | :15:58. | :16:00. | |
countries it is all but impossible. Does she agree with me personally | :16:01. | :16:07. | |
that the EU prisoner transfer framework directive actually gives | :16:08. | :16:10. | |
us a much better chance with those countries then we do with any other | :16:11. | :16:15. | |
country, including Commonwealth countries, and that therefore, if | :16:16. | :16:23. | |
the MP from Stone has his way in the referendum, it will make it more | :16:24. | :16:26. | |
difficult to deport foreign prisoners from our constituencies, | :16:27. | :16:31. | |
not more difficult. Our prisons will remain with the problems that we | :16:32. | :16:35. | |
have. This would be, by any standards, a perverse outcome. I | :16:36. | :16:41. | |
entirely agree. My right honourable friend has experience in looking at | :16:42. | :16:47. | |
these issues in his time as the Immigration Minister. Membership of | :16:48. | :16:50. | |
the European Union does give us access to information sharing, | :16:51. | :16:54. | |
instruments we are able to use to increase our ability to deal with | :16:55. | :16:57. | |
foreign national offenders, to deal with foreign criminals. The | :16:58. | :17:07. | |
transport decision framework gives us the ability to you return people | :17:08. | :17:13. | |
on a compulsory basis, rather than requiring the prisoner themselves to | :17:14. | :17:18. | |
agree to that return. Does the Home Secretary recalled that when her | :17:19. | :17:23. | |
right honourable friend comedy now Leader of the House of Commons, | :17:24. | :17:25. | |
served as Secretary of State for Justice, she told the home affairs | :17:26. | :17:29. | |
select committee, it's very obvious to me that it's in our national | :17:30. | :17:33. | |
interest to be part of the EU prisoner transfer agreement. There | :17:34. | :17:36. | |
she agree with that statement, as I do, and that she happened note if it | :17:37. | :17:42. | |
is a view that her right honourable friend holds? I do agree, and as to | :17:43. | :17:49. | |
the views of my right honourable friend, I suggest that he asks him | :17:50. | :18:01. | |
himself. Having admitted that it is more difficult to control | :18:02. | :18:07. | |
immigration while we are a member of the EU, isn't one of the reasons why | :18:08. | :18:13. | |
we have 4000 citizens of the EU in our jails, if we deport these EU | :18:14. | :18:17. | |
nationals and our EU partners don't choose to keep them in prison, they | :18:18. | :18:21. | |
have the right to come straight back here because they are EU citizens? | :18:22. | :18:27. | |
Secondly, these people now have access to the EU Charter of | :18:28. | :18:30. | |
fundamental rights, which the Prime Minister said he wanted a complete | :18:31. | :18:35. | |
opt out from, and he did not get in his renegotiation. I'm afraid, I | :18:36. | :18:42. | |
think he has been misinformed about the impact of the deportation of the | :18:43. | :18:47. | |
foreign national offenders, because it is not the case that an FNO would | :18:48. | :18:54. | |
not be able to come back. The point of the deportation is that they are | :18:55. | :18:58. | |
not able to return to the UK unless they apply to have that deportation | :18:59. | :19:02. | |
revoked. Of course, it would be a decision of the Government as to | :19:03. | :19:05. | |
whether or not there would be revoked. Some of my constituents who | :19:06. | :19:14. | |
were born in this country, who are able to serve in the Armed Forces in | :19:15. | :19:20. | |
this country -- unable, who don't even have passports here, find | :19:21. | :19:26. | |
themselves subject to deportation because they are a member of the | :19:27. | :19:30. | |
Republic of Ireland. Could the Home Secretary tell the house was reviews | :19:31. | :19:36. | |
are in respect of citizens of the Irish Republic currently in British | :19:37. | :19:43. | |
citizens. There was an agreement, a memorandum of understanding, which | :19:44. | :19:47. | |
was signed between the last Labour Government and the Republic Islands | :19:48. | :19:50. | |
Government, which means that we are not currently transferring business | :19:51. | :19:57. | |
between Britain and Northern Ireland. That is the current | :19:58. | :20:04. | |
situation, as I understand it. Can the Home Secretary confirmed, and I | :20:05. | :20:11. | |
fear she cannot, that everybody entering... If she can, everyone | :20:12. | :20:16. | |
would be delighted. Everyone entering this country from an EU | :20:17. | :20:20. | |
destination has their passport checked, not just against possible | :20:21. | :20:23. | |
terrorist links, but also whether they have a criminal record? I fear | :20:24. | :20:30. | |
that these passports are not checked, and therefore, even if we | :20:31. | :20:33. | |
can deport these people, they can, in reality, come straight back. I'm | :20:34. | :20:39. | |
not sure the last time that he came into Heathrow or Gatwick, came | :20:40. | :20:46. | |
through the juxtapose controls in Brussels or France, but he will have | :20:47. | :20:51. | |
noticed that his passport was indeed checked coming through, as indeed by | :20:52. | :20:55. | |
the passports are others who are not British citizens. It is also the | :20:56. | :21:00. | |
case, as I have indicated in response to a number of queries, | :21:01. | :21:03. | |
that we now have more information available at the border through | :21:04. | :21:12. | |
being a member of sis to, which is one of the arrangements we chose in | :21:13. | :21:18. | |
Government affairs, which we chose to rejoin, and which this parliament | :21:19. | :21:26. | |
unanimously agreed to rejoin. Dizzy Secretary of State how thankful I am | :21:27. | :21:37. | |
about how they have educated me about extraditing people accused of | :21:38. | :21:44. | |
foul crimes against people in my constituency. She educated me about | :21:45. | :21:50. | |
how difficult that is and how without the European Union, we would | :21:51. | :21:54. | |
never have got these people back to face justice in this country. I am | :21:55. | :22:00. | |
grateful to his reference to how complex of these cases can be. That | :22:01. | :22:05. | |
is the point. Very often there are barriers, such as lack of | :22:06. | :22:10. | |
documentation, and other issues, before we are able to make these | :22:11. | :22:15. | |
deportations, but it is the case that within PE you, the prisoner | :22:16. | :22:24. | |
transport framework, makes sure that we can deport these people. Would | :22:25. | :22:32. | |
the Home Secretary agree with me that the problem that goes back to | :22:33. | :22:38. | |
the early part of the century, when the Labour Government was facing | :22:39. | :22:42. | |
this problem, is not one of law and the interpretation of legal in this | :22:43. | :22:52. | |
-- instruments, it is down to barrack room lawyers who keep on | :22:53. | :22:58. | |
following their own advice. I have to say, I would hesitate to come | :22:59. | :23:03. | |
between my fend and any other lawyer in this trade brawl, or elsewhere. | :23:04. | :23:11. | |
If we left the EU, the prisoner transfer agreement would no longer | :23:12. | :23:15. | |
stand. How long does the Home Secretary think it would take to | :23:16. | :23:20. | |
negotiate with each EU country a fresh agreement, in terms of | :23:21. | :23:25. | |
returning EU prisoners? The answer is that nobody knows how long it | :23:26. | :23:29. | |
would take to negotiate those bilateral arrangements. Under the | :23:30. | :23:36. | |
arrangements of the treaty, article 50, two years are set aside for | :23:37. | :23:42. | |
negotiations for a member state leaving the European Union, but that | :23:43. | :23:46. | |
doesn't necessarily cover the bilateral arrangements that would | :23:47. | :23:52. | |
need to take place. The answer is, it is very uncertain as to how long | :23:53. | :23:55. | |
it would take to put any such arrangements in place. This is a | :23:56. | :24:04. | |
shocking record to defend. 13,000 foreign national offenders, the size | :24:05. | :24:07. | |
of a small town, wandering around our country. We have heard all of | :24:08. | :24:12. | |
this before. It has been in front of the Public Accounts Committee | :24:13. | :24:15. | |
before, and in 2012, the Home Secretary herself gave undertakings | :24:16. | :24:23. | |
to improve the situation. If she wants to deal with the issue of | :24:24. | :24:28. | |
foreign national prisoners upstream, she has to do with protecting the | :24:29. | :24:32. | |
border, and on that basis, will she please explain why her department | :24:33. | :24:36. | |
today is stonewalling legitimate freedom of information requests | :24:37. | :24:40. | |
about migrant incursions on the coast, and why is that the case? Why | :24:41. | :24:47. | |
isn't she giving that information to media and other outlets? | :24:48. | :24:51. | |
I would say don't always believe everything you read in the papers in | :24:52. | :25:01. | |
relation to the action taking place. He refers to the record, I think I | :25:02. | :25:07. | |
should be clear with the House when my honourable friend says all of the | :25:08. | :25:12. | |
13,000 are wandering the streets, they are not. A significant number | :25:13. | :25:17. | |
are serving custardy or sentences. Some of them will be within our | :25:18. | :25:23. | |
immigration detention estate, waiting for their deportation to | :25:24. | :25:28. | |
take place. I say to my honourable friend, I am clear, as he is, that | :25:29. | :25:33. | |
we need to do more that is why the Government has made a number of | :25:34. | :25:38. | |
changes to make it easy for us to deport people and we will continue | :25:39. | :25:43. | |
to put forward those changes we think will improve our ability to | :25:44. | :25:48. | |
deport foreign national offenders. The Home Secretary mention the | :25:49. | :25:52. | |
European arrest warrant. If we were to vote the leave the European | :25:53. | :25:57. | |
Union, can she tell the House what would happen to the implementation | :25:58. | :26:01. | |
of that arrest warrant and would it make it more difficult or easier to | :26:02. | :26:06. | |
get prisoners or people who we want to put in prison in this country | :26:07. | :26:11. | |
back from other countries having committed crimes here? I think | :26:12. | :26:17. | |
European arrest warrant is are a useful tool. It's why I propose to | :26:18. | :26:22. | |
this House and this House voted unanimously when we looked at the | :26:23. | :26:27. | |
opt in, opt out decision that we should go back into the European | :26:28. | :26:31. | |
arrest warrant. If we were not a member of the EU, we would have to | :26:32. | :26:36. | |
negotiate alternative arrangements but that might not be possible for | :26:37. | :26:40. | |
every country. There are some member states who will not allow the | :26:41. | :26:44. | |
extradition of their nationals to countries other than those who are | :26:45. | :26:51. | |
members of the EU. These figures were given to me by the Secretary of | :26:52. | :26:57. | |
State herself in May. I had an answer that said we refused entry to | :26:58. | :27:04. | |
20 times more non-EU applicants than EU applicants, so border controls | :27:05. | :27:08. | |
are important. It shows there is a much higher bar for other countries | :27:09. | :27:13. | |
not part of the EU. If border controls are so important, why do we | :27:14. | :27:19. | |
only have six boats patrolling our waters. Surely we have to have | :27:20. | :27:23. | |
stronger border control at all areas? Prisons in particular rather | :27:24. | :27:31. | |
than boats. Perhaps a prison ship might deal with the answer. Of | :27:32. | :27:39. | |
course our board border controls are important because we want to ensure | :27:40. | :27:45. | |
we are able to identify those who should not be in the UK. As I | :27:46. | :27:52. | |
indicated earlier as part of the negotiated deal that my right | :27:53. | :27:56. | |
honourable friend the Prime Minister brought back from Brussels, it will | :27:57. | :28:02. | |
be easier for us in future should we remain inside the EU to do both of | :28:03. | :28:09. | |
these things, deport EU criminals and mature they do not reach the UK | :28:10. | :28:14. | |
in the first place. My constituent Elsie lives with the actions of a | :28:15. | :28:19. | |
foreign national offender each day following the tragic murder of her | :28:20. | :28:24. | |
son Mark at the hands of a Polish national. Does she agree that the | :28:25. | :28:29. | |
tawdry tabloid treatment of this serious subject does little to | :28:30. | :28:33. | |
address the real problems of people like healthy and will she join me in | :28:34. | :28:41. | |
requesting that hot or debate on this topic remain measured and | :28:42. | :28:46. | |
respectful. Behind the figures that we may exchange across this House, | :28:47. | :28:52. | |
people whose lives have been affected seriously by the impact of | :28:53. | :28:58. | |
criminality. That of course occurs whatever the identity of those | :28:59. | :29:01. | |
criminals but there are cases such as the one she has referred to and | :29:02. | :29:08. | |
our hearts must go out to all the and the fact that day to day she is | :29:09. | :29:11. | |
living with the impact of the actions of a foreign national | :29:12. | :29:17. | |
offender. The number of foreign national offenders deported reflects | :29:18. | :29:20. | |
the inefficient way my honourable friend has won her department. The | :29:21. | :29:27. | |
difficult challenge is the sentence getting prisoners to return to their | :29:28. | :29:31. | |
country to serve their sentence under the EU prisoner transfer | :29:32. | :29:35. | |
framework decision, negotiated by my honourable friend. It is four years | :29:36. | :29:41. | |
since we departed the Ministry of Justice. How many people have | :29:42. | :29:48. | |
actually been deported to serve their sentence in other EU countries | :29:49. | :29:55. | |
since then? I don't believe I have the exact figure to hand, which I | :29:56. | :30:01. | |
will give my honourable friend. Of course what we are seeing is an | :30:02. | :30:06. | |
increase of... Week you're seeing an increase in the number who have been | :30:07. | :30:10. | |
deported under the prisoner transfer decision and the number we are | :30:11. | :30:14. | |
seeing an increase as it is being put in place by other member states, | :30:15. | :30:23. | |
Poland had a derogation until December 2016, so at the end of this | :30:24. | :30:28. | |
year, Poland will becoming part of that prisoner transfer decision and | :30:29. | :30:32. | |
there are two countries, the Republic of Ireland and Bulgaria who | :30:33. | :30:37. | |
have yet to implement it. There is movement and there is an increasing | :30:38. | :30:40. | |
the number who are being transferred that decision. The pride of my | :30:41. | :30:47. | |
constituents in giving hospitality and assimilation for the last 150 | :30:48. | :30:53. | |
years to newcomers is under strain last year when a foreign national | :30:54. | :30:57. | |
offender was deemed too dangerous to be located to his home in London and | :30:58. | :31:01. | |
was placed in my constituency where he committed crimes for which he is | :31:02. | :31:06. | |
serving a four year sentence. Would it not be better to make public | :31:07. | :31:13. | |
acceptance of migrants far better if there was a fair, even distribution | :31:14. | :31:19. | |
of asylum seekers, are the country is macro my constituency takes 500. | :31:20. | :31:25. | |
How many are in her constituency and are there still none in the Prime | :31:26. | :31:28. | |
Minister and Chancellor's constituency. I have answered that | :31:29. | :31:36. | |
previously and he knows the figure. He has elided carefully from the | :31:37. | :31:43. | |
issue of prisoners to the overall issue of dispersal for asylum | :31:44. | :31:52. | |
seekers. It is the same as the last Scotland. The Home Secretary | :31:53. | :31:57. | |
referred to GPS tags. What assessment has she made in the | :31:58. | :32:02. | |
effectiveness of these in deporting national offenders? It is the reason | :32:03. | :32:08. | |
of having legislated to have the tags is to identify where people are | :32:09. | :32:13. | |
so it is then possible to deport them, it makes it easier for us to | :32:14. | :32:22. | |
deport them. Does the Home Secretary recognise the Government's failure | :32:23. | :32:28. | |
to do deport more EU murderers and rapists, particularly when housing | :32:29. | :32:33. | |
EU conflicts and UK jails is costing the taxpayer some 150 million each | :32:34. | :32:39. | |
year? What is being done to reduce this strain? I say to the honourable | :32:40. | :32:44. | |
gentleman that the number of citizens who have been removed, | :32:45. | :32:53. | |
deported has tripled since 2010-2011 to well over 3000, so we are making | :32:54. | :33:04. | |
progress in that field. At the beginning of this year, a Dutch | :33:05. | :33:08. | |
resident entered through Gatwick Airport very swiftly assaulted a | :33:09. | :33:14. | |
member of staff at Gatwick Airport, went before the local magistrates, | :33:15. | :33:18. | |
was released without any address onto the streets of Crawley and then | :33:19. | :33:23. | |
several dayss later, Hammer attacked two female police officers. Will she | :33:24. | :33:28. | |
reflect on the difference between the rhetoric about information | :33:29. | :33:34. | |
sharing of criminal records and the reality as experienced by all too | :33:35. | :33:40. | |
many of our constituents? I am aware of this case because my honourable | :33:41. | :33:45. | |
friend came to see me to raise it and I can fully understand in the | :33:46. | :33:48. | |
circumstances that he set out why he chose to do so and why he has raised | :33:49. | :33:55. | |
it again today. He refers to the issue of criminal records exchange. | :33:56. | :33:58. | |
The tools are there about the operational decisions will be made | :33:59. | :34:04. | |
by those at any point in time. The police increase the number of | :34:05. | :34:07. | |
criminal records checks they make but it is a decision for them as to | :34:08. | :34:11. | |
whether and at what point they do that check. If I could ask the | :34:12. | :34:20. | |
question that doesn't involve Europe, notwithstanding the Home | :34:21. | :34:24. | |
Secretary's progress that she has alluded to, does she acknowledged | :34:25. | :34:30. | |
the report shows it still takes 149 days to deport a foreign national | :34:31. | :34:34. | |
offender and will she acknowledged that that delay is made worse by the | :34:35. | :34:40. | |
appalling record of the contracted company who fell to show up to | :34:41. | :34:46. | |
transport prisoners, resulting in further cost at further detention | :34:47. | :34:50. | |
and the cost of missed flights and the tickets and what is she going to | :34:51. | :34:55. | |
do about it? I can assure my honourable friend that we look at | :34:56. | :34:59. | |
the contracts we have with those providing services to the | :35:00. | :35:03. | |
Government. In relation to the cases where it is difficult to deport | :35:04. | :35:07. | |
people or there is some problem, there can be a complex range of | :35:08. | :35:14. | |
reasons why that is the case, but I can assure my honourable friend that | :35:15. | :35:18. | |
where somebody is expected to be deported and is not, we make every | :35:19. | :35:21. | |
effort to do so at the earliest opportunity. Boston in my | :35:22. | :35:27. | |
constituency has seen more than its fair share of serious crimes | :35:28. | :35:31. | |
committed by foreign nationals and people are rightly worried, but does | :35:32. | :35:36. | |
the Home Secretary think either the process of negotiating 20 plus new | :35:37. | :35:39. | |
bilateral agreements or the outcome could make those people safer? I am | :35:40. | :35:46. | |
conscious because my honourable friend has raised the concerns of | :35:47. | :35:50. | |
his constituents with me in relation to this issue and I think my answer | :35:51. | :35:54. | |
to my honourable friend is I think being within the EU, being able to | :35:55. | :35:59. | |
have the single prisoner transfer framework decision and the various | :36:00. | :36:04. | |
other tools are what make us safer and the uncertainty, delay of having | :36:05. | :36:10. | |
to negotiate bilateral arrangements of those sort and indeed nobody | :36:11. | :36:13. | |
knows whether it will be possible to negotiate bilateral arrangements | :36:14. | :36:19. | |
that are of equal benefit to the British public as those we are able | :36:20. | :36:25. | |
to get as members of the EU. Despite the Home Secretary's tour, the | :36:26. | :36:31. | |
figures are quite stop. Since 2002, the number of EU prisoners has | :36:32. | :36:35. | |
troubles. The number of Polish prisoners has gone up to 983, | :36:36. | :36:43. | |
Romanians gone up from 50 to 635 and over the last three years the major | :36:44. | :36:49. | |
pollutant police alone have arrested over 100,000 EU nationals and | :36:50. | :36:54. | |
charged over 30,000 with an offence, so quite clearly the Home Secretary | :36:55. | :36:58. | |
is failing to stop EU criminals coming here and failing to deport | :36:59. | :37:04. | |
them as well. The only conclusion is that free movement of people means | :37:05. | :37:10. | |
free movement of people into the UK. I draw different conclusions. As he | :37:11. | :37:16. | |
may not be surprised to hear. I think it is obviously important that | :37:17. | :37:22. | |
we are able to look and deal with those who would be trying to cross | :37:23. | :37:26. | |
our borders and have a record of criminality. What is important is | :37:27. | :37:30. | |
having access to the information that enable us to make those | :37:31. | :37:36. | |
decisions, that is why having access to systems to check criminal records | :37:37. | :37:47. | |
is so important. The cost of foreign criminals coming into the UK is just | :37:48. | :37:52. | |
one of the many strains which freed movement of people put on the | :37:53. | :37:59. | |
British taxpayer. Does the Home Secretary agree with the National | :38:00. | :38:02. | |
Audit Office that the best estimate of the costs of administering final | :38:03. | :38:07. | |
National offenders is 850 million and could be as much as 1 billion? | :38:08. | :38:15. | |
Of course there are costs involved with those people who come into the | :38:16. | :38:20. | |
country and those people who are British citizens and commit crimes | :38:21. | :38:23. | |
and the criminal justice system obviously undergoes costs in order | :38:24. | :38:28. | |
to ensure those people are brought to justice and then given custodial | :38:29. | :38:35. | |
sentences, but I would just caution because the statements and questions | :38:36. | :38:40. | |
that have come have focused on foreign national offenders who are | :38:41. | :38:44. | |
from other member states of the European Union. There are many | :38:45. | :38:47. | |
foreign national offenders in the prisons and here in the UK who come | :38:48. | :38:51. | |
from countries outside the European Union. We make every effort to | :38:52. | :38:56. | |
attend those foreign national offenders, to deport those people as | :38:57. | :39:01. | |
we do for those within the EU. As a former special constable with the | :39:02. | :39:05. | |
police Parliamentary scheme, I was involved in arresting eastern | :39:06. | :39:08. | |
Europeans on the streets of London for crimes that they were in the | :39:09. | :39:13. | |
process of committing. I saw at first hand the importation of the | :39:14. | :39:17. | |
wave of crime from Eastern Europe following the accession of those | :39:18. | :39:22. | |
countries in 2004. Does the Home Secretary think the situation will | :39:23. | :39:29. | |
get better or worse with the admission of Albania, Serbia, | :39:30. | :39:32. | |
Montenegro, Turkey? And to make sure she does not mislead the House, | :39:33. | :39:38. | |
given she has attended here today to answer the question on the removal | :39:39. | :39:43. | |
of FNOs, does she expect us to believe she will not tell the House | :39:44. | :39:49. | |
the number of prisoners transferred under this super-duper EU prisoner | :39:50. | :39:53. | |
transfer agreement, she has attended here today with seven officials in | :39:54. | :39:58. | |
the box. Her entire team, will she now disclose the number? | :39:59. | :40:03. | |
Can I just point out to my honourable friend, he did great | :40:04. | :40:10. | |
service as a special constable. And he refers to people to National | :40:11. | :40:17. | |
offenders from particular countries who he was involved in arresting. If | :40:18. | :40:23. | |
you look at the figures for the Metropolitan Police area, I think | :40:24. | :40:26. | |
something about a third of the population of London are foreign | :40:27. | :40:32. | |
national is, and about a third of the criminals they arrest are | :40:33. | :40:36. | |
foreign national is, so I think I might drive a different lesson from | :40:37. | :40:43. | |
that. But I think that is an important fact. I'm sorry if my fend | :40:44. | :40:47. | |
is disappointed that I don't have the particular figure he was asking | :40:48. | :40:55. | |
for in front of me. I have indicated that I will write to him with that | :40:56. | :41:04. | |
figure. Small business industry and enterprise. I'd like to make a brief | :41:05. | :41:18. | |
statement on BHS. The house will remember that on the 25th of April, | :41:19. | :41:21. | |
I made a statement to the house after BHS had entered | :41:22. | :41:29. | |
administration. BHS was tried to be celled with a view to try and retain | :41:30. | :41:34. | |
as many jobs as possible is. I understand they had a number of | :41:35. | :41:41. | |
talks, but they have now concluded that process. Although operas were | :41:42. | :41:46. | |
received, none were sufficient and they have had to take the decision | :41:47. | :41:51. | |
to wind the business down. This will be devastating news for BHS | :41:52. | :41:55. | |
employees and their families. Our thoughts are with all of them. This | :41:56. | :42:07. | |
is alongside the sad news of Austin Reed employees also. Questions are | :42:08. | :42:13. | |
being raised about how BHS found itself in this situation. The | :42:14. | :42:18. | |
pensions regulator and other bodies are looking into these matters. Any | :42:19. | :42:22. | |
wrongdoing will be taken very seriously, and I will return to that | :42:23. | :42:25. | |
later. Our focus now is to support all those affected and get people | :42:26. | :42:29. | |
back into work as quickly as possible. Whilst we work the | :42:30. | :42:33. | |
industry to as' plans already done the business, I can inform the house | :42:34. | :42:37. | |
the job centre plus has already been in contact with the administrators | :42:38. | :42:41. | |
and is preparing a range of support to assist staff. Job centre plus is | :42:42. | :42:48. | |
preparing to advise staff of their options. Teams are centrally | :42:49. | :42:53. | |
tracking vacancies in the retail sector and will make BHS branches | :42:54. | :42:56. | |
are aware of any vacancies in their area. Job Centre plus are also going | :42:57. | :43:07. | |
to help people. They can offer workers support, including help with | :43:08. | :43:12. | |
job searches, including CV writing and interview skills, help to | :43:13. | :43:15. | |
identify transferable skills and gaps in skills in the local Labour | :43:16. | :43:23. | |
market. It will improve employability. Help to overcome | :43:24. | :43:30. | |
barriers such as childcare costs, workloads and travel costs. The | :43:31. | :43:41. | |
Department of work and has written to people trying to work out what | :43:42. | :43:44. | |
they can offer to people with these issues. DWP will also be monitoring | :43:45. | :43:51. | |
the issues of people on a continued basis and will offer help to any | :43:52. | :43:55. | |
areas particularly badly affected. We will do everything in our power | :43:56. | :43:59. | |
to support workers and their families through this difficult | :44:00. | :44:03. | |
time, not just at BHS, but also those who have been made redundant | :44:04. | :44:07. | |
by Austin Reed. Can I now turn to some of the wider issues. On the 3rd | :44:08. | :44:11. | |
of May, the Business Secretary instructed the insolvency service to | :44:12. | :44:16. | |
begin its investigation on the extent to how the leaders of BHS | :44:17. | :44:25. | |
caused this detrimental effects. Whilst we cannot give a running | :44:26. | :44:29. | |
commentary, I know that that work is well underway, and if any evidence | :44:30. | :44:35. | |
is uncovered to indicate that any of the directors' conduct fell below | :44:36. | :44:39. | |
what was expected, action will be taken. We may disqualify them from | :44:40. | :44:48. | |
being a director per up to 15 years. If there is any indication of any | :44:49. | :44:52. | |
criminal wrongdoing, we will make sure that the criminal body is | :44:53. | :44:57. | |
informed. Members will also be aware of considerable concern about the | :44:58. | :45:01. | |
BHS pension scheme. The BHS schemes are in a protected fund. This will | :45:02. | :45:15. | |
see whether they have enough to pay at least PPF fund benefits. If it | :45:16. | :45:20. | |
cannot, the scheme will transfer to the PPF and compensation will be | :45:21. | :45:24. | |
paid. The PPF aims to resolve these issues as soon as the. PPF | :45:25. | :45:28. | |
compensation is generally 100% of the pension at the date of the | :45:29. | :45:36. | |
insolvency, and for everyone else, 90% of the accrued pension, | :45:37. | :45:41. | |
subsequent to a maximum cap. There will also be an investigation into | :45:42. | :45:45. | |
the BHS pension scheme, to determine whether it would be appropriate to | :45:46. | :45:49. | |
look at their investigation powers. If they have deliberately tried to | :45:50. | :45:56. | |
avoid their pension responsibilities, the regulator will | :45:57. | :46:02. | |
intervene and seek answers from the employer. There is a clear process | :46:03. | :46:06. | |
that should be followed and this can sometimes take a considerable amount | :46:07. | :46:13. | |
of time. Deregulate will issue a report on the issues at the | :46:14. | :46:19. | |
appropriate time. Retail is a vital sector for the United Kingdom | :46:20. | :46:22. | |
economy and we are committed to it as a Government. That's why I am | :46:23. | :46:28. | |
eating key retailers this Thursday with ministerial colleagues from | :46:29. | :46:31. | |
other Government departments. Whilst the news of BHS' closure is a huge | :46:32. | :46:39. | |
blow, the retail sector is resilient. Jobs are up by 83,000 in | :46:40. | :46:48. | |
the sector and almost back up to pre-recession levels. High streets | :46:49. | :46:54. | |
remain a important part of our local economy, injecting billions of | :46:55. | :46:58. | |
pounds into our economy. A recent report by the Association of town | :46:59. | :47:02. | |
centre managers found that town centres contribute nearly ?600 | :47:03. | :47:06. | |
billion to the economy each year. That's why we continue to support | :47:07. | :47:11. | |
the British high street. We have reduced corporation tax, and in | :47:12. | :47:14. | |
particular, I am so pleased that we have announced the biggest cut ever | :47:15. | :47:19. | |
in business rates in England, worth ?6.7 billion over the next five | :47:20. | :47:24. | |
years. Notably, benefiting small businesses. I know little of this | :47:25. | :47:29. | |
will be a comfort to BHS workers, but I can assure them that this | :47:30. | :47:34. | |
Government will do everything within its powers to get every affected | :47:35. | :47:37. | |
worker back in a job as soon as possible. Can I thank the Minister | :47:38. | :47:50. | |
for advanced for her statement. The whole house will be concern for the | :47:51. | :47:53. | |
11,000 staff who are losing their jobs as a result of the liquidation | :47:54. | :47:58. | |
of BHS, and the further 1000 at Austin Reed. These closures will | :47:59. | :48:03. | |
also affect the supply chains, local economies as well. I wonder if the | :48:04. | :48:06. | |
Minister can tell me whether the taxpayer will have two paper | :48:07. | :48:18. | |
redundancy, as happened at, it -- Comet. Can she also tell me whether | :48:19. | :48:24. | |
she envisages an investigation into the activities of Sir Phillip Green, | :48:25. | :48:29. | |
and whether she thinks he will be asked to make up the pension | :48:30. | :48:32. | |
shortfall, so that pensioners are not short-changed? She mentioned the | :48:33. | :48:41. | |
analysis about the work done to support the high street. I agree | :48:42. | :48:45. | |
that the high Street is a crucial part of the UK economy, but I'm | :48:46. | :48:49. | |
afraid the evidence about the failure of BHS and Austin Reed is | :48:50. | :48:53. | |
that the work done by the Government simply hasn't been enough. As Mary | :48:54. | :49:00. | |
Portis has said, the Government so far has only said dilemma given | :49:01. | :49:05. | |
token gestures to support the high Street. The allegations about what | :49:06. | :49:10. | |
happened at BHS had been beyond belief. It pension surplus became a | :49:11. | :49:18. | |
deficit of ?571 million. The business was sold to retail | :49:19. | :49:21. | |
acquisitions, a firm whose head was a three-time bankrupt, with no | :49:22. | :49:25. | |
apparent experience of turning around struggling retailers, and who | :49:26. | :49:29. | |
appears to have taken significant sums out of the business while it | :49:30. | :49:33. | |
was still trading. What investigation will her department | :49:34. | :49:37. | |
carry out into why Sir Phillip Green sold the business when he did, and | :49:38. | :49:42. | |
what juju legends he carried out about the buyer. The business was | :49:43. | :49:54. | |
lacking in modernisation that might have allowed it to survive and | :49:55. | :50:00. | |
thrive, as others have done. Sir Philip Green's former workers will | :50:01. | :50:04. | |
consider redundancy and a reduced pension, whilst he awaits the | :50:05. | :50:09. | |
delivery of a brand-new ?100 million yacht. The Minister mentioned | :50:10. | :50:13. | |
possible investigation, so can she say under existing solvency law | :50:14. | :50:21. | |
whether she thinks criminal investigation | :50:22. | :50:25. | |
should happen. Does she think that these acquisition should be made | :50:26. | :50:31. | |
illegal? What scrutiny does she think is needed in the period prior | :50:32. | :50:37. | |
to insolvency in cases like BHS and Comet? Does she think as many people | :50:38. | :50:44. | |
do, that Sir Phillip Green should be referred to the police for his | :50:45. | :50:48. | |
actions while he owned BHS? It isn't just members of the side of the | :50:49. | :50:51. | |
house who think Sir Phillip Green's actions are a disgrace. The phrase | :50:52. | :50:57. | |
unacceptable capital of them is how one of her own backbenchers | :50:58. | :51:01. | |
described it in the last time we debated the challenges and concerns | :51:02. | :51:08. | |
around BHS. BHS, as with, it -- Comet before, is an extraction of | :51:09. | :51:17. | |
wealth, ace bowl situation that favours the wealthy. They need to be | :51:18. | :51:23. | |
an investigation into what happened at BHS and make sure that actions | :51:24. | :51:28. | |
are taken against Sir Phillip Green, otherwise they will be complicit in | :51:29. | :51:34. | |
allowing exploitation of a few owners at at the expense of | :51:35. | :51:35. | |
pensioners. I'm not going to actually refer to | :51:36. | :51:47. | |
any individual in any of this. The pensions regulator is conducting an | :51:48. | :51:51. | |
investigation into the BHS pension scheme, quite properly so. There are | :51:52. | :51:55. | |
a number of other investigations, and I have made it very clear that | :51:56. | :52:00. | |
this minister and indeed everyone in Government, takes any of this sort | :52:01. | :52:05. | |
of misconduct, if there is any misconduct, extremely seriously, and | :52:06. | :52:10. | |
if these investigations find that there have been the sort of | :52:11. | :52:13. | |
misconduct that should lead to a place inquiry, then so be it and let | :52:14. | :52:18. | |
the full process take place. If anybody needs to be brought to any | :52:19. | :52:22. | |
form of criminal justice, then that must be right. Mr Speaker, as you | :52:23. | :52:29. | |
and others know, I am a one nation Conservative. I support capitalism, | :52:30. | :52:35. | |
but not unfettered, not without compassion and caring, and that | :52:36. | :52:38. | |
extends to anybody who should work for any business in our country. The | :52:39. | :52:48. | |
Minister said, any wrongdoing will be dealt with. The problem is that | :52:49. | :52:52. | |
much of this, I suspect, was legal, and that puts a moral responsibility | :52:53. | :52:56. | |
on every Government over the last few decades it has allowed this sort | :52:57. | :53:03. | |
of action to be legal. In taking out Philip Green and his company taking | :53:04. | :53:10. | |
out over 500 million in dividends can be destroyed as little else but | :53:11. | :53:15. | |
asset stripping. But the employees who are dependent on the pension | :53:16. | :53:20. | |
scheme, they will lose 10%. There are many on these benches who think | :53:21. | :53:24. | |
that the minimum bet is to happen is for Sir Phillip Green to pay back | :53:25. | :53:29. | |
enough to save them from that. As I said, I'm not going to name any | :53:30. | :53:35. | |
individual. As I say, there are a number of investigations taking | :53:36. | :53:40. | |
place and being conducted. Before we rush to any form of judgment in this | :53:41. | :53:43. | |
place or anywhere else, let's wait for those full investigation is to | :53:44. | :53:47. | |
be concluded and then see if we need to take matters forward. I thank the | :53:48. | :53:56. | |
Minister for her statement, and I particularly welcome her robust | :53:57. | :53:58. | |
comments about pursuing any wrongdoers. That is entirely the | :53:59. | :54:04. | |
right thing to do. If ever there was the unacceptable face of capitalism, | :54:05. | :54:08. | |
it comes in the form of Sir Phillip Green. The BHS story in my | :54:09. | :54:16. | |
constituency is one of 16 stories affected in Scotland, many in middle | :54:17. | :54:22. | |
sized towns, where the loss of employment but create considerable | :54:23. | :54:25. | |
problems. These employees have contributed a lifetime to BHS, to | :54:26. | :54:31. | |
because of this Sir Phillip Green's because of this Sir Phillip Green's | :54:32. | :54:35. | |
failure as a businessman, and his naked greed, which may have been | :54:36. | :54:39. | |
legal, they are facing both redundancy and great anxiety about | :54:40. | :54:43. | |
their pension, even if they are guaranteed the 90% of accrued | :54:44. | :54:52. | |
pensions. Furthermore, to have for personal convenience sold BHS per ?1 | :54:53. | :55:02. | |
lead, as we have heard, to a man who has been declared bankrupt three | :55:03. | :55:05. | |
times, as of last week, it is scandalous. | :55:06. | :55:12. | |
Even now as the final Green has rejected the opinion of his | :55:13. | :55:19. | |
advisers. This raises questions about the juju legends process. Many | :55:20. | :55:25. | |
will be thinking Green is little better than a corporate crook. He | :55:26. | :55:30. | |
cannot be allowed to sell off in his yacht, a luxury gin palace as one | :55:31. | :55:38. | |
newspaper put it. The SNP stands with the communities, families and | :55:39. | :55:43. | |
individuals affected by this dreadful situation. We believe there | :55:44. | :55:47. | |
is fundamentally a need to readdress the regulation of the pensions | :55:48. | :55:52. | |
industry to ensure the protection of workers. I end with three questions. | :55:53. | :55:57. | |
First, in Scotland, the peace initiative will respond to assist | :55:58. | :56:00. | |
all those made redundant. What are the plans of the UK Government to | :56:01. | :56:07. | |
mirror the breadth of action undertaken by Pace? Second, what | :56:08. | :56:11. | |
action does the UK Government contemplate to dress the ease with | :56:12. | :56:16. | |
which unscrupulous chancers like Green find it easy to be nude | :56:17. | :56:21. | |
businesses of their financial assets, and finally does the | :56:22. | :56:25. | |
Minister understand why many employees will feel the pensions | :56:26. | :56:32. | |
regulator should seek the entire 571 billion deficit from Green himself. | :56:33. | :56:37. | |
Can I thank the honourable gentleman and say it is a long time since I | :56:38. | :56:44. | |
have been to visit his constituency. Like many, wherever they might be in | :56:45. | :56:50. | |
the UK, the role of BHS has been critical. Unfortunately, its | :56:51. | :56:54. | |
fortunes have not been good for some time, perhaps that's the fault of | :56:55. | :57:00. | |
all of us and I suspect I am guilty of that. The honourable gentleman | :57:01. | :57:06. | |
makes a good point about greed, it doesn't matter who it is. It is | :57:07. | :57:13. | |
certainly not acceptable, whatever your faith may be. He makes a number | :57:14. | :57:20. | |
of points. We have to await the outcome of the investigations and if | :57:21. | :57:23. | |
we need to take further action, we will not flinch in doing that. The | :57:24. | :57:31. | |
question is at the heart of BHS are not ones obligated to you but one is | :57:32. | :57:35. | |
about the judgments made by people in positions of authority and the | :57:36. | :57:41. | |
ethics of the people entrusted with such responsibilities for those | :57:42. | :57:47. | |
companies. The last few weeks, my friends will be aware that Sir | :57:48. | :57:52. | |
Philip Green has taken substantial fire for his reputation. It is up to | :57:53. | :57:57. | |
him how he wishes to respond, but is my honourable friend aware of the | :57:58. | :58:02. | |
collateral damage which is being done to people's trust in business | :58:03. | :58:08. | |
by the actions of people involved in BHS. I could not agree more. I thank | :58:09. | :58:15. | |
him for his valuable contribution. The reason I am choosing my words | :58:16. | :58:20. | |
today with some care is not because I do not have my own view is based | :58:21. | :58:26. | |
on what I have read, but I think it is very important that we allow | :58:27. | :58:30. | |
these investigations to take place before we rush to judgment, but it | :58:31. | :58:36. | |
is fair and right to say that on the basis of what we have read in the | :58:37. | :58:41. | |
papers, nobody could be in any way content with some of the allegations | :58:42. | :58:46. | |
that have been made. They are very serious and he rightly makes the | :58:47. | :58:52. | |
point that that rightly does indeed damage the reputation of all | :58:53. | :58:54. | |
businesses and I cannot be right either. It is clear from the woeful | :58:55. | :59:04. | |
evidence given to our enquiry that effective corporate governance in | :59:05. | :59:09. | |
BHS was entirely absent, something which prompted the director-general | :59:10. | :59:17. | |
of the Institute of to state that it represents a blight on the | :59:18. | :59:20. | |
reputation of British business, adding, if the chairman of Arcadia | :59:21. | :59:25. | |
is not looked at, it could set an appalling precedent for future | :59:26. | :59:28. | |
selves or failing businesses. Has the Minister raised BHS with the | :59:29. | :59:36. | |
financial reporting Council? Will the Government consider altering the | :59:37. | :59:41. | |
remit is to ensure directors and their failings are brought under | :59:42. | :59:48. | |
their jurisdiction? Could I pay tribute to the great work that the | :59:49. | :59:53. | |
honour of four gentleman does and I know he has already conducted | :59:54. | :00:00. | |
successfully and enquiry into the working practices of one business | :00:01. | :00:05. | |
and he has successfully acquired the attendant at the select committee. | :00:06. | :00:09. | |
These are important points and in relation to the specific questions | :00:10. | :00:13. | |
he has asked, I will write to him because I need to make further | :00:14. | :00:18. | |
enquiry about that. We need to wait to make sure we have full | :00:19. | :00:23. | |
investigations, we know all the facts but he should be absolutely | :00:24. | :00:28. | |
sure that we take these matters seriously and we will not have | :00:29. | :00:32. | |
British businesses good name is matched by the wrong doings of | :00:33. | :00:38. | |
others. Whilst managers and owners can and should be concerned and | :00:39. | :00:46. | |
indeed answerable, does the Minister agree that there were serious legal | :00:47. | :00:51. | |
complexities involved in dictating that owners must assess the | :00:52. | :00:54. | |
viability and character of purchases or be responsible for purchases | :00:55. | :01:06. | |
business conduct a post sale? A well-informed, his contribution is | :01:07. | :01:11. | |
and he makes very good points. I am sorry to bang out on about this but | :01:12. | :01:17. | |
it is important to say, investigations have properly been | :01:18. | :01:21. | |
started, they will be conducted, there will be conclusions and if | :01:22. | :01:25. | |
there are any allegations of wrongdoing, we will be found in our | :01:26. | :01:33. | |
view that justice will be done. BHS and my constituency was a | :01:34. | :01:39. | |
micro-store in the shopping centre and the staff who worked there are | :01:40. | :01:43. | |
concerned about their future and the future of their pensions, but there | :01:44. | :01:48. | |
are wider issues about the impact of closure on our high Street, so can | :01:49. | :01:52. | |
the Minister tell us what she's going to do to address my | :01:53. | :01:58. | |
constituents's concerns and hold to account previous owners or current | :01:59. | :02:02. | |
owners and directors for any part they played in the downfall of BHS? | :02:03. | :02:09. | |
Can I be very clear, I am more than happy to meet her. I know that my | :02:10. | :02:14. | |
honourable friend the high streets Minister is also here and my | :02:15. | :02:20. | |
colleague from DWP. That shows the level of absolute determination we | :02:21. | :02:24. | |
all have to make sure that all those affected by this are found | :02:25. | :02:28. | |
alternative work and again I reiterate, there is a full | :02:29. | :02:33. | |
investigation expected to be properly conducted and if there is | :02:34. | :02:36. | |
the need for further action, that will be done. Well the investigators | :02:37. | :02:42. | |
must be allowed to get on, would have my honourable friend agreed | :02:43. | :02:45. | |
there may be wider lessons to be drawn on the Corporal governance of | :02:46. | :02:56. | |
large Private companies. Maybe large Private companies should look into | :02:57. | :03:00. | |
their own governance arrangements and their own transparency around | :03:01. | :03:05. | |
them. I completely agree. If reports are right, this is deeply concerning | :03:06. | :03:09. | |
and there are many lessons that will have to be learned but we will wait | :03:10. | :03:13. | |
to see the conclusions of these various enquiries and what further | :03:14. | :03:17. | |
action needs to be taken, and we won't hesitate to do that. May I | :03:18. | :03:23. | |
thank the Minister for her statement and use it to express the anger | :03:24. | :03:28. | |
there is on all sides of the House at the threat to 11,000 jobs and | :03:29. | :03:33. | |
20,000 pensions. But might I also ask heard that when she goes back to | :03:34. | :03:39. | |
consider blowing the whistle on the break-up of this great empire. Is | :03:40. | :03:43. | |
she satisfied that a company could be sold for a quid could now be | :03:44. | :03:48. | |
broken up because someone could not meet a timetable for 100 million of | :03:49. | :03:53. | |
working capital, and do she satisfied that the firm entrusted | :03:54. | :03:56. | |
with the break-up would behave in the best interests of the whole at | :03:57. | :04:00. | |
work rather than perhaps selling some of the assets off rather | :04:01. | :04:05. | |
cheaply to known figures in the whole of this terrible, sorry saga? | :04:06. | :04:11. | |
I have to say to the honourable gentleman that I do have faith in | :04:12. | :04:16. | |
the workings of the administrators. They are under strict duties and I | :04:17. | :04:20. | |
am going to very much say that I expect them to comply with those | :04:21. | :04:26. | |
duties and also to pay tribute to the insolvency service and the good | :04:27. | :04:31. | |
work they do, and how seriously they take these matters as indeed we all | :04:32. | :04:35. | |
do. There are a number of questions the honourable gentleman asked. I am | :04:36. | :04:40. | |
more than happy to write to him with any answers I can provide to all the | :04:41. | :04:46. | |
matters he has raised. I would like to welcome the Minister's statement | :04:47. | :04:52. | |
on BHS but it isn't only BHS that has the problem, there are supply | :04:53. | :04:57. | |
chain industries who will also have a problem. Their run businesses | :04:58. | :05:03. | |
wanting to buy this business but they cannot because it is shared and | :05:04. | :05:08. | |
the things inside have gone elsewhere. They have not physically | :05:09. | :05:14. | |
gone elsewhere but they have been put into another company. I would | :05:15. | :05:18. | |
like to commend the Minister's Department for the rapid reaction | :05:19. | :05:22. | |
they had on the day the company told people they would be redundant, but | :05:23. | :05:27. | |
can she investigate what they are doing because I think there is some | :05:28. | :05:32. | |
wrongdoing going there. Of course court holds very much is in that | :05:33. | :05:37. | |
supply chain and as I mentioned, it is not just the workers, it is those | :05:38. | :05:44. | |
individuals and their families, it is a dreadful moment when you lose | :05:45. | :05:49. | |
their job but it goes right the way through the supply chain. I would | :05:50. | :06:02. | |
like the... We are more than happy to talk to her and see how we can | :06:03. | :06:11. | |
ensure the best thing is done. We must never forget that pensions are | :06:12. | :06:16. | |
deferred wages from the people that have worked hard, hard working | :06:17. | :06:21. | |
people throughout their lives. The pensions protection as fund was set | :06:22. | :06:24. | |
up by a Labour government and does play a vital role, but will the | :06:25. | :06:30. | |
Minister agree in sending a clear message that the pensions regulator | :06:31. | :06:36. | |
has our full support in being as robust as possible to look at any | :06:37. | :06:42. | |
loopholes and any scapegoats that they can make out of the current | :06:43. | :06:47. | |
regulation and to make it much more firm are so people cannot get away | :06:48. | :06:52. | |
with any wrong doing with wages? People when they reach retirement | :06:53. | :06:56. | |
look forward to receiving the pension. They have paid into it so | :06:57. | :07:03. | |
their money has been put in there and trust that when they do retire, | :07:04. | :07:08. | |
they will expect a certain benefit to come back because they have paid | :07:09. | :07:12. | |
into it. We all know that it is incredibly important. It is | :07:13. | :07:18. | |
absolutely imperative that all employers make sure they do the | :07:19. | :07:23. | |
right thing by those schemes, and I pay tribute to the Labour government | :07:24. | :07:27. | |
that setup the PPF and while we are not content with the fact it will | :07:28. | :07:31. | |
always deliver what people would have had if their schemes had been | :07:32. | :07:37. | |
successful, it is an extremely good lifeboat for those pension schemes | :07:38. | :07:42. | |
that unfortunately do fail, but there is an investigation, no doubt | :07:43. | :07:48. | |
lessons to be learned. I welcome the investigations that are underway and | :07:49. | :07:51. | |
I trust there will be regular updates to the House and employees, | :07:52. | :07:57. | |
but I am pleased to hear there is further action taken for the high | :07:58. | :08:01. | |
Street and I would encourage the Minister and hope she would ensure | :08:02. | :08:05. | |
that the House that it will not just focus on retail but also commercial | :08:06. | :08:10. | |
and leisure and residential activities to bring new life back to | :08:11. | :08:15. | |
the high street in a more balanced way given the trends in online | :08:16. | :08:21. | |
trading. I couldn't agree more. The high Street Minister is nodding away | :08:22. | :08:25. | |
furiously, but he makes a good point about the fact the high street has | :08:26. | :08:32. | |
to diversify stop I really would urge all members to look at a great | :08:33. | :08:37. | |
report commissioned by the Labour Party, it's an outstanding look | :08:38. | :08:43. | |
forward to the future of the high Street. It is packed full of ideas, | :08:44. | :08:49. | |
some controversial, but full of sound advice that many on the high | :08:50. | :08:53. | |
street could and should agree with and take in and put into action. My | :08:54. | :09:05. | |
constituency will have won a 16 stores. I have concerns about the | :09:06. | :09:10. | |
workers there and give potential void in the high Street. She said | :09:11. | :09:17. | |
Job Centre plus would help identify skills gaps and vacancies, to look | :09:18. | :09:22. | |
at filling these. Is she aware that my local job centre that do not as a | :09:23. | :09:31. | |
matter of course monitor long-term vacancies and therefore identify | :09:32. | :09:36. | |
skills gaps and does she agree that that should be a routine measure and | :09:37. | :09:40. | |
that would help create opportunities and fill gaps in companies? | :09:41. | :09:45. | |
I think this is the kind of conversation I shouldn't have with | :09:46. | :09:50. | |
this honourable gentleman, because it is not in my expertise, but if he | :09:51. | :09:59. | |
is right, it is very concerning. I will speak to him. The main concern | :10:00. | :10:03. | |
today should be those today who find themselves without a job. I think it | :10:04. | :10:08. | |
is becoming increasingly clear that Sir Phillip Green, aided by weak | :10:09. | :10:14. | |
directors, wash their hands of this business because it was a doomed | :10:15. | :10:18. | |
business with a doomed pension scheme. The principle in English law | :10:19. | :10:21. | |
is very well established that a seller shouldn't have two bouts with | :10:22. | :10:27. | |
a successor. But isn't it time that perhaps the Minister, aided by the | :10:28. | :10:32. | |
enquiries from this House, revisited that in the instances where a seller | :10:33. | :10:38. | |
has recklessly or knowingly sold their stake in a business to someone | :10:39. | :10:42. | |
who is completely unsuited and unable to meet the creditor' | :10:43. | :10:46. | |
demands? I really do thank my honourable friend for that very | :10:47. | :10:51. | |
important and incredibly profound point, and say that, yes, we are | :10:52. | :10:56. | |
having the investigation at the conclusion of these, no doubt there | :10:57. | :10:59. | |
will be many more questions. They may well be some sort of action, but | :11:00. | :11:03. | |
I think you raise is an incredibly important point, which I have no | :11:04. | :11:07. | |
doubt that at the end of these investigations, it will be | :11:08. | :11:10. | |
considered very seriously by this House and Government. Wouldn't it | :11:11. | :11:21. | |
have been useful to hear from the Minister how long the investigations | :11:22. | :11:24. | |
will take to get to their conclusion? Can I refer back to my | :11:25. | :11:29. | |
right honourable friend's question about when did you last meet with | :11:30. | :11:33. | |
the administrators and what questions that she has about what | :11:34. | :11:38. | |
could be saved and the number of stories that could be saved? In my | :11:39. | :11:46. | |
constituency, the BHS Storer, they believed they were doing very well, | :11:47. | :11:51. | |
the employees. What discussions is she having to try and keep jobs, | :11:52. | :11:55. | |
rather than lose them and getting Jobcentre plus to help? I haven't | :11:56. | :12:01. | |
had any discussions with the administration, but I don't believe | :12:02. | :12:06. | |
that that would be the norm. I have confidence in them. I also have | :12:07. | :12:11. | |
confidence in the insolvency service who do have regular contact with my | :12:12. | :12:14. | |
department. If the honourable gentleman wants me to make further | :12:15. | :12:19. | |
enquiry, I have no difficulty with that at all, and more than happy to | :12:20. | :12:24. | |
do so. Especially English and to the jobs for BHS workers in his | :12:25. | :12:30. | |
constituency, and indeed in anybody else's constituency. That's not a | :12:31. | :12:35. | |
difficulty. Just as it is right that the circumstances that brought BHS | :12:36. | :12:40. | |
to this point I probably looked into and have been extensively raised | :12:41. | :12:43. | |
today, it is very important that everything possible is being done to | :12:44. | :12:48. | |
help those employees affected by this devastating news. Can my right | :12:49. | :12:52. | |
honourable friend reassure me that Jobcentre Plus's rapid response will | :12:53. | :12:58. | |
have all its support from the Government to do everything they can | :12:59. | :13:02. | |
for the affected employees? And very grateful that my friend, the member | :13:03. | :13:12. | |
for Swindon south... North. Within the DWP, here's the relevant | :13:13. | :13:15. | |
minister. He has heard that has been said and I am certainly told and | :13:16. | :13:19. | |
showed that all beef support that is available through the rapid | :13:20. | :13:23. | |
response, if there are any difficulties, we will take that very | :13:24. | :13:28. | |
seriously. It is very important that people are giving good support, so | :13:29. | :13:34. | |
we get them back into work. Insolvency service enquiries have | :13:35. | :13:37. | |
always been restricted, but the minister told this House on the 25th | :13:38. | :13:41. | |
of April that this inquiry would be open and transparent. Perhaps you | :13:42. | :13:44. | |
could tell us what the Government is doing differently with this inquiry | :13:45. | :13:47. | |
to make sure that information is as open and transparent as possible, | :13:48. | :13:53. | |
especially for a those across the country. The Government has quite | :13:54. | :14:00. | |
clearly looked at the reports that have been widespread, about the | :14:01. | :14:03. | |
goings-on that has led to this fortunate situation. We take those | :14:04. | :14:07. | |
allegations extremely seriously, which is why we have said to the | :14:08. | :14:11. | |
relevant organisations that there must be able inquiry. We expect | :14:12. | :14:17. | |
those enquiries to be concluded as quickly as possible, but they must | :14:18. | :14:21. | |
be thorough and after that we will take any such action that is needed | :14:22. | :14:25. | |
to make sure, as I say, that if there is wrongdoing, people are | :14:26. | :14:30. | |
brought to justice. The staff at Jobcentre Plus provide a service in | :14:31. | :14:40. | |
getting people back into their jobs. Can the Minister added the house on | :14:41. | :14:44. | |
what they service can do with BHS staff. Would she agree with me that | :14:45. | :14:48. | |
the retail sector, into which hopefully these people can be found | :14:49. | :14:52. | |
alternative jobs, will be far healthier over the next five years, | :14:53. | :14:56. | |
as a result of the business rates cut announced in the Budget? I don't | :14:57. | :15:02. | |
really want to go back through my statement, but I did identify in | :15:03. | :15:08. | |
some detail the sort of assistance that people will be given, whether | :15:09. | :15:14. | |
its helpless CV writing, whether its access to retraining, specifically | :15:15. | :15:17. | |
DWP, which I think is a very good and idea, contacting other retailers | :15:18. | :15:23. | |
to see what jobs will be available locally. They can apply to those | :15:24. | :15:28. | |
jobs, and, yes, I do believe that our cuts to business rate for small | :15:29. | :15:31. | |
businesses was an outstanding achievement of the Chancellor in the | :15:32. | :15:35. | |
last budget, and I am confident we will see as a result of that, real | :15:36. | :15:38. | |
assistance for small businesses notably on the high Street. The | :15:39. | :15:45. | |
first concern of all of us across this House or those who have lost | :15:46. | :15:48. | |
jobs and pensions, and there are many questions that they and we | :15:49. | :15:52. | |
still want to hear answers to, but looking forward, will be Minister | :15:53. | :15:58. | |
assure the house that they will look at the lessons of this from the | :15:59. | :16:02. | |
failures of this and Austin Reed, and will she consider relaunching a | :16:03. | :16:07. | |
strategy working with businesses, so we don't end up high trees which are | :16:08. | :16:10. | |
all payday lenders and betting shops? We started a great tool for | :16:11. | :16:15. | |
in the last Government looking at the future of the high Street, and | :16:16. | :16:24. | |
we went to people like Mary Portas and others, to see how we could | :16:25. | :16:30. | |
help. I think, local Government itself, and I'm sure the honourable | :16:31. | :16:32. | |
gentleman will be aware, can actually play a hugely important | :16:33. | :16:37. | |
part in ensuring that the high street is developing the right way, | :16:38. | :16:41. | |
which is one of the reasons we have changed the planning rules, for | :16:42. | :16:44. | |
example, and they can thrive and grow. Often, it does rely on local | :16:45. | :16:49. | |
people in their area thinking out of the box and being quite radical in | :16:50. | :16:52. | |
the way they think about the future of the high Street. And I think | :16:53. | :16:56. | |
there was another question, but I can't remember. In any event, the | :16:57. | :17:02. | |
usual rules will apply, I will write to him if there is anything I have | :17:03. | :17:08. | |
forgotten. I do find it very difficult to understand that the | :17:09. | :17:11. | |
Minister, given that there are 11,000 direct jobs and many, many | :17:12. | :17:18. | |
other indirect supply chain jobs at risk here, hasn't had a meeting with | :17:19. | :17:29. | |
the administrator. Given that the store in my constituency tell me | :17:30. | :17:42. | |
that they are profitable parts of the BHS business. I think there is a | :17:43. | :17:46. | |
discussion that the Minister has to have with the administrator about | :17:47. | :17:49. | |
what parts of their business can actually be saved in another guise, | :17:50. | :17:59. | |
or as part of BHS be invented. The fact that she has not had any time | :18:00. | :18:05. | |
to meet the administrator, I think is shocking and a travesty unders | :18:06. | :18:12. | |
11,000 jobs. Just when I think it is going so well, the honourable | :18:13. | :18:15. | |
gentleman always disappoints. I didn't say that I didn't have the | :18:16. | :18:20. | |
time. The honourable gentleman wants to talk about the 11,000 people, | :18:21. | :18:25. | |
let's do that and not score party political points. Of course, we only | :18:26. | :18:31. | |
found the situation whereby the administrators couldn't find a buyer | :18:32. | :18:36. | |
in the last few days, so we don't have Government interfering in that | :18:37. | :18:41. | |
process. Now we are aware we are. If the honourable gentleman shouts from | :18:42. | :18:51. | |
his sedentary position to meet them, I have just said that I don't have a | :18:52. | :18:55. | |
problem in contacting the administrators if that will have any | :18:56. | :18:58. | |
benefit at all, but I think we have to put a sense of proportion into | :18:59. | :19:04. | |
this. This unfortunate news has only just been announced. This really is | :19:05. | :19:12. | |
not good enough. It's not good enough that the Minister hasn't met | :19:13. | :19:18. | |
the administrator to talk to the people. Is not good enough that | :19:19. | :19:24. | |
11,000 people face uncertainty whilst millionaires get money for | :19:25. | :19:32. | |
yachts. The people in my constituency will not have justice | :19:33. | :19:41. | |
until there is someone to answer to this. Will the Minister support me | :19:42. | :19:50. | |
and having that report? The number of points there, I can make it | :19:51. | :19:53. | |
absolutely clear. The Government is not legally entitled to intervene | :19:54. | :20:01. | |
and direct the administrator. The administrator has two act absolutely | :20:02. | :20:09. | |
independently, and we have already, quite unusually, announced a number | :20:10. | :20:12. | |
of investigations into these matters. We await to see the outcome | :20:13. | :20:16. | |
of these investigations before we rush to judgment. And as I have said | :20:17. | :20:20. | |
repeatedly, if there is further action that is to be taken, we would | :20:21. | :20:32. | |
hesitate to do that. There is now some 30 honourable member is being | :20:33. | :20:35. | |
investigated by 18 different police forces across England, and some very | :20:36. | :20:40. | |
serious allegations that the representation of the People's act | :20:41. | :20:44. | |
may have been contravened the declaration of candid expenditure. | :20:45. | :20:48. | |
Can you make a ruling, Mr Speaker, on what may weigh not the raising | :20:49. | :20:52. | |
this House in reference to these allegations? Any successful | :20:53. | :21:00. | |
prosecution may result in serious consequences for the honourable | :21:01. | :21:03. | |
member involved, and even the question of last year's general | :21:04. | :21:10. | |
election results. The matter is not subdued as the. I think it is | :21:11. | :21:21. | |
prudent and wise to leave the investigating authorities to conduct | :21:22. | :21:29. | |
their investigations, and not to seek to do so ourselves in this | :21:30. | :21:35. | |
chamber. With an imagined expertise and authority. Lastly, I would just | :21:36. | :21:48. | |
say, I think it is best to avoid the hypothetical and deal with these | :21:49. | :21:52. | |
matters as and when, but only as and when, they arise. We will leave it | :21:53. | :22:00. | |
there. I'm sure on a different and unrelated matter, the honourable | :22:01. | :22:03. | |
gentleman is nodding solemnly and sagely. I seek your advice for the | :22:04. | :22:11. | |
second time in a matter of months, a ministerial visit has been organised | :22:12. | :22:17. | |
to Headingley in my constituency. On this occasion, I had to drag it out | :22:18. | :22:23. | |
the office of the Secretary of State for Department of community and | :22:24. | :22:27. | |
local Government, to ask what the visit was for. I was delighted he | :22:28. | :22:31. | |
was doing it, but can you make it clear to ministers that we welcome | :22:32. | :22:35. | |
ministerial visits and they should have the courtesy to tell us what | :22:36. | :22:38. | |
they are doing and where they are going. First of all, I think it is | :22:39. | :22:46. | |
best if ministers who are going to visit colleagues' constituencies are | :22:47. | :22:51. | |
explicit and candid about these matters, subject only to security | :22:52. | :22:54. | |
considerations. It's much better to tell colleagues what it is about, | :22:55. | :23:00. | |
then to deprive them of that information. Secondly, I must say | :23:01. | :23:07. | |
that in the respect of the secretary of communities and local Government, | :23:08. | :23:10. | |
who visited my own constituency recently, I have always found him | :23:11. | :23:14. | |
the very embodiment of courtesy. That has been my experience of him. | :23:15. | :23:22. | |
He seems to be courteous to most people. If there has been elapsed, I | :23:23. | :23:27. | |
regret that. Thirdly, I just say it is not worth the hassle with the | :23:28. | :23:32. | |
honourable gentleman, so he is a very persistent terrier. My advice | :23:33. | :23:36. | |
to anybody who is going to wander into his constituency on anything | :23:37. | :23:41. | |
that might be considered official business, tell him in advance. My | :23:42. | :23:47. | |
point of order relates to the nondisclosure of government-held | :23:48. | :23:52. | |
information to the house. During the response to the urgent question on | :23:53. | :24:00. | |
the deportation of foreign and EU prisoners, at 4:05pm, my honourable | :24:01. | :24:05. | |
friend Aspley secretary if she could tell the house how EU prisoners had | :24:06. | :24:10. | |
been transferred compulsorily from this country to their country of | :24:11. | :24:14. | |
origin under the terms of the EU prisoner transfer agreement, which | :24:15. | :24:21. | |
the Home Secretary parried away. The Home Secretary said that she didn't | :24:22. | :24:24. | |
have that information readily available. I repeated the question | :24:25. | :24:30. | |
ten minutes later. The prisons minister was sitting on the bench, | :24:31. | :24:33. | |
there were seven officials in the box and other Home Office ministers | :24:34. | :24:38. | |
on the front bench. I find it inconceivable that the Home | :24:39. | :24:41. | |
Secretary wasn't a prize with that information and withheld from the | :24:42. | :24:47. | |
house. What be done to make sure this information is released to the | :24:48. | :24:50. | |
house before the house rises later today? | :24:51. | :24:58. | |
I have to say, I didn't quite hear the tale end of his question but I'm | :24:59. | :25:07. | |
sure he would not suggest a minister would deliberately refused to give | :25:08. | :25:10. | |
information that she had at the time. As to what was known to the | :25:11. | :25:16. | |
Minister or what was available to the Minister or what was proffered, | :25:17. | :25:23. | |
I don't know. If a minister has not given a correct answer, it is | :25:24. | :25:27. | |
incumbent upon that minister to correct it as quickly as possible. | :25:28. | :25:33. | |
If the honourable gentleman is dissatisfied, he has the resources | :25:34. | :25:37. | |
of the table office is open to him to table a question, including to | :25:38. | :25:43. | |
table a question for a named day and if he is dissatisfied with the | :25:44. | :25:47. | |
answer or doesn't receive a substantive answer, there is an | :25:48. | :25:53. | |
arsenal of Parliamentary weapons available to him, especially if he | :25:54. | :25:57. | |
judges the matter to be urgent and so I will leave the honourable | :25:58. | :26:03. | |
gentleman to his own devices. If there are no further points of | :26:04. | :26:14. | |
order, we come now to the programme motion and I believe it's the | :26:15. | :26:24. | |
Minister of State for security. Minister John Hayes. I'm immensely | :26:25. | :26:32. | |
grateful to you, Mr Speaker, in moving this programme motion. I | :26:33. | :26:36. | |
don't want to delay the House on Julie because there are important | :26:37. | :26:40. | |
matters to debate in this legislation. It has been the habit | :26:41. | :26:45. | |
of the Government in respect of this legislation to engage the most | :26:46. | :26:52. | |
careful... To engage... I have already excited my honourable friend | :26:53. | :26:59. | |
and I continue to do so. I think irritated might be. But the | :27:00. | :27:04. | |
honourable gentleman has never let that put him off in the past. And | :27:05. | :27:11. | |
we'll certainly not do so for the next two days, Mr Speaker. The | :27:12. | :27:16. | |
programme motion is a relatively straightforward matter. I say that | :27:17. | :27:22. | |
because it has been the habit of the Government as I was about to say, in | :27:23. | :27:26. | |
respect of this particular legislation to both listen and to | :27:27. | :27:32. | |
learn and during the course of the next two days, I hope to be able to | :27:33. | :27:37. | |
show that we have done both. The scrutiny has been considerable. This | :27:38. | :27:42. | |
draft a bill, the one that preceded the legislation, we are now | :27:43. | :27:49. | |
considering at its report stage, were scrutinised closely by three | :27:50. | :27:53. | |
committees of this House, including a special joint committee chaired | :27:54. | :28:00. | |
and supported by members of the Lords and Commons who gave it | :28:01. | :28:07. | |
considerable attention. That committee produced a report with a | :28:08. | :28:12. | |
series of recommendations and indeed we then had a committee stage which | :28:13. | :28:21. | |
is engaged in debate about those recommendations. It has been a | :28:22. | :28:26. | |
thorough process up to now. On that basis I moved the programme motion. | :28:27. | :28:31. | |
The question is the investigatory Powers Bill Powers Bill as on the | :28:32. | :28:38. | |
order paper. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, | :28:39. | :28:46. | |
"no". I think the ayes have it. Order of the clock will now proceed | :28:47. | :28:50. | |
to give the orders of the day. The bill to be considered. Splendid. We | :28:51. | :29:00. | |
begin with government new clause five with which it will be | :29:01. | :29:03. | |
convenient to consider the other amendments and new courses listed on | :29:04. | :29:10. | |
the selection paper. The minister now has a second opportunity to | :29:11. | :29:17. | |
practice his oratory. And as you know, Mr Speaker, practice makes | :29:18. | :29:21. | |
perfect and we have two days to perfect all we do and say. We open | :29:22. | :29:28. | |
the debate on this bill considering a group of amendments which would | :29:29. | :29:32. | |
address a matter which lies at its very heart. Throughout the lengthy | :29:33. | :29:38. | |
consideration both in its draft form and final form, the issue of privacy | :29:39. | :29:43. | |
and the balance between security and private interest has been frequently | :29:44. | :29:48. | |
considered, discussed and debated. The balance which lies at the heart | :29:49. | :29:55. | |
of our considerations and this proposed legislation seems to me to | :29:56. | :30:03. | |
be critical to the acceptance which we need to engender of a bill which | :30:04. | :30:08. | |
I believe is in the national interest. Balance is the word that | :30:09. | :30:14. | |
was used by the Honourable member for the City of Chester during the | :30:15. | :30:20. | |
course of the committee scrutiny of this bill. He talked about the | :30:21. | :30:23. | |
balance between national interest and personal interest. The defence | :30:24. | :30:29. | |
of personal privity and the underpinning of the common good. In | :30:30. | :30:36. | |
those terms, communal well-being and individual fulfilment are from the | :30:37. | :30:40. | |
inseparable. And national interest can only be defined as people's | :30:41. | :30:48. | |
interest. The issues of privacy and oversight are central to our | :30:49. | :30:51. | |
considerations and the Government is determined to ensure that the bill | :30:52. | :30:57. | |
reflects the concentration on those two matters. We are clear that in | :30:58. | :31:06. | |
considering and passing this bill we must do more, we must do more in | :31:07. | :31:14. | |
respect of checks and balances, safeguards and oversights and that | :31:15. | :31:19. | |
is what we have tried to do, indeed in the provisions that we are | :31:20. | :31:25. | |
considering now. It is important to understand that proves he is the | :31:26. | :31:29. | |
core of the bill. The protection of private interest and the public is | :31:30. | :31:35. | |
at the heart of all we seek to do. The honourable member tabled a new | :31:36. | :31:39. | |
clause to strike the balance. In sympathy with my view that privacy | :31:40. | :31:44. | |
is woven into the bill throughout its provision. I have concluded that | :31:45. | :31:50. | |
he was right to emphasise the need to make that palpably clear on the | :31:51. | :32:00. | |
face of the legislation. To seek to if you like reinforce the | :32:01. | :32:06. | |
determination that I have described to protect private interest. It | :32:07. | :32:14. | |
seemed to me he was also right to suggest that that should be an | :32:15. | :32:18. | |
overarching aspect of the Bill, to explicitly at the outset of this | :32:19. | :32:26. | |
legislation make clear that privacy matters in the way that I have | :32:27. | :32:33. | |
described. He suggested in committee and indeed he has tabled an | :32:34. | :32:40. | |
amendment to consider today also but he suggested in committee that we | :32:41. | :32:45. | |
add on the face of the Bill just such an overarching emphasis on the | :32:46. | :32:49. | |
defence of private interest. By under the powers available, the Bill | :32:50. | :32:55. | |
provides a successive governments have, and appropriate degree of | :32:56. | :33:01. | |
oversight of those powers. Furthermore, should a change of all | :33:02. | :33:04. | |
the resolution, the first time and in highly significant, even | :33:05. | :33:12. | |
ground-breaking terms, we have again struck an important balance between | :33:13. | :33:18. | |
the role of the executive and the role of the judiciary. That answers | :33:19. | :33:26. | |
the call of both those who made the case here earlier that it was | :33:27. | :33:32. | |
politicians that should decide because they are accountable to the | :33:33. | :33:37. | |
people, and on the other hand, those who thought that that alone was not | :33:38. | :33:41. | |
sufficient, that it was also important for lawyers to play their | :33:42. | :33:46. | |
part in ensuring that decisions were made in respect of warranting were | :33:47. | :33:50. | |
reasonable, necessary and proportionate. The core principle | :33:51. | :33:57. | |
and necessity of proportionality applies to all such powers and is | :33:58. | :34:01. | |
underpinned by the changes we seek to bring in the Bill. In essence, | :34:02. | :34:06. | |
these provisions collect the collective consideration of the | :34:07. | :34:09. | |
three independent reviews I mentioned briefly. The report and | :34:10. | :34:18. | |
the draft bill published last year called for the inclusion of the Bill | :34:19. | :34:22. | |
dealing with privacy protections and that was echoed during the committee | :34:23. | :34:29. | |
stage. The Government has been cleared throughout the passage of | :34:30. | :34:33. | |
this bill that it would listen to recommendations that would improve | :34:34. | :34:36. | |
this important piece of legislation and it is just what we have done | :34:37. | :34:41. | |
here. I bring before the House a number of amendments demonstrating | :34:42. | :34:44. | |
that willingness to listen and that desire to strike the right balance. | :34:45. | :34:52. | |
Number 34 new rates to clause ten -- relates. There are a small number of | :34:53. | :35:00. | |
exceptions to this restriction and the purpose of this is to ensure | :35:01. | :35:04. | |
those exemptions are limited. This amendment makes clear the use of | :35:05. | :35:08. | |
regulatory powers to apply data is limited to those which are exercise | :35:09. | :35:16. | |
ball in connection with telecommunications or personal | :35:17. | :35:22. | |
regulations. Amendment 35 says the oversight provided by the | :35:23. | :35:26. | |
Commissioner for all efforts made by the prison governors to prevent the | :35:27. | :35:31. | |
use of illegal mobile phones in cost Gill institutions. This is something | :35:32. | :35:36. | |
that the interception Communications commission has previously called for | :35:37. | :35:42. | |
and so is pleased to amend the bill to take account of his advice. It | :35:43. | :35:50. | |
will ensure the investigatory Powers Commissioner will address the | :35:51. | :36:00. | |
oversight in electrical locations. I said we would go and give it further | :36:01. | :36:06. | |
consideration. We have done so and come to the conclusion that the | :36:07. | :36:10. | |
other tree made them was the right one. Although this talk would only | :36:11. | :36:15. | |
apply to limited circumstances and has never been used, I accept that | :36:16. | :36:21. | |
in cases where persons to have the power to seek the address of the | :36:22. | :36:26. | |
courts. Clause five is the previously clause I made reference | :36:27. | :36:31. | |
to. New clause five puts privacy at the very heart of the legislation in | :36:32. | :36:39. | |
precisely the overarching way which those who scrutinised the Bill prior | :36:40. | :36:42. | |
to committee and those who considered in committee recommended. | :36:43. | :36:48. | |
It responds therefore both to recommendations from the | :36:49. | :36:52. | |
intelligence and Security committee of Parliament and to extensive | :36:53. | :36:56. | |
debate since. The protection of privacy is woven throughout the | :36:57. | :37:01. | |
Bill, but we recognise the merit in setting it out at the very start. | :37:02. | :37:06. | |
This bill and its consideration has been characterised and I don't want | :37:07. | :37:14. | |
to indulge in hyperbole. It has been characterised by an unusual degree | :37:15. | :37:18. | |
of corporation across the House to get it right. All legislation | :37:19. | :37:21. | |
benefits from that kind of considered scrutiny and cooperation, | :37:22. | :37:30. | |
and legislation which is in the national interest, which this | :37:31. | :37:35. | |
certainly is, is far better for that kind of approach. It's exactly the | :37:36. | :37:44. | |
approach the Government has adopted. The new clause was inspired by the | :37:45. | :37:51. | |
IOC. Would he agree he is being ever so slightly modest in relation to | :37:52. | :37:56. | |
new clause five which is primarily aimed at protecting personal | :37:57. | :37:59. | |
privacy, but clearly he has been listening since one of the concerns | :38:00. | :38:03. | |
has been expressed from industry that interference and hacking may | :38:04. | :38:09. | |
cause a failure of confidence in businesses around IT in this | :38:10. | :38:13. | |
country, and clearly new clause five, paragraph to be will go some | :38:14. | :38:21. | |
way to protect the interest of those companies and businesses since it | :38:22. | :38:24. | |
states explicitly that public authorities must have regard to the | :38:25. | :38:28. | |
public interest in these matters, which would include the viability of | :38:29. | :38:33. | |
those undertakings. There have been concerns of the kinds he mentioned, | :38:34. | :38:39. | |
expressed. We will be coming as we go on to debate further detail in | :38:40. | :38:44. | |
the Bill, to Internet communication record that the capability | :38:45. | :38:50. | |
organisations to meet the requirements of the bill must be met | :38:51. | :38:56. | |
and must be met in a way which is not either excessively expensive and | :38:57. | :39:02. | |
impossible to implement or has the unintended consequences that he | :39:03. | :39:06. | |
described. It is partly in response to those over chores that has | :39:07. | :39:10. | |
stimulated the changes we have made to the Bill which we are now | :39:11. | :39:15. | |
considering, so it was partly about what the opposition said in | :39:16. | :39:20. | |
committee, partly about what the three reports said in respect of | :39:21. | :39:25. | |
privacy and the consequences he described, and partly about the | :39:26. | :39:29. | |
extensive discussions we have had with the sector on how these things | :39:30. | :39:34. | |
could best be implemented. Effective implementation of some of these | :39:35. | :39:38. | |
provisions is critical to their success and had the paid less | :39:39. | :39:43. | |
attention to that, he would be the first to criticise cars because he | :39:44. | :39:47. | |
has been a diligent member of this House and was a member of the joint | :39:48. | :39:51. | |
committee that I described that looked at this bill in some detail. | :39:52. | :39:58. | |
If I am understating the changes, perhaps that is a reflection of my | :39:59. | :40:05. | |
style. I wish to avoid hyperbole and I am grateful for employing -- him | :40:06. | :40:12. | |
drawing attention of the amendment the gunmen have tabled. | :40:13. | :40:19. | |
The new clause was inspired by the IAS see and is a member of on the | :40:20. | :40:33. | |
table by the honourable member. Warrants and other organisations | :40:34. | :40:35. | |
should not be granted when information can be achieved by less | :40:36. | :40:43. | |
intrusive means. Secretaries of State and judicial commissioners | :40:44. | :40:49. | |
must have regard to privacy, and it makes clear that criminal offences | :40:50. | :40:56. | |
that apply to misuse of powers under the Bill are sufficient to put | :40:57. | :41:03. | |
beyond doubt that, should anyone miss use these powers, then severe | :41:04. | :41:15. | |
penalties would apply. There can be no flexibility. I realise the Bill | :41:16. | :41:23. | |
is complex, but can I ask that before this matter is concluded in | :41:24. | :41:28. | |
both stages, can he write to me setting out what each of the | :41:29. | :41:32. | |
penalties are for each of the misconduct is, which are identified | :41:33. | :41:38. | |
in the Bill. The point I will make to him in due course is that it | :41:39. | :41:43. | |
remains extremely complex to follow, and in some cases, the penalties | :41:44. | :41:47. | |
appear to be little more than a rap over the knuckles. I know that the | :41:48. | :41:53. | |
honourable gentleman has made the point about incomprehensible to | :41:54. | :41:57. | |
previously. When we debated the draft version of this Bill, one of | :41:58. | :42:02. | |
the points he made was the need for new legislation was in part made by | :42:03. | :42:07. | |
the fact that it should be more compounds above, easier to navigate, | :42:08. | :42:12. | |
and more understandable to a wider number of people. He is right. It | :42:13. | :42:23. | |
was hard to determine exactly what power is there are and how the abuse | :42:24. | :42:28. | |
of those powers will be hard to deal with, so I happily concede the point | :42:29. | :42:31. | |
that he has made. It is important that all members of this House, | :42:32. | :42:36. | |
particularly he and his committee, I fully aware of the kind of penalties | :42:37. | :42:40. | |
that might apply. I have described them as severe and I have made the | :42:41. | :42:44. | |
point that wrongdoing cannot be tolerated. The least I can do on | :42:45. | :42:49. | |
that basis, is agree with him that it would be very helpful to set out | :42:50. | :42:54. | |
those penalties in exactly the way he has described. We will do so | :42:55. | :42:59. | |
before the Bill obviously complete its passage through Parliament, | :43:00. | :43:02. | |
because I think it would be only right to do that. The purpose of the | :43:03. | :43:19. | |
clauses that we have tabled our a to reflect the consideration of his | :43:20. | :43:23. | |
committee, to reflect the character and content of the debate that took | :43:24. | :43:31. | |
place when the Bill was in during scrutiny during its committee stage. | :43:32. | :43:37. | |
It seemed to me that as we came to consider courtesy to an increasing | :43:38. | :43:48. | |
degree, it became clear that as well as the implicit emphasis on private | :43:49. | :43:53. | |
interests, which runs through the Bill, there was a compelling case | :43:54. | :43:56. | |
for explicit commitment to privacy, in the form of a new clause. To that | :43:57. | :44:04. | |
end, I think it is right to say that both the minor parties, in this case | :44:05. | :44:13. | |
the Scottish National Party on the committee... He shakes his head, but | :44:14. | :44:18. | |
given that the SNP had only two members on the committee, I can | :44:19. | :44:21. | |
describe them as the major contributor. I was about to say, he | :44:22. | :44:28. | |
made an important contribution to the committee, because they tested | :44:29. | :44:31. | |
the Government, held last to account and made a number of useful and | :44:32. | :44:39. | |
thought through proposals. The opposition, Her Majesty's | :44:40. | :44:44. | |
opposition, by the way, I say to the honourable gentleman, equally added | :44:45. | :44:52. | |
immense value to the consideration by making this proposal, amongst | :44:53. | :44:56. | |
others, which in my judgment were absolutely clear, to improve | :44:57. | :45:04. | |
legislation, rather than delete it in any way. It is in that spirit | :45:05. | :45:12. | |
that I happily remove the amendments that stand in this group. In order | :45:13. | :45:16. | |
to allow as many colleagues as possible to contribute to this | :45:17. | :45:24. | |
debate, I will end there. Except I will say, when bills come before the | :45:25. | :45:30. | |
house, when they are considered as second reading, debated at Reading | :45:31. | :45:37. | |
and report, different circumstances apply and different shadow ministers | :45:38. | :45:41. | |
and ministers approach the matter in their own style. But I take the view | :45:42. | :45:46. | |
that, while circumstances are beyond human control, our conduct is in our | :45:47. | :45:53. | |
own power, to quote Benjamin Disraeli, and consideration of this | :45:54. | :46:03. | |
Bill should be as measured, as reasonable and as moderate as it can | :46:04. | :46:08. | |
be. On that basis, I happily remove the amendment. In relation to pretty | :46:09. | :46:18. | |
say. We begin with Government new clause five. Thank you, Madam Deputy | :46:19. | :46:26. | |
Speaker. Can I just start by thanking all the members who had | :46:27. | :46:30. | |
been involved in the scrutiny of this Bill so far, both at the early | :46:31. | :46:34. | |
stages in the Bill committee. I would like to pay tribute to be | :46:35. | :46:40. | |
members of the committee on all sides. That of course includes the | :46:41. | :46:51. | |
SNP, who worked hard and on this. IP -- I've paid tribute to the reader | :46:52. | :46:58. | |
of the SNP for that. It is important perhaps if I just set out Labour's | :46:59. | :47:03. | |
position before moving to deeper visit clause itself. I start with | :47:04. | :47:10. | |
this. Safety and security matter. The current threat level for | :47:11. | :47:15. | |
terrorism is severe. That means that an attack is highly likely. We all | :47:16. | :47:19. | |
remember and are deeply conscious of the attacks in Paris and in Brussels | :47:20. | :47:24. | |
in the not too distant past, and other attacks. It is not just | :47:25. | :47:28. | |
terrorism that is dealt with in this Bill, it is other serious crime, | :47:29. | :47:32. | |
including the dress from people traffickers, including those who | :47:33. | :47:37. | |
traffic children, those who indulge in sexual abuse and of course | :47:38. | :47:40. | |
stalking and harassment. The starting position has to be that | :47:41. | :47:43. | |
security and intelligence services must have the powers available to | :47:44. | :47:51. | |
them to deal with these threats. But human rights matter also, and I | :47:52. | :47:57. | |
include within that the right to privacy, the right to be left alone | :47:58. | :48:03. | |
on the right to have private data protected, with security and | :48:04. | :48:06. | |
integrity, and the right to redress when things go wrong. They are | :48:07. | :48:12. | |
important rights and, in one sense, I think I have seen things from at | :48:13. | :48:21. | |
least two important perspectives, having been a human rights advocate | :48:22. | :48:25. | |
for many years, taking many cases against the law enforcement | :48:26. | :48:38. | |
agencies, and then being -- working with other bodies. Safety and | :48:39. | :48:45. | |
security and human rights are not mutually exclusive. They are not | :48:46. | :48:52. | |
either or and we can have both. We can have both. Labour has supported | :48:53. | :48:56. | |
the principle of this new Bill, but it is also why we are focused | :48:57. | :49:01. | |
intensely for the necessity of the powers in the Bill, and the | :49:02. | :49:06. | |
safeguards. We have supported the principle of the new legislation, | :49:07. | :49:10. | |
not only because the IP powers need updating in a fast changing world, | :49:11. | :49:15. | |
but equally importantly because after Snowdon, it is important that | :49:16. | :49:19. | |
the powers that are being exercised are about. It is important that they | :49:20. | :49:25. | |
are based on a statute and it is important that everyone understands | :49:26. | :49:28. | |
the safeguards around them. In that respect, there are two very | :49:29. | :49:31. | |
important reasons why we need new legislation. But some of the | :49:32. | :49:35. | |
proposed powers are very wide. If one looks at the bulk powers, they | :49:36. | :49:41. | |
are very wide indeed. And that is why Labour's first and consistent | :49:42. | :49:45. | |
demand of the Government has been for an independent review of the | :49:46. | :49:50. | |
operational case for those bulk powers. The Government did publish a | :49:51. | :49:56. | |
short operational case alongside the Bill, but that we judged as | :49:57. | :49:59. | |
inadequate and we have been pressing for a full independent review since. | :50:00. | :50:05. | |
I'm pleased to say that in a letter on the 23rd of May, the Home | :50:06. | :50:09. | |
Secretary accepted the case for an independent review of the | :50:10. | :50:12. | |
operational powers. That is a significant step. It is a welcome | :50:13. | :50:20. | |
step and it is the right step, but I want to just strike the right to | :50:21. | :50:23. | |
hear, because Labour has made very significant demands during the | :50:24. | :50:29. | |
course of this Bill committee. We have sought to do so constructively | :50:30. | :50:34. | |
and we have seen very significant movement and concessions from the | :50:35. | :50:37. | |
Government, I gain constructively. These are important moves, in the | :50:38. | :50:42. | |
right direction, that will improve the Bill, that have been achieved | :50:43. | :50:48. | |
through that dialogue. Having gone that far, it is important now to | :50:49. | :50:52. | |
focus on the task of the review and the terms. Do have a review is one | :50:53. | :50:57. | |
thing, to have the right terms is equally important. Sorry? I | :50:58. | :51:09. | |
appreciate of course all that my front bench has done and is trying | :51:10. | :51:19. | |
to do to minimise the harm, as I see it, to privacy and Civil Liberties. | :51:20. | :51:24. | |
But when he said that Labour accept the principle, can I say that some | :51:25. | :51:31. | |
of us, certainly myself, do not accept the principle, and consider | :51:32. | :51:40. | |
it unnecessary bulk powers. We will certainly build flag against it at | :51:41. | :51:46. | |
every opportunity. -- vote against it. The bulk powers are available | :51:47. | :51:53. | |
and being exercised at the moment under the existing arrangements, by | :51:54. | :51:59. | |
and large. What this Bill does is put them onto a statutory footing | :52:00. | :52:05. | |
with proper safeguards. Not to do so would leave the situation as it is | :52:06. | :52:10. | |
now, which is unsatisfactory, because they are not clear and the | :52:11. | :52:15. | |
safeguards are not in place. That is an important reason why, in | :52:16. | :52:20. | |
principle, we support this legislation. From my own | :52:21. | :52:23. | |
perspective, having worked with the security and intelligent services, | :52:24. | :52:28. | |
and we'll time, I also appreciate why some of these powers are needed | :52:29. | :52:34. | |
and how they are used. We must never forget that that is an important | :52:35. | :52:40. | |
consideration. Act to the review, we know that David Anderson QC will | :52:41. | :52:44. | |
conduct the review and we have great faith in him, as do most members of | :52:45. | :52:51. | |
this House. What is important is that the task he is performing is | :52:52. | :52:56. | |
clear, and we have argued that he should look not at the utility of | :52:57. | :53:01. | |
the bulk powers, but add their necessity. He should be able to | :53:02. | :53:08. | |
choose a suitably qualified security cleared panel, himself, to help him | :53:09. | :53:11. | |
with that task, that he must have access to all material necessary to | :53:12. | :53:16. | |
carry out the review effectively, including the material made | :53:17. | :53:18. | |
available to the intelligence and Security committee. And he must have | :53:19. | :53:25. | |
time to carry out his review. We envisage that he will be reporting | :53:26. | :53:30. | |
in time for the Lord's committee stage consideration are part six and | :53:31. | :53:34. | |
seven, and that should be in about three months' time. I am pleased to | :53:35. | :53:40. | |
say that because those terms of reference are considerably important | :53:41. | :53:44. | |
to Labour, I have discussed it with the minister and we have exchanged | :53:45. | :53:48. | |
letters today setting out those important terms or framework for the | :53:49. | :53:55. | |
review, namely that it is a necessity that properly cleared | :53:56. | :54:00. | |
panel members that David Anderson chooses, access to all material, and | :54:01. | :54:05. | |
that is very important as to how the review is conducted. I think the | :54:06. | :54:12. | |
whole house is glad to hear that has been a constructive engagement on | :54:13. | :54:16. | |
this matter. But can he ensure that those letters are put in the library | :54:17. | :54:20. | |
today so that the rest of the house is aware of what is going on, | :54:21. | :54:23. | |
because that is is fundamental to this. I take that point and will do | :54:24. | :54:37. | |
that. I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman. I am more than happy on | :54:38. | :54:41. | |
the basis that the honourable gentleman has asked, to make my | :54:42. | :54:44. | |
letter to the honourable gentleman available to the house available | :54:45. | :54:48. | |
immediately, and I'm sure he will do the same. It is important in this | :54:49. | :54:57. | |
review that it is conducted during the period that this legislation is | :54:58. | :55:02. | |
being considered, a review after would not be sufficient. I will give | :55:03. | :55:06. | |
that further commitment on the floor of the house now. | :55:07. | :55:15. | |
I am grateful for both interventions, I was about the say I | :55:16. | :55:23. | |
would public mesh litter, I will make mine available so all members | :55:24. | :55:28. | |
can see the exchange, what I asked for in my letterance the response I | :55:29. | :55:32. | |
got from the minister and if we do that straightaway we will have it | :55:33. | :55:35. | |
for the rest of this debate and tomorrow when we come back to bulk | :55:36. | :55:41. | |
powered. Turning briefly to other demands we made of Government. We | :55:42. | :55:46. | |
have asked for an overarching privacy clause, I will come back to | :55:47. | :55:50. | |
that, as the minister said new clause five is a new privacy clause, | :55:51. | :55:57. | |
we have drafted and laid an amendment, a new clause 21 and I | :55:58. | :56:00. | |
will consider in a moment the differences between two two clause, | :56:01. | :56:03. | |
we also made it clear that there needed to be on the face of the | :56:04. | :56:11. | |
bill, a provision that made it clear that legitimate trade union | :56:12. | :56:15. | |
activities are not a sufficient reason for powers under the bill to | :56:16. | :56:19. | |
be exercised. This is a long-standing concern of the | :56:20. | :56:23. | |
opposition and the SNP. We have tabled an amendment and we have been | :56:24. | :56:26. | |
having constructive discussion, that will come up later in the debate, | :56:27. | :56:32. | |
but, that was the third of the issues we have been constructively | :56:33. | :56:35. | |
engaged on. The fourth was that there should be a higher threshold | :56:36. | :56:39. | |
for access to internet connection. Yes. | :56:40. | :56:45. | |
I am grateful to him for giving way. Certainly as somebody who has | :56:46. | :56:49. | |
severed on the committee with him welcomes the approach the front | :56:50. | :56:53. | |
bench is taking. Could I remind him that the concern to ensure that the | :56:54. | :56:57. | |
legal entity and the rights of trade unions and trade unionists, was one | :56:58. | :57:01. | |
which was shared across the floor at committee, not just by the Labour | :57:02. | :57:05. | |
Party, and by the SNP, but it was something that was echoed by the | :57:06. | :57:09. | |
minister when he responded to the debate about many of us in committee | :57:10. | :57:15. | |
as well. I am grateful for that intervention, I say it was being | :57:16. | :57:19. | |
pressed for. But I accept that in the bill committee, and outside the | :57:20. | :57:22. | |
bill committee, there has been a constructive engagement by the | :57:23. | :57:25. | |
Government on this, the minister was very quick in the bill committee, to | :57:26. | :57:31. | |
indicate a willingness to look at this issue, and discussions have | :57:32. | :57:35. | |
been ongoing. It is very important that there is this clarity that | :57:36. | :57:38. | |
legitimate trade union activities are protect theed. The clause we | :57:39. | :57:42. | |
have laid is now a broader clause than the one we were considering in | :57:43. | :57:45. | |
the bill committee because it goes to national security, as well as the | :57:46. | :57:49. | |
economic wellbeing and therefore covers trade union activities in | :57:50. | :57:54. | |
this country, in the British Isles not just the acts outside the | :57:55. | :57:58. | |
British Isles which would be the case if it was economic wellbeing. | :57:59. | :58:02. | |
This this has been a constructive engagelet which has pushed the bill | :58:03. | :58:07. | |
forward. As I say a moment ago, we have made significant demands. I | :58:08. | :58:10. | |
don't hide that, but the Government has moved in response to those | :58:11. | :58:13. | |
demands, significantly, as well. I am not doing this as a list of sort | :58:14. | :58:21. | |
of victories or scalps or concessions or U-turns, they were | :58:22. | :58:25. | |
significant. We made the demands and stuck by them and the Government has | :58:26. | :58:29. | |
responded if to them in the right spirit. There are others we will | :58:30. | :58:33. | |
come to in the course of this debate P I am not a member of a Select | :58:34. | :58:47. | |
Committee, I am waiting to hear if he is satisfied by the clause, which | :58:48. | :58:51. | |
he appears to be. The drafting of legislation that we have now, is | :58:52. | :58:56. | |
always somewhat obscure, but does he think this is satisfactory? It does | :58:57. | :59:00. | |
say that the public authority should have regard to phrase used is any | :59:01. | :59:05. | |
other aspects of the public interest, in the protection of | :59:06. | :59:08. | |
privacy. Would he not have preferred some reference, just to the right of | :59:09. | :59:12. | |
the citizen of the United Kingdom, to privacy? And does hety there is | :59:13. | :59:18. | |
any difference or am I making a minor drafting point? I am grateful | :59:19. | :59:26. | |
for that. If the House is content I am going to deal with this in | :59:27. | :59:31. | |
detail, because I have laid an alternative new clause, new clause | :59:32. | :59:35. | |
21. It precisely to tighten up the reference to human rights and to | :59:36. | :59:38. | |
public law, but it may be easier if I take that in a few minutes when I | :59:39. | :59:43. | |
get to that particular provision. Just dealing with the other issues | :59:44. | :59:49. | |
that have been of concern to Labour, we have been asking for a revised | :59:50. | :59:54. | |
test for judicial commissioners, because at the moment, on the face | :59:55. | :59:59. | |
of the bill, the test is reviewed by reference to judicial review | :00:00. | :00:04. | |
principles and the concern is that the judicial review exercise is a | :00:05. | :00:09. | |
flexible test which at one end has close scrutiny, where the judges | :00:10. | :00:12. | |
look at the substance as well as process of the decision, but at the | :00:13. | :00:17. | |
other end, has light touch review, where the judges are looking more at | :00:18. | :00:21. | |
process, we have argued that the review should be towards the upper | :00:22. | :00:27. | |
end, the strict scrutiny, and I am pleased that the Government has this | :00:28. | :00:32. | |
morning laid a hand-written amendment setting out a test for the | :00:33. | :00:37. | |
judicial commissioners, which makes it clear that the review will be | :00:38. | :00:42. | |
upper end stricter review, the closest scrutiny we have been argue | :00:43. | :00:46. | |
fog for and by reference back to the privacy clause and I will try and | :00:47. | :00:50. | |
make good that link when it get to it in due course. This is a | :00:51. | :00:53. | |
constructive move by the Government to meet my concern that review must | :00:54. | :01:01. | |
be real and meaningful review, not long arm, so this is a significant | :01:02. | :01:07. | |
manuscript change. I am grateful for giving way again, he has drawn | :01:08. | :01:10. | |
attention to the amendment the Government tabled this morning. It | :01:11. | :01:14. | |
did so as he described to deal with the point raced in committee and by | :01:15. | :01:20. | |
others, that the judicial review test might be interpreted in | :01:21. | :01:23. | |
different ways by different commissioner, this is a tighter | :01:24. | :01:28. | |
definition of their role, strengthens the double lock and is | :01:29. | :01:31. | |
very much in response to the critique from his side of the House, | :01:32. | :01:35. | |
and our, that this new process needs to be as well defined as possible. | :01:36. | :01:42. | |
Well I am grateful for that intervention, that is what we were | :01:43. | :01:47. | |
pressing for. There are differences, have been differences of approach to | :01:48. | :01:52. | |
the test for judicial commissioners, on the one hand, colleagues | :01:53. | :01:55. | |
throughout the House have made a powerful argument that the judicial | :01:56. | :01:59. | |
commissioners should retake the decision, on the other hand, others | :02:00. | :02:07. | |
have argued it should be review. This strikes a third route, which is | :02:08. | :02:13. | |
to apply a review test, but to confine it to the stricter end of | :02:14. | :02:21. | |
the judicial review principle, and that, as members of the House know, | :02:22. | :02:25. | |
I have been lawyer for many years and done many public law case, as | :02:26. | :02:31. | |
others have done in the House and the difference between strict | :02:32. | :02:35. | |
scrutiny and long arm judicial review is very real and makes a | :02:36. | :02:40. | |
material difference, and that is why the manuscript amendment is high her | :02:41. | :02:47. | |
significant. -- highly. Grateful. It has been a pleasure with, working | :02:48. | :02:53. | |
with him on this ill B he, like me, as a lawyer, will have advised | :02:54. | :02:57. | |
clients feebly on judicial review, he will no doubt agree it looks to | :02:58. | :03:01. | |
the reasons given for a decision there is no duty on the Secretary of | :03:02. | :03:06. | |
State to give reasons for her decision whether to grant a warrant. | :03:07. | :03:10. | |
How can there be judicial review where there are no reasons given? I | :03:11. | :03:15. | |
am grateful. She has raised that in bill committee. It is an important | :03:16. | :03:20. | |
point, normally when decisions are subject to judicial review there are | :03:21. | :03:25. | |
reasons for the decision, is what is envisaged is that the decision etc | :03:26. | :03:29. | |
plus material looked at by the Secretary of State will be put | :03:30. | :03:31. | |
before the judicial commissioner. There won't be reasons and that | :03:32. | :03:35. | |
makes the task more difficult. What is important, I think, about the | :03:36. | :03:42. | |
test that has now been set out in the manuscript amendment, is that | :03:43. | :03:46. | |
the judicial commissioner must ensure that the duties under the | :03:47. | :03:50. | |
privacy clause are complied with, and that means that he or she will | :03:51. | :03:54. | |
have to look at that underlying material. It may well be be a point | :03:55. | :04:00. | |
to say if there are reasons it will be an easiest task but I don't think | :04:01. | :04:04. | |
it can be performed without reasons and the Commissioner may say we need | :04:05. | :04:08. | |
further help on particular issue, I will give way. He made in passing, a | :04:09. | :04:17. | |
sayient point, the Commissioner will receive the same information that | :04:18. | :04:22. | |
the Secretary of State receives, in reviewing what has happened. And the | :04:23. | :04:27. | |
review will not merely be review of process, there was a fear at some | :04:28. | :04:30. | |
point this might be a review of process, so the reviewer would say, | :04:31. | :04:34. | |
yes, the Secretary of State has gone through the right steps, rather than | :04:35. | :04:39. | |
looking at the arguments that she had considered not just the process. | :04:40. | :04:43. | |
So I think those are the two points I make in relation to what the hob | :04:44. | :04:49. | |
are able lady said and my honourable friend said. I may be giving away | :04:50. | :04:53. | |
straightaway and I am happy to do so. I than the right honourable | :04:54. | :04:56. | |
gentleman, one of the reasons behind this concern, there were two reason, | :04:57. | :05:01. | |
one was that the this house should seek certainty in the law, rather | :05:02. | :05:05. | |
than any notion it would alter, depending on which judge does it. I | :05:06. | :05:09. | |
mean my right honourable friend is one of those who wants to see | :05:10. | :05:14. | |
certainty in the law and less law making by judge, but the second | :05:15. | :05:20. | |
reason is this, that the Home Secretary does 2,500 of these | :05:21. | :05:23. | |
warrants roughly in round numbers a year. Ten a day. The ability to do | :05:24. | :05:28. | |
them is dependent to a large extent on the data presented and the time | :05:29. | :05:32. | |
available. And the reason those of us who wanted to check that, to have | :05:33. | :05:36. | |
a reasons based judgment was a feeling that an hour a day or two on | :05:37. | :05:41. | |
a given warrant was simply not enough, and that, I don't know at | :05:42. | :05:44. | |
this point whether this meets that requirement or not. That is the test | :05:45. | :05:52. | |
that is is in my mind. I. Great. The certainty point is really important | :05:53. | :05:57. | |
It is a point Lord Judge made when he spoke to the bill committee. When | :05:58. | :06:02. | |
I asked about the reference to judicial review principles he was | :06:03. | :06:06. | |
concerned it wasn't clear enough for the judges. Now, with the new text | :06:07. | :06:12. | |
in this manuscript, amendment, it is crystal clear to the judges they | :06:13. | :06:18. | |
review the decision, according to principles but they must consider | :06:19. | :06:24. | |
the matters referred to in sub section one, with sufficient, with a | :06:25. | :06:29. | |
sufficient degree of care as to ensure that the judicial | :06:30. | :06:32. | |
commissioner complies with the duties imposed by the section, so | :06:33. | :06:37. | |
the test for the judges is crystal clear, look at necessity, look at | :06:38. | :06:42. | |
proportionality, review the Home Secretary's decision with sufficient | :06:43. | :06:46. | |
degree of care, to make sure that the judicial commissioner complies | :06:47. | :06:50. | |
with the duties imposed by the general provision in relation to | :06:51. | :06:56. | |
privacy, so that deals with the certainty point. So far as the | :06:57. | :06:59. | |
reasons are concerned. I can't improve much on the answer I gave | :07:00. | :07:04. | |
before. What is envisaged, I think, is there will be a number of | :07:05. | :07:08. | |
judicial commissioners whose task will be to undertake this review, so | :07:09. | :07:11. | |
they won't have the other constraints necessarily that the | :07:12. | :07:14. | |
Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have. They take such time | :07:15. | :07:17. | |
as they need to look at the material, obviously a lot of this | :07:18. | :07:21. | |
will happen in real time, so there will be a time constraint in that | :07:22. | :07:24. | |
sense. They will look at the material end apply this test. And as | :07:25. | :07:30. | |
I say, they are not doing it alongside the other duties a | :07:31. | :07:33. | |
Secretary of State would be, would have to carry out during the course | :07:34. | :07:37. | |
of a day. So, because I have shared the concern expressed on this, but I | :07:38. | :07:43. | |
am clear in my own mind that close scrutiny on judicial review | :07:44. | :07:48. | |
principles is markedly different to unreasonable. Makes a real | :07:49. | :07:52. | |
difference in real cases and so long as there is access to the material | :07:53. | :07:57. | |
and clarity that the privacy provisions must be come played with, | :07:58. | :08:01. | |
which means there are mandatory factors that the judicial | :08:02. | :08:03. | |
commissioner must take into account, that makes a material difference, | :08:04. | :08:09. | |
that is why I should indicate we are supporting this amendment, or will | :08:10. | :08:12. | |
be supporting it later on today. I will give way. I am grateful to the | :08:13. | :08:17. | |
honourable and learned gentleman, we debated this closely in committee. | :08:18. | :08:20. | |
Can I thank him for the way in which he has approached this. With regard | :08:21. | :08:25. | |
to the clarity position, it is now the position, is it not, that beyond | :08:26. | :08:28. | |
any doubt this test will not depend on the personality of the | :08:29. | :08:32. | |
Commissioner, it will depend on the facts before them. They have a very | :08:33. | :08:37. | |
clear basis on which to make their judgment, looking at the particular | :08:38. | :08:40. | |
degree and seriousness of the case and then balancing in the right of | :08:41. | :08:44. | |
privacy, with all the qualifications that both he and I and others know | :08:45. | :08:50. | |
exist in Article 8. I am grateful for that, and just to | :08:51. | :08:56. | |
illustrate the point on why I have, we have been satisfied by this. | :08:57. | :09:02. | |
Under the general privacy clause and I have a tighter version of clause | :09:03. | :09:05. | |
21, for this purpose it doesn't matter, one of the general duties is | :09:06. | :09:09. | |
to have regard to whether what is sought to be achieved by the | :09:10. | :09:14. | |
warrant, authorisation or notice could be achieved by other mean, so | :09:15. | :09:17. | |
under this test, a judicial commissioner will have access the | :09:18. | :09:21. | |
material, obviously know the decision of the Secretary of State, | :09:22. | :09:25. | |
and will have to ask himself or herself that question. That is a | :09:26. | :09:30. | |
long way from simply asking the question whether a decision is so | :09:31. | :09:33. | |
unreasonable that no reasonable Secretary of State could have taken | :09:34. | :09:39. | |
it, and that is why I think this amendment does ring-fence or make | :09:40. | :09:44. | |
clear that it's close scrutiny review rather than long arm review | :09:45. | :09:45. | |
that is dealt with here. I just want to deal with the other | :09:46. | :09:57. | |
two issues on which Labour Party demands. The first is better | :09:58. | :10:01. | |
protection for sensitive professions, which is coming up | :10:02. | :10:04. | |
under a different group of amendment and there are amendments on all | :10:05. | :10:09. | |
sides of the house including from the Government, not moved in | :10:10. | :10:15. | |
relation to journalists and the protection -- who have moved in | :10:16. | :10:19. | |
relation to journalists but not illegal privileged. Finally, on a | :10:20. | :10:26. | |
Labour's demands. We demand that a higher threshold for retaining | :10:27. | :10:29. | |
health records and put down in amendments which is now largely | :10:30. | :10:36. | |
reflected in the new clause 14 and there has been constructive dialogue | :10:37. | :10:41. | |
on that important issue. A number of members were concerned about health | :10:42. | :10:46. | |
and mental health records being made available via the ball powers. Let | :10:47. | :10:52. | |
me briefly deal with the privacy clause. -- Baulch powers. There are | :10:53. | :11:00. | |
two versions of the privacy clause before the house today. The first is | :11:01. | :11:05. | |
new clause five which the Government laid. The second is new clause 21 | :11:06. | :11:12. | |
which Labour has put forward. The essential difference between the two | :11:13. | :11:20. | |
clauses is this, whereas the Government's privacy clause simply | :11:21. | :11:29. | |
says the public authority in carrying out their duties must have | :11:30. | :11:36. | |
regard to other matters as they apply any particular context, such | :11:37. | :11:40. | |
as the human Right act. Our amendments, new clause 21, makes | :11:41. | :11:47. | |
clear the Human Rights Act and the requirements of public law of | :11:48. | :11:51. | |
general application in all decisions and it requires the public | :11:52. | :11:54. | |
authority, the judicial commissioners, to give requirements | :11:55. | :12:00. | |
of the Human Rights Act. It might be stating the obvious but this bill | :12:01. | :12:06. | |
has on its face, a statement from the Home Secretary saying it | :12:07. | :12:10. | |
complies with the Human Rights Act section 19 and therefore it must be | :12:11. | :12:15. | |
right. It must be right the duty is to give effect to the Human Rights | :12:16. | :12:19. | |
Act and not simply to have regard to it. That is the only material | :12:20. | :12:23. | |
difference between the two clauses and I do ask members to support new | :12:24. | :12:29. | |
clause 21 rather than number five because it makes clear those acts | :12:30. | :12:33. | |
and powers and duties are important and apply. I will give way first. I | :12:34. | :12:42. | |
note the comment about the difference between the two clauses. | :12:43. | :12:50. | |
The Government is not blind us to the argument he makes about ensuring | :12:51. | :12:55. | |
the connection to human right is a secure one. Clearly the bill | :12:56. | :13:02. | |
continues to enjoy scrutiny over the coming weeks and months. He needs to | :13:03. | :13:08. | |
know in the way he describes earlier, we are always happy to | :13:09. | :13:15. | |
listen and learn and I hope that tonight we can just establish an | :13:16. | :13:20. | |
overarching privacy clause is essential and continue to have a | :13:21. | :13:25. | |
discussion about some of the finer details. I am grateful for that | :13:26. | :13:34. | |
indication. I shall take other interventions. Section six of the | :13:35. | :13:38. | |
Human Rights Act requires public authorities do not regard to the | :13:39. | :13:43. | |
human Right act in any event and I wonder what advantage the honourable | :13:44. | :13:46. | |
member thinks placing the Human Rights Act in the face of the bill | :13:47. | :13:54. | |
will have? I am grateful for the intervention because it brings us | :13:55. | :13:56. | |
back to the point of the privacy clause, something we debated in the | :13:57. | :14:01. | |
Bill committee and elsewhere. I think it is important for three | :14:02. | :14:07. | |
reasons. The first is it is a statement of principle about the | :14:08. | :14:09. | |
important interests and duties of the run through the act and it is | :14:10. | :14:15. | |
important to have that statement of principle. Avoid inconsistency and | :14:16. | :14:19. | |
the reminds decision-makers of the importance of taking privacy and | :14:20. | :14:24. | |
integrity of data into account the human rates in all cases. It is a | :14:25. | :14:29. | |
matter of principle. I order my three reasons and exit | :14:30. | :14:34. | |
interventions. The second important reason is because of practical | :14:35. | :14:38. | |
considerations. I worked with the police on Northern Ireland five | :14:39. | :14:42. | |
years in relation to their compliance with the Human Rights Act | :14:43. | :14:46. | |
and actually having structures and decision making written into | :14:47. | :14:49. | |
everything they do to help them reach better decisions and ensure | :14:50. | :14:53. | |
that is the same for other public authorities. Never underestimate the | :14:54. | :14:57. | |
practical application if clause like that has in real-time or people | :14:58. | :15:00. | |
trying to do their job and public authorities. The thought is it -- | :15:01. | :15:08. | |
the third is it gives teeth to the test the traditional commission was | :15:09. | :15:11. | |
applied because now that you link between the privacy clause and the | :15:12. | :15:18. | |
they apply. I will give way. I forgot in which order I am giving | :15:19. | :15:25. | |
way. I thank them for his patience. Frankly, I favour his version. He | :15:26. | :15:31. | |
was talking about the protection of trade unionists and of course he is | :15:32. | :15:37. | |
right, historically there have been some what one may call foolish | :15:38. | :15:41. | |
interferences and trade union action by the agencies 20 years ago and so | :15:42. | :15:48. | |
on. Today one of the problems is its appearance in what might be thought | :15:49. | :15:52. | |
of as legitimate demonstrations, environmental groups and so on which | :15:53. | :15:59. | |
have become public scandals. How can be generalised map and it seems to | :16:00. | :16:02. | |
me this clause is the right way to protect the rights of legitimate | :16:03. | :16:07. | |
democratic activity from improper intervention. It is the historic | :16:08. | :16:13. | |
trade union cases cause concern but this is also intended as a future | :16:14. | :16:19. | |
proofing exercise to ensure whatever human right is an issue there is a | :16:20. | :16:22. | |
provision that requires decision-makers to take into account | :16:23. | :16:27. | |
the human rights convention involved. I will of course give way. | :16:28. | :16:35. | |
He will have seen the intelligence and security committee tables a very | :16:36. | :16:40. | |
short clause saying that act sets out the extent to which certain | :16:41. | :16:44. | |
investigatory Powers may be used to interfere with the privacy of an | :16:45. | :16:47. | |
individual and felt that particularly linked to either the | :16:48. | :16:52. | |
honourable gentleman's Amendment or the Government's Amendment and sent | :16:53. | :16:55. | |
out a clear general statement about the states requirements to protect | :16:56. | :17:02. | |
privacy and I just wondered if he had a view on that because it seems | :17:03. | :17:07. | |
to me it added something without in any way undermining the ability they | :17:08. | :17:10. | |
wrap it in the build to do was necessarily interferences that it | :17:11. | :17:18. | |
might require. I think the first of those is amendment 14 and what that | :17:19. | :17:29. | |
makes clear is these investigatory Powers to affect an individual's | :17:30. | :17:34. | |
privacy. We must be clear that the right to privacy is very important. | :17:35. | :17:40. | |
It is fundamental but not absolute and what this bill does is to give | :17:41. | :17:45. | |
the stately power to interfere with privacy, that is what it is about. | :17:46. | :17:51. | |
The question then becomes, is there a case for the interference in the | :17:52. | :17:56. | |
first place and if there is it that particular interference necessary | :17:57. | :18:00. | |
and proportionate? It is for the Minister to respond to the | :18:01. | :18:03. | |
particular amendment but it is the duty of all of us to remind | :18:04. | :18:06. | |
ourselves that is about interference with privacy and that is why the | :18:07. | :18:11. | |
safeguards are so important. Let me deal, I was just developing a point | :18:12. | :18:16. | |
and then one more point and I shall vanish. The third reason the | :18:17. | :18:21. | |
overarching privacy clause is important is it is now linked to the | :18:22. | :18:25. | |
test for judicial review. It has real application every day when one | :18:26. | :18:31. | |
of the warrant is applied for. Let me down certain finally to a few | :18:32. | :18:38. | |
words on the appointment of judicial commissioners. This is an issue | :18:39. | :18:41. | |
cropped up the number of times but at the moment in clause 194 it is | :18:42. | :18:49. | |
for the Prime Minister to appoint the investigatory Powers | :18:50. | :18:53. | |
Commissioner and such other judicial commissioners as he considers | :18:54. | :18:56. | |
necessary for carrying out functions of the judicial commissioners. | :18:57. | :18:59. | |
Before doing that he must consult the Lord chief justice of England | :19:00. | :19:05. | |
and Wales, Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Chief Justice of | :19:06. | :19:13. | |
Scotland's. What amendment we have tables seeks to achieve is a Prime | :19:14. | :19:17. | |
Minister acts on the recommendation of the Lord chief justice of England | :19:18. | :19:22. | |
and Wales in relation to judicial commissioners appointed in England | :19:23. | :19:29. | |
and Wales and like for the Board President -- Lord President and | :19:30. | :19:32. | |
Scotland and Chief Justice in Scotland. Traditional commission was | :19:33. | :19:38. | |
appointed probables already well experienced either serving or | :19:39. | :19:41. | |
retired and therefore they have obviously passed the qualifications | :19:42. | :19:47. | |
to be judges appropriately skilled and qualified to carry out these | :19:48. | :19:52. | |
decisions. The exercise in appointing a judicial commission is, | :19:53. | :19:56. | |
in truth, an exercise in deploying from the pool of available judges | :19:57. | :19:59. | |
those that will set us judicial commissioners. That is an important | :20:00. | :20:05. | |
consideration and our amendment is booked out on the basis it is not | :20:06. | :20:08. | |
appropriate for the Prime Minister to decide that sort of deployment. | :20:09. | :20:14. | |
He does not actually have the skills nor experience nor should it be a | :20:15. | :20:18. | |
political appointment. It is rich done by the Lord Chief Justice of | :20:19. | :20:22. | |
England and Wales and our amendment would ensure the Lord Chief Justice | :20:23. | :20:28. | |
in England and Wales, Board President in Scotland and Lord chief | :20:29. | :20:31. | |
and northern Ireland make a recommendation that binds the Prime | :20:32. | :20:35. | |
the Prime Minister but this is the the Prime Minister but this is the | :20:36. | :20:39. | |
right way to carry out the sort of appointment for this important | :20:40. | :20:42. | |
judicial role, rather than the version in bill currently. | :20:43. | :20:49. | |
I am grateful to my honourable friend. I am struggling to | :20:50. | :20:57. | |
understand why, if the recommendation should be a judicial | :20:58. | :21:02. | |
one, and as I think I understood him say, the Prime Minister would not | :21:03. | :21:05. | |
have the ability to overturn that then what would be deployed | :21:06. | :21:11. | |
involving the Prime Minister all? -- what would be the point? The answer | :21:12. | :21:18. | |
is twofold. Firstly I should say if it is on the recommendation of the | :21:19. | :21:24. | |
Lord chief etc it would not be up to the Prime Minister to follow that. | :21:25. | :21:28. | |
At the moment under clause 194 at the Lord chief in England and Wales | :21:29. | :21:33. | |
was consulted and made his or her views clear I think it would be | :21:34. | :21:38. | |
highly unlikely any Prime Minister Woods act in a way contrary to that | :21:39. | :21:45. | |
advice from the most senior judge -- would act in a contrary way to that | :21:46. | :21:50. | |
advice. There is the accountability question of making the appointment | :21:51. | :21:56. | |
and also the point that the Lord chief as pointed out that he or she | :21:57. | :22:03. | |
are not in the business of making judicial appointments as such and | :22:04. | :22:07. | |
therefore are reluctant to have that power. The Minister made from that | :22:08. | :22:11. | |
because he has been having those discussions, not me. The Lord chief | :22:12. | :22:17. | |
and others are happy to help with the deployment exercise but not in | :22:18. | :22:23. | |
the business of appointing judges. The point is this, the Prime | :22:24. | :22:28. | |
Minister is properly responsible for the protection of national security | :22:29. | :22:32. | |
and as he said, when the judge give evidence to the joint committee he | :22:33. | :22:36. | |
made exactly the point the honourable gentleman has made. Just | :22:37. | :22:42. | |
to affirm the other arguments he advanced, the Prime Minister would | :22:43. | :22:44. | |
of course seek advice on these matters in the way he describes and | :22:45. | :22:50. | |
I share his view that it is highly unlikely the Prime Minister would | :22:51. | :22:55. | |
take a contrary decision. I am grateful for that indication | :22:56. | :22:59. | |
and I have taken longer than anticipated. There are important | :23:00. | :23:04. | |
points made in the interventions. The house will be pleased to know I | :23:05. | :23:09. | |
have finished at least on those amendments. Thank you. Dominic | :23:10. | :23:17. | |
Grieve. It is a pleasure to take part in | :23:18. | :23:22. | |
this debate and this will be noted that the intelligence and securing | :23:23. | :23:25. | |
the... Security committee tabled a number of amendments for the house's | :23:26. | :23:28. | |
consideration in relation to this part of the bill. I wanted briefly | :23:29. | :23:34. | |
run through those for the house and explain the committee's collective | :23:35. | :23:39. | |
position. I start by commenting on the debate we have just been having | :23:40. | :23:44. | |
in respect of privacy. It seems to me it is absolutely central to the | :23:45. | :23:50. | |
duty of this house that we should ensure the principle of the right to | :23:51. | :23:55. | |
privacy against the state is maintained except if there is a good | :23:56. | :23:59. | |
and sufficient reason why it should not happen. In that context it is | :24:00. | :24:06. | |
extremely important that the bill should be clear about the rights to | :24:07. | :24:12. | |
privacy. I very much welcome the new clause five and indeed the | :24:13. | :24:15. | |
difference between clause five and the amendments tabled by the | :24:16. | :24:21. | |
honourable gentleman, if in reality very slender indeed, as he himself, | :24:22. | :24:28. | |
I see, nods and technologies. That said, sometimes words do matter -- | :24:29. | :24:33. | |
nods and knowledges. The clear a statement can be the better and I | :24:34. | :24:38. | |
hope my right friends on the Treasury bench will take that into | :24:39. | :24:45. | |
account. We had suggested before that legislation was introduced that | :24:46. | :24:49. | |
privacy protection should form the backbone of the legislation. I vowed | :24:50. | :24:53. | |
that the exceptional powers of inclusion should then be built. We | :24:54. | :24:57. | |
rather than regret that was not present when the bill was first | :24:58. | :25:01. | |
introduced but we have now made a great deal of progress. | :25:02. | :25:06. | |
It was that that context we tabled amendment 14 which as I raise a | :25:07. | :25:14. | |
moment in my intervention makes clear that this is the extent to | :25:15. | :25:20. | |
which it sets out, this bill sets out the extent to which | :25:21. | :25:23. | |
investigatory powers maybe used to interfere with privacy. It is | :25:24. | :25:30. | |
complementary and compatible with either the Government's amend or | :25:31. | :25:33. | |
that of the honourable gentleman. I hope that the Government will | :25:34. | :25:36. | |
consider whether such a statement on the face of the bill, along with the | :25:37. | :25:39. | |
other changes which may take place, might not be of value, in providing | :25:40. | :25:45. | |
public reassurance as to the what the House intends, and the powers we | :25:46. | :25:50. | |
intend to give to Government and the agencies as a result. Can I then | :25:51. | :25:56. | |
turn to new clause four. Which I put four ward at this stage as a probing | :25:57. | :26:01. | |
amendment but which I hope the Government will take carefully into | :26:02. | :26:04. | |
consideration. I intervened a short time ago on the | :26:05. | :26:10. | |
minister, because I wanted to highlight the extent to which | :26:11. | :26:14. | |
penalties for misuse of the powers which we are providing under this | :26:15. | :26:20. | |
legislation remain entirely scattered within the legislation | :26:21. | :26:26. | |
itself, or indeed in some cases have to be found elsewhere. Here are | :26:27. | :26:31. | |
powers that we are providing, which capable of reviling the most | :26:32. | :26:35. | |
sensible and detailed information about a person's private life and so | :26:36. | :26:39. | |
their misuse, if it were to occur, must be a very serious matter. I for | :26:40. | :26:45. | |
my own role as chairman of the intelligence security committee have | :26:46. | :26:48. | |
great confidence in the ethical standards of the agencies but that | :26:49. | :26:52. | |
is not say that season an issue we can disregard, and nor do I think it | :26:53. | :26:57. | |
is adequate to simply say that in many cases if it is of a seenial | :26:58. | :27:03. | |
character it should be matter of dismissal, even though that would be | :27:04. | :27:05. | |
a substantial sanction for the individual concerned. I think | :27:06. | :27:09. | |
Parliament is entitled to accept that the powers will not be misused | :27:10. | :27:13. | |
and that there is adequate punishment if it is. And in those | :27:14. | :27:19. | |
circumstances it is worth bearing in mind that some of the misuses might | :27:20. | :27:26. | |
fall within the computer misusable, but in many cases the offences are | :27:27. | :27:29. | |
not comprehensive, they are not clear, and in some cases, they | :27:30. | :27:35. | |
appear peer to be inadequate. Punishable only under the Data | :27:36. | :27:39. | |
Protection Act or under the common law offence of misconduct in public | :27:40. | :27:42. | |
office, which as many of those who are lawyers in this House will no | :27:43. | :27:46. | |
know is an offence which is hard to prosecute and in any event appears | :27:47. | :27:50. | |
to be inadequate to meet much of the mischief to which it is aimed. | :27:51. | :27:55. | |
So I would therefore, be grateful and I reeat my question to the | :27:56. | :28:00. | |
minister, if as quickly as possible, he could provide through his | :28:01. | :28:05. | |
officials a run down of all the offences which could be committed | :28:06. | :28:09. | |
under the misuse under this bill, so the House could have a clear | :28:10. | :28:12. | |
understanding of what is covered by what offence, which appears in the | :28:13. | :28:15. | |
bill, and which in fact is only covered by misconduct in public | :28:16. | :28:19. | |
office, or the Data Protection Act. Give way to the minister. That is a | :28:20. | :28:27. | |
good additional point. He first called I think, perfectly properly | :28:28. | :28:32. | |
and sensibly, he is making a second point which seems to be telling, | :28:33. | :28:38. | |
which is to ask how this bill relates to other legislation, | :28:39. | :28:41. | |
existing legislation, which deals with these all related matter, it | :28:42. | :28:46. | |
seems to be a further note to the House during the message of the | :28:47. | :28:50. | |
legislation, dealing with precisely that second point, and I commit to | :28:51. | :28:55. | |
that an addition, I will draw the House's attention and he will do to | :28:56. | :28:59. | |
the first part of the bill that deals with offences but I accept | :29:00. | :29:03. | |
that doesn't answer the question. Can I help the minister a Tendai | :29:04. | :29:07. | |
Biti. He has asked for time at the end, in which to come over a lot of | :29:08. | :29:11. | |
points but what we are bothered about is we are going to eat into | :29:12. | :29:16. | |
that time because there were so many speaker, if we could be quick it | :29:17. | :29:21. | |
would help. I am grateful to the minister for his response on that | :29:22. | :29:25. | |
and I look forward to such a review. In it could take place before the | :29:26. | :29:29. | |
passage of the bill. It is important the House should have this in mind | :29:30. | :29:32. | |
if it wants to take difference steps in relation to this. Can I then turn | :29:33. | :29:41. | |
to new clause two, and with it amendment 18, which are an important | :29:42. | :29:48. | |
component of the concerns of the Intelligence and Security Committee. | :29:49. | :29:52. | |
The bill contains some very welcome reforms to the Commissioners who | :29:53. | :29:56. | |
currently responsible for the audit of authorisation and warrants that | :29:57. | :30:02. | |
govern the intrusive powers I am sure all will agree the new judicial | :30:03. | :30:08. | |
commissioner will be critical for... Are being used appropriately. | :30:09. | :30:13. | |
However, what he is currently missing, is a power to refer cases | :30:14. | :30:18. | |
to the Commissioners by the Intelligence and Security Committee. | :30:19. | :30:25. | |
The ISC considering issues and policy, including operations of | :30:26. | :30:27. | |
significant national interest, but that is quite a different role the | :30:28. | :30:32. | |
Commissioners who audit specific authorisation and warrants. But, the | :30:33. | :30:38. | |
committee does see our roles at complementary and at times our own | :30:39. | :30:42. | |
work will throw up concerns about issues which we ourselves are not in | :30:43. | :30:49. | |
a position to investigate. So, it is appropriate that matters arising | :30:50. | :30:53. | |
from a strategic or high level inquiry conducted on behalf of | :30:54. | :30:56. | |
Parliament ought, I suggest, to be to be capable of being referred to | :30:57. | :31:00. | |
the Commissioner for more detailed audit. But up-to-date, the informal | :31:01. | :31:06. | |
process, I have to tell the House, has not been working well. I have | :31:07. | :31:11. | |
mentioned previously, that the ISC discovered that interception of | :31:12. | :31:14. | |
communications commissioner didn't know how many selection rules GCHQ | :31:15. | :31:20. | |
applied to its bulk intercept material. In such circumstances, the | :31:21. | :31:23. | |
ISC should be able to refer that matter to the Commissioner, to | :31:24. | :31:28. | |
ensure that he does investigate the selection rules and provides | :31:29. | :31:32. | |
thorough oversight. And just to provide a further example, the ISC | :31:33. | :31:36. | |
identified in its report on the killing of Fusilier league regular | :31:37. | :31:42. | |
by, a number of concerns in relation to the involvement of the | :31:43. | :31:47. | |
intelligence services prior to the events in respect of particularly | :31:48. | :31:55. | |
one of the killer. -- Lee Rigby. However, despite numerous | :31:56. | :31:58. | |
invitations to discuss the matter, the Prime Minister referred the | :31:59. | :32:02. | |
matter to the Commissioner, but despite numerous reputations to the | :32:03. | :32:05. | |
Commissioner, for an opportunity for the committee to raise its concerns | :32:06. | :32:11. | |
directly with the Commissioner, that opportunity has nerve been taken up, | :32:12. | :32:15. | |
and nor indeed has there been any response of any kind, to the | :32:16. | :32:22. | |
committee, to the committee's reputation, I want to emphasise the | :32:23. | :32:25. | |
Commissioner is independent, -- representation. There is no | :32:26. | :32:27. | |
suggestion on the part of the committee we should be telling the | :32:28. | :32:33. | |
Commissioner what to do, but if in fact informal channels of | :32:34. | :32:35. | |
communication don't seem to be working very well. It seems to us | :32:36. | :32:40. | |
that the greater cooperation that is required to make this and every | :32:41. | :32:45. | |
other aspect of our scrutiny in the Commissioner's scrutiny work better, | :32:46. | :32:48. | |
it would be very helpful if there were to be a clear mechanism by | :32:49. | :32:53. | |
which the Commissioner could receive a reference, and be required to | :32:54. | :32:56. | |
acknowledge it. And for that reason, that is why we have tabled new | :32:57. | :33:02. | |
clause 2. It has been suggested to us, that this might be in some way | :33:03. | :33:06. | |
improper because the Commissioner has a judicial function. But I have | :33:07. | :33:09. | |
to say although the Commissioner is a person who has to have held | :33:10. | :33:13. | |
judicial office, being a commissioner is not a judicial | :33:14. | :33:17. | |
function, and I, the life of me cannot see why therefore this | :33:18. | :33:23. | |
requirement cannot be placed on him. I give way to my right honourable | :33:24. | :33:26. | |
friend. Grateful. I have listened carefully to what he said about | :33:27. | :33:30. | |
amendment 18 which the Government is prepared to accept. With regard to | :33:31. | :33:35. | |
the first part of the amendment to which he speak, the new clause two, | :33:36. | :33:40. | |
the Government is prepared in principle to accept referral, | :33:41. | :33:44. | |
however, I would like to address in greater detail in my closing remark, | :33:45. | :33:48. | |
the concerns I have about reporting, but I am sure he will listen | :33:49. | :33:51. | |
carefully to what I have to say in due course. | :33:52. | :33:57. | |
Well, I will listen very, I will listen kerb carefully to what my | :33:58. | :33:59. | |
right honourable friend has to say and on that basis I should make | :34:00. | :34:03. | |
clear I place this before the House as a probing amendment, if he can | :34:04. | :34:07. | |
provide me with reassurance we will leave it there. In the way we have | :34:08. | :34:12. | |
worded this, we did not intend to put any constraint on the | :34:13. | :34:16. | |
Commissioner whatsoever, about the conclusions he came to, indeed I | :34:17. | :34:19. | |
could see the Commissioner writing back saying I have taken the | :34:20. | :34:24. | |
preliminary look but I disagree and I don't think this worthy of my | :34:25. | :34:28. | |
investigating it. That is, I suppose the lowest level of response that | :34:29. | :34:31. | |
the committee would be hoping to get from the Commissioner. And on that | :34:32. | :34:36. | |
basis I fine it difficult to see that is putting some improper | :34:37. | :34:39. | |
pressure on the Commissioner to provide a response. I am grateful to | :34:40. | :34:44. | |
what he said about amendment 18, and gratefully accept it. This does mean | :34:45. | :34:48. | |
we can go to the Prime Minister and ask him in certain circumstances to | :34:49. | :34:51. | |
give a direction, if I may just say to my right honourable friend, the | :34:52. | :34:54. | |
fact that the Prime Minister is able to give a direction to the | :34:55. | :34:58. | |
Commissioner to carry out an investigation, it seems to me to | :34:59. | :35:02. | |
emphasise that our mere request to him that he might consider and | :35:03. | :35:07. | |
acknowledge to us a request to investigate something, can hardly be | :35:08. | :35:10. | |
improper if the leading member of the check tiff is in a position to | :35:11. | :35:14. | |
do. -- executive. Can I turn, being as brief as I can, because I am | :35:15. | :35:20. | |
conscious of others wishing to speak, to the oversight of | :35:21. | :35:28. | |
safeguards relating to bulk powers, contained in amendment 8 the bill. | :35:29. | :35:34. | |
MrDeputy Speaker, the position in respect of this is that when we | :35:35. | :35:43. | |
reported top draft bill, we recommended that bulk equipment be | :35:44. | :35:47. | |
removed entirely. We said not been provided with sufficiently | :35:48. | :35:53. | |
compelling evidence as to why the agencies require equipment | :35:54. | :35:56. | |
interference warrants given how broadly warrants could be drawn | :35:57. | :36:01. | |
quickly. In sons to that recommendation, the Government most | :36:02. | :36:04. | |
helpfully provided the committee with further very extensive and | :36:05. | :36:08. | |
classified evidence which we scrutinised in great detail. | :36:09. | :36:13. | |
After carefully considering that, we concluded that there were | :36:14. | :36:18. | |
circumstances one example is target discovery, which would require a | :36:19. | :36:24. | |
bulk equipment interference warrant and count be covered by another | :36:25. | :36:30. | |
warrant. But central to our willingness to accept that change, | :36:31. | :36:36. | |
is the need for underlying safeguards, policies procedures and | :36:37. | :36:41. | |
access controls being in place. The committee in the last Parliament | :36:42. | :36:44. | |
examined at great lent the underlying safeguards in place for | :36:45. | :36:48. | |
interception in its inquiry on privacy and security, and it was | :36:49. | :36:53. | |
these that convinced the committee that interception was properly | :36:54. | :36:57. | |
controlled. The same principle we are told is going to apply to | :36:58. | :37:03. | |
equipment interference, we sought assurances from the Government the | :37:04. | :37:08. | |
same safeguards policies, procedures and access controls that apply to | :37:09. | :37:13. | |
THAT that will also be applied to interference, we have received those | :37:14. | :37:19. | |
assurances. Nevertheless, given how critical the underlying safeguards | :37:20. | :37:22. | |
are, we regard it as essential that the bill places an obligation on the | :37:23. | :37:27. | |
Commissioner to in reviewing matters under the bill have particular | :37:28. | :37:30. | |
regard for the privacy safeguards, the reason this must be clearly | :37:31. | :37:35. | |
stated on the face of the bill is that the committee discovered in its | :37:36. | :37:40. | |
previous inquiry the current interception of communications | :37:41. | :37:43. | |
commissioner did not know the detail. It can't just be taken for | :37:44. | :37:50. | |
granted, there must be a specific obligation in statute. I am grateful | :37:51. | :37:57. | |
to him. I wonder whether if the new clause in erelation to privacy is | :37:58. | :38:00. | |
accepted, where by the public authority must have regard to | :38:01. | :38:04. | |
whether the what is sought to be achieved by the warrant could be | :38:05. | :38:10. | |
reasonably achieved by less intrusive mean, that affects this | :38:11. | :38:13. | |
point, because obviously they will have to take onboard the least | :38:14. | :38:18. | |
intruetive method possible. -- intrusive. I think my right | :38:19. | :38:22. | |
honourable friend makes a good point. Equally I have a certain | :38:23. | :38:27. | |
underlying confidence the amendment we are seeking may commend itself to | :38:28. | :38:32. | |
the government benches and on that basis, I don't intend to labour the | :38:33. | :38:35. | |
point any further. I felt it was important to set it out because it | :38:36. | :38:42. | |
marked a significant shift in the committee's approach to this | :38:43. | :38:46. | |
legislation. I wanted the House to understand why that change had come | :38:47. | :38:50. | |
about when we had had the extra classified briefings which we were | :38:51. | :38:55. | |
given, and why, therefore, we come to the conclusion we had, that we | :38:56. | :38:59. | |
should accept this principle, but that the safeguards are essential. I | :39:00. | :39:02. | |
gave way to my right honourable friend. I am grateful. I haven't | :39:03. | :39:07. | |
read the individual amendments, I am flying blind somewhat here, but | :39:08. | :39:12. | |
there is no doubt thaw this power is the most intrusive power in the | :39:13. | :39:15. | |
Government's armoury, one of the problems has been as he pointed out | :39:16. | :39:19. | |
the example he gave, that the sheer volume of work that goes on means | :39:20. | :39:24. | |
that the scrutiny and oversight can sometimes slip, and does his | :39:25. | :39:30. | |
amendment require the investigation of every single bulk intervention or | :39:31. | :39:37. | |
not? What the amendment requires is that the Commissioner must in | :39:38. | :39:41. | |
particular keep under review the operation of safeguards to protect | :39:42. | :39:45. | |
privacy, so it is crystal clear, as a result of this in our view, that I | :39:46. | :39:51. | |
see the minister about to intervene on me, that this will meet the need | :39:52. | :39:56. | |
that we have, and as I say, the committee has been satisfied in the | :39:57. | :40:01. | |
case of interception that the rules that are in place are adequate to | :40:02. | :40:05. | |
provide those safeguards. So as long as we are applying to equipment | :40:06. | :40:10. | |
interference, identical standards, so far as the committee is concerned | :40:11. | :40:15. | |
of the intelligence security committee we think it can be made to | :40:16. | :40:17. | |
operate properly. If he will be a because of the | :40:18. | :40:30. | |
arguments made by others about the powers we have agreed to this | :40:31. | :40:35. | |
further independent review. That the review will look at the | :40:36. | :40:42. | |
range of powers and will apply its assessments and necessity across | :40:43. | :40:47. | |
that range. I want to give him a additional assurance. | :40:48. | :40:50. | |
Clearly the more targeted a power can be the better. That was one of | :40:51. | :40:56. | |
the reasons why we were considering this. We expressed a concern about | :40:57. | :41:00. | |
whether in fact in the case of equipment and surveillance the bulk | :41:01. | :41:05. | |
power was required but the Government did make and classified | :41:06. | :41:12. | |
evidence, a compelling case by relying on the thematic powers or | :41:13. | :41:19. | |
targeted powers whilst likely to be insufficient and unsatisfactory and | :41:20. | :41:23. | |
we acknowledge that in having changed our position. That makes it | :41:24. | :41:26. | |
all the more important the safeguards are properly in place. | :41:27. | :41:32. | |
With that, those were the key amendments to this group about which | :41:33. | :41:36. | |
I wanted to bring before the house and can I simply reiterates my | :41:37. | :41:38. | |
earlier comments that the Government has really cooperated and moved very | :41:39. | :41:43. | |
much in relation to this legislation and to respond positively, as I will | :41:44. | :41:48. | |
illustrate as we come on further amendments. | :41:49. | :41:58. | |
I am unashamedly moving a lot of amendments to this bill including | :41:59. | :42:05. | |
part it and the SNP will also be supporting amendments launched by | :42:06. | :42:09. | |
others. I would like to pay tribute to the honourable and learned member | :42:10. | :42:15. | |
for St Pancras where I work very closely with on the Bill committee. | :42:16. | :42:19. | |
Although there are some areas of divergence between Labour and the | :42:20. | :42:22. | |
SNP on the spill it was a pleasure to work closely with them and I hope | :42:23. | :42:26. | |
in future there will be other occasions where we can work together | :42:27. | :42:34. | |
in a harmonious fashion. On part one, I recognised the Government has | :42:35. | :42:39. | |
made some significant concessions. I welcome the Government's attempt in | :42:40. | :42:43. | |
new clause five to introduce an overarching privacy requirement. | :42:44. | :42:48. | |
Their belated conversion to the central recommendation of the | :42:49. | :42:51. | |
intelligence and security committee is a tribute to the arguments for | :42:52. | :42:55. | |
opposition members in committee. I must say, I do prefer the Labour | :42:56. | :43:02. | |
Party's amendments because it says regard must be had to the human | :43:03. | :43:06. | |
Right act and I think for reasons other honourable members have | :43:07. | :43:10. | |
covered, that is important. However, it is encouraging to see that in the | :43:11. | :43:15. | |
Government's all amendments, they make reference to the Human Rights | :43:16. | :43:18. | |
Act and it makes me hope they have retreated further than we might have | :43:19. | :43:24. | |
hoped from the plans to repeal the act if they are introducing | :43:25. | :43:28. | |
reference to its importance in this amendment. That might be one little | :43:29. | :43:31. | |
bit of good news out of this exercise. I am also very happy to | :43:32. | :43:38. | |
welcome the Government with new clause six and I thank the Minister | :43:39. | :43:41. | |
for acknowledging that reflect an amendment put forward by myself and | :43:42. | :43:48. | |
my honourable friend for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. It is a | :43:49. | :43:51. | |
reasonably historic occasion to accept an amendment put forward by | :43:52. | :43:56. | |
the SNP. I would like to mark it. I do wish they would look up more of | :43:57. | :43:59. | |
my amendments but I fear that they won't. We are pleased the Government | :44:00. | :44:06. | |
sought to respond to a number of concerns raised in the committee but | :44:07. | :44:08. | |
I want to be clear that the Government will have to go a lot | :44:09. | :44:14. | |
further for the SNP to contemplate giving this bill our support. As I | :44:15. | :44:18. | |
said in my speech at the second reading that are aspects of the bill | :44:19. | :44:21. | |
we would like to be able to support because they're necessary for law | :44:22. | :44:26. | |
enforcement and reflect some power was already in force in Scotland and | :44:27. | :44:30. | |
we also think it is a good idea to consolidate powers and have a | :44:31. | :44:35. | |
moderately comprehensible. We remain concerned about the legality of some | :44:36. | :44:40. | |
of the powers still in this bell and the fact the very significantly | :44:41. | :44:45. | |
exceed what was authorised in other western democracies. For example, | :44:46. | :44:49. | |
the retention of internet connection records and also we continue to have | :44:50. | :44:54. | |
concerns about the bulk power is enabled by part six and seven. We | :44:55. | :44:59. | |
are pleased to see the Government have conceded there should be a | :45:00. | :45:03. | |
properly independent review of the bulk powers which was argued for by | :45:04. | :45:07. | |
both Labour and the SNP on the committee. We have yet to see | :45:08. | :45:14. | |
confirmation of the remit of that review and we wish to associate | :45:15. | :45:21. | |
ourselves with what was said by the honourable member for St Pancras | :45:22. | :45:24. | |
that this review must look at whether bulk powers are necessary, | :45:25. | :45:29. | |
not if they are beneficial unnecessary but -- not whether they | :45:30. | :45:32. | |
are useful but whether they unnecessary. We look forward to the | :45:33. | :45:36. | |
correspondence between the Government and the Labour Party to | :45:37. | :45:40. | |
see what is being proposed. My friends back in the member for | :45:41. | :45:46. | |
Paisley and Renfrewshire North will address the, the member for Glasgow | :45:47. | :45:52. | |
North will address the issue of bulk powers in more detail tomorrow. | :45:53. | :46:01. | |
Mr Speaker, I lead for the SNP in the committee and be tabled numinous | :46:02. | :46:05. | |
amendments to try and achieve the principle of suspicion base | :46:06. | :46:10. | |
surveillance tool on throughout the bill and warrants being focused and | :46:11. | :46:17. | |
specific. Also there should be robust and meaningful oversight. | :46:18. | :46:21. | |
Nearly all the amendments we tabled happy opposed or ignored by the | :46:22. | :46:25. | |
Government. That is why we cannot give the Bill our support at this | :46:26. | :46:31. | |
stage. At the second reading, the right honourable member for | :46:32. | :46:35. | |
Rushcliffe sought to mock me for making what he described as a | :46:36. | :46:39. | |
combative and partisan speech in support of abstention and he | :46:40. | :46:42. | |
expressed a degree of confidence in the shared consensus across that | :46:43. | :46:46. | |
house about the principles we should be adopting. I am very much afraid | :46:47. | :46:50. | |
that the experience of the Bill committee is showing his confidence | :46:51. | :46:53. | |
and that shared consensus to be misplaced. The amendments the | :46:54. | :47:00. | |
Government tabled for debate at a very partial response to the | :47:01. | :47:02. | |
legitimate concerns we put forward in the committee. The Government | :47:03. | :47:07. | |
should pay more than lip service to the importance of privacy and more | :47:08. | :47:11. | |
than lip service to the principles of necessity and proportionality. | :47:12. | :47:18. | |
I agree very much with what she's saying. Can I suggest there is one | :47:19. | :47:22. | |
means by which the Government could demonstrate good faith here. In | :47:23. | :47:27. | |
order to get to a vote on new clause 21, the Government will first have | :47:28. | :47:33. | |
two votes down new clause five. If the Government is serious about | :47:34. | :47:35. | |
listening to the house could they not withdraw their new clause five | :47:36. | :47:41. | |
and allow us to have the vote on new clause 21? | :47:42. | :47:46. | |
That is excellent suggestion and the Government should it carefully. I | :47:47. | :47:51. | |
also mentioned in my speech at second reading the UN special | :47:52. | :47:55. | |
reporter had expressed concern about provisions of this bill and in | :47:56. | :48:00. | |
particular about the bulk powers and that is why it remains the position | :48:01. | :48:06. | |
of the SNP but until such time as a case has been made for the necessity | :48:07. | :48:10. | |
of bulk powers they should be removed from this bill. The purpose | :48:11. | :48:16. | |
of the numinous amendments we are tabled, and an ignore apology for | :48:17. | :48:19. | |
two people at numerous amendments because this is a very important | :48:20. | :48:24. | |
bell, their purpose is to bring this bill into line with international | :48:25. | :48:29. | |
human right norms and make it properly lawful. There is a risk | :48:30. | :48:33. | |
that if this bill is passed in its current form it will be the subject | :48:34. | :48:39. | |
of challenge. Many of the thread running through it with relation to | :48:40. | :48:43. | |
the retention of data and bulk powers are already been the subject | :48:44. | :48:48. | |
of successful challenges we are whipping outcome of those | :48:49. | :48:51. | |
challenges. We must be capable of passing into law by was already | :48:52. | :48:58. | |
questioned, in the galaxy of by the court in Strasbourg and Luxembourg. | :48:59. | :49:07. | |
-- the legality of has been questioned by the court. If our | :49:08. | :49:11. | |
amendments are not accepted and I know they will not be because we are | :49:12. | :49:14. | |
already running out of time and simply have not had enough time to | :49:15. | :49:19. | |
look at this bell. We have two days for the report stage but we have got | :49:20. | :49:23. | |
very short periods of time to speak about these important part of the | :49:24. | :49:28. | |
bill. I am on the makings of introductory remarks now and I will | :49:29. | :49:31. | |
have to curtail what I say about part eight in the interest of other | :49:32. | :49:36. | |
members getting the right to speak. Likewise, that will happen as big a | :49:37. | :49:39. | |
3-part of the programme. I will give away. -- as we go through. | :49:40. | :49:47. | |
I share her concern that maybe there is not enough time to consider this | :49:48. | :49:51. | |
as thoroughly as we would like to do what I am a bit confused that if | :49:52. | :49:55. | |
that is the case why did she not oppose the programme motion? | :49:56. | :50:01. | |
Because I knew it was a pointless exercise and it would have eaten | :50:02. | :50:06. | |
into the time we already have. It was a practical decision. I will | :50:07. | :50:13. | |
give way. If I might say so, the committee | :50:14. | :50:19. | |
stage finished a day early, white bitchy debate the bill for another | :50:20. | :50:24. | |
day in committee? The committee will see I got more | :50:25. | :50:28. | |
than my fair share of contributions and so I don't have any problem with | :50:29. | :50:32. | |
that. I issue is the other members, people behind me and members there | :50:33. | :50:38. | |
and sitting opposite will not get a chance to speak and we are not going | :50:39. | :50:43. | |
to get the chance to vote on more of a handful of amendments. It is | :50:44. | :50:48. | |
frankly ridiculous. Given the degree of concern expressed about this bill | :50:49. | :50:52. | |
it is ridiculous but on the floor of the house we were only get to vote | :50:53. | :50:56. | |
on maybe eight or nine amendments of what the next few days, out of the | :50:57. | :51:01. | |
hundreds of tabled amendments. It is not with religious life and I am not | :51:02. | :51:07. | |
ashamed to say that. We must look -- it is no way to legislate. I want to | :51:08. | :51:14. | |
address some of the key amendments put forward by the SNP on part eight | :51:15. | :51:20. | |
of the bill. The first one our amendments 465 and 46 to clause one | :51:21. | :51:26. | |
94. Part eight of the bill deals with oversight and the Government | :51:27. | :51:30. | |
said an earlier stage it wanted to create a world leading oversight | :51:31. | :51:34. | |
body. It has failed to do that. What we are seeking to in our amendments | :51:35. | :51:41. | |
is say, rather than have just an investigatory Powers Commissioner | :51:42. | :51:43. | |
and judicial commissioners, there should a separate body known as the | :51:44. | :51:50. | |
investigatory Powers commission. This is what was recommended by the | :51:51. | :51:54. | |
Royal United services Institute in its review, the joint committee and | :51:55. | :52:01. | |
David Anderson's investigatory Powers review. David Anderson QC | :52:02. | :52:06. | |
said I should be a new independent surveillance intelligence | :52:07. | :52:09. | |
commission. It is not a matter of what we call it, it is a matter of | :52:10. | :52:13. | |
what it actually does in separating out the judicial and audit functions | :52:14. | :52:17. | |
and then the other honourable members Lords amendment in relation | :52:18. | :52:23. | |
to this. In the unlikely event we get the chance to vote on this the | :52:24. | :52:28. | |
SNP will support them. In a written and oral evidence to the Bill | :52:29. | :52:35. | |
committee we heard from the head of the interception of Communications | :52:36. | :52:38. | |
Commissioner's opposite and she reminded us the judicial | :52:39. | :52:42. | |
commissioners will only deal with around 2% of the applications | :52:43. | :52:45. | |
falling within the limits of the oversight body and the remaining 90% | :52:46. | :52:50. | |
will only be subject to post factor oversight. It is vital because vital | :52:51. | :52:56. | |
oversight is independent and robust. If you create a separate commission | :52:57. | :53:02. | |
as recommended by the bodies I mention that would help form a | :53:03. | :53:05. | |
distinction between the approval and the post factor though that element | :53:06. | :53:10. | |
and for the idea judicial commissioners might be marking their | :53:11. | :53:16. | |
own homework. That is what Labour amendment 14662 do and we will | :53:17. | :53:21. | |
support that. -- Labour amendment one 46. She spoke to a number of top | :53:22. | :53:29. | |
oversight counterparts and the expressed surprise at the UK was | :53:30. | :53:32. | |
going down the roads are putting what the approval and that elements | :53:33. | :53:40. | |
into the same body. That is a crucial amendment, it might regard | :53:41. | :53:44. | |
and I will push it if I possibly can. I would like to turn to the | :53:45. | :53:50. | |
SNP's amendment 467 and 469 which deal with the appointment of the | :53:51. | :53:56. | |
judicial commissioners. I listen to what the member for St Pancras said | :53:57. | :54:02. | |
in his speech and I'm afraid the SNP don't fully think the Labour | :54:03. | :54:08. | |
amendment goes far enough. Much has been made by the Government of the | :54:09. | :54:12. | |
main safeguard being the role of judicial commissioners and the | :54:13. | :54:15. | |
double lock and it is therefore vital we get the appointment process | :54:16. | :54:21. | |
rights. I would suggest that like the Justices of the Supreme Court | :54:22. | :54:24. | |
they should come from the jurisdictions and judicial pool | :54:25. | :54:28. | |
across the UK, not just the English bench and the public must be | :54:29. | :54:31. | |
confident they are selected on merit rather than because they can be | :54:32. | :54:34. | |
trusted by Government to be conservative in the decision-making. | :54:35. | :54:42. | |
What the SNP amendment propose is that as well as consulting with the | :54:43. | :54:46. | |
Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and Lord President in | :54:47. | :54:50. | |
Scotland, the amendment should be subject to recommendations made by | :54:51. | :54:54. | |
the independent judicial appointment board in Scotland and the | :54:55. | :54:57. | |
independent judicial appointments commission in England and Wales and | :54:58. | :54:58. | |
Northern Ireland. A crucial principle there should be | :54:59. | :55:08. | |
independent appointment of judge, I accept the judicial commissioner | :55:09. | :55:12. | |
will come from a pool that has been through that independent process, | :55:13. | :55:16. | |
but the point is, that if they are simply selected by the Prime | :55:17. | :55:20. | |
Minister, on the recommendation of the chief justice or the Lord | :55:21. | :55:23. | |
President, there could be a suspicion that they have been ter, | :55:24. | :55:26. | |
on the recommendation of the chief justice or the Lord President, there | :55:27. | :55:29. | |
could be a suspicion that they have been selected because they are "A | :55:30. | :55:32. | |
safe pair of hands" or somebody who won't rock the boat rather than | :55:33. | :55:34. | |
being the right person for the. The way to have proper independent | :55:35. | :55:38. | |
appoint. Of persons is to put I through the independent board. The | :55:39. | :55:47. | |
judicial commissioners is a big flaw in the Government's proposals today. | :55:48. | :55:51. | |
In this idea that somehow the Prime Minister could simply just agree | :55:52. | :55:54. | |
with what the, what has been suggested by the judicial | :55:55. | :55:57. | |
commissioner, something that is concerning because he can disagree | :55:58. | :56:02. | |
with what has been proposed. I am concerned about that. I do, yes. I | :56:03. | :56:08. | |
think if the judicial commissioners have been selected by an independent | :56:09. | :56:12. | |
board, the judicial appointment board in Scotland and in England and | :56:13. | :56:15. | |
Wales and Northern Ireland, is not made up just of lawyer, there are | :56:16. | :56:18. | |
lay people on it, and people from other walks of life. That is to give | :56:19. | :56:23. | |
the public confidence in the independent appointment process of | :56:24. | :56:26. | |
the judiciary and it very important that the public, that is our | :56:27. | :56:29. | |
constituencies, who have concerns about how far the powers in this | :56:30. | :56:34. | |
bill are going, have confidence this that the judicial commissioners who | :56:35. | :56:39. | |
will be performing the, the oversight functions and enforcing | :56:40. | :56:44. | |
the safeguards on this bill, that they are appointed independently | :56:45. | :56:47. | |
rather than the right chap for the job being chosen and I choose my | :56:48. | :56:54. | |
words advicedly. I am conscious of not eating up too | :56:55. | :57:00. | |
much time, those are two crucial amendments I would like to put to a | :57:01. | :57:04. | |
vote on part eight. There are others which others will be able to speak | :57:05. | :57:09. | |
about such as post notification following surveillance and | :57:10. | :57:13. | |
notification of errors but ill like to turn briefly to amendment 482 | :57:14. | :57:19. | |
which is designed to put it beyond doubt that disclosures are protected | :57:20. | :57:23. | |
and a whistle-blower is protected from criminal prosecution. That | :57:24. | :57:26. | |
particular amendment reflects a concern that we have that provisions | :57:27. | :57:38. | |
in the bill may an advertly risk discouraging individuals from | :57:39. | :57:41. | |
approaching the investigatory powers commissioner with concerns or --, | :57:42. | :57:46. | |
and throughout the bill committee process we attempted to amend into | :57:47. | :57:51. | |
the bill a public interest defence for whistle-blower, regrettably the | :57:52. | :57:53. | |
Government weren't prepared to accept it but I was happy when I | :57:54. | :57:57. | |
proposed an amendment similar to this to part eight, the | :57:58. | :58:00. | |
Solicitor-General said he recognised the sentiment behind it and was of a | :58:01. | :58:04. | |
mind to give them further consideration, I urge the government | :58:05. | :58:08. | |
now, to make a gesture by supporting this amendment, which if I get the | :58:09. | :58:10. | |
chance to I may push tow a vote. I thought you had finished. I am | :58:11. | :58:26. | |
grateful to the honourable lady, she is right in her recollection, and I | :58:27. | :58:31. | |
am giving it anxious consideration, but I would point her to clause 203 | :58:32. | :58:36. | |
which is the information gateway, which I think does underpin the | :58:37. | :58:39. | |
important principles she outlines about the rights of whistle-blowers, | :58:40. | :58:45. | |
I hope that is of some assistance. I was give weigh, I merely -- I am | :58:46. | :58:50. | |
nearly finished irhear what he is saying but we took into account | :58:51. | :58:55. | |
clause to 3 in framing in and remain of the view it needs to be put | :58:56. | :58:58. | |
beyond doubt that whistle-blowers will be protected from criminal | :58:59. | :59:02. | |
prosecution and that there will be a public interest defence. I will | :59:03. | :59:05. | |
mention that again in relation to other parts of the bill. Time | :59:06. | :59:09. | |
prevents me from talking about the fact that the right of appeal from | :59:10. | :59:16. | |
the investigatory powers tribunal is regrettably tailed but I don't think | :59:17. | :59:19. | |
we are going to get to ta today. What I want to say in conclusion is | :59:20. | :59:26. | |
that this bill seeks to put on a sat trifooting extensive powers and it | :59:27. | :59:29. | |
is vital there is proper oversight in the way they are exercised. As | :59:30. | :59:32. | |
part eight stands it is mealy mouthed. I doesn't even implement | :59:33. | :59:39. | |
the central recommendation of the joint bill committee and David | :59:40. | :59:45. | |
Anderson there should be a separate commission, so without the | :59:46. | :59:47. | |
amendments proposed by the SNP on key recommendation about oversight, | :59:48. | :59:51. | |
we cannot support the bill in its current form. | :59:52. | :59:59. | |
Thank you. I am pleased to take part in this debate, though obviously I | :00:00. | :00:05. | |
will only speak briefly because I know that many right honourable and | :00:06. | :00:09. | |
members opposite wish to take part in the debate. I think what we are | :00:10. | :00:14. | |
debating in this group of amount amendments is crucial because we are | :00:15. | :00:19. | |
dealing with the investigatory power and the role of technology in | :00:20. | :00:24. | |
policing the modern age, which forms part of this grouping. Though I | :00:25. | :00:30. | |
represent a constituency in Essex which sometimes seems a world away | :00:31. | :00:35. | |
from Westminster, I can tell you, that my constituent and I worry | :00:36. | :00:40. | |
about the same thing. How we protect our countries visible and invisible | :00:41. | :00:43. | |
border, how we keep our local community safe. How we spot young | :00:44. | :00:48. | |
people at risk of abuse, or of going off the rails, so we can do | :00:49. | :00:52. | |
something about it, before it is too late. And I certainly want to ensure | :00:53. | :00:58. | |
that our liberties are fully understood and protected. That is | :00:59. | :01:05. | |
why I welcome the fact that in the committee upstairs, which I took | :01:06. | :01:11. | |
part in, towards the latter end of the committee's stage, I was very | :01:12. | :01:16. | |
pleased to see that the Government and my honourable friend the Home | :01:17. | :01:20. | |
Secretary, the solicitorty general and the minister for security were | :01:21. | :01:26. | |
prepared to listen to arguments given particularly from the | :01:27. | :01:30. | |
honourable member for Holborn and St Pancras which sought to strengthen | :01:31. | :01:36. | |
the protections which come promising the aims of the legislation, it was | :01:37. | :01:42. | |
refreshing in many ways not to have the normal Punch and Judy politics, | :01:43. | :01:47. | |
where by everything that the opposition proposed must be wrong, | :01:48. | :01:50. | |
because the Government hadn't thought of it first. I think that | :01:51. | :01:55. | |
that give-and-take which has shown with new Government new clause five, | :01:56. | :02:01. | |
Government new clause six and some of the amendments particularly | :02:02. | :02:08. | |
amendments 33-38, and 45-48, are important in meeting concerns that | :02:09. | :02:14. | |
protect civil liberties without compromising the main aims of the | :02:15. | :02:20. | |
bill. And I believe that these amendments have been tabled to make | :02:21. | :02:25. | |
clear that warrants or other authorisations should not be granted | :02:26. | :02:29. | |
where information could be reasonably obtained by less | :02:30. | :02:34. | |
intrusive means. But more than anything, I believe that we need and | :02:35. | :02:40. | |
have to ensure the liberty of my constituencies, to live quietly and | :02:41. | :02:46. | |
peacefully. Free from attack, -- constituent, which is the most | :02:47. | :02:49. | |
fundamental liberty of all and protected from those who wish them | :02:50. | :02:53. | |
harmful today such people live everywhere and they have the powers | :02:54. | :02:58. | |
through the internet and modern communications technique, to be | :02:59. | :03:02. | |
everywhere, plotting, planning, and executing their evil deeds. That is | :03:03. | :03:08. | |
why I was pleased to see in this bill, the supporting provisions that | :03:09. | :03:13. | |
this group of amendments address in ensuring that we have those | :03:14. | :03:18. | |
protection, for my constituents and others, but also have a sympathetic | :03:19. | :03:25. | |
and reasonable approach to protecting people's civil liberties. | :03:26. | :03:30. | |
The bill goes further than ever before in terms of transparency, | :03:31. | :03:34. | |
making clear the most sensitive powers available, to the security | :03:35. | :03:38. | |
intelligence agencies, and the strict safeguards that apply to them | :03:39. | :03:44. | |
E the controls round bulk powers and the double lock protection, which | :03:45. | :03:51. | |
requires sign off for action, by not just the Home Secretary, but | :03:52. | :03:54. | |
independent commissioners are, to my mind, extremely important in winning | :03:55. | :03:58. | |
public confidence in the measures being proposed. That, I though, will | :03:59. | :04:03. | |
be discussed in greater detail, when those committee provisions come | :04:04. | :04:07. | |
before us later in the proceedings on this report stage. But to those | :04:08. | :04:13. | |
who worry about interpretion power, I ask them to remember these simple | :04:14. | :04:18. | |
facts which relate to technical capability. Since 2010, the majority | :04:19. | :04:28. | |
of MI5's top priority British counter-terrorism investigations, | :04:29. | :04:32. | |
have used intercepted material, in some form to identify, understand or | :04:33. | :04:37. | |
to disrupt plots seeking to arm Britain and its citizens. In 2013, | :04:38. | :04:45. | |
this was estimated to be between 15-20% of the total intelligence | :04:46. | :04:49. | |
picture, in couldn'ter terrorism investigations. Investigations. Data | :04:50. | :04:56. | |
obtained with I the National Crime Agency suggested that in 2013/14 | :04:57. | :05:02. | |
interception played a critical role in investigations that resulted in | :05:03. | :05:11. | |
over 2200 arrest, over 750 kilograms of her win and 2000 kilograms of | :05:12. | :05:17. | |
cocaine being seized. -- heroine. Over 140 firearms seized and over | :05:18. | :05:24. | |
?20 million seized. I believe that the power to intercept | :05:25. | :05:28. | |
communications, from potentially very dangerous people has helped | :05:29. | :05:32. | |
keep my constituents and the constituents of others in this House | :05:33. | :05:37. | |
much more safe and much more secure in their homes, in their jobs, and | :05:38. | :05:44. | |
on the streets they walk every day, but I also recognise the calls from | :05:45. | :05:50. | |
some that we must be careful not to risk the fundamental liberties of | :05:51. | :05:55. | |
our democracy as we do battle with these potential terrorists. The | :05:56. | :06:01. | |
Government has been clear mindful of the Wilson Doctrine and has brought | :06:02. | :06:06. | |
forward amendments which I welcome, that place a require, that the Prime | :06:07. | :06:11. | |
Minister must approve, rather than simply just be consultanted on, all | :06:12. | :06:17. | |
equipment interference warrants relating to Parliamentarians, but we | :06:18. | :06:21. | |
must ensure that the powers that we give to police, and our security | :06:22. | :06:26. | |
agencies, while they are sufficiently transparent, are also | :06:27. | :06:31. | |
fit for purpose. Those terrorists and other threats to my | :06:32. | :06:37. | |
constituencis' safety are constantly evolveling and adapting techniques | :06:38. | :06:39. | |
to trump the safety system. They don't want to get caught. They want | :06:40. | :06:45. | |
to catch us out. And that is why, we must be prepared to adopt or rules | :06:46. | :06:52. | |
to keep pace with technology. Decannot use an analogue approach to | :06:53. | :06:57. | |
tackling criminals, in a digital age. Such an attitude just is not | :06:58. | :07:04. | |
safe. And I am not prepared to go back to my constituents in | :07:05. | :07:11. | |
chemistsed for and explain to them in all the towns, that I was not | :07:12. | :07:16. | |
prepared to support measures designed to make them all more | :07:17. | :07:23. | |
secure. So I support the proposals the Home Secretary has outlined, to | :07:24. | :07:27. | |
strengthen judicial commissioners oversight, and to give commissioners | :07:28. | :07:34. | |
a role authorising national security notices and technical capability | :07:35. | :07:37. | |
notices but we must not lose sight of the essence of why we need these | :07:38. | :07:45. | |
proposals. We need them to help our police and security agencies, to | :07:46. | :07:49. | |
better identify the internet activity of potential threats and | :07:50. | :07:53. | |
victim of crime themselves, so they can do their jobs, more quickly an | :07:54. | :07:59. | |
more effectively. For those people outside Westminster, who think think | :08:00. | :08:03. | |
is about stopping people being rude on Twitter, or cleaning up the | :08:04. | :08:07. | |
Facebook jungle, they are wrong. This is about protecting those | :08:08. | :08:14. | |
rights, the rights to be irrelevant or the right to disgrierks the right | :08:15. | :08:18. | |
to sever the net without being at risk to those who would do them or | :08:19. | :08:25. | |
us harmful the Government I think has acted properly, by being | :08:26. | :08:28. | |
prepared to listen and think again, to a degree I have to say, I have | :08:29. | :08:35. | |
not found often in the past. It is considered carefully and we should | :08:36. | :08:40. | |
be careful, not to assume that our police and security agencies do not | :08:41. | :08:45. | |
need these power, as amended with the new safeguards that have been | :08:46. | :08:51. | |
promised today. And for those reasons I will be supporting my | :08:52. | :08:53. | |
right honourable friend in the division lobby tonight. | :08:54. | :09:02. | |
Reference was made earlier in our consideration to an exchange of | :09:03. | :09:08. | |
correspondence I enjoyed with the honourable learned gentleman for | :09:09. | :09:11. | |
Holborn, I wanted you and the House to know that correspondence is | :09:12. | :09:15. | |
available in the vote office for the information or members. It is a good | :09:16. | :09:20. | |
point of clarification. Thank you MrDeputy Speaker. I rise to support, | :09:21. | :09:25. | |
to speak in support of the amendment 146, which is tabled in my name and | :09:26. | :09:31. | |
the name of honourable members on the joint committee on human rights. | :09:32. | :09:35. | |
What we did is conducted legislative scrutiny of this bit of legislation | :09:36. | :09:40. | |
and we published our report on the 2nd June. A unanimous report and | :09:41. | :09:47. | |
like everybody, who spoke in this debate, and everybody in they right | :09:48. | :09:51. | |
mind obviously we took the view that we wanted to make sure that the | :09:52. | :09:56. | |
Government have on behalf of the Government, there are the powers in | :09:57. | :10:01. | |
the security forces and the services to ensure they can have the right | :10:02. | :10:06. | |
intercept powers to keep us safe but as at the same tile we must respect | :10:07. | :10:12. | |
privacy and not invade it and abuse powers in that respect. | :10:13. | :10:18. | |
To thank the members of the committee work unless a legislative | :10:19. | :10:23. | |
scrutiny and the legal adviser of the committee and the committee | :10:24. | :10:26. | |
staff and those who gave evidence because I hope to catch your eye in | :10:27. | :10:31. | |
the next group of amendments, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will speak briefly | :10:32. | :10:35. | |
on amendment 146 and it rather echoes the points made via the | :10:36. | :10:41. | |
honourable member on behalf of the SNP. It is about the question of the | :10:42. | :10:46. | |
role of the judicial commissioners. In essence, they are doing two | :10:47. | :10:50. | |
things. They are both approving warrants issued is by the powers | :10:51. | :10:59. | |
that have the role of issuing warrants so they have to approve | :11:00. | :11:03. | |
those warrants and that is a very important role. If they don't | :11:04. | :11:09. | |
approved and warrants it must be stopped there and they are a very | :11:10. | :11:13. | |
important part of the process. That was set out in clause 20 one. They | :11:14. | :11:19. | |
also have an oversight and reporting function and that is set out in | :11:20. | :11:29. | |
clause 100 94. The have to review and oversee the authorisation of | :11:30. | :11:35. | |
these warrants, report to the Prime Minister and that report must be | :11:36. | :11:39. | |
published in Parliament. It is a problem if you actually have the | :11:40. | :11:45. | |
same person both carrying out the approval of a warrant and overseeing | :11:46. | :11:49. | |
the approval of the warrants and the point about all of these things in | :11:50. | :11:55. | |
the bill is to get them right. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary for | :11:56. | :12:00. | |
her determination to understand and respond to the concerns and I hope | :12:01. | :12:07. | |
she will respond to this concern. I am not sure it necessarily has to be | :12:08. | :12:12. | |
two separate organisations, as the SNP amendment seeks to put forward, | :12:13. | :12:17. | |
but I am sure there must be some separation of function. That can't | :12:18. | :12:23. | |
be oversight if they are overseeing themselves. I will give way. | :12:24. | :12:31. | |
The joint committee debated this in some detail and we are right at the | :12:32. | :12:37. | |
conclusion that it is better for judicial commissioners to have | :12:38. | :12:39. | |
experience of both sides of the fence. Also taking into account, as | :12:40. | :12:50. | |
they do in the criminal bar, and conscious Mr Deputy Speaker, the | :12:51. | :12:55. | |
second point is attracting the calibre of judges applying to the | :12:56. | :12:59. | |
auditors, I think is optimistic and that was the view of the committee. | :13:00. | :13:06. | |
It might be useful to have experience of both factions but not | :13:07. | :13:10. | |
at the same time and not using the same team of staff. It is a | :13:11. | :13:13. | |
relatively modest but important proposal we are putting forward. | :13:14. | :13:17. | |
Saying they can be doing both at the same time and the same team of | :13:18. | :13:21. | |
people supporting them can be doing both functions, I'm sure the | :13:22. | :13:26. | |
honourable lady will see it could be clarified so there is some sort of | :13:27. | :13:32. | |
Chinese wall between the two. We are not suggesting it necessarily must | :13:33. | :13:34. | |
be done by a separate organisation. I give away. | :13:35. | :13:43. | |
I am going to a group of hurt to this extent. Does her point of | :13:44. | :13:47. | |
boiled down to this, it is a basic principle of Scots Law and English | :13:48. | :13:51. | |
law no one should be a judge in their own cause and at the same | :13:52. | :13:55. | |
people are overlooking, one person granting a warrant and putting a | :13:56. | :13:58. | |
different hat on and overlooking their own function as to whether | :13:59. | :14:04. | |
they granted that properly, there is not the proper transparency | :14:05. | :14:06. | |
oversight that there should be for public confidence. | :14:07. | :14:10. | |
That is precisely my point and the joint committee on human rights and | :14:11. | :14:15. | |
the independent reviewer have been very helpful to the Government and | :14:16. | :14:21. | |
bent over backwards by saying it does not necessarily be the separate | :14:22. | :14:27. | |
organisation. And very least there ought to be a Chinese walls. I put | :14:28. | :14:34. | |
this forward and hope to receive a response from the Government, | :14:35. | :14:39. | |
certainly in time for it to go to the Lords and looked at again. They | :14:40. | :14:45. | |
are members in the law is looking at their spot in the meantime the | :14:46. | :14:48. | |
Government's responsibility if the table amendment is to put a | :14:49. | :14:57. | |
memorandum with those amendments and they are not done that. So can you | :14:58. | :15:03. | |
please do that and don't table shed loads of amendment and not produce | :15:04. | :15:12. | |
the ECHR memorandum. Privacy is the right to be left | :15:13. | :15:16. | |
alone. It was once proclaimed to be the most comprehensive of rights and | :15:17. | :15:22. | |
the right most of values by civilised men. This is why people | :15:23. | :15:25. | |
are busy provisions in the bill are important. There are already many | :15:26. | :15:31. | |
interweave into the bill. To give three examples, targeted | :15:32. | :15:38. | |
interception can only take place in the interests of national security, | :15:39. | :15:43. | |
serious crime and economic well-being of the UK. It can only | :15:44. | :15:50. | |
take place with judicial authorisation and communications | :15:51. | :15:54. | |
data, that is the data of the who, where, when, obtained from service | :15:55. | :15:59. | |
providers, must be justified on the basis of a necessary and | :16:00. | :16:04. | |
proportionate test. These clauses all in show any interference with | :16:05. | :16:09. | |
privacy are kept to a minimum. -- these clauses all ensure. I am | :16:10. | :16:14. | |
pleased to have served on the whole committee and on that committee the | :16:15. | :16:17. | |
issue of privacy was raised with some force by the member for St | :16:18. | :16:23. | |
Pancras and I am pleased to see that as a result of his point and the pot | :16:24. | :16:30. | |
of others, an overarching clause and privacy by way of the build to | :16:31. | :16:34. | |
further protect the privacy of individuals. As the honourable | :16:35. | :16:39. | |
member for Chelmsford said new clause five therefore provides a | :16:40. | :16:43. | |
public authority must have regard for whether the action could be | :16:44. | :16:47. | |
reasonably achieved by a less intrusive means and it also provides | :16:48. | :16:52. | |
a new requirement for the consideration of the public interest | :16:53. | :16:57. | |
in the protection of privacy. New clause six provides for overarching | :16:58. | :17:01. | |
several liability, adding to the extensive criminal penalties already | :17:02. | :17:08. | |
in the bill. These safeguards strike the right | :17:09. | :17:11. | |
balance between privacy and scrutiny. As the Honourable and | :17:12. | :17:19. | |
learned member for St Pancras said safety, security and privacy are not | :17:20. | :17:23. | |
either or. The same violence have been recognised in Europe where the | :17:24. | :17:29. | |
ECHR provided by article eight, not only the respect for private and | :17:30. | :17:34. | |
family life, but that interference by public authority is legitimate in | :17:35. | :17:41. | |
some circumstances. In fact, in those very circumstances which are | :17:42. | :17:45. | |
outlined in this bill. This includes the interests of national security, | :17:46. | :17:50. | |
public safety or the economic well-being of the country. And for | :17:51. | :17:54. | |
the prevention of crime and disorder. The same balance has been | :17:55. | :17:59. | |
recognised by the UN, where the UN High Commissioner for human rights | :18:00. | :18:05. | |
stated in 2014, where there is a legitimate aim and appropriate | :18:06. | :18:09. | |
safeguards in place, a state might be allowed to engage in quite | :18:10. | :18:14. | |
intrusive surveillance, if it is both necessary and proportionate. | :18:15. | :18:18. | |
And it is a balanced and recognised by the public. A poll in 2014 stated | :18:19. | :18:28. | |
that 71% of respondents prioritise reducing the threat posed by | :18:29. | :18:33. | |
terrorists, even if this eroded the right of people to privacy. This | :18:34. | :18:40. | |
bill seeks to ensure the balance is right. And in enacting this bill we | :18:41. | :18:44. | |
ought to remember that the interference of privacy is often too | :18:45. | :18:55. | |
much until it is too little. It is a pleasure to follow the | :18:56. | :19:04. | |
honourable lady. She used the opportunity very well to highlight | :19:05. | :19:07. | |
some of the big principles and how they are already contains in other | :19:08. | :19:16. | |
documents by the UN or the ECHR and it is useful we are reminded of | :19:17. | :19:26. | |
that. I rise as a member of the intelligence and security committee | :19:27. | :19:32. | |
to support the amendments and new clauses in the name of the Right | :19:33. | :19:39. | |
honourable gentleman. Myself and other members of our committee... I | :19:40. | :19:45. | |
won't read them all out because I think you covered them fairly | :19:46. | :19:49. | |
comprehensively. I do want to make a number of points about a couple of | :19:50. | :19:55. | |
the amendments or new clauses that we have put down. Before I do so, I | :19:56. | :20:01. | |
want to refer back to the report that the intelligence and security | :20:02. | :20:06. | |
committee produced in the last parliament on the basis of taking | :20:07. | :20:10. | |
evidence about the provisions in draft as it was, my right honourable | :20:11. | :20:19. | |
friend, the member for Slough, both sat on that committee. There are two | :20:20. | :20:22. | |
things I want to highlight from that. The first was and the right | :20:23. | :20:28. | |
honourable member there to cover this issue, was that the overriding | :20:29. | :20:37. | |
principle of privacy which is what the honourable lady was talking | :20:38. | :20:40. | |
about, needed to be made clearer in the bill and set out on the face of | :20:41. | :20:44. | |
the bill in as unambiguous terms as possible. The second issues you | :20:45. | :20:55. | |
raised was about penalties. It does not conform to what we were | :20:56. | :21:03. | |
concerned about. Our concern was the legislation was not consolidated | :21:04. | :21:06. | |
into one piece of legislation and I will cover that more fully in a | :21:07. | :21:12. | |
moment. The third thing, if I don't take too much time over the previous | :21:13. | :21:18. | |
two, I have a concern about the whole debate about the judicial | :21:19. | :21:23. | |
involvement in oversight and I hope to say a brief word on that. First | :21:24. | :21:29. | |
of all, I do welcome, I should seek new clause five. I think it does -- | :21:30. | :21:36. | |
as you say clause five. It goes some of the weekly meeting all of the | :21:37. | :21:40. | |
concerns expressed by our committee and other committees of the house | :21:41. | :21:48. | |
but public that these issues. -- that haven't looked at these issues. | :21:49. | :21:56. | |
-- that have looked at these issues. I am not going to make it hard and | :21:57. | :22:04. | |
fast principle out of it but we do say with amendment 14 at to make | :22:05. | :22:08. | |
privacy at the forefront of the legislation. If the Minister has | :22:09. | :22:13. | |
found another way of doing that that would satisfy me I would be very | :22:14. | :22:19. | |
pleased. At the moment, having read the bill carefully, I don't see | :22:20. | :22:23. | |
there is sufficient safeguards in there to make it clear that is the | :22:24. | :22:33. | |
case. The honourable member referred to a new clause four and | :22:34. | :22:39. | |
particularly was exercised in the of penalties. I want to come at this | :22:40. | :22:44. | |
issue from a slightly different direction. The bill itself relies on | :22:45. | :22:49. | |
existing legislation, namely the Data Protection Act 1998 is which, | :22:50. | :22:58. | |
by memory serves me, I was the minister responsible for at the time | :22:59. | :23:01. | |
and no apologies though. I think it's is quite well. That might be | :23:02. | :23:07. | |
other legislation I would apologise for what I won't say what it is. | :23:08. | :23:15. | |
There is the act in 2006, the computer misuse act 1990,, more is | :23:16. | :23:24. | |
the right honourable member said, and finally misuse of public office. | :23:25. | :23:34. | |
The reason it is important we have more information about the penalties | :23:35. | :23:38. | |
if that with such a sprawling collection of legislation being | :23:39. | :23:43. | |
involved, existing legislation, it needs to be clear that if you break | :23:44. | :23:49. | |
any of the provisions of any of those pieces of legislation there | :23:50. | :23:53. | |
must be clear and unambiguous penalties. I think the minister will | :23:54. | :24:01. | |
address this shortly. Then I turned to new clause two. This is in the | :24:02. | :24:09. | |
name of the right honourable gentleman for Beaconsfield myself | :24:10. | :24:15. | |
and other members. The honourable gentleman made the point but nobody | :24:16. | :24:29. | |
seems to have taken, particularly member for South West Edinburgh, | :24:30. | :24:35. | |
that the function of the Commissioner and necessarily, or | :24:36. | :24:39. | |
even in any sense, judicial functions. I could envisage, I'm not | :24:40. | :24:46. | |
going to argue this case filly at the moment, but I could envisage | :24:47. | :24:52. | |
constructing a system where it was more like, more administrative. It | :24:53. | :24:58. | |
is not an administrative process and so the skills you would be to | :24:59. | :25:02. | |
operate it don't necessarily need to be judicial. | :25:03. | :25:06. | |
My right honourable friend the member for Camberwell and Peckham | :25:07. | :25:16. | |
and the honourable lady for South West Edinburgh, all began on the | :25:17. | :25:22. | |
assumption, I think, that this has to be a judicial function. I don't | :25:23. | :25:27. | |
disagree with much of what my right honourable friend for Camberwell and | :25:28. | :25:34. | |
Peckham had to say, and I have known her for over 30 year, I have found | :25:35. | :25:41. | |
it unwise to disagree with her. I think she predicates her whole | :25:42. | :25:47. | |
argument on the idea that it must be a judicial function. If it is a | :25:48. | :25:51. | |
judicial matter, then it will be resolved by other means. And I think | :25:52. | :25:57. | |
there is a problem, I am not going to press this too far, with using a | :25:58. | :26:04. | |
judicial position to carry out oversight, because the difficulty | :26:05. | :26:07. | |
and I hesitate to say this because I think everybody, with the possibly | :26:08. | :26:14. | |
exception of the honourable member, right honourable member for | :26:15. | :26:16. | |
Chelmsford, everybody else who has spoken is a lawyer so far, having | :26:17. | :26:22. | |
said that, there is, I think, in my experience having served on the | :26:23. | :26:25. | |
Intelligence and Security Committee for the last ten years, there is a | :26:26. | :26:31. | |
sense and this is not a specific criticism of the Commissioner | :26:32. | :26:36. | |
himself, but there is a sense in which a long and distinguished legal | :26:37. | :26:41. | |
career has certain consequence, which one of which they are not used | :26:42. | :26:47. | |
to having to explain themselves, and judges judge, they give their | :26:48. | :26:50. | |
verdict, but without any explanation. I think there is a | :26:51. | :26:57. | |
serious problem that commissioners, if they are previous members of the | :26:58. | :27:03. | |
screw dishry, are reluctant to explain that the -- judiciary, the | :27:04. | :27:08. | |
issues that have been raised with him, and those of connoisseur, | :27:09. | :27:12. | |
because that is not the habit they have evolved over a lifetime's | :27:13. | :27:17. | |
experience in the judiciary. I haven't mentioned lawyers irk guess | :27:18. | :27:21. | |
I have to give way to one. I am no lawyer but having sat at the table | :27:22. | :27:24. | |
of a judge for many, many year, I can tell you that judges are very | :27:25. | :27:27. | |
used to explaining their judgments, and intin if one only reads the | :27:28. | :27:34. | |
judgments you will find an explanation so detailed it will | :27:35. | :27:38. | |
torture the mind. I am not afraid to hear that commissioners will be | :27:39. | :27:41. | |
ready to give explanation. I have to say to the honourable gentleman, | :27:42. | :27:46. | |
that is not my experience p and the right honourable gentleman, the | :27:47. | :27:52. | |
member for Beaconsfield gave a specific example of where not only | :27:53. | :27:58. | |
are they unwilling to explain themselves, they are unWilling to | :27:59. | :28:03. | |
engage with the committee. That is why I support, new clause two, which | :28:04. | :28:09. | |
gives the intelligence and security the ability to be able to refer a | :28:10. | :28:15. | |
matter to the Commissioner, so that the Commissioner will at least have | :28:16. | :28:21. | |
a nudge in the right direction, in terms of issues that are, or | :28:22. | :28:27. | |
concerns that need to be looked at. So, I think on the whole we are | :28:28. | :28:33. | |
getting, I don't share the honourable and learned lady from | :28:34. | :28:38. | |
Edinburgh, south-west Edinburgh's complete pessimism. I think the bill | :28:39. | :28:44. | |
has moved on an incredible -- incredibly long distance since the | :28:45. | :28:48. | |
original draft bill a anded there is is some way to go. We might hear | :28:49. | :28:52. | |
some further concessions here today and during the course of tomorrow. | :28:53. | :28:58. | |
But I would be grateful if those four issues I have raised can have | :28:59. | :29:03. | |
some, can be addressed by the minister when he does come to reply | :29:04. | :29:09. | |
to the debate. I will keep my remarks short as I | :29:10. | :29:13. | |
appreciate you want me to be short. I would like to speak to new clause | :29:14. | :29:22. | |
16, and the amendments. But I will group them. I do welcome new clause | :29:23. | :29:26. | |
five because I think it puts privacy at the heart of the bill. Although I | :29:27. | :29:34. | |
found the draft bill some kind of Orwellian nightmare, I do believe | :29:35. | :29:39. | |
that this bill is getting us some way to be something I would be able | :29:40. | :29:44. | |
to support. It is horrible we live in a society where as a cross-party | :29:45. | :29:50. | |
organisation this House, we will have to legalise mass sur Janes of | :29:51. | :29:55. | |
every man woman and child that has an electronic device, that is is the | :29:56. | :29:59. | |
society we live in and we have to trade what keep us free from | :30:00. | :30:02. | |
terrorism and what keep us free in terms of privacy. I appreciate the | :30:03. | :30:06. | |
Government's efforts the in trying to put privacy at the heart of the | :30:07. | :30:12. | |
bill. What I would like to do is look at possibly introducing | :30:13. | :30:15. | |
notification of surveillance, against innocent people to the bill, | :30:16. | :30:20. | |
so in in particular group I have tabled 63 amendments because I know | :30:21. | :30:24. | |
there will be reviews before the upper House, at that level I know | :30:25. | :30:29. | |
the Government has been conciliatory and providing concessions all the | :30:30. | :30:33. | |
way through. Like both of the ministers on the front bench, I | :30:34. | :30:38. | |
consider them friend, I have spoke about this bill with them and tried | :30:39. | :30:42. | |
to be constructive in my disagreements with them. My | :30:43. | :30:46. | |
amendments are probing, they are there to try and tease out more | :30:47. | :30:50. | |
information. In terms of introducing notification of surveillance, the | :30:51. | :30:55. | |
bill in my view does fail to provide a valuable system of notification | :30:56. | :30:58. | |
for people who have been wrongly surveyed. The current drafting of | :30:59. | :31:05. | |
the bill only covers error reporting and I understand that is the dispute | :31:06. | :31:11. | |
between new claws five and 21 on privacy and what is in the public | :31:12. | :31:16. | |
interest. I think public interest and serious error are concepts which | :31:17. | :31:19. | |
are difficult to define, and lead to this problem round the judicial | :31:20. | :31:22. | |
commissioner and others having to decide what they are and whether or | :31:23. | :31:28. | |
not they will be varying degree, and I also like laws that state clearly | :31:29. | :31:31. | |
what you want them to be on the face of the bill, so that you don't have | :31:32. | :31:36. | |
that mission creep, so to speak going forward. I think adding | :31:37. | :31:41. | |
notification to the bill would go so way to ensure privacy is fur | :31:42. | :31:45. | |
enhanced as the backbone of the bill. Countries that permit | :31:46. | :31:50. | |
notification of surveillance include, America, Canada, New | :31:51. | :31:56. | |
Zealand, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Ireland, | :31:57. | :31:58. | |
Switzerland, Slovenia, Montenegro and Hungary, so this is not | :31:59. | :32:02. | |
something that is going to be particularly specific to the United | :32:03. | :32:04. | |
Kingdom. This is not something where we will be leading the way this is | :32:05. | :32:10. | |
somewhere we would be trying to catch up to our partner, each of | :32:11. | :32:15. | |
those countries offers a different threshold, but from my point of view | :32:16. | :32:18. | |
I don't think there is any possibility of notification in the | :32:19. | :32:23. | |
bill at the moment, so I know it has been conciliatory. I will happily | :32:24. | :32:29. | |
sit down if they accept my new clause 14? No? I will keep trying. | :32:30. | :32:37. | |
He will have noted that the changes that we brought in the bill do mean | :32:38. | :32:45. | |
that if a seriouser roar has been identified, by the Commissioner, | :32:46. | :32:48. | |
that the individual concerned will be notified. This is a significant | :32:49. | :32:53. | |
and new provisionings which goes somewhere towards satisfying his | :32:54. | :32:57. | |
deveer, perhaps he can meet me half way. . I will meet him half way, I | :32:58. | :33:05. | |
won't call a vote on out. But I would like to get my own way, I | :33:06. | :33:10. | |
appreciate say it. Compromise and both have been good at compromising. | :33:11. | :33:14. | |
In terms of error reporting and notification. It is worth noting the | :33:15. | :33:22. | |
views of the joint committee, I will not read them verbatim as they | :33:23. | :33:27. | |
wouldn't like that, I would like to pull a few highlights out the first | :33:28. | :33:33. | |
the Commission must enform a person about serious error when the | :33:34. | :33:37. | |
tribunal agrees the error is serious, that is in the public | :33:38. | :33:42. | |
interest, why would it be in the public interest to inform that error | :33:43. | :33:45. | |
would be serious? I can't imagine that would be the case, they would | :33:46. | :33:51. | |
they have be informed. They felt the approach to error reporting was a | :33:52. | :33:58. | |
matter of profound concern. The interception believes the clause was | :33:59. | :34:03. | |
weaker than the current power, the requirement was criticised for | :34:04. | :34:08. | |
setting a high bar and the test was criticised for being poorly defined | :34:09. | :34:12. | |
by The Law Society Scotland, privacy international, the intrerion of | :34:13. | :34:17. | |
communication officer and Amnesty International... It may be the | :34:18. | :34:22. | |
honourable gentleman, innancing the question, negates the need for me to | :34:23. | :34:26. | |
speak. I will be grateful to him. I looked carefully at clause 16 and | :34:27. | :34:30. | |
new clause one and I cannot see on the face of new clause 16 any | :34:31. | :34:35. | |
reference to error. Am I missing the word error, because this seems to be | :34:36. | :34:38. | |
a general clause, of notification to anyone who is subject to a warrant, | :34:39. | :34:44. | |
is that correct? I certain willry don't take any credit for being good | :34:45. | :34:49. | |
at drafuling new clauses so new clause 16 may not mention error, I | :34:50. | :34:56. | |
think it is in 190-195. Those deal with error, lumping both together. | :34:57. | :35:02. | |
In a question of trust David an thor son QC recommended the Commissioner | :35:03. | :35:05. | |
be given the power to report errors to individuals. And I appreciate the | :35:06. | :35:10. | |
minister is coming some way in terms of moving towards me in that area, | :35:11. | :35:14. | |
which I appreciate. I think I would like to finally finish with saying | :35:15. | :35:17. | |
that you know, the joint committee made two recommendation, the first | :35:18. | :35:24. | |
was that the referring to the tribunal wasn't necessarily it was | :35:25. | :35:28. | |
cumbersome and created a break on this notification area, and the | :35:29. | :35:33. | |
second was that error reporting threshold, should be refew viewed so | :35:34. | :35:36. | |
it was more specific and more deTyne fined. | :35:37. | :35:44. | |
I beg to Mo new clause one standing in my name, and supported by members | :35:45. | :35:50. | |
of the SNP. The honourable member for Stevenage will see this is | :35:51. | :35:55. | |
remarkably similar to a new clause that he has just moved, although he | :35:56. | :36:01. | |
says his is a probing amendment, I would regard mine as being something | :36:02. | :36:05. | |
more but I shall wait to hear what the minister has to say from the | :36:06. | :36:09. | |
despatch box when he replies to the debate. I would like to pretaste my | :36:10. | :36:16. | |
remarks by indicating a few points of more general concern. I agree | :36:17. | :36:21. | |
with the honourable lady from Edinburgh South West when she says | :36:22. | :36:25. | |
that the conduct of these proceedings today are highly | :36:26. | :36:29. | |
unsatisfactory. The time that has been allowed is clearly insufficient | :36:30. | :36:32. | |
and the Government does themselves really no favours in that regard, | :36:33. | :36:37. | |
because frankly all they do by insisting on conducting proceedings | :36:38. | :36:42. | |
in this way is to give a bone to those at the other end of this house | :36:43. | :36:46. | |
in the other place when they come to look at it and it justified there, a | :36:47. | :36:52. | |
greater degree of scrutiny, which inevitably this bill is going to | :36:53. | :36:56. | |
feed and the place where scrutiny of a bill of this sort, which has | :36:57. | :37:02. | |
already been referred toss a constitutional bill, which | :37:03. | :37:07. | |
countenances the most egregious interference of individual liberty | :37:08. | :37:11. | |
by the state. It ought to be done by this chamber, the elected chamber. | :37:12. | :37:15. | |
The fact that the Government is still at this stage, after a draft | :37:16. | :37:24. | |
bill, after the reports by David Anderson QC and I still am taking | :37:25. | :37:31. | |
onboard amendments indicates a certain unsatisfactory attitude on | :37:32. | :37:34. | |
their part. I think it indicates they are not yet putting privacy at | :37:35. | :37:40. | |
the heart of the bill, that they are coming kicking and screaming to that | :37:41. | :37:46. | |
position. And I would say for example, in relation to new clause | :37:47. | :37:54. | |
five and 21, that really, it is unsatisfactory that the best | :37:55. | :37:57. | |
provision should be that which is brought forward by the honourable | :37:58. | :38:02. | |
and learned member who speaks for the opposition here, but we won't | :38:03. | :38:06. | |
get to that, unless we first vote down one which is inferior which is | :38:07. | :38:10. | |
adequate, certainly, I think it is an improvement but it St not as good | :38:11. | :38:15. | |
as the one brought forward by the official opposition, and again, I | :38:16. | :38:20. | |
would reiterate the point I made to the honourable lady earlier on, that | :38:21. | :38:24. | |
the Government will still have the opportunity, if they were minded to | :38:25. | :38:29. | |
do so, to invest on their version in the other place at a later stage but | :38:30. | :38:34. | |
the House should be empowered to express a view on new clause 21 | :38:35. | :38:39. | |
which currentry for reasons of procedure it is not going to be able | :38:40. | :38:46. | |
to do. The thinking behind new clause one is essentially that | :38:47. | :38:53. | |
sunlight is the best disinfectant. It must surely strike at the very | :38:54. | :38:58. | |
question of privacy being at the heart of this bill, whether or not | :38:59. | :39:04. | |
the Government will accept the approach that we have tabled and | :39:05. | :39:09. | |
that the honourable member from Steve nap has brought forward. | :39:10. | :39:14. | |
Essentially as things stand, it is a question, it is, a question of | :39:15. | :39:22. | |
happenstance, it is a question of perhaps a whistle-blower, or a some | :39:23. | :39:25. | |
public interest litigation being brought forward. Whether or not an | :39:26. | :39:30. | |
individual finds out that they have been the subject of intrusion under | :39:31. | :39:37. | |
the powers of this bill. And really, if the Government is sincere and | :39:38. | :39:42. | |
prepared to be meaningful in bring foger ward protections to our | :39:43. | :39:47. | |
liberties and our individual rights, then there should be no objection at | :39:48. | :39:53. | |
all to process, which with all the necessary safeguards, which are | :39:54. | :39:59. | |
outlined in the course of new clause one, then, there really should be no | :40:00. | :40:03. | |
objection to those who have been the subject of surveillance, being | :40:04. | :40:07. | |
notified of that, at the conclusion of the period in which that has | :40:08. | :40:09. | |
actually happened. This is not lawful, this insight | :40:10. | :40:20. | |
happens then a number of jurisdictions and has already been | :40:21. | :40:24. | |
the subject of judicial approval and instruction from the European Court | :40:25. | :40:32. | |
of Human Rights in two cases. One in Germany 1978 and in 2007 -- 2006. | :40:33. | :40:40. | |
The Home Secretary said times with the number and the same point has | :40:41. | :40:45. | |
been made by ministers that what we want to have at the end of this | :40:46. | :40:50. | |
process is a world leading piece of legislation. I very much hope that | :40:51. | :40:55. | |
is possible. It is not what we currently have, we have a bill that | :40:56. | :41:02. | |
lags far behind several jurisdictions in the protection of | :41:03. | :41:06. | |
the individual's writes. It has, some weight with predictions of | :41:07. | :41:11. | |
privacy but is still a great deal distance to go. -- has come some | :41:12. | :41:20. | |
way. We test the Government and the statements of general application in | :41:21. | :41:23. | |
relation to meaningful protections which I bring forward with new | :41:24. | :41:28. | |
clause one and I wait to hear what the Minister has to say with | :41:29. | :41:34. | |
interest. I understand you would like members | :41:35. | :41:38. | |
to be brief now and as I can declare an interest in not being a lawyer or | :41:39. | :41:42. | |
taking part in the Bill committee I shall do that. I don't speak on the | :41:43. | :41:48. | |
second reading in particular about an aspect not yet came out the | :41:49. | :41:53. | |
discussion today. I have spoken frequently on the issue of economic | :41:54. | :41:58. | |
cybercrime and this is an aspect of this bill that is greatly enhanced | :41:59. | :42:03. | |
in terms of the ability to attack that might what the Government has | :42:04. | :42:06. | |
brought forward in some of its new amendments today. I also wanted to | :42:07. | :42:12. | |
briefly mention that as a Member of Parliament constituents write to us | :42:13. | :42:17. | |
and my honourable friend for Cambridge mention the number of | :42:18. | :42:22. | |
issues raised about privacy. The ability to ensure proper oversight, | :42:23. | :42:26. | |
safeguards and transparency if the Government were to interfere in the | :42:27. | :42:30. | |
right to privacy. I don't need to rehearse her arguments. Can I say to | :42:31. | :42:35. | |
the Government and my right honourable friend that by | :42:36. | :42:38. | |
introducing new clause five it may or may not be as perfect as lawyers | :42:39. | :42:42. | |
around the room you like but for the public it goes a long way to | :42:43. | :42:49. | |
satisfying. I wanted to bring up two aspects of new clause five. Is the | :42:50. | :42:52. | |
first point from where our constituents are interested is an | :42:53. | :43:00. | |
two A and four CE. This whole point about the onus to look at less | :43:01. | :43:05. | |
intrusive means and proportionality and that being an obligation and | :43:06. | :43:11. | |
notwithstanding my honourable Bernard friends comment about the | :43:12. | :43:15. | |
need to understand exactly what the penalties for misuse are. -- | :43:16. | :43:19. | |
honourable and where it. These two subsections go a long way to putting | :43:20. | :43:26. | |
in place of protection. To look at the point about economic cybercrime, | :43:27. | :43:30. | |
we often talk about huge economic cybercrime concerns of attacking | :43:31. | :43:34. | |
banks or whatever what can I refer the house to new clause five to be | :43:35. | :43:42. | |
and four B. Best is the point about maintaining public interest in | :43:43. | :43:47. | |
maintaining in serious crimes and also maintaining the integrity of | :43:48. | :43:54. | |
services and the reality is there is a huge amount of low level | :43:55. | :43:59. | |
cybercrime that goes on which would then move into more serious economic | :44:00. | :44:04. | |
cybercrime and the reality is by putting this on the face of the bill | :44:05. | :44:10. | |
we are making a statement of intent and the need to protect and maintain | :44:11. | :44:16. | |
the integrity of the telecommunications service which I | :44:17. | :44:19. | |
take to mean in its wider sense of the words, when so much e-commerce | :44:20. | :44:28. | |
is being transacted currently, is hugely important. Therefore, | :44:29. | :44:34. | |
whatever else may be, and those of us who are not lawyers are not | :44:35. | :44:38. | |
entirely sure of the difference between new clause 21 and your | :44:39. | :44:42. | |
clause five actually is, but I'm looking forward to my friend | :44:43. | :44:46. | |
explaining that to me in a moment. Those of us who are not lawyers | :44:47. | :44:49. | |
would say well done to the Government because I think to be as | :44:50. | :44:54. | |
for Pete not only protect the amount of e-commerce that was an and second | :44:55. | :45:03. | |
of the onus to have an integrity and ensure the integrity is maintained | :45:04. | :45:07. | |
in those services, particularly telecoms, will take away some of the | :45:08. | :45:11. | |
criticism out of their amongst the public about the slipper's Charter. | :45:12. | :45:17. | |
Can I say to the Government the key point of that subsection to be and | :45:18. | :45:22. | |
four B are very important and I am pleased to see them on the face of | :45:23. | :45:27. | |
the bill. It is a great pleasure to speak on | :45:28. | :45:32. | |
this report stage, particularly as sitting on the Treasury bench we | :45:33. | :45:37. | |
have the errors of waltzing ham and forgotten sitting in judgment over a | :45:38. | :45:41. | |
bill that will shake our civil liberties. In their date -- today | :45:42. | :45:51. | |
the same techniques used by his forefathers are still used today but | :45:52. | :45:55. | |
they have been updated. It is no longer calls on paper smuggled out | :45:56. | :45:59. | |
and brandy bottles, it is the question of codes is heading a | :46:00. | :46:05. | |
computer messages, apps and other forms of communication. -- hidden in | :46:06. | :46:12. | |
computer messages. It is essential we find ourselves in this position | :46:13. | :46:16. | |
now putting into statutory law because for the first time we are | :46:17. | :46:21. | |
putting onto the face of the bill what we actually mean. For years we | :46:22. | :46:25. | |
have operated with a stake that is in effect used interpretations of | :46:26. | :46:32. | |
legal practice rather than setting out and debating properly what it | :46:33. | :46:37. | |
should do and that is why I welcome, particularly joint approach to this. | :46:38. | :46:40. | |
The honourable member for Holborn and St Pancras has been instrumental | :46:41. | :46:45. | |
in bringing a cooperative moves into that house and I am very grateful to | :46:46. | :46:51. | |
him for doing so. -- cooperative moods. What this bill is also doing | :46:52. | :46:55. | |
is balancing Prevacid because as my honourable friend for Cambridge | :46:56. | :47:00. | |
pointed out privacy is a fundamental right and one we have enjoyed for | :47:01. | :47:05. | |
many years. That privacy is only valid or worth anything if we can | :47:06. | :47:09. | |
live in safety and that safety is not just the obvious risk of | :47:10. | :47:13. | |
terrorism but the risk of child abuse, drug smuggling and any other | :47:14. | :47:18. | |
form of violence against the people of this country. I am grateful again | :47:19. | :47:23. | |
this Government has balanced that privacy with those threats. I am | :47:24. | :47:28. | |
going to be it there because there are many more amendments to come and | :47:29. | :47:32. | |
I could address some of you in detail but perhaps I will be asked | :47:33. | :47:38. | |
to call to speak again. I had the privilege of sitting above | :47:39. | :47:42. | |
the joint committee and Bill committee for this bill so I feel as | :47:43. | :47:45. | |
though I have lived with this bill for many months and I will be happy | :47:46. | :47:50. | |
to see it passed into law. This bill is vital in the modern age and it is | :47:51. | :47:57. | |
above party politics. This is about doing the right thing for our | :47:58. | :48:02. | |
country and for our constituents. Both the joint committee and build | :48:03. | :48:09. | |
quality scrutinised -- Bill committee scrutinised intensely. | :48:10. | :48:13. | |
There were something like 1000 proposed amendments reconsidered and | :48:14. | :48:16. | |
I are happy to say we managed to find some areas of agreement. | :48:17. | :48:22. | |
Namely, a bill setting out the investigatory powers of the security | :48:23. | :48:27. | |
services and law enforcement is necessary and a bill updating the | :48:28. | :48:33. | |
scrutiny and transparency of those powers and those who use them is | :48:34. | :48:37. | |
necessarily as well. It is to the credit of everyone on both sides of | :48:38. | :48:42. | |
the house who are able to support the principle of this bill. I | :48:43. | :48:48. | |
welcome, as others have, in particular new clause five and also | :48:49. | :48:54. | |
Government 30 amendment which puts all related criminal of printed on | :48:55. | :48:59. | |
the face of the bill. That is making transparency and the misuse of power | :49:00. | :49:07. | |
is absolutely obvious. I want to get to propose new clauses which have | :49:08. | :49:11. | |
not enjoyed the scrutiny as the bill. -- two new clauses. I will | :49:12. | :49:20. | |
endeavour to change that. The first new clause is new clause one or as | :49:21. | :49:24. | |
someone remarked to me, the notifying criminals clause. Because | :49:25. | :49:31. | |
it highlights grave concerns about the impact, our impact, and fighting | :49:32. | :49:37. | |
crime and terror. I am consciously member for Orkney and Shetland is | :49:38. | :49:41. | |
not in his place but this new clause, for anyone who has not read | :49:42. | :49:46. | |
it, requires the police and security services to notify anyone within 30 | :49:47. | :49:51. | |
days of a warrant anything that date had been investigated. There is no | :49:52. | :49:59. | |
requirement that an error has occurred just the fact you have | :50:00. | :50:01. | |
been, your data has been investigated. | :50:02. | :50:08. | |
On the part of three months is my friend back over 50% of requests for | :50:09. | :50:14. | |
communications data in child abuse investigations -- 58%, is more than | :50:15. | :50:19. | |
eight months old. It shows the time the sensitivity of | :50:20. | :50:27. | |
many of the investigations. We know from sessions and both of the | :50:28. | :50:31. | |
committees that 100% of counter terrorism cases involve | :50:32. | :50:37. | |
communication data evidence and 90% of serious organised crime cases so | :50:38. | :50:41. | |
we are talking about a very serious cases indeed. My concern about new | :50:42. | :50:45. | |
clause one is it does not in any way removed the risk of high level | :50:46. | :50:50. | |
criminals and terrorists suspects will be told they have been | :50:51. | :50:56. | |
investigated by law enforcement. By their very nature they are more | :50:57. | :51:01. | |
likely to be the subject warrants because of their criminality so | :51:02. | :51:06. | |
we're basically handing these investigations to the criminals on a | :51:07. | :51:09. | |
plate. The level of encryption available | :51:10. | :51:18. | |
through, in public today is such we also allow the criminal to hide the | :51:19. | :51:23. | |
deeds they have formally left and headed and therefore it exposes the | :51:24. | :51:27. | |
country to an even greater threat. By honourable friend makes the point | :51:28. | :51:32. | |
I was about to make. It will help, this new clause will help criminals | :51:33. | :51:43. | |
to evade investigation, arrest and prosecution. Serious organised crime | :51:44. | :51:47. | |
gangs and terrorists talk to each other, they compare notes on | :51:48. | :51:51. | |
investigative activities. Whether ongoing or not. It won't be | :51:52. | :51:57. | |
necessary at the first of a second or that hit at the police's | :51:58. | :52:01. | |
methodology, it might be the 20th but nonetheless, those patterns of | :52:02. | :52:07. | |
behaviour will begin to emerge in the criminal world. Why on earth | :52:08. | :52:11. | |
would that house passed legislation that would give serious organised | :52:12. | :52:17. | |
gangs and terrorists that advantage? I will. | :52:18. | :52:24. | |
She is making a powerful point of talking about a fear of what may | :52:25. | :52:29. | |
come. Is she aware there was already a case in Northern Ireland | :52:30. | :52:31. | |
Wheatsheaf dissident republican had the case dropped against him because | :52:32. | :52:36. | |
the judge ordered the security services had to unveil their | :52:37. | :52:40. | |
techniques. Imagine if every dissident republican terrorist got | :52:41. | :52:45. | |
that kind of notification? That powerfully shows how important | :52:46. | :52:53. | |
this is. -- I am grateful. Just one more point, if I may. The new clause | :52:54. | :52:59. | |
one set out in subsection one e-people must be told if they copied | :53:00. | :53:06. | |
from abroad corporate human sources, informants, and everyday language. | :53:07. | :53:11. | |
This clause, if passed, with help criminal gangs understand and find | :53:12. | :53:16. | |
out who the informant are who are informing them and presumably do | :53:17. | :53:19. | |
great harm to them because no criminal like seagrass. I am | :53:20. | :53:25. | |
conscious that I no criminal likes a grass. New clause 16 murders much of | :53:26. | :53:35. | |
new clause one new clause -- new clause 16 is similar to new clause | :53:36. | :53:38. | |
one but will have a devastating effect on law enforcement operations | :53:39. | :53:45. | |
in this country. I was literally on my last page. | :53:46. | :53:53. | |
I thank the honourable lady for giving way. It seems to be the | :53:54. | :53:56. | |
reason for this amendment is because that is the sense that is not | :53:57. | :54:00. | |
sufficient accountability in the secret services and other bodies and | :54:01. | :54:06. | |
to that end, with she supports new clause to which has been proposed by | :54:07. | :54:11. | |
the intelligence and security committee which will make sure there | :54:12. | :54:16. | |
can be a proper investigation by the Commissioner of anything we feel is | :54:17. | :54:23. | |
requiring that? I hesitate to do the job of my right | :54:24. | :54:28. | |
honourable friend on the front bench. I note the Minister will | :54:29. | :54:31. | |
respond to that point but I am going to finish by saying the amendment | :54:32. | :54:37. | |
and the clauses on privacy opposed by the Government reflect the fact | :54:38. | :54:41. | |
the scrutiny of this bill has worked thus far. It has been a worthwhile | :54:42. | :54:46. | |
exercise and I hope you clause one and new clause 16 don't trouble this | :54:47. | :54:53. | |
house because the bill as it stands is a much stronger following the | :54:54. | :54:54. | |
many months of scrutiny. This legislation runs to the heart | :54:55. | :55:04. | |
of Government, the duty to keep us safe. I will briefly keep my remarks | :55:05. | :55:09. | |
to the issue of privacy which I know was raised in committee and remains | :55:10. | :55:13. | |
a debating point now. Nobody wishes to legislate to protect the public, | :55:14. | :55:19. | |
while at the same time unfairly and unreasonably restricting the rights | :55:20. | :55:21. | |
of the individual. None of us wish to give the state unnecessary powers | :55:22. | :55:26. | |
and it was against such an arbitrary authority our first charter of | :55:27. | :55:30. | |
rights was established and why into the stone floor of tubes by Abbey | :55:31. | :55:40. | |
which find the words Magna Carta... It is law, and let the king | :55:41. | :55:46. | |
beware... Today as we debate the power of the state I believe it is | :55:47. | :55:49. | |
certainly not the head of our state who threatens our law and safety, | :55:50. | :55:53. | |
but those who threaten our state from within it and we must make our | :55:54. | :56:02. | |
law accuse coringly. The am -- the amendment the Government has issued | :56:03. | :56:06. | |
I feel go further than ever before in terms of transparency and the | :56:07. | :56:12. | |
powers in the bill. A great deal of advice has come from the committee | :56:13. | :56:15. | |
stage and the Government has listened. These amendments make | :56:16. | :56:20. | |
clear that warrants or other authorisation should not be granted | :56:21. | :56:23. | |
where information could be reasonably obtained by less | :56:24. | :56:26. | |
intrusive means so if the information is out there on the | :56:27. | :56:30. | |
internet and let us face it there is plenty of it it can be got without | :56:31. | :56:37. | |
recourse to the requirement. They require the persons exercising | :56:38. | :56:39. | |
functions under the bill to have regard to the public interest and | :56:40. | :56:43. | |
protection of privacy as well as other principles that underpin the | :56:44. | :56:46. | |
legislation, and that I make clear the criminal offences that apply to | :56:47. | :56:52. | |
misuse of power under the bill. Putting beyond doubt the penalty. | :56:53. | :56:59. | |
Prince Philip is is at the heart of this legislation but its point is | :57:00. | :57:04. | |
protection, the House should remember the statistics quoted by | :57:05. | :57:08. | |
the member for Chelmsford and I do not intend to repeat them, but we | :57:09. | :57:12. | |
must be careful not to dilute this bill so much that the ability of up | :57:13. | :57:15. | |
a agencies to keep up with technology, and those who use it, in | :57:16. | :57:21. | |
a sophisticated way to do heart is harmed, the baby must stay in the | :57:22. | :57:25. | |
bath while the dirty water is thrown out. | :57:26. | :57:28. | |
MrDeputy Speaker, I know there has been a lot interest in this bill. I | :57:29. | :57:32. | |
know too that the amendments to it need to be weighed rather than | :57:33. | :57:36. | |
counted. But in my estimation, it is a sound bill. It is an important | :57:37. | :57:43. | |
bill. And it is a bill which will ensure the warning in tubing by | :57:44. | :57:50. | |
Abbey can amended. Magna Carta... The charter is law and let criminals | :57:51. | :57:54. | |
beware. Thank you. It is a pleasure to | :57:55. | :57:59. | |
follow my right honourable friend. Having spoken in the second reading | :58:00. | :58:04. | |
debate where I focussed on economic cyber crime and followed the passage | :58:05. | :58:10. | |
of this bill I would like to make a few remarks, particularly | :58:11. | :58:13. | |
Government's new claws five. MrDeputy Speaker, I privacy the | :58:14. | :58:18. | |
ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information | :58:19. | :58:22. | |
about themselves and express themselves selectively but the | :58:23. | :58:26. | |
boundaries differ among cultures and individuals but share common themes, | :58:27. | :58:36. | |
it was the Colombian novelist Marquez who observed that Erne has | :58:37. | :58:40. | |
the three lives, public, private and secret, MrDeputy Speaker, but we all | :58:41. | :58:46. | |
know that there are some in our society, whose secrecy cannot be | :58:47. | :58:50. | |
allowed to prevail and where privacy can't be a shield that allows crimes | :58:51. | :58:55. | |
to be committed where the crimes are terrorism, child abuse, people | :58:56. | :58:59. | |
trafficking or cyber crime. MrDeputy Speaker, there are people who | :59:00. | :59:04. | |
attempt to hide behind the rest of society, behind passwords and codes, | :59:05. | :59:09. | |
as my right honourable friend mentioned known only among | :59:10. | :59:13. | |
themselves it is because of the speed of technological change they | :59:14. | :59:17. | |
are not just operating outside the law, they are operating ahead of the | :59:18. | :59:21. | |
law. That is why the law must catch up. This bill and the Government's | :59:22. | :59:25. | |
new clauses achieve that goal. If we are to enhance the law, and to | :59:26. | :59:30. | |
codify the powers that our security services need to keep us safe, we | :59:31. | :59:35. | |
must ensure that the oversight regime is robust and satisfied the | :59:36. | :59:38. | |
other Watchdogs of liberty, Parliament and the press. And so | :59:39. | :59:44. | |
this bill creates a world leading oversight regime, bringing together | :59:45. | :59:48. | |
three existing commissioner, providing new powers and resources | :59:49. | :59:53. | |
to a new independent investigatory powers commissioner and warrants | :59:54. | :59:56. | |
must be subject to a new double lock approved by the judicial | :59:57. | :59:59. | |
commissioner and before they can be issued by the Secretary of State. | :00:00. | :00:03. | |
Privacy is the mirror image of oversight. This bill and its | :00:04. | :00:07. | |
amendments go very far to protect individual rights. The bill in | :00:08. | :00:11. | |
particular provides for the power that it sets out to be used in | :00:12. | :00:15. | |
specific circumstances. It makes clear the pumps for which they can | :00:16. | :00:21. | |
be used, it makes clear the human rights obligation and it makes clear | :00:22. | :00:24. | |
whether each of the powers and the bill is to be used or to be used the | :00:25. | :00:30. | |
in a bulk manner. MrDeputy Speaker, the bill goes on in this vain, I | :00:31. | :00:34. | |
believe that the Government has listened, acted and has the balance | :00:35. | :00:38. | |
right between the powers necessary to keep this safe, the right to | :00:39. | :00:42. | |
privacy of the individual and the oversight necessary to ensure | :00:43. | :00:44. | |
neither private sip or safety are compromised. In conclusion the bill | :00:45. | :00:49. | |
represents the pragmatic pursuit of safety in the no tern age. It | :00:50. | :00:54. | |
represents an effective refuel the law and I urge the House to support | :00:55. | :00:58. | |
its passage tonight and in the coming days. Thank you. We know that | :00:59. | :01:07. | |
since 2010 the majority of security services have used intercepted | :01:08. | :01:10. | |
material in some form, to prevent those seeking to harm the UK and its | :01:11. | :01:15. | |
citizens, it is vital our security services be able do their jobs well, | :01:16. | :01:19. | |
to maintain the operationam capability of our law enforcement | :01:20. | :01:23. | |
agencies and prevent terrorism and other serious crimes. Living in the | :01:24. | :01:28. | |
modern world with modern methods of communication, we must ensure | :01:29. | :01:31. | |
security services have the powers they need to keep us safe, while at | :01:32. | :01:36. | |
the same time addressing the privacy concerns and not damaging the | :01:37. | :01:42. | |
competitiveness of the UK's rapidly expanding technology sector or | :01:43. | :01:47. | |
communications more widely. I won't dwell on the privacy and oversight | :01:48. | :01:53. | |
matters that so many honourable and right honourable colleagues have | :01:54. | :01:58. | |
dealt W I would like to go straight on to more, the impact on the | :01:59. | :02:03. | |
technological sector as covered in the science and technology Select | :02:04. | :02:06. | |
Committee's short inquiry into the bill. One of the main concerns I | :02:07. | :02:12. | |
heard from the technology sector in evidence session was the view that | :02:13. | :02:16. | |
there was needed to be more clarity and consideration for the extra | :02:17. | :02:22. | |
territorial application for the bill and its compatibility with other | :02:23. | :02:25. | |
nation, failure to proceed clarity would make it harder for Government | :02:26. | :02:29. | |
to achieve its aims or delivering world leading legislation, I am | :02:30. | :02:33. | |
please add that the Government listened to the committee's concerns | :02:34. | :02:37. | |
about industry to develop implementation plans for retaining | :02:38. | :02:40. | |
internet connection records, in response to recommendations from the | :02:41. | :02:46. | |
committee. In response responding to the revised bill tech UK has praised | :02:47. | :02:50. | |
the fact that the Government has responded to this criticism | :02:51. | :02:55. | |
regarding ICRs, however, they have raised concerns that despite this, | :02:56. | :03:01. | |
there will be no single set of data that constitutes an internet | :03:02. | :03:05. | |
connection record and that in practise, will depend on the service | :03:06. | :03:11. | |
and service provider concerned. This highlights the difficulty that | :03:12. | :03:16. | |
industry will face, if required to generate and retain ICRs, although | :03:17. | :03:21. | |
this bill does not go as far as the Science and Technology Committee | :03:22. | :03:25. | |
would have liked by putting 1 00% of cost recovery on the face of the | :03:26. | :03:31. | |
bill, the supporting documents do reaffirm the Government's | :03:32. | :03:34. | |
long-standing position of reimbursing 100% of the costs and I | :03:35. | :03:39. | |
am pleased that the Government has listened to the prelegislative | :03:40. | :03:43. | |
scrutiny of the committee's provided. In conclusion, while | :03:44. | :03:47. | |
finding the balance between privacy and security is not an easy task, I | :03:48. | :03:51. | |
believe that Britain needs this legislation, in place to bring | :03:52. | :03:55. | |
together the powers that are already available to law enforcement, and | :03:56. | :03:59. | |
the security and intelligence agencies, to protect the parish | :04:00. | :04:02. | |
people and ensure our security services have the tools to keep us | :04:03. | :04:09. | |
safe in modern Britain. Thank you very much indeed MrDeputy | :04:10. | :04:14. | |
Speaker. It was my pleasure to serve on the bill committee for mes of the | :04:15. | :04:17. | |
period but I would like to put on record if I may so, think thanks to | :04:18. | :04:22. | |
the member for Chelmsford for taking my place when I had to leave the | :04:23. | :04:28. | |
committee. Committee. It always MrDeputy Speaker with some | :04:29. | :04:31. | |
reluctance if not trepidation I raise a question on a point raised | :04:32. | :04:40. | |
bier my right honourable friend for Beaconsfield. Coulden invite when he | :04:41. | :04:46. | |
comes to his summing up, my honourable and learned friend the | :04:47. | :04:51. | |
Secretary of State to try and address a concern which is | :04:52. | :04:56. | |
exercising my mind, of a possibly unforeseen circumstances of this | :04:57. | :05:01. | |
clause two, which is namely the confliction and conflation of | :05:02. | :05:05. | |
judicial and executive oversight. My view is that those two things are | :05:06. | :05:11. | |
best kept entirely clear and separate, and I fear it may be an | :05:12. | :05:17. | |
intended or I would hope an unintended consequence of what my | :05:18. | :05:19. | |
right honourable friend has suggested that they might merge in | :05:20. | :05:26. | |
an unsatisfactory and possibly even anti-democratic way. Of course. I | :05:27. | :05:31. | |
wouldn't wish to see the two issues conflated but I have to say to him | :05:32. | :05:35. | |
and reassure him that I don't think that that is the case. Tb point at | :05:36. | :05:42. | |
issue is that the Commissioner has a specific power of investigation of | :05:43. | :05:45. | |
particular things whereas the committee looks at the generality, | :05:46. | :05:49. | |
it seems to me to be in the public interest that the committee should | :05:50. | :05:53. | |
be able to refer to the Commissioner, something which it | :05:54. | :05:56. | |
thinks the Commissioner might look at. And all we ask of the | :05:57. | :05:59. | |
Commissioner is that the Commissioner should acknowledge | :06:00. | :06:02. | |
that, and indicate to us whether he thinks he is minded to do it or not. | :06:03. | :06:07. | |
Beyond that, it is entirely a matter for him, but there does need to be | :06:08. | :06:11. | |
some formal structure because otherwise the risk is that | :06:12. | :06:16. | |
communication is not present. I am grateful for his clarification, that | :06:17. | :06:20. | |
might be the intention of the structures I have to say I still | :06:21. | :06:24. | |
have that reservation and I look to the minister to try and confirm what | :06:25. | :06:30. | |
he has said or to confirm or address my suspicion. MrDeputy Speaker, this | :06:31. | :06:35. | |
is, I think, probably the most important bill we will deal with. I | :06:36. | :06:41. | |
am very grateful. I think it is indicative, certainly with regards | :06:42. | :06:46. | |
clause five which I rise to support. I think it amplifies incredibly well | :06:47. | :06:52. | |
the approach the Treasury bench and the opposition front bench took. The | :06:53. | :06:57. | |
words and approach of the honourable learned gentleman this afternoon, | :06:58. | :07:03. | |
is, I think, to be welcomed. I was always of the contention MrDeputy | :07:04. | :07:07. | |
Speaker, that the rights and the importance of privacy of our | :07:08. | :07:12. | |
constituencies was an unspoken golden thread that ran through the | :07:13. | :07:16. | |
build. But new clause five has decided and the Government has | :07:17. | :07:19. | |
decided and therefore I support them this doing this, that sometimes not | :07:20. | :07:24. | |
always something which is implicit it should be made explicit. I want | :07:25. | :07:31. | |
to take, if I may, the point made my my honourable friend, I too will be | :07:32. | :07:36. | |
opposing new clauses one and 16, it would seem to me utterly and totally | :07:37. | :07:41. | |
counter productive and counter intuitive to give those investigated | :07:42. | :07:45. | |
correctly or Iran correctly notice of the fact they have been. Could I | :07:46. | :07:50. | |
take, if I may, slight issue, she won't be surprised at this with the | :07:51. | :07:54. | |
honourable and learned lady for Edinburgh South West. Throughout the | :07:55. | :08:00. | |
whole of the committee stage, I was never convinced that her party got | :08:01. | :08:05. | |
the fact that we were talking about delivering the security and safety | :08:06. | :08:08. | |
for our constituencies, this bill does. This is not an abstract | :08:09. | :08:14. | |
theoretical debate of a law factty. This is about providing -- factty. | :08:15. | :08:18. | |
This is about providing safety and security for our citizens, the first | :08:19. | :08:24. | |
duty of all of us, I am pleased with the approach testify Government, I | :08:25. | :08:27. | |
am grateful for the tone of the front bench and I look forward to | :08:28. | :08:32. | |
supporting the bill as it progresses through the House. | :08:33. | :08:41. | |
Thank you. I am minded much of this legislation is about drawing | :08:42. | :08:44. | |
together many strands of existing legislation, much of which has been | :08:45. | :08:49. | |
criticised a previously for being written in an arcane and | :08:50. | :08:53. | |
inaccessible manner and providing more pro-Shadow Chancellorion -- | :08:54. | :08:56. | |
protection of our fundamental human rights so I welcome the bill that is | :08:57. | :09:01. | |
before us, at making matters clearer and preserving the powers and the | :09:02. | :09:06. | |
rights we hold so dear while protecting our constituents from the | :09:07. | :09:10. | |
more modern forms of terrorism, which we must all be so wary of and | :09:11. | :09:17. | |
do everything we can to protect. In assessing the oversight regime I | :09:18. | :09:21. | |
would like to focus on two bodies which o check and balance on the use | :09:22. | :09:27. | |
of powers as amended by the Government's legislative provisions | :09:28. | :09:29. | |
that we are hearing about today. With respect to the right of address | :09:30. | :09:36. | |
for those who believe they have been unlawfully subjecteded to | :09:37. | :09:39. | |
investigatory powers, the tribunal set up for this purpose, I note the | :09:40. | :09:43. | |
rules and from seedirs have been found to be lawful by the European | :09:44. | :09:47. | |
Court of human right, but it sits and reports in public where to do so | :09:48. | :09:51. | |
could not compromise privacy or security. This bill will strengthen | :09:52. | :09:56. | |
the tribunal process and give an individual recourse to take a | :09:57. | :10:01. | |
tribunal decision to the Court of Appeal. | :10:02. | :10:06. | |
The surely -- it must be a source of great strength to consolidate busily | :10:07. | :10:15. | |
existing commissioners into a single oversight body headed by the | :10:16. | :10:19. | |
investigatory Powers Commissioner. That office will be supported by a | :10:20. | :10:24. | |
number of other judicial commissioners who must hold or have | :10:25. | :10:27. | |
held high judicial office. While these commissioners will be | :10:28. | :10:30. | |
appointed by the Prime Minister, they must have consulted with the | :10:31. | :10:35. | |
most senior members of the judiciary. This is the point I | :10:36. | :10:39. | |
reflected on when hearing from the SNP as to whether the judges would | :10:40. | :10:42. | |
be suitably impartial in determining the powers and the fact they must | :10:43. | :10:47. | |
upheld the highest judicial opposite decimetre confident that they will. | :10:48. | :10:55. | |
Can I also focus on privacy and I welcome you clause five which will. | :10:56. | :11:00. | |
Privacy while providing our agencies would the necessary powers to keep | :11:01. | :11:03. | |
us safe. As a result of this clause that it is assumption that a warrant | :11:04. | :11:07. | |
should not be granted were in permission could be obtained by | :11:08. | :11:12. | |
other less intrusive means. They must have regard to the public | :11:13. | :11:15. | |
interest in the protection of privacy and criminal sanctions for | :11:16. | :11:21. | |
those who use this bill and that should act as a deterrent is in | :11:22. | :11:26. | |
addition to record a tribunal should these powers be abused. In | :11:27. | :11:31. | |
conclusion, I look at this set of legislation very much as to whether | :11:32. | :11:36. | |
it balances the needs of human rights with our need to protect our | :11:37. | :11:40. | |
constituents and I believe it does so. The bulk of this bill is the | :11:41. | :11:43. | |
bringing together of numerous items of legislation which have not been | :11:44. | :11:49. | |
as transparent as a bell and fallen foul of fundamental EU rights. This | :11:50. | :11:53. | |
bill has captured the work from three important report in 2015 which | :11:54. | :11:57. | |
all concluded the law in this area is unfit for purpose and needed | :11:58. | :12:04. | |
reform. Also three -- pre-legislative scrutiny. We live in | :12:05. | :12:08. | |
dangerous times and it is vital we ensure our Government agencies have | :12:09. | :12:13. | |
the powers to protect us without the ability to harm the individual | :12:14. | :12:16. | |
liberties of more about the constituents and I believe this bill | :12:17. | :12:19. | |
and the amendments of the Government deliver this balance. | :12:20. | :12:28. | |
I am sure honourable members on both sides will forgive me if I have to | :12:29. | :12:31. | |
canter through all the issues raised at the pace of eight Derby | :12:32. | :12:38. | |
thoroughbred. Please forgive me if I don't name honourable members inside | :12:39. | :12:43. | |
but I am grateful for the first of the debate which dealt very much | :12:44. | :12:48. | |
with historic but was important balance between the need to protect | :12:49. | :12:54. | |
the rights of individuals to their privacy, which is a right against | :12:55. | :12:57. | |
intrusion, and the national interest in making sure the agencies are | :12:58. | :13:03. | |
responsible for the detection and prevention of crime and terrorism | :13:04. | :13:08. | |
have the tools to do the job. Can I conceal first of all -- can I first | :13:09. | :13:14. | |
of all people with new clause 21 would finalise occupied much of the | :13:15. | :13:20. | |
debate. -- can I deal with you clause 20 one. In the intervention | :13:21. | :13:27. | |
we indicated we will consider the position with regard to new clause | :13:28. | :13:32. | |
by personally. It seems to me that now we are close in beads with | :13:33. | :13:38. | |
regard to that provision relating to privacy. There is one issue as to | :13:39. | :13:42. | |
the effect of the Human Rights Act. I would say it is a matter that all | :13:43. | :13:51. | |
public bodies are subject to that act and Amendment would not be | :13:52. | :13:56. | |
necessary. But we will consider it carefully. I would invite further | :13:57. | :14:01. | |
elaboration upon its will stop in that spirit I would invite members | :14:02. | :14:08. | |
on all states to support new clause five, the Government's clause, | :14:09. | :14:13. | |
which, as somebody who has consistently advocated action by | :14:14. | :14:16. | |
this place as opposed to leaving it to the court on privacy, I am | :14:17. | :14:20. | |
delighted to see the link placed into what is a major piece of | :14:21. | :14:26. | |
legislation that I hope will stand the test of time. I will now deal | :14:27. | :14:35. | |
with the amendments tabled on behalf of the ICS. I'm careful to all | :14:36. | :14:40. | |
members of that committee for other considerations. I have already | :14:41. | :14:47. | |
entered an intervention indicated the Government's position on | :14:48. | :14:51. | |
commencement 18 and now can I deal with Amendment eight, the amendment | :14:52. | :14:55. | |
relating to the underlying internal safeguards. Can I indicate the | :14:56. | :15:02. | |
Government is happy to accept the amendments sought greater clarity | :15:03. | :15:04. | |
and reassurance to Parliament and the public can be given and I want | :15:05. | :15:10. | |
to make that crystal clear, the remit of the investigatory Powers | :15:11. | :15:14. | |
Commissioner well include oversight of the internal handling | :15:15. | :15:20. | |
arrangements and which enable compliance with the safeguards of | :15:21. | :15:24. | |
the bill. Dealing with new clause to, I have already indicated we can | :15:25. | :15:31. | |
in principle accept the first part of that amendment, the referral of | :15:32. | :15:37. | |
issues to the investigatory Powers Commissioner and will bring forward | :15:38. | :15:39. | |
an amendment in the other place to give effect to that intention. I | :15:40. | :15:44. | |
have somewhat more hesitation with regard to reporting. In agreeing the | :15:45. | :15:53. | |
principle of reference and referred all, we are already creating an line | :15:54. | :15:57. | |
of communication that the right honourable gentlemen properly | :15:58. | :16:02. | |
referred to was not working in one particular respect. And to, I am | :16:03. | :16:06. | |
grateful to my honourable friend for North Dorset for outlining an | :16:07. | :16:14. | |
indirect way some of the tensions I think -- an act directly some of the | :16:15. | :16:17. | |
tensions that still exist with to the judicial status of the | :16:18. | :16:22. | |
investigatory Powers Commissioner and the role that could lead to an | :16:23. | :16:29. | |
overlap and the confusion, bearing in mind the importance of clear | :16:30. | :16:33. | |
lines of authority and reporting. I will briefly give way. | :16:34. | :16:40. | |
I realise cyber shot. My right honourable friend has gone along | :16:41. | :16:44. | |
with the reassuring me and I don't wish to push this to an unnecessary | :16:45. | :16:48. | |
vote but if there is a reference mechanism placing an obligation of | :16:49. | :16:53. | |
acknowledgement and at least an indication of what is happening and | :16:54. | :17:00. | |
a report back. The intelligence and security committee is their own | :17:01. | :17:03. | |
parliament's behalf to provide scrutiny, that seems to me to be | :17:04. | :17:06. | |
very reasonable and I simply do not see how it undermined any element of | :17:07. | :17:11. | |
judicial independence whatsoever. I am not saying the amendment is | :17:12. | :17:18. | |
unreasonable, I am simply being cautious about the need, certainly | :17:19. | :17:24. | |
for those involved, mainly the Commissioner themselves, to be part | :17:25. | :17:29. | |
of the process. In beads to be consulted if there is to be such a | :17:30. | :17:35. | |
change. I can't at this stage support that part of the proposed | :17:36. | :17:38. | |
amendment but I am grateful to my right honourable friend for the | :17:39. | :17:43. | |
considered and clear way both he and the committee have put this point. | :17:44. | :17:48. | |
Can I deal with the new clause four which relates to the question mark | :17:49. | :17:52. | |
of clarity with regard to criminal offences. My right honourable | :17:53. | :17:56. | |
friend, the Security Minister is undertaking the Government will | :17:57. | :18:00. | |
prepare a schedule of existing criminal law. I think he will find | :18:01. | :18:03. | |
that whatever the arguments we can have about the level of penalty that | :18:04. | :18:09. | |
exists in the Data Protection Act, every part of potential misconduct | :18:10. | :18:12. | |
that could be carried out or criminality that can be carried out | :18:13. | :18:18. | |
under this new bill will be covered by existing criminal law. I simply | :18:19. | :18:24. | |
see this, both he and I, as practitioners in the field for many | :18:25. | :18:29. | |
years, are always anxious about the creation of unnecessarily new | :18:30. | :18:32. | |
criminal offences and my simple argument to them today as I am not | :18:33. | :18:39. | |
persuaded is new clause four, first of all would add anything to | :18:40. | :18:42. | |
criminal law or secondly, achieve the sort of clarity he and others | :18:43. | :18:50. | |
would seek. For that reason, I am not persuaded and able to accept | :18:51. | :18:57. | |
that amendment. Can I swiftly move on to the amendments related to | :18:58. | :19:04. | |
judicial commissioners tabled by the honourable member in the party | :19:05. | :19:06. | |
opposite. I listened carefully to the arguments and I agree there is | :19:07. | :19:12. | |
merit and value in providing expertise from the heads of the | :19:13. | :19:16. | |
judiciary into the appointments process but I also believe that is a | :19:17. | :19:24. | |
role for the Lord Chancellor. It is they who have responsibility for | :19:25. | :19:27. | |
ensuring the court and Tribunal service had enough judges to operate | :19:28. | :19:30. | |
effectively and given the limited number of High Court judges these | :19:31. | :19:34. | |
appointments could affect that. Additionally important Lord | :19:35. | :19:36. | |
Chancellor in making a recommendation on appointment would | :19:37. | :19:40. | |
help to ensure we avoid accusations of judicial patronage and therefore | :19:41. | :19:44. | |
on the basis we will table an amendment in the other place which | :19:45. | :19:47. | |
fulfils that game I would invite the honourable gentleman to withdraw the | :19:48. | :19:53. | |
amendments -- was brought -- fulfils that aim. Carnegie would judicial | :19:54. | :20:01. | |
appointments commission. -- can I deal with the judicial appointments | :20:02. | :20:05. | |
commission. I am persuaded with the argument of the Lord Judge who said | :20:06. | :20:11. | |
this, there is no point whatsoever in unfolding the judicial | :20:12. | :20:14. | |
appointments commission. Why? Because judges themselves will have | :20:15. | :20:19. | |
been through the process and therefore it is, in my argument, | :20:20. | :20:25. | |
completely not needed. Given a further amendment related to, tabled | :20:26. | :20:30. | |
in the name of the honourable lady for the SNP, I am still not | :20:31. | :20:38. | |
persuaded that the creation of an independent non-departmental public | :20:39. | :20:42. | |
body, investigatory Powers commission, would actually add | :20:43. | :20:46. | |
anything to the thrust of the reforms we are already undertaking. | :20:47. | :20:49. | |
Apart from cost to the taxpayer and I am therefore do not think that | :20:50. | :20:58. | |
creating new statutory body would add anything to the public interest | :20:59. | :21:01. | |
which is after all what trying to serve. The right honourable lady, | :21:02. | :21:10. | |
the joint cheerfully committee on human rights is not in her place | :21:11. | :21:14. | |
that can I deal with the question of the Chinese wall. She was right to | :21:15. | :21:19. | |
make the concession about David Anderson, who himself said there | :21:20. | :21:24. | |
should be a relationship between the judicial authorisation and the | :21:25. | :21:28. | |
inspectorate. Indeed, there must be a distance but I think creating the | :21:29. | :21:33. | |
sort of the bridge and that is envisaged in the amendment, which, | :21:34. | :21:40. | |
with a break the link but exists in order to allow those who do to fully | :21:41. | :21:45. | |
understand how the process works in practice. For that reason, the | :21:46. | :21:50. | |
Government would seek to resist that amendment, if it was pushed to a | :21:51. | :21:57. | |
vote. My honourable friend are set out the objections she has two the | :21:58. | :22:02. | |
amendments that stand in the name of the right honourable gentlemen for | :22:03. | :22:07. | |
commensurate plan and others relating to notification. I can't | :22:08. | :22:12. | |
improve -- right honourable gentlemen for Orkney and Shetland. | :22:13. | :22:16. | |
Comparisons with other jurisdictions are somewhat invidious bearing in | :22:17. | :22:21. | |
mind the differing natures of the processes, for example inquisitorial | :22:22. | :22:25. | |
process is as opposed to adversarial process that we use in the UK. My | :22:26. | :22:31. | |
worry is this. Those who continue in their criminality will change their | :22:32. | :22:35. | |
behaviour as a result of notification and for that reason the | :22:36. | :22:39. | |
Government cannot accept that amendment. | :22:40. | :22:47. | |
Dealing with the issue of the amendment but the intervened on the | :22:48. | :22:51. | |
honourable lady, amendment for a two, can I say I am happy to | :22:52. | :23:01. | |
consider -- amendment flight-mac. I agree with her whistle-blowers | :23:02. | :23:08. | |
should be able to make without fear of prosecution. Amendments can be | :23:09. | :23:12. | |
tabled in the other players and I hope she takes that on board in | :23:13. | :23:17. | |
considering her party's position. Turning to the wider proposed | :23:18. | :23:20. | |
amendments to the investigatory Powers Tribunal, let's not forget | :23:21. | :23:27. | |
that bill already represents a significant step forward in that | :23:28. | :23:31. | |
regard because the only route of appeal available to complainants | :23:32. | :23:35. | |
from decisions of that Tribunal is currently a reference directly to | :23:36. | :23:39. | |
the European Court of Human Rights. We are establishing a domestic right | :23:40. | :23:42. | |
of appeal, allowing parties to seek redress here in the UK and also will | :23:43. | :23:49. | |
lead to greater speeds. My concern is if potential every single | :23:50. | :23:57. | |
decision of the IPT was made subject to appeal the operation of that body | :23:58. | :24:00. | |
would bring to a halt and I know that is the view of its president. | :24:01. | :24:06. | |
Currently only 4% of claims relating to questioning the tribunal's work | :24:07. | :24:10. | |
have any merit to them and therefore I am worried about the increasing | :24:11. | :24:15. | |
expense and loss of efficiency that that would result. Similarly, the | :24:16. | :24:22. | |
amendment that would force public hearings would remove the tribunal's | :24:23. | :24:26. | |
own discretion in order to decide how best to operate in the public | :24:27. | :24:31. | |
interest. It already regularly hold public hearings and publishes copies | :24:32. | :24:35. | |
of its judgments, where appropriate. The requirement to write special | :24:36. | :24:41. | |
advocates is a necessary -- is unnecessary and I argued that case | :24:42. | :24:47. | |
in committee. I can see no reason at all for departing from the position | :24:48. | :24:52. | |
with regard to declarations of incompatibility with the human Right | :24:53. | :25:00. | |
act because only a small number of currently have a reservation. At | :25:01. | :25:03. | |
this stage I will close with this remark that now we have privacy very | :25:04. | :25:07. | |
clearly at the heart of this bill and that is something I am proud of | :25:08. | :25:11. | |
and I know members on all sides will agree this is a job well done. | :25:12. | :25:23. | |
The question is this new Clause five B read a second time. The ayes have | :25:24. | :25:33. | |
it. The question is that new class I be added to the bells. The ayes have | :25:34. | :25:41. | |
it. To move six formerly. The question is that new Clause six be | :25:42. | :25:46. | |
added to the Bill. As many of that opinion say aye. The ayes have it. | :25:47. | :25:54. | |
Minister to move government amendment 26 to 34. The question is | :25:55. | :25:59. | |
the Government amendment 26 to 34 be made. As many of that opinion say | :26:00. | :26:05. | |
aye. The ayes have it. Mr Carmichael to move new Clause one formally. The | :26:06. | :26:12. | |
question is that new Clause be added to the Bill. As many of that opinion | :26:13. | :26:21. | |
say aye. The country know. No! Division! Clear the lobbies. -- the | :26:22. | :26:26. | |
contrary know. OK, ready. The question is that you | :26:27. | :27:24. | |
Clause be added to the Bill. As many said I. The contrary, no. | :27:25. | :34:26. | |
Order! Order! The ayes to the right, 64. The noes to the left, 278. The | :34:27. | :38:10. | |
ayes to the right, 64. The noes to the left, 278. The noes have it. The | :38:11. | :38:25. | |
noes have it. Armlock! -- armlock. To move and 465 formally. The | :38:26. | :38:31. | |
question is that amendment 465 be made. As many of that opinion, say | :38:32. | :38:39. | |
aye. Of the contrary, no. No! Division! Clear the lobbies. | :38:40. | :40:00. | |
# The question is that amendment 46... Order! The question is that | :40:01. | :40:14. | |
amendment 465 be made. As many of that opinion say aye. On the | :40:15. | :40:24. | |
contrary, no. Michael James and George Hollingbrook. | :40:25. | :49:53. | |
Order! Order! The ayes to the right, 64. The nose to the left, 281. | :49:54. | :50:04. | |
-- nos to the left, 281. The ayes to the right, 64. The nos | :50:05. | :50:22. | |
to the left, 281. The nos have it. Unlock. | :50:23. | :50:29. | |
Minister to move Government amendment 35. | :50:30. | :50:36. | |
The question is that the amendment 35 be made. As many of that opinion | :50:37. | :50:43. | |
say, aye. Of the contrary, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Mr | :50:44. | :50:50. | |
Greave to move amendment eight. The question is that amendment eight be | :50:51. | :50:55. | |
made. As many of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. The ayes | :50:56. | :51:00. | |
have it. The ayes have it. There is an awful | :51:01. | :51:05. | |
lot of talking going on when business is being transacted. The | :51:06. | :51:17. | |
question is that amendment be made. As many of that opinion say aye. Of | :51:18. | :51:22. | |
the contrary, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. | :51:23. | :51:31. | |
To move amendment 284. Moved formally. 482 be made. As many of | :51:32. | :51:37. | |
that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. | :51:38. | :51:42. | |
No. Clear the lobby. | :51:43. | :52:17. | |
Order! The question is, that amendment 482 be made. As many of | :52:18. | :52:32. | |
that opinion say aye. Tell us of the ayes. For the nos, Margot James and | :52:33. | :52:40. | |
Mr Hollingberry. Order, order. He is to direct, 67. | :52:41. | :01:43. | |
The noes to the left, 281. -- is to the right. He is to the right, 67. | :01:44. | :01:56. | |
The noes to the left, 281. The noes have it. The noes have it. Unlock. | :01:57. | :02:06. | |
We now come to government new Clause seven. With which it will be | :02:07. | :02:11. | |
convenient to consider the other amendments, new clauses and motions | :02:12. | :02:15. | |
to transfer listed on the selection paper. Minister to move. New Clause | :02:16. | :02:32. | |
seven. Mr Buckland. Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. | :02:33. | :02:36. | |
It is a pleasure to address the House on this, the second group of | :02:37. | :02:40. | |
amendments that we are considering. It is a large group of amendments. I | :02:41. | :02:45. | |
think some honourable members a discredit to me is unprecedented. I | :02:46. | :02:49. | |
wouldn't be so bold as to say that having only served a mere six years | :02:50. | :02:55. | |
in this place. But I would concede that it is considerable. And that | :02:56. | :03:00. | |
perhaps reflects the huge interest and legitimate interest that members | :03:01. | :03:05. | |
from all sides of the House have with regard to these particular | :03:06. | :03:10. | |
parts of the Bill. Parts two and five were indeed debated at length | :03:11. | :03:13. | |
in Public Bill Committee. The Government has listened to what was | :03:14. | :03:19. | |
said in that Committee debate in those debates and we have brought | :03:20. | :03:22. | |
back a number of amendment in response. These changes were indeed | :03:23. | :03:25. | |
strengthen protections for parliamentarians. They will enhance | :03:26. | :03:30. | |
the safeguards for targeting thematic warrants and provide | :03:31. | :03:33. | |
greater assurances in respect of the obligations that may be placed upon | :03:34. | :03:38. | |
communications service providers. Before I come onto the detail of the | :03:39. | :03:41. | |
Government amendments I would just like to say a few words about one of | :03:42. | :03:45. | |
the most important issues that we will discuss in this group, the | :03:46. | :03:50. | |
authorisation of warrants. When the Government published the draft Bill | :03:51. | :03:55. | |
in last November, my Right Honourable friend the Home Secretary | :03:56. | :03:58. | |
announced the intention that in future warrants for the most | :03:59. | :04:03. | |
sensitive powers available to the security and intelligence agencies | :04:04. | :04:06. | |
will be authorised to the Secretary of State and approved by a senior | :04:07. | :04:12. | |
independent judge. That would maintain a democratic accountability | :04:13. | :04:15. | |
and introduce a new element of judicial independence into the | :04:16. | :04:19. | |
warrant authorising process. This double Lock represented the most | :04:20. | :04:24. | |
significant change in our lifetime to the way in which the security and | :04:25. | :04:29. | |
intelligence agencies exercise their vital powers. It is ground-breaking, | :04:30. | :04:36. | |
innovative and important when it comes to the balance between the | :04:37. | :04:40. | |
public interest in protecting our citizens and the interests of | :04:41. | :04:46. | |
privacy. I know that there are a range of views in this House on the | :04:47. | :04:50. | |
question of authorisations but I am sure we will have a productive and | :04:51. | :04:55. | |
weighty debate this evening. I will come onto the amendments tabled by | :04:56. | :05:01. | |
the honourable member for St Pancras which seeks to remove the judicial | :05:02. | :05:09. | |
principles. This has be aware that the joint Committee which drafted | :05:10. | :05:13. | |
the Bill said it was satisfied with the wording and that judicial review | :05:14. | :05:17. | |
principles would, and I quote, afford the judicial commission a | :05:18. | :05:21. | |
degree of flexibility. The flexibility is very important | :05:22. | :05:26. | |
because it provides the judicial commissioners can undertake detailed | :05:27. | :05:29. | |
security of decisions where appropriate but it doesn't oblige | :05:30. | :05:32. | |
judges to undertake forensic scrutiny of even the most | :05:33. | :05:36. | |
straightforward warrants because to do so would be unnecessary and would | :05:37. | :05:40. | |
threaten the operation agility of the security and intelligence | :05:41. | :05:46. | |
agencies. We have had already in the first group, perhaps we slate -- | :05:47. | :05:49. | |
strayed slightly off piste but we had a mini debate on the issue of | :05:50. | :05:53. | |
the language that should be deployed in relation to the scrutiny that we | :05:54. | :05:57. | |
want, the traditional commissioners to deploy when considering their | :05:58. | :06:04. | |
part in the double Lock mechanism. What I think we have achieved now by | :06:05. | :06:09. | |
way of the manuscript amendment which has been tabled today and I am | :06:10. | :06:13. | |
grateful to the honourable gentleman and the opposition for their | :06:14. | :06:18. | |
agreement to this, the manuscript amendment that I argue provides | :06:19. | :06:22. | |
precisely the assurance that the honourable members opposite were | :06:23. | :06:26. | |
seeking in Committee and indeed in correspondence since that time by | :06:27. | :06:30. | |
which I am grateful and I am very grateful to the Right Honourable | :06:31. | :06:33. | |
Gentleman the member for Lee as well by his interest and involvement in | :06:34. | :06:38. | |
these important matters. Therefore I would now put to the House that we | :06:39. | :06:46. | |
have an amendment here that satisfies the concerns of all | :06:47. | :06:48. | |
honourable members and provides a robust safeguard that indeed all of | :06:49. | :06:56. | |
us were looking for. The phrase, the particular way in which the | :06:57. | :06:58. | |
Parliamentary drafts have come up with the amendment I think ties in | :06:59. | :07:05. | |
the privacy Clause that we debated in the last group of amendments in a | :07:06. | :07:10. | |
way that puts it, if there was any doubt, right at the heart of this | :07:11. | :07:18. | |
Bill. Now we have a robust double Lock which maintains the important | :07:19. | :07:22. | |
distinction between Executive and judiciary but which is I have | :07:23. | :07:26. | |
already said is truly ground-breaking. Can I move them | :07:27. | :07:30. | |
quickly on to other government amendments as quickly as I can | :07:31. | :07:33. | |
bearing in mind they need to make sure that honourable members are | :07:34. | :07:37. | |
accommodated in this debate? New clauses nine and 13 deliver on our | :07:38. | :07:41. | |
commitments to strengthen the safeguards around so-called thematic | :07:42. | :07:44. | |
warrants. That is those targeted warrants that apply to a group of | :07:45. | :07:48. | |
suspects as opposed to an individual. The new requirement is | :07:49. | :07:52. | |
introduced so that major modifications to warrants, for | :07:53. | :07:56. | |
example adding the name of a gang member, must be notified to the | :07:57. | :08:08. | |
judicial as to the Secretary of State. Amendments 97 and 54 strictly | :08:09. | :08:11. | |
limit the operation and modifications making it clear that | :08:12. | :08:13. | |
they want targeted at a single suspect cannot be modified to expand | :08:14. | :08:15. | |
its scope to target several suspects. It is building upon the | :08:16. | :08:19. | |
assurances that they gave that Committee, now on the face of the | :08:20. | :08:23. | |
Bill should those amendments be accepted. New clauses eight and 12 | :08:24. | :08:27. | |
make sure that modifications that engage the Wilson doctrine or a | :08:28. | :08:31. | |
legal professional privilege should be subject to the full double Lock | :08:32. | :08:36. | |
authorisation. I will give way to my honourable friend. Can I say to the | :08:37. | :08:42. | |
Solicitor General I gratefully recognise that not just as the | :08:43. | :08:45. | |
Wilson doctrine important but also recognising the legal professional | :08:46. | :08:48. | |
privilege is important, would he accept that perhaps government new | :08:49. | :08:52. | |
Clause five. To be tubal of embracing the overriding public | :08:53. | :08:58. | |
interest of protecting privacy but will he agree also to agree to with | :08:59. | :09:04. | |
our council and the Law Society to make sure we monitor the practical | :09:05. | :09:07. | |
application of the protection of legal privilege in these matters? I | :09:08. | :09:13. | |
am extremely grateful to the chairman of the Justice Select | :09:14. | :09:17. | |
Committee. He will be glad to know that I recently meant bar Council | :09:18. | :09:22. | |
representatives who have very kindly undertaken to come up with further | :09:23. | :09:27. | |
proposals by which the issues that took up so much time in Committee | :09:28. | :09:31. | |
can be potentially resolved and I will be meeting representatives of | :09:32. | :09:35. | |
the Law Society this very week. It is perhaps a little unfortunate that | :09:36. | :09:42. | |
those particular proposals haven't yet been crystallised prior to | :09:43. | :09:45. | |
today's debate. But of course there will be more time. I am sure that in | :09:46. | :09:51. | |
another place, if there are indeed clear proposals that come forward, I | :09:52. | :09:55. | |
am sure there will be, they can be the subject of full and proper | :09:56. | :09:56. | |
scrutiny. I will give way. # Bluntly, I would ask him to make | :09:57. | :10:05. | |
sure there are proposals whether the Law Society come up with it or not. | :10:06. | :10:10. | |
In my view, this is the biggest erosion of civil liberty in this | :10:11. | :10:15. | |
country which has gone on the last decade-and-a-half, without any | :10:16. | :10:18. | |
recourse to this House. It is vital, if this Bill is going to meet its | :10:19. | :10:22. | |
requirements, that those reforms are found. | :10:23. | :10:25. | |
Well, I am very grateful to my Right Honourable friend. He speaks with | :10:26. | :10:29. | |
conviction on these matters. He will be glad to know that unlike Ripper | :10:30. | :10:35. | |
2,000 thousand, legal privilege is placed on the face of this bill. | :10:36. | :10:39. | |
This is a significant improvement from previous legislation. Can I | :10:40. | :10:45. | |
reassure him that in large measure the provisions that embrace the | :10:46. | :10:48. | |
importance of legal professional privilege, which are within the | :10:49. | :10:52. | |
bill, have been warmly welcomed. This is a question of getting the | :10:53. | :10:58. | |
detail right, with regard in particular to those, albeit rather | :10:59. | :11:03. | |
occurrences where the inequity exemption, people pursuing a crime, | :11:04. | :11:09. | |
which of course is not covered by legal professional privilege, the | :11:10. | :11:13. | |
examples where it might be applicable and appropriate to come | :11:14. | :11:17. | |
within any warranty which is sought under the provisions of this bill. | :11:18. | :11:22. | |
So, I am certainly not leaving it to other agencies. I am working as hard | :11:23. | :11:28. | |
as I can with expert bodies, who have a great interest and knowledge, | :11:29. | :11:33. | |
and like him, recognise the overwhelming public importance of | :11:34. | :11:37. | |
the preservation of legal professional privilege. I am glad to | :11:38. | :11:41. | |
say that I think that that dialogue will continue and will allow for | :11:42. | :11:44. | |
meaningful scrutiny and debate in the other place. Can I deal with the | :11:45. | :11:52. | |
question of the Wilson doctrine? The current, the clause 24 of the bill | :11:53. | :11:55. | |
currently requires the Prime Minister to be consulted before | :11:56. | :12:02. | |
targeted interceptional warrant can be issued in respect of such | :12:03. | :12:06. | |
communications. What we will do with 53 and 90 is strengthen this by | :12:07. | :12:11. | |
making it clear the Prime Minister must agree to the interseptino | :12:12. | :12:19. | |
rather than being consulted. Has he noticed the amendment number | :12:20. | :12:23. | |
one that I put down? I wonder if he wants to comment on that? I | :12:24. | :12:27. | |
introduced the extra safeguard that the speaker should be consulted I am | :12:28. | :12:32. | |
extremely grateful to my Right Honourable friend. He's put that, | :12:33. | :12:36. | |
tabled that amend innocent the spirit of his speech at the second | :12:37. | :12:45. | |
reading. I am looking forward to hearing any argument that he will | :12:46. | :12:49. | |
pursue on this matter, is that I think whilst I can see the merit in | :12:50. | :12:56. | |
seeking to protect the privileges of parliamentarians through the office | :12:57. | :13:02. | |
of the speaker, my concern is that involving the speaker in essence in | :13:03. | :13:06. | |
either approving or not a particular warranty process, then we are at | :13:07. | :13:11. | |
risk, I think, of confusing executive action with the role of | :13:12. | :13:16. | |
this place. And the role of the speaker, in terms of the | :13:17. | :13:20. | |
legislature. With regard to accountability, the Prime Minister | :13:21. | :13:24. | |
is going to be accountable to honourable members to any decision | :13:25. | :13:28. | |
that he or she may take with regard to warranty through the normal | :13:29. | :13:31. | |
process of questions or being summoned to this House in pursuant | :13:32. | :13:36. | |
of an urgent question. There is a more difficult procedure in relation | :13:37. | :13:40. | |
to any decision the speaker might make. It seems to be the mechanism | :13:41. | :13:44. | |
would be a point of order, perhaps. I am not sure that sort of challenge | :13:45. | :13:48. | |
to the chair would sit very well with the role of the speaker and of | :13:49. | :13:52. | |
course the position of parliamentarians as well. I think | :13:53. | :13:57. | |
that therefore our difficulties in involving the speaker... Andly give | :13:58. | :14:03. | |
way to The Right Honourable jeman. Unfortunate -- gentleman. I can give | :14:04. | :14:07. | |
him account of his accountability not working. When the case of the | :14:08. | :14:14. | |
lady member who is the past and no doubt future leader of the Green | :14:15. | :14:20. | |
Party went to the IPT, the stance taken by the Government lawyer was | :14:21. | :14:26. | |
that this was not a legally-binding constraint on the agencies. When I | :14:27. | :14:29. | |
put that point to the Prime Minister, he was unable to answer | :14:30. | :14:33. | |
it. That is normally the case with Wilson doctrine - the answer comes | :14:34. | :14:38. | |
many, many years later. An accountable of accountability does | :14:39. | :14:42. | |
not stand up here, I am afraid. With respect, I think it does. We are | :14:43. | :14:45. | |
putting on the face of the bill the Prime Minister's role in approving | :14:46. | :14:48. | |
the warrant. What you have now for the first time, I think s a very | :14:49. | :14:52. | |
important stat Tory protection. That is again -- let's again not forget | :14:53. | :14:56. | |
the progress we have made in getting to this position that we are in | :14:57. | :15:01. | |
today. A few years ago, a few of these particular conventions and | :15:02. | :15:04. | |
operations were not around. That is not the case with regard to the | :15:05. | :15:09. | |
Wilson doctrine. Pause for a moment and remember what that doctrine is | :15:10. | :15:13. | |
about. It is all about making sure that honourable members can carry | :15:14. | :15:19. | |
out their public functions as officeholders in free and proper | :15:20. | :15:23. | |
way, but subject to the same laws as everybody else in this country. The | :15:24. | :15:27. | |
equality before the law applies to members of this place as other | :15:28. | :15:30. | |
members of the public. I am sure that debate will be developed as we | :15:31. | :15:35. | |
hear from speakers in the group. Can I just finish in this way, Madam | :15:36. | :15:40. | |
Deputy Speaker, throughout this process, with regard to technical | :15:41. | :15:44. | |
capability and national security notices, we have been very clear | :15:45. | :15:48. | |
that it will, we will work very closely with industry to make sure | :15:49. | :15:51. | |
that the bill provides the strongest protections to those who may be | :15:52. | :15:55. | |
subject to obligations under this legislation. That commit we heard | :15:56. | :16:01. | |
concerns - the technical capability notices and national security | :16:02. | :16:04. | |
notices were not subject to the same strict safe guards as to the | :16:05. | :16:08. | |
authorisation of warrants. We have listened to the concerns and | :16:09. | :16:12. | |
responded with new clause 10, which applies the double lot to notices | :16:13. | :16:17. | |
and to part nine of the bill. Following further engagement with | :16:18. | :16:21. | |
industry, we have taken steps to address further concerns, so | :16:22. | :16:25. | |
amendment 86 will make it clear that national security notices cannot | :16:26. | :16:28. | |
require companies to remove inscription. Amendment 87 makes it | :16:29. | :16:33. | |
clear that national security notices will not subject companies to | :16:34. | :16:38. | |
conflicting on obligations in law. 122 maked clear that warrants must | :16:39. | :16:43. | |
be served in an appropriate man tore a person who is capable of giving | :16:44. | :16:48. | |
effect to dealing the problems that companies with an international | :16:49. | :16:54. | |
dimension have, if services affected to an inappropriate employee. | :16:55. | :16:57. | |
Somebody who does not have the power to deal with the warrant. Now, I can | :16:58. | :17:02. | |
move on as swiftly as I can to also say this, that we have tabled a | :17:03. | :17:06. | |
number of minor and technical amendments. Many respond directly to | :17:07. | :17:11. | |
issues raised by the opposition and the Scottish National Party in | :17:12. | :17:20. | |
committee. Others, such as 92 and 126 include important clarification | :17:21. | :17:24. | |
in relation to the IPCC and the police investigations and review | :17:25. | :17:28. | |
commissioner in Scotland. Madam Deputy Speaker, these are | :17:29. | :17:32. | |
important changes that reflect this Government's willingness to listen | :17:33. | :17:35. | |
to suggestions that will improve this vital piece of legislation. My | :17:36. | :17:40. | |
Right Honourable friend the security minister will respond to other | :17:41. | :17:45. | |
amendment when winding up. I look forward to an another informed and | :17:46. | :17:49. | |
wide-ranging debate. New clause seven. Persons who may | :17:50. | :17:56. | |
make modifications. THE SPEAKER: The question is that | :17:57. | :18:04. | |
new clause seven be read a second time. | :18:05. | :18:06. | |
Labour has supported the principal of a modern legal framework | :18:07. | :18:13. | |
Governing the use of investigatory powers. The police and Security | :18:14. | :18:18. | |
Services have lost capability. But equally, we also know that much | :18:19. | :18:23. | |
stronger safe guards are needed in law to protect individuals from the | :18:24. | :18:26. | |
abuse of state power. That is the balance that we have been trying to | :18:27. | :18:31. | |
achieve. Following second reading, I wrote to the Home Secretary, setting | :18:32. | :18:36. | |
out Labour's seven substantial areas of concern, where I said, unless | :18:37. | :18:39. | |
there was significant movement from the Government, we would be unable | :18:40. | :18:43. | |
to support moves to put this bill on the statute book by the December | :18:44. | :18:48. | |
deadline. This group of amendments before us now covers three of those | :18:49. | :18:52. | |
seven issues. Firstly, the double lot process and the test to be | :18:53. | :18:57. | |
applied by judicial commissioners. Secondly t protections for sensitive | :18:58. | :19:02. | |
professions and thirdly, the position of trade unions, with | :19:03. | :19:07. | |
respect to this bill. I wish to take each of those issues in turn, Madam | :19:08. | :19:11. | |
Deputy Speaker. Before I do, I will start by raising an issue which | :19:12. | :19:17. | |
emerged in committee. My honourable friend the Shadow Immigration | :19:18. | :19:20. | |
Minister identified a potential loophole where warrants could be | :19:21. | :19:27. | |
modified after initial aprofl. Thereby undermining the double lock. | :19:28. | :19:31. | |
Now, we feel the Government has partially closed this for sensitive | :19:32. | :19:35. | |
professions but needs to go further to close the loophole for everyone | :19:36. | :19:40. | |
and ensure people cannot be added to warrants by modification without the | :19:41. | :19:44. | |
involvement of the judge, of a judge. I hope the ministers will | :19:45. | :19:48. | |
listen to that concern and provide reassurance that they are open to | :19:49. | :19:53. | |
further discussions on that. Let me turn to the judicial review test and | :19:54. | :19:57. | |
the double lock, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know this was gone over | :19:58. | :20:02. | |
earlier today. I will, I will not detain the House too long on this. | :20:03. | :20:08. | |
As members on both sides will now, this -- know, this was one of our | :20:09. | :20:12. | |
earliest demands that there should be independent judicial oversight of | :20:13. | :20:17. | |
the approval of warrants and we were pleased with when the Home Secretary | :20:18. | :20:21. | |
conceded that point some months ago. Labour have always been of the | :20:22. | :20:24. | |
belief that the judicial commissioner must be able to | :20:25. | :20:28. | |
consider the substance of the Home Secretary's decision to issue a | :20:29. | :20:32. | |
warrant and not just the process. Put simply, it must be a double | :20:33. | :20:38. | |
lock, not a rub irstamp. My -- rubber stamp. My honourable friend | :20:39. | :20:42. | |
has done painstaking work in committee and outside on this | :20:43. | :20:48. | |
particular issue. We thank the minister for his willingness to | :20:49. | :20:51. | |
listen to our concerns on this issue. And indeed for the manuscript | :20:52. | :20:58. | |
amendment which has been tabled today by the Home Secretary. In our | :20:59. | :21:03. | |
view, this does accept the spirit of our proposals that were tabled in | :21:04. | :21:06. | |
committee. It would ensure that when reviewing the Home Secretary's | :21:07. | :21:10. | |
decision to grant a warrant, judicial commissioners would have to | :21:11. | :21:16. | |
take into account their duties under the overarching privacy clause. This | :21:17. | :21:21. | |
means that judicial commissioners' decisions must be taken in line with | :21:22. | :21:27. | |
human rights concerns that they must consider if it could have been met | :21:28. | :21:34. | |
by other concerns. It will require the initial scrutiny of the Home | :21:35. | :21:38. | |
Secretary and bring greater clarity compared to the Government's greater | :21:39. | :21:42. | |
review test. We believe this does amount to a double lock andvy to say | :21:43. | :21:48. | |
a real vik -- and I have to say a real victory for this side of the | :21:49. | :21:52. | |
House. We will support the Government's amendment tonight. Let | :21:53. | :21:58. | |
me turn, Madam Deputy Speaker, to protections for sensitive | :21:59. | :22:01. | |
professions, lawyers, journalists and Members of Parliament. It might | :22:02. | :22:06. | |
sound to anyone watching this debate that we are once again this House | :22:07. | :22:11. | |
seeking special status for ourselves in the eye of the law. That is why | :22:12. | :22:16. | |
it is important for me to emphasise that these are not special | :22:17. | :22:21. | |
privileges or protections for Members of Parliament, but | :22:22. | :22:24. | |
protections for members of the public. If somebody seeks the help | :22:25. | :22:29. | |
of an MP at a constituency advice surgery or the advice of a lawyer or | :22:30. | :22:33. | |
blows the wlisle to a journalist, they should be able to do so with a | :22:34. | :22:38. | |
high degree of confidence that the conversation is confidential. | :22:39. | :22:43. | |
Will you give way? I will. One case, one point we need to make | :22:44. | :22:48. | |
in this case is the privilege is not that of the lawyer. It is that of | :22:49. | :22:51. | |
the client. And therefore it is entirely for us to enif size there | :22:52. | :22:57. | |
should be particular care when there is the protection to the client, so | :22:58. | :23:02. | |
we are not putting ourselves as lawyers or Members of Parliament in | :23:03. | :23:04. | |
a privileged position. It is the person who comes to seek that advice | :23:05. | :23:09. | |
that has to have the protection. A tremendously important point that | :23:10. | :23:13. | |
the honourable gentleman has just made and made very well. | :23:14. | :23:19. | |
This is about a basic protection for the public. A safeguard for the | :23:20. | :23:24. | |
public. And also if you think of it in the context of MPs and the Wilson | :23:25. | :23:30. | |
doctrine, a protection for our democracy, that people can go to | :23:31. | :23:34. | |
seek the advice of a Member of Parliament without the fear that | :23:35. | :23:39. | |
somebody else is listening. So, the point made by the honourable | :23:40. | :23:43. | |
gentleman is spot on. I have to say though, that we don't | :23:44. | :23:50. | |
feel the bill, as it stands, yet provides sufficient reassurance to | :23:51. | :23:55. | |
the public that that confidentiality will be mostly respected. To be | :23:56. | :23:59. | |
fair, the Government has moved in this area, but we do believe further | :24:00. | :24:04. | |
work is needed and it is an area where they need to continue to talk | :24:05. | :24:08. | |
to the professional representative bodies. Let me take each in turn. On | :24:09. | :24:13. | |
MPs we believe this bill is the right place to codify the thrust of | :24:14. | :24:17. | |
the Wilson Doctrine. We raised concerns in our letter to the Home | :24:18. | :24:20. | |
Secretary that the bill only required the Prime Minister to be | :24:21. | :24:24. | |
consulted before investigatory powers are used against MPs. We | :24:25. | :24:28. | |
argued that the Prime Minister should personally be asked to | :24:29. | :24:32. | |
approve any such move and we are pleased that the Government has | :24:33. | :24:35. | |
accepted this. I note that the Joint Committee on | :24:36. | :24:41. | |
Human Rights, chaired by my Right Honourable friend the member for | :24:42. | :24:46. | |
camber well and Peckham has a further strengthening of the | :24:47. | :24:50. | |
doctrine and a role for the speaker in being notified and potentially | :24:51. | :24:56. | |
able to be able to challenge a decision around interception of a | :24:57. | :24:58. | |
member of this House. We have not at this point taken a | :24:59. | :25:11. | |
view on this proposal. I think it is right to keep it under debate is the | :25:12. | :25:15. | |
book progresses into the Lord's and I would say to her that maybe this | :25:16. | :25:18. | |
is an issue we can come back to later. Bearing in mind that the | :25:19. | :25:28. | |
protections for parliamentarians across these islands, does he agree | :25:29. | :25:32. | |
with me that the amendment may need to involve the presiding officers as | :25:33. | :25:36. | |
I think it does in the Scottish parliament, the Northern arch | :25:37. | :25:39. | |
Assembly and the Welsh Assembly and not just the Speaker of this has? -- | :25:40. | :25:46. | |
house. I think that is a fair point and I think my Right Honourable | :25:47. | :25:53. | |
friend amendment does seek to do that and perhaps this is an issue | :25:54. | :25:56. | |
the Government needs to think about. It should of course apply to members | :25:57. | :26:01. | |
of the Scottish parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the northern arch | :26:02. | :26:06. | |
Assembly to. I think the point that the honourable lady has made it is | :26:07. | :26:13. | |
to be accepted will stop -- Northern Irish Assembly. On journalists and | :26:14. | :26:18. | |
sources, we welcome the fact that the Government has made moves to put | :26:19. | :26:21. | |
protections that were originally in the code is underpinning this Bill | :26:22. | :26:26. | |
on the face of it. We note that the National Union of Journalists | :26:27. | :26:28. | |
believe that wider protections are still needed and we believe the | :26:29. | :26:32. | |
Government needs to continue to work with them to get that right. | :26:33. | :26:39. | |
Finally, on legal privilege in this section Madam Deputy Speaker, I | :26:40. | :26:42. | |
would see here there has been at least progress although serious | :26:43. | :26:48. | |
concerns have been made by the current council and the bar society | :26:49. | :26:52. | |
that it would currently we can protections currently enjoyed by law | :26:53. | :26:56. | |
lawyers and yet they are not adequately reflected in the Bill. It | :26:57. | :27:00. | |
is disappointing that ministers have yet to meet the legal bodies. I | :27:01. | :27:03. | |
heard what the Minister said that he will be meeting them, you have | :27:04. | :27:11. | |
already, I will give way. I did say aye have met the bar Council I am | :27:12. | :27:15. | |
meeting the Law Society on Wednesday, so indigent is taking | :27:16. | :27:21. | |
place, I can assure him of that. My mistake, I did hear him say he was | :27:22. | :27:24. | |
meeting them this week. It is a little disappointing. I am not | :27:25. | :27:27. | |
making a petty point in saying we wish we could have made more | :27:28. | :27:32. | |
progress in time for this debate today is the Right Honourable friend | :27:33. | :27:39. | |
said, this is an extremely important area and I think our debates would | :27:40. | :27:43. | |
have improved had we had more progress in this area. Nevertheless | :27:44. | :27:47. | |
it is clear that this is firmly on the Minister's radar and I think the | :27:48. | :27:52. | |
excellent points that have been raised by his honourable friend | :27:53. | :27:57. | |
shows there is concern on all sides of this House to move further to get | :27:58. | :28:05. | |
this right. In the absence of acceptable government amendments we | :28:06. | :28:07. | |
do believe the amendments tabled by my Right Honourable friend numbers | :28:08. | :28:13. | |
139-141 are a step in the right direction and if there were to be | :28:14. | :28:17. | |
amendments forthcoming, those amendments are certainly something | :28:18. | :28:25. | |
that we would support. I give way. This is a point that has just | :28:26. | :28:30. | |
occurred to me looking at the letters exchanged between the | :28:31. | :28:34. | |
frontbenchers on collection, but what she had been talking about in | :28:35. | :28:39. | |
terms of privilege, legal or Parliamentary or journalistic, apply | :28:40. | :28:44. | |
of course just to targeted individuals, targeted inception, | :28:45. | :28:51. | |
there is a great deal of bulk inception done which is shared with | :28:52. | :28:56. | |
our allies the NSA in which as far as I understand at the moment there | :28:57. | :29:00. | |
is no car about any of the protections he is talking about | :29:01. | :29:05. | |
novels bat carve out. I can think of circumstances under which lawyers | :29:06. | :29:07. | |
might be targeted by the NSA because of their clients being suspects were | :29:08. | :29:14. | |
indeed irritating members of this Parliament and perhaps stand | :29:15. | :29:17. | |
against, I am thinking of the honourable member himself! Can I ask | :29:18. | :29:24. | |
that in the discussions between frontbenchers that when this bulk | :29:25. | :29:29. | |
collection investigation or enquiry is progressed that that is picked up | :29:30. | :29:34. | |
on it to deal with this issue? I don't know if that was a compliment | :29:35. | :29:40. | |
but I will take it does one. I think he is raising an important point. To | :29:41. | :29:45. | |
be fair to the Government, I think there has been movement on thematic | :29:46. | :29:52. | |
warrants so that if an MP was to be added to a thematic or a journalist, | :29:53. | :29:58. | |
there would be a process, a judicial oversight process, but Right | :29:59. | :30:03. | |
Honourable Gentleman is talking about that principle going even | :30:04. | :30:06. | |
further in terms of old data. I think that is an issue that David | :30:07. | :30:13. | |
Anderson would need to consider, how practically possible it would be | :30:14. | :30:18. | |
missed are considered. But I think certainly the point that he has made | :30:19. | :30:24. | |
needs to be considered. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me turn finally to | :30:25. | :30:30. | |
Labour amendment 262 concerning trade unions. This calls 18 of the | :30:31. | :30:39. | |
Bill to ensure that in statute, undertaking legitimate trade union | :30:40. | :30:42. | |
activities must never in the future be a reason for security services or | :30:43. | :30:47. | |
police to use investigatory Powers. In recent times we have been shining | :30:48. | :30:51. | |
a light on this country's past and learning more about how we have been | :30:52. | :30:57. | |
governed and policed. Revelations about bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, | :30:58. | :31:02. | |
phone hacking, child sexual exploitation amongst others of all, | :31:03. | :31:06. | |
in different ways, shaken people's faith in the institutions there to | :31:07. | :31:10. | |
protect us. They raise quite profound questions about the | :31:11. | :31:14. | |
relationship between state and individual. Confronted with these | :31:15. | :31:21. | |
uncomfortable truths about abuses of power, this House need to provide a | :31:22. | :31:24. | |
proper response and legislate to prevent them in the future. We need | :31:25. | :31:29. | |
to address the balance in favour of ordinary people and a wave from the | :31:30. | :31:37. | |
Executive. -- away. Would my Right Honourable friend first of join me | :31:38. | :31:42. | |
and tributes to unite, you cat and the GMB unions who fought a long | :31:43. | :31:47. | |
campaign to raise the scandal of the illegal blacklisting and secret | :31:48. | :31:50. | |
betting of construction workers? Canny at the House that such a gross | :31:51. | :31:54. | |
injustice would not be able to perpetrated against innocent workers | :31:55. | :31:59. | |
again and that it is an absolute guarantee that legitimate trade | :32:00. | :32:02. | |
union activity would be excluded from monitoring by the security | :32:03. | :32:06. | |
services and the police in his amendment? I would indeed pay | :32:07. | :32:19. | |
tribute to unite, GNB and UCat who between them in the last 18 months | :32:20. | :32:23. | |
reached out-of-court settlements on blacklisting, a major victory on | :32:24. | :32:27. | |
their part, historic victory. I would say is I will come on to | :32:28. | :32:33. | |
explain, the prime example that the prime concern that lies behind our | :32:34. | :32:36. | |
amendments to date this is the case which I think most justifies the | :32:37. | :32:43. | |
amendment that the opposition are seeking to bring to the House | :32:44. | :32:48. | |
tonight and I will come onto it in just a moment. We believe that in | :32:49. | :32:53. | |
the past, the actions of some senior figures in politics and the police | :32:54. | :32:59. | |
have unfairly tarnished the reputation of today's services and | :33:00. | :33:04. | |
today's policemen and women. That is exactly why it is crucially | :33:05. | :33:08. | |
continuous process of opening up on the past. That transparency is the | :33:09. | :33:12. | |
best way of preventing lingering suspicions about past conduct. From | :33:13. | :33:18. | |
contaminating trust in today's services. It will help us to create | :33:19. | :33:22. | |
a mother and legal framework that better protects or essential | :33:23. | :33:27. | |
freedoms, human rights and privacy. One such freedom ascension to the | :33:28. | :33:32. | |
health of our democracy is trade union activity. Historically trade | :33:33. | :33:34. | |
unions have played a crucial role in protecting ordinary people against | :33:35. | :33:39. | |
the abuses of governments or mighty corporations. It is this crucial | :33:40. | :33:42. | |
role and the freedoms of every citizen in this stand to benefit | :33:43. | :33:46. | |
from the protection that amendment 262 seats to enshrine in law. There | :33:47. | :33:52. | |
will be those who claim it is unnecessary, the product of | :33:53. | :33:54. | |
conspiracy theorists. But Madam Deputy Speaker, I have received | :33:55. | :34:01. | |
confirmation from the security services but in the past, under | :34:02. | :34:04. | |
governments of both colours that has to be said, they have indeed been | :34:05. | :34:08. | |
monitored. In the Cold War period there Mel have been grounds to | :34:09. | :34:12. | |
support fears that British trade unions were being infiltrated by | :34:13. | :34:17. | |
foreign powers trying to subvert our democracy. That helps to explain the | :34:18. | :34:21. | |
wariness that many on the side of the House feel about legislation of | :34:22. | :34:25. | |
this kind. But outside of the security services it seems that some | :34:26. | :34:30. | |
activity went way beyond that. There is clear evidence that such | :34:31. | :34:34. | |
monitoring was used for unjustified political and commercial reasons | :34:35. | :34:38. | |
breaching privacy and basing human rights. ... Basic. I mentioned the | :34:39. | :34:42. | |
case of the shrews read 24 at second reading and I remain of the view | :34:43. | :34:46. | |
that this is an outstanding injustice that these to be settled. | :34:47. | :34:51. | |
... Shrewsbury. As my Right Honourable friend anticipated I want | :34:52. | :34:55. | |
this to focus on the construction of workers which clearly they set a | :34:56. | :34:59. | |
date the amendment we are putting before the House. We have seen the | :35:00. | :35:03. | |
settlement of claims as I mentioned against companies such as Correlli, | :35:04. | :35:11. | |
Balfour Beatty, Kia, Sir Robert McAlpine, Skanska UK and Vinci. It | :35:12. | :35:17. | |
is now proven that these companies subscribe to central lists of | :35:18. | :35:20. | |
workers that contained information on their political views and trade | :35:21. | :35:24. | |
union activities. This was used to vet people and deny them work. It | :35:25. | :35:30. | |
affected the livelihoods of hundreds of people and was an outrageous | :35:31. | :35:35. | |
denial of their basic human rights. By seeking an out-of-court | :35:36. | :35:38. | |
settlement it would seem that the companies concerned are seeking to | :35:39. | :35:41. | |
limit reputational damage. I don't think the matter can be allowed to | :35:42. | :35:46. | |
rest there. We need to understand how covertly gained police | :35:47. | :35:49. | |
information came into the hands of a shady organisation called the | :35:50. | :35:54. | |
consulting Association which compiled and manage the blacklist. I | :35:55. | :36:00. | |
will give way. I thank him for giving way. Does he agree with me | :36:01. | :36:04. | |
that the pitchfork enquiry which was set up in two this use of undercover | :36:05. | :36:10. | |
policing does really need to have its remit extended to cover what | :36:11. | :36:13. | |
went on in Scotland and other parts of the UK or else we will never get | :36:14. | :36:20. | |
the full truth of this. That is certainly one way of addressing the | :36:21. | :36:23. | |
concerns I am putting on the record tonight. Another would be to have a | :36:24. | :36:28. | |
separate enquiry into blacklisting per se, because I think it is | :36:29. | :36:34. | |
something that was both outrageous but is still largely unknown by most | :36:35. | :36:39. | |
people in this country. Most people outside of trade union circles | :36:40. | :36:43. | |
wouldn't know that this actually happened in this country and that is | :36:44. | :36:47. | |
why I think by one means or another there needs to be a process of | :36:48. | :36:50. | |
enquiry about it. We wouldn't know about it were that for the | :36:51. | :36:55. | |
outstanding work by the blacklist support group, individuals like Dave | :36:56. | :36:59. | |
Smith who have exposed how much of the information held on individuals | :37:00. | :37:02. | |
appeared to emanate from police sources. For instance, the files | :37:03. | :37:06. | |
hold detailed descriptions of the movements of a number of people in | :37:07. | :37:12. | |
the June 1989 demonstration, Carnival against capital. There was | :37:13. | :37:16. | |
a Guardian article by Smith and Chamberlain pointed out that this | :37:17. | :37:22. | |
likely was the product of a site manager who happened to people | :37:23. | :37:25. | |
passing through London on that particular day. The blacklist | :37:26. | :37:31. | |
support group referred this matter to the IPCC in 2012. I want to put | :37:32. | :37:40. | |
what they found on the record, because it is pretty shocking I have | :37:41. | :37:46. | |
to say. The IPCC, looking into these concerns, said in a letter to the | :37:47. | :37:49. | |
blacklist support group as follows. The scoping also identified that it | :37:50. | :37:58. | |
was likely that all special branches were involved in providing | :37:59. | :38:01. | |
information about potential employees who were suspected of | :38:02. | :38:05. | |
being involved in subversive activity. All special branches were | :38:06. | :38:11. | |
likely to have given information that was then used to compile the | :38:12. | :38:18. | |
blacklist. I will give way. Thank you forgiving way. Just to expand on | :38:19. | :38:23. | |
the point he is making, perhaps some people outside of the chamber won't | :38:24. | :38:26. | |
understand what subversive activities were. In those days | :38:27. | :38:31. | |
subversive activities included people who complained about health | :38:32. | :38:35. | |
and safety because there was a person dying on enabling site every | :38:36. | :38:39. | |
single day. Would he agree that is hardly subsurface activity? He is | :38:40. | :38:46. | |
absolutely right. They were trying to protect their workmates, their | :38:47. | :38:50. | |
colleagues, an individual who protested outside Fiddlers Ferry | :38:51. | :38:53. | |
power station near Ross on the north-west, he was trying to | :38:54. | :38:59. | |
safeguard people's safety at work and yet they were subjected to this | :39:00. | :39:04. | |
outrageous abuse of their rights. I will give way. I am grateful to my | :39:05. | :39:10. | |
Right Honourable friend. He is making a very powerful case. I don't | :39:11. | :39:17. | |
know whether he is aware of this but when this issue first arose in the | :39:18. | :39:22. | |
last Parliament, I took it up with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner | :39:23. | :39:28. | |
is to ask the question, was there any involvement on the part of the | :39:29. | :39:32. | |
Metropolitan Police? I got a letter back from a senior member, not the | :39:33. | :39:36. | |
commissioner himself, but a senior member of his staff who now works | :39:37. | :39:42. | |
for one of the agencies, flatly denied that that was actually taking | :39:43. | :39:47. | |
place. There was something happening. The letter my Right | :39:48. | :39:53. | |
Honourable friend read out, there was something happening and yet even | :39:54. | :39:57. | |
as recently as the last three or four years, the Metropolitan Police | :39:58. | :39:58. | |
were utterly denying it. # I agree. It is clear all Special | :39:59. | :40:15. | |
Branchs provide information that is from the that 20136789 I don't think | :40:16. | :40:22. | |
we've had a -- 2013. I don't think we've had another from that | :40:23. | :40:27. | |
astounding... As I say to the honourable gentleman, people have a | :40:28. | :40:30. | |
right to know what information was passed by who in the police service. | :40:31. | :40:36. | |
Who sanctioned the passing of that information to these organisations, | :40:37. | :40:41. | |
under what policy justification was that information information passed? | :40:42. | :40:45. | |
This is another scandal from our country's past n which it would seem | :40:46. | :40:51. | |
that the establishment rode rough sod over the rights of ordinary | :40:52. | :40:56. | |
people. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary in facing up to our past. | :40:57. | :41:02. | |
For the evidence trial has not reached the end. This must continue. | :41:03. | :41:07. | |
We must continue to go wherever the evidence takes us and that evidence | :41:08. | :41:15. | |
is taking us now to blacklisting and to all grieve two and its aftermath. | :41:16. | :41:20. | |
The case for inquiries into both is unanswerable. And I call on the | :41:21. | :41:25. | |
Government again to initiate those inquiries so that people can have | :41:26. | :41:30. | |
the truth. For tonight, we call on the Government to accept Labour's | :41:31. | :41:35. | |
amendment to provide protection in law for legitimate trade union | :41:36. | :41:40. | |
activity. Had this amendment been in place years ago it could have | :41:41. | :41:44. | |
prevented the abuses we saw with the blacklisting of workers. If it can | :41:45. | :41:48. | |
be agreed it will be an historic move which will give some | :41:49. | :41:53. | |
recognition to the long and proud campaign for fair innocence the eyes | :41:54. | :42:01. | |
of the law fought for by trade union unionists and to create a modern law | :42:02. | :42:05. | |
which is as much about protecting the rights of the ordinary person as | :42:06. | :42:09. | |
well as the rights of the 21st century. | :42:10. | :42:16. | |
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to move my amendment number one, clause 24, | :42:17. | :42:21. | |
where the member, that is a Member of Parliament s a member, where the | :42:22. | :42:28. | |
subject of the snooping, frankly, is a member of the House of Commons, | :42:29. | :42:32. | |
then that snooping must also involve a consultation with the speaker of | :42:33. | :42:39. | |
the House of Commons. The member's ex-plantory statement says it will | :42:40. | :42:44. | |
require them to consult the speaker before applying to an MP's | :42:45. | :42:50. | |
communications. This is a small but important amendment to this bill. It | :42:51. | :42:55. | |
is person innocent and we all agree that the Secretary of State consults | :42:56. | :43:02. | |
the Prime Minister before ans interception or warrant regarding an | :43:03. | :43:05. | |
MP's communication with a constituent. We all understand that. | :43:06. | :43:10. | |
The Queen's Chief Minister of Government and is by his nature a | :43:11. | :43:16. | |
political officeholder. It goes without saying we have complete | :43:17. | :43:18. | |
confidence in this present Prime Minister today that no such thing | :43:19. | :43:25. | |
would happen. We mustn't make permanent laws based on impermanent | :43:26. | :43:29. | |
situations. Our conscientious Prime Minister who is both, I am sure, | :43:30. | :43:34. | |
aware and respectful of parliamentary privilege may be | :43:35. | :43:37. | |
succeeded somewhere down the line by a man or a woman who does not esteem | :43:38. | :43:43. | |
the privileges of the House and they are not our privileges - they are | :43:44. | :43:48. | |
not for us - they are for the produce tension of our demock -- | :43:49. | :43:54. | |
protection of our democracy. And a Prime Minister may be under | :43:55. | :43:58. | |
intolerable pressure during a time of nation crisis. It is not | :43:59. | :44:02. | |
difficult to imagine circumstances may come into play, where a Prime | :44:03. | :44:12. | |
Minister in the future authorises a politically-sensitive or a | :44:13. | :44:13. | |
politically-motivated interception against a member from the opposition | :44:14. | :44:19. | |
benches, or indeed from the Government benches, if the Member of | :44:20. | :44:22. | |
Parliament is opposed to that Prime Minister's policies. We can only | :44:23. | :44:27. | |
think of the intense debates that took place during the Vietnam War, | :44:28. | :44:35. | |
during the Iraq war. We remember that the present Leader of the | :44:36. | :44:40. | |
Opposition had strong views about the importance of communicating with | :44:41. | :44:45. | |
Sinn Fein at a time when this was considered to be intensely | :44:46. | :44:48. | |
controversial, indeed some would argue at the time it was a threat to | :44:49. | :44:53. | |
national security. I am now defending the actions of the -- I am | :44:54. | :45:02. | |
not defending the actions of... But some can imagine circumstances in | :45:03. | :45:06. | |
the future when there is intense debate around a matter of national | :45:07. | :45:11. | |
security where a Prime Minister may indeed be politically motivated to | :45:12. | :45:14. | |
intercept communications between a constituent and a Member of | :45:15. | :45:16. | |
Parliament. It is important and I believe to | :45:17. | :45:25. | |
uphold the exclusive conany sense of this House to look after its own | :45:26. | :45:30. | |
internal affairs. This House is not the Government, it is the scut near | :45:31. | :45:34. | |
of Government. I say to the Solicitor-General that this does not | :45:35. | :45:40. | |
and I reply directly to the point he made in his initial speech, this | :45:41. | :45:44. | |
does not put MPs above the law. Far from it. Our conduct is within the | :45:45. | :45:48. | |
jurisdiction of normal criminal courts and the criminal law applies | :45:49. | :45:52. | |
to us, as to anyone else. But it is vital that communications | :45:53. | :45:58. | |
related to our role, only to our role, and in other part of our life, | :45:59. | :46:03. | |
that communications related to our role, as a democratically elected | :46:04. | :46:07. | |
representatives of the people, in a free country, under the Crown, be | :46:08. | :46:12. | |
protected from Government observational interference, just as | :46:13. | :46:16. | |
it is vital to remove any temptation to politicise the work of the | :46:17. | :46:20. | |
police. This amendment, number one, which I have tabled, would solve | :46:21. | :46:25. | |
this problem by invoking the importance of the speaker. | :46:26. | :46:31. | |
An impartial office holder, not beholden to any political party or | :46:32. | :46:36. | |
indeed the Government. Now, you will be aware mod dam deputy speak their | :46:37. | :46:43. | |
the speaker's office ranks above all non-royal people in this realm, | :46:44. | :46:47. | |
except in the Prime Minister, the hostage-taker and the Lord presence | :46:48. | :46:57. | |
of the council. He is in -- the Lord Chancellor and the Lord presence of | :46:58. | :47:01. | |
the council. Never again, once he has held the office of speaker can | :47:02. | :47:07. | |
he ever re-enter politics. That is a clear convention of this House. He | :47:08. | :47:16. | |
is utterly and completely impartial. Does he not share my concern that | :47:17. | :47:21. | |
the speaker may be seen as an in-house orbiter in these matters. | :47:22. | :47:25. | |
We have seen where it leads us. Would he not have more confidence in | :47:26. | :47:31. | |
the double lock arrangement that the front bench has rightly instituted? | :47:32. | :47:34. | |
I am perfectly happy and I think everybody in this House is happy | :47:35. | :47:38. | |
with the proposal that if the Secretary of State for the home | :47:39. | :47:46. | |
department wishes to investigate communications with a Member of | :47:47. | :47:50. | |
Parliament, that the Prime Minister should always also be consulted. | :47:51. | :47:53. | |
No-one objects to that. Who appoints the Home Secretary? The Prime | :47:54. | :47:56. | |
Minister appointments the Home Secretary. They are both | :47:57. | :48:01. | |
politicians. They are by their very nature political animals. They are | :48:02. | :48:05. | |
both members of the executive. I have to ask my friends to look | :48:06. | :48:11. | |
beyond present situations where they may have the utmost confidence in | :48:12. | :48:14. | |
the present Secretary of State for home department, the present Prime | :48:15. | :48:18. | |
Minister, they should always separate what is their views of the | :48:19. | :48:22. | |
present front bench from what might happen in the future. All I am | :48:23. | :48:27. | |
asking is if the Government is taking this extreme step of | :48:28. | :48:32. | |
intercepting communications between constituents and Members of | :48:33. | :48:36. | |
Parliament, that somebody entirely nonpolitical, namely the speaker, | :48:37. | :48:41. | |
should also be consulted. Because, this is the pointed - he is no mere | :48:42. | :48:48. | |
presiding office. We do not call him the presiding office, as in some | :48:49. | :48:52. | |
other assemblies or Parliaments. She the upholder of order and the | :48:53. | :48:56. | |
defender of the House's privileges and immunities. I am absolutely not | :48:57. | :49:01. | |
suggesting that he should be dragged into politics. There is also already | :49:02. | :49:08. | |
a precedent - have we not involved the speaker very recently in | :49:09. | :49:13. | |
consideration of whether amendments should be separately considered | :49:14. | :49:16. | |
under English votes for English laws? Nobody and not the Government | :49:17. | :49:23. | |
has suggested it is dragging the speaker into politics. I am a member | :49:24. | :49:28. | |
of the committee and we examine this in great detail. The system and I am | :49:29. | :49:32. | |
not defending, that is not the subject of today's debate. The | :49:33. | :49:36. | |
system seems to be working fairly well. Nobody is calling the speaker | :49:37. | :49:41. | |
to order. I will give way. But no-one is doing points of order, the | :49:42. | :49:46. | |
system to the speaker complaining about his decision. It is in a sense | :49:47. | :49:50. | |
a double lock. I give way to the Solicitor-General. | :49:51. | :49:56. | |
He makes the proper point about the speaker's role with regard to | :49:57. | :50:01. | |
English votes for English laws. There are other certification | :50:02. | :50:03. | |
procedures that he and I and others know about. There is a difference | :50:04. | :50:07. | |
because that relates to the legislative process in this House. | :50:08. | :50:14. | |
And it deals precisely with the point about exclusive conany sense | :50:15. | :50:18. | |
and the privileges oh this House in order to deal with its own rules and | :50:19. | :50:21. | |
regulations. Therefore I think there is a difference between the points | :50:22. | :50:27. | |
that he makes and involvement in what is an executive decision. There | :50:28. | :50:31. | |
may be a difference, but I don't think it is a substantive | :50:32. | :50:35. | |
difference. I should say that I am delighted that you are sitting in | :50:36. | :50:38. | |
the chair because I am talking about you. | :50:39. | :50:41. | |
Which I know you always enjoy me doing. | :50:42. | :50:46. | |
I am very grateful to my Right Honourable friend for giving way. | :50:47. | :50:53. | |
Surely one of the key points here is there would be an inhibition on a | :50:54. | :50:57. | |
Secretary of State or a Prime Minister in the very process of | :50:58. | :51:01. | |
approaching the speaker. They may not be inhibited about talking to | :51:02. | :51:05. | |
each other about an uncomfortable member of the opposition or their | :51:06. | :51:09. | |
own side. They would be inhibited about approaching the speaker. It is | :51:10. | :51:13. | |
not something separate to what goes in the House. Remember the one case | :51:14. | :51:19. | |
we had of this was the Damian Green case. Pl r there was an approach to | :51:20. | :51:23. | |
the speaker of the day and it ended in tears. Exactly. It is an | :51:24. | :51:27. | |
inhibition. I just think that the Home Secretary and the Prime | :51:28. | :51:32. | |
Minister, if they are taking this extreme step - I presume they would | :51:33. | :51:36. | |
only do so because they were convinced it was a matter of | :51:37. | :51:39. | |
national security. Before they took this extreme step, which we all | :51:40. | :51:46. | |
agree is serious, it wouldn't do any harm to consult somebody who is | :51:47. | :51:49. | |
quite obviously completely separated from politics. I give way to my | :51:50. | :51:53. | |
honourable friend. Thank you. Isn't there an issue of | :51:54. | :51:59. | |
accountability here? If the judgment is got wrong, then doesn't he agree | :52:00. | :52:02. | |
that it would be extremely regrettable for the speaker to be | :52:03. | :52:06. | |
dragged into the court of public opinion as someone who has got the | :52:07. | :52:09. | |
judgment wrong as oppose tods the executive, the Prime Minister who | :52:10. | :52:13. | |
could be hauled through the courts? I understand that example. You can | :52:14. | :52:16. | |
take that to extreme. The speaker, every day of the week is making | :52:17. | :52:20. | |
decisions. He is deciding how we conduct our business, who should be | :52:21. | :52:24. | |
called. You can always argue that we should not give the speaker more | :52:25. | :52:28. | |
powers was he might make a mistake and he might be called to account. | :52:29. | :52:33. | |
Look, we are not talking about the speaker being involved about whether | :52:34. | :52:38. | |
we pass particular bills or get this particular controversy. We are | :52:39. | :52:41. | |
talking about a very narrow circumstance. The Government of the | :52:42. | :52:47. | |
day has decided to intercept the communications of a Member of | :52:48. | :52:50. | |
Parliament. All I am suggesting is that before they take that step they | :52:51. | :52:54. | |
should consult the speaker. I give way to my good friend, the minister. | :52:55. | :52:59. | |
There are very few members oh this House who have a high regard for the | :53:00. | :53:04. | |
regard which I hold my Right Honourable friend, but like it or | :53:05. | :53:09. | |
like it not, his proposal would draw the speaker into issues of national | :53:10. | :53:13. | |
security. What my honourable friend decides is extremely highly | :53:14. | :53:18. | |
sensitive matters, the kind which speakers have not historically been | :53:19. | :53:23. | |
involved in. He makes ta point, but I just say that we are Members of | :53:24. | :53:28. | |
Parliament now. Just for a moment, let's try and think outside the | :53:29. | :53:34. | |
political box. Think outside our natural loyalties and just, for a | :53:35. | :53:40. | |
moment, think about what might happen in the future, in a time of | :53:41. | :53:45. | |
crisis. And do we really want to codify the | :53:46. | :53:52. | |
Wilson Doctrine, now in legislation? Do we want to say in future any | :53:53. | :53:56. | |
Government, it doesn't matter the Prime Minister ticks a box, he is a | :53:57. | :54:01. | |
member of the Government, in future any Government, without any | :54:02. | :54:06. | |
independent second-guessing, without any independent second-guessing, can | :54:07. | :54:09. | |
go and intercept those communications and act upon them? | :54:10. | :54:13. | |
Now, I can understand all the arguments that the minister is | :54:14. | :54:18. | |
saying. I do assure the minister I am not trying to drag the speaker | :54:19. | :54:27. | |
into politics. I am just trying to protect the traditional privileges | :54:28. | :54:31. | |
of the House and privilege is the wrong way does it -- because it | :54:32. | :54:40. | |
means we are... We are not importance ourselves. What is | :54:41. | :54:45. | |
important is people can communicate with their Member of Parliament. | :54:46. | :54:52. | |
The difficulty with his argument is that he assumes that the Prime | :54:53. | :55:00. | |
Minister of the day regardless of which party could take such a | :55:01. | :55:05. | |
decision in what is in effect a vacuum. It simply couldn't happen | :55:06. | :55:09. | |
that way. He would have to be satisfied with proper legal advice | :55:10. | :55:14. | |
first of all that it was in the interests of national security and | :55:15. | :55:20. | |
then satisfied that it was both necessary and proportionate. To pass | :55:21. | :55:24. | |
all those tests requires a lot of advice and I doubt that any Prime | :55:25. | :55:28. | |
Minister would take that decision likely. -- lately. Not you | :55:29. | :55:37. | |
specifically Mr Speaker but any Mr Speaker, to bring them into that | :55:38. | :55:42. | |
decision-making process means they have to be linked to all that | :55:43. | :55:48. | |
security and legal advice to satisfy themselves in the same way the Prime | :55:49. | :55:52. | |
Minister did, so I can see what the difference would be. I can see what | :55:53. | :55:56. | |
the difference would be quite frankly in a time of national | :55:57. | :56:01. | |
crisis, and the information will be clearly set out by the Home | :56:02. | :56:05. | |
Secretary, the Prime Minister, I don't believe it would be beyond the | :56:06. | :56:10. | |
abilities of any Speaker, now or in the future, to take an informed | :56:11. | :56:17. | |
decision and to be convinced by the Prime Minister and the Home | :56:18. | :56:21. | |
Secretary that this was indeed not a political interference but it was a | :56:22. | :56:24. | |
matter of national security. That is what we are all agreed with, isn't | :56:25. | :56:29. | |
it, that we believe these mutations are being intercepted because it is | :56:30. | :56:32. | |
a matter of national security and we all agree that we don't believe they | :56:33. | :56:35. | |
should be intercepted because it is politically expedient. All I am | :56:36. | :56:41. | |
asking is that the Speaker who by their very nature of his office does | :56:42. | :56:45. | |
not consider political expediency can say yes this is a matter of | :56:46. | :56:48. | |
national security. I don't believe that is beyond his ability. There he | :56:49. | :56:55. | |
is ably assisted by the clerk of the House, and apology cards, most of | :56:56. | :56:58. | |
them they spent years the community knowledge and wisdom of the ways of | :56:59. | :57:02. | |
this House, these are not radicals were people who will take decisions | :57:03. | :57:09. | |
lightly or wantonly. Together they form a positive institutional | :57:10. | :57:14. | |
memory, which the Prime Minister and number ten, by their very nature of | :57:15. | :57:19. | |
their daily tasks of government and political management, can never be. | :57:20. | :57:24. | |
They must always necessarily take a short-term view. That is not a | :57:25. | :57:27. | |
criticism, it is a nature of the office. Each of the villages of this | :57:28. | :57:32. | |
House, in addition to being daily fought and four over centuries, | :57:33. | :57:36. | |
exist for a reason. -- privileges. Like my traditions and customs we | :57:37. | :57:42. | |
interfere with them at our peril. So I appeal to the Minister of State | :57:43. | :57:47. | |
who is deeply aware I know of the importance of traditions and | :57:48. | :57:51. | |
customs. We may wonder today why this one or that one exists, but if | :57:52. | :57:56. | |
we disregard them we soon find the dangers they protect us from our | :57:57. | :58:00. | |
very real. Wheels are made of the day will ever come when a Prime | :58:01. | :58:07. | |
Minister with their two monetise the data communications for political | :58:08. | :58:09. | |
reasons. Better then to remove even the possibility of this temptation | :58:10. | :58:15. | |
existing by simply requiring the Secretary of State to consult | :58:16. | :58:18. | |
Speaker. It has been said before but it is worth saying again that nearly | :58:19. | :58:25. | |
375 years ago, William Glenn Ford reminded the sovereign that the | :58:26. | :58:28. | |
Speaker neither had ayes to see zero countries big of this place, but... | :58:29. | :58:36. | |
That is all I am asking in this amendment. I am asking for this | :58:37. | :58:41. | |
tradition be maintained and we would do well to continue to put our trust | :58:42. | :58:45. | |
in this defender of our law and liberties. The Scottish National | :58:46. | :58:54. | |
Party have tabled quite a significant number of amendments to | :58:55. | :58:58. | |
parts 25 and chapter one apart nine that are under discussion at this | :58:59. | :59:01. | |
stage of proceedings. But given the constraints of time I will focus my | :59:02. | :59:06. | |
fire on just a few of those. I will focus mainly on part two and the | :59:07. | :59:11. | |
issue of the system of judicial warrant tree. The Government have | :59:12. | :59:17. | |
put their new double lock system of warrant tree at the heart of their | :59:18. | :59:20. | |
arguments that there are significant safeguards in this Bill. In the SNP | :59:21. | :59:28. | |
we believe the system of warrantry is too limited in its scope and also | :59:29. | :59:34. | |
seriously deficient. We have tabled extent of amendments to extend the | :59:35. | :59:37. | |
system of judicial warrantry beyond part two of the act so that it would | :59:38. | :59:43. | |
cover warrants to obtain and retain and examine communications data and | :59:44. | :59:50. | |
also police hacking warrants. But we also think that the nature and scope | :59:51. | :59:54. | |
of those warrants is very important and also the grounds upon which they | :59:55. | :00:00. | |
are granted. I would like now to turn to amendments 267, 268, 272 and | :00:01. | :00:09. | |
three or six to cause 15 which deal with the cover warrants. -- 306. The | :00:10. | :00:14. | |
problem with Clause 15 as currently drafted is that it permits warrants | :00:15. | :00:17. | |
to be issued in respect of people whose names are not known or noble | :00:18. | :00:21. | |
when the warrant is sought. This is confirmed by Clause 20 seven. It | :00:22. | :00:26. | |
provides that a thematic warrant must describe the relevant purpose | :00:27. | :00:29. | |
of activity and that it must name were described as many of those | :00:30. | :00:34. | |
persons as is reasonably impracticable. What are amendment | :00:35. | :00:39. | |
would do is retain the capacity of a single warrant to permit the | :00:40. | :00:40. | |
interception of multiple individuals. Our amendments would | :00:41. | :00:47. | |
require an identifiable subject matter or premises to be provided | :00:48. | :00:50. | |
and we have tabled associated amendments to close 27 so that taken | :00:51. | :00:56. | |
together these amendments would know the current provisions which | :00:57. | :01:00. | |
effectively permit a limitless number of unidentified individuals | :01:01. | :01:03. | |
to have their communications intercepted. Not just the SNP that | :01:04. | :01:07. | |
are concerned about the scope of these somatic warrants. We had | :01:08. | :01:14. | |
evidence in Committee from Sir Stanley Brunton to the Bill | :01:15. | :01:18. | |
Committee. He of course is the interception of Communications | :01:19. | :01:20. | |
Commissioner and also evidence from Lord judge the Chief surveillance | :01:21. | :01:26. | |
Commissioner. Both of them expressed the tale concerns about the breath | :01:27. | :01:30. | |
of Clause 15 as currently drafted. They said it was too wide and it | :01:31. | :01:36. | |
required to be more focused than. David Anderson QC, although in | :01:37. | :01:41. | |
favour of thematic warrants, has said that cause 15 as currently | :01:42. | :01:46. | |
drafted is and I quote, considerably more permissive than he had | :01:47. | :01:52. | |
envisaged. We have three very distinguished experts working in | :01:53. | :01:55. | |
this field underlining the necessity of these amendments. It's a real | :01:56. | :02:01. | |
concern, because it takes us back to our old friend or in our case old | :02:02. | :02:10. | |
enemy, bulk powers. Because of you create thematic warrants it means | :02:11. | :02:14. | |
the communications intercepted under bulk powers can be trawled through | :02:15. | :02:18. | |
thematically looking for groups of people sharing a common purpose or | :02:19. | :02:22. | |
crying out a particular activity. The difficulty is it provides an | :02:23. | :02:25. | |
open-ended warrant that could encompass many hundreds or thousands | :02:26. | :02:31. | |
of people. That is just not right. It is suspicion is interference and | :02:32. | :02:36. | |
it is not targeted or focused. I would urge honourable members on all | :02:37. | :02:42. | |
sides, if they are concerned about supporting an SNP amendment, they | :02:43. | :02:45. | |
can comfort themselves with the fact that it is an amendment, a necessity | :02:46. | :02:51. | |
of which has been underlined by persons as distinguished of the | :02:52. | :02:54. | |
interception of Communications Commissioner, the Chief surveillance | :02:55. | :02:56. | |
Commissioner and the independent reviewer of terrorism. I turned to | :02:57. | :03:01. | |
the grounds upon which warrants may be granted. They are set out in | :03:02. | :03:06. | |
Clause 18 of the Bill and to the SNP's amendments to want and 213. | :03:07. | :03:12. | |
The purpose of these is to remove the economic well-being of the UK is | :03:13. | :03:17. | |
a separate purpose for granting a warrant and also to require the | :03:18. | :03:21. | |
grounds of interception are tied to a threshold of reasonable suspicion | :03:22. | :03:24. | |
of criminal behaviour. We have tabled similar amendments to be | :03:25. | :03:28. | |
grounds for seeking warrants in relation to communications data | :03:29. | :03:32. | |
under part three and four and hacking under apartheid. Mr Speaker, | :03:33. | :03:39. | |
-- part five. If these amendments are not allowed then people cannot | :03:40. | :03:42. | |
protect when surveillance powers may be used against them, because the | :03:43. | :03:46. | |
discussion is granted to the Secretary of State is so broad as to | :03:47. | :03:50. | |
be arbitrary. The joint Committee on the draft Bill recommended that the | :03:51. | :03:55. | |
Bill should include a definition of national security, which of course | :03:56. | :03:58. | |
is the first ground. I call upon the Government not for the first time to | :03:59. | :04:03. | |
produce an amendment which defines national security, because this Bill | :04:04. | :04:07. | |
is sprinkled liberally with the phrase National security. The | :04:08. | :04:10. | |
Government need to tell us what they mean by that phrase and so I call | :04:11. | :04:16. | |
upon them to define it. This isn't just a theoretical or as one of the | :04:17. | :04:23. | |
gentleman opposite called it, not just a law faculty debate, it is a | :04:24. | :04:27. | |
serious issue of precision of language so that people can be some | :04:28. | :04:33. | |
predictability. If we look at what the course of done in the past, they | :04:34. | :04:36. | |
have responded with considerable deference to what the Government | :04:37. | :04:40. | |
says, to government claims of national security. So they view them | :04:41. | :04:44. | |
not so much as a matter of law but as Executive Lee led policy | :04:45. | :04:49. | |
judgments. As a legal test, national security on its own is meaningless | :04:50. | :04:51. | |
unless the Government attempts to tell us what they mean by that. I | :04:52. | :04:58. | |
will give way. Thank you for giving way. I am listening to says with | :04:59. | :05:03. | |
great interest. She will be aware of the joints Committee and the | :05:04. | :05:06. | |
National Security Strategy that has been trying to define what national | :05:07. | :05:11. | |
security is for a very long time and has failed to come up with an | :05:12. | :05:14. | |
answer. I think she is going to happen to accept and would you not | :05:15. | :05:17. | |
agree that the term is necessarily going to have to remain somewhat | :05:18. | :05:22. | |
loose. I don't accept that because as I say it is sprinkled throughout | :05:23. | :05:27. | |
the Bill is justifying very broad and very intrusive powers and I | :05:28. | :05:30. | |
think it is incumbent upon the Government to explain to us what | :05:31. | :05:35. | |
they mean by the phrase. We have seen and heard powerful speeches | :05:36. | :05:39. | |
from the Labour benches and powerful interventions about how these loose | :05:40. | :05:45. | |
phrases, they can sometimes be misinterpreted to enable individuals | :05:46. | :05:47. | |
who have done absolutely nothing wrong such as trade unionists going | :05:48. | :05:52. | |
about their lawful business to have their livelihoods and communications | :05:53. | :05:55. | |
interfered with. If the Government wants these powers, the Government | :05:56. | :06:00. | |
has to define what they mean by the grounds upon which they say they can | :06:01. | :06:04. | |
be exercised and that takes me to economic well-being. The joint | :06:05. | :06:06. | |
Committee on this Bill said that economic well-being should be | :06:07. | :06:11. | |
defined, but the Intelligence and Security Committee went further and | :06:12. | :06:13. | |
said the economic well-being should be subsumed within the national | :06:14. | :06:18. | |
security definition and they said it was otherwise unnecessarily | :06:19. | :06:20. | |
confusing and couple dated. What they were basically saying was if | :06:21. | :06:25. | |
economic harm to the well-being of the United Kingdom is so serious | :06:26. | :06:28. | |
that it amounts to a threat to national security, then it is | :06:29. | :06:32. | |
covered within sub-clause 28. That is the point may be the security | :06:33. | :06:36. | |
Committee. We don't need a separate category. I intent to touch on this | :06:37. | :06:42. | |
briefly when I come to speak. It is right to point out that after having | :06:43. | :06:46. | |
made that recommendation, the Committee had the opportunity of | :06:47. | :06:48. | |
hearing considerably further evidence provided by the Government. | :06:49. | :06:52. | |
As a result we were unanimously persuaded that in fact keeping | :06:53. | :06:57. | |
economic well-being as a separate category was justified by stop I | :06:58. | :07:01. | |
will amplify my remarks when I come to speak a little later but that was | :07:02. | :07:06. | |
the conclusion that we reached. I would wish to quibble with the | :07:07. | :07:13. | |
honourable and learned gentleman conclusion but unfortunately the | :07:14. | :07:16. | |
basis on which he and his Committee have reached that conclusion, the | :07:17. | :07:19. | |
rest of us have not been favoured with that so I am yet to be | :07:20. | :07:22. | |
convinced that the economic well-being grounds is a stand-alone | :07:23. | :07:26. | |
and grounds that cannot be subsumed within national security. If the | :07:27. | :07:29. | |
Government are able to convince me of that and want to try I will | :07:30. | :07:32. | |
listen but I'm yet to be convinced despite sitting through many days of | :07:33. | :07:37. | |
the Bill Committee. Another problem with the grounds relates to the lack | :07:38. | :07:40. | |
of any reasonable suspicion threshold. This recurs throughout | :07:41. | :07:46. | |
the Bill. Our amendments insert a requirement. At present, intrusive | :07:47. | :07:51. | |
powers could be authorised in order to prevent and detect serious crime. | :07:52. | :07:56. | |
In the case of the mutations data, they can be authorised even just to | :07:57. | :08:00. | |
collect tax and prevent disorder -- communications data. These general | :08:01. | :08:06. | |
purposes are left wide open to broad interpretations and abuse if you | :08:07. | :08:09. | |
don't also require a threshold of suspicion. A requirement of regional | :08:10. | :08:16. | |
suspicion also invokes the purpose of preventing and detecting serious | :08:17. | :08:22. | |
crime, it would have the benefit of preventing the abuse of surveillance | :08:23. | :08:27. | |
of campaigners and unionists and victims by undercover police. It | :08:28. | :08:31. | |
would prevent police surveillance of journalist lawful activity and it | :08:32. | :08:35. | |
would prevent the agency surveying law in buying NGOs and MPs. This is | :08:36. | :08:41. | |
an fanciful. We have seen lawyer abiding NGOs and MPs having their | :08:42. | :08:45. | |
correspondence and activities interfered with in recent times. | :08:46. | :08:52. | |
These are just theoretical examples. The reasonable suspicion threshold | :08:53. | :08:56. | |
was recently held to be necessary by the European Court of Human Rights | :08:57. | :08:59. | |
in a case concerning the Russian interception regime, a case with | :09:00. | :09:08. | |
which many honourable members will be familiar with. I know the | :09:09. | :09:11. | |
Solicitor General has been trying to distinguish it. If we had time we | :09:12. | :09:17. | |
could argue about that. There is a widely held view that what the | :09:18. | :09:22. | |
European Court, the standards set by the European Court of your rights in | :09:23. | :09:27. | |
the Sakharov case is not met by the grounds of Clause 18 present. I urge | :09:28. | :09:31. | |
fellow honourable members to support our amendments to Clause 18 to | :09:32. | :09:37. | |
ensure that the United Kingdom's investigation powers regime meet | :09:38. | :09:38. | |
international human rights standards. To be clear from what I | :09:39. | :09:44. | |
am said already, the SNP very much shares the concerns of the Labour | :09:45. | :09:49. | |
benches about monitoring of legitimate trade union activity. I | :09:50. | :09:52. | |
understand the Home Secretary has acknowledged these concerns and | :09:53. | :09:55. | |
given some sort of assurance to be Shadow Home Secretary, but, like | :09:56. | :10:01. | |
Labour, the SNP will require to see an amendment on the face of the bell | :10:02. | :10:06. | |
in order to make it absolutely clear and if Labour want to push this to a | :10:07. | :10:09. | |
vote this evening, we will support it. | :10:10. | :10:15. | |
I am going to look at traditional review. The manuscript amendment | :10:16. | :10:24. | |
brought forward by the Government is an improvement. My respectful | :10:25. | :10:31. | |
argument it does not go far enough. All of us who have practiced law in | :10:32. | :10:37. | |
this chamber and advised clients about judicial review, key is | :10:38. | :10:42. | |
knowing what the reasons for the original decision. There is nothing | :10:43. | :10:45. | |
in this bill requiring the Secretary of State to give any reasons for his | :10:46. | :10:53. | |
or her decision on issues a warrant. Interestingly clause 21, sub Clause | :10:54. | :10:56. | |
IV requires the commissioner to give his or her reasons T Secretary of | :10:57. | :11:00. | |
State is not required to give reasons. So long as this remains a | :11:01. | :11:05. | |
judicial review standard I don't see what it is that is being reviewed in | :11:06. | :11:10. | |
the absence of reasons for the original decision. The honourable | :11:11. | :11:16. | |
member for Holton price and how don made the point that the Home | :11:17. | :11:21. | |
Secretary signs many of these warrants, sometimes up to ten a day. | :11:22. | :11:26. | |
I feel for her on this basis she should have to issue reasons for | :11:27. | :11:32. | |
them. What is currently proposed, the judicial review for which | :11:33. | :11:39. | |
reasons are not required. Briefly on clause 24, relating to | :11:40. | :11:41. | |
parliamentarians and their protection, we have heard a very | :11:42. | :11:48. | |
eloquent speech from the honourable gentleman opposite about his | :11:49. | :11:50. | |
suggestion that the speaker should gofr see this in some way. I have | :11:51. | :11:59. | |
made a comment envisaged by the ameantments -- apartment that it | :12:00. | :12:03. | |
should be the Presiding Officers of the Scottish, Wales and northern | :12:04. | :12:09. | |
Irish Parliaments. What the SNP amendment suggests is a targeted | :12:10. | :12:19. | |
parliamentarian should by pass... And be granted by a commissioner. | :12:20. | :12:23. | |
And we have tabled similar to that in part five. The reason for that is | :12:24. | :12:28. | |
to preserve the Wilson Doctrine and depoliticise the process. It is | :12:29. | :12:33. | |
illogical to suggest that the complete prohibition on surveillance | :12:34. | :12:39. | |
of politicians is to have a clause which expressly allowed surveillance | :12:40. | :12:42. | |
of politicians, only allowing the Secretary of State to consult with | :12:43. | :12:46. | |
the Prime Minister prior to interception or hacking. It | :12:47. | :12:50. | |
completely undermines the doctrine. Therefore we cannot support it and | :12:51. | :12:55. | |
we would urge the Government to look at our suggestion that it should be | :12:56. | :12:59. | |
a judicial commissioner who authorised warranteds to interfere | :13:00. | :13:02. | |
with the communications and the equipment of parliamentarians. | :13:03. | :13:07. | |
Turning very briefly before I sit down, Mr Speaker, to the issue of | :13:08. | :13:11. | |
legal professional privilege, I add my voice to the concerns expressed | :13:12. | :13:17. | |
about the inadequacy of what is on the face of the bill. It is not just | :13:18. | :13:24. | |
the Law Society and the Bar Council t Law Society of Scotland and | :13:25. | :13:29. | |
advocates have made representations. The legal professional privilege is | :13:30. | :13:34. | |
not there to protect lawyers, just as parliamentary is not there to | :13:35. | :13:39. | |
protect politicians. It is there to protect people who consult lawyers. | :13:40. | :13:42. | |
There is a long-standing convention in England and Scotland that legal | :13:43. | :13:48. | |
communications are privileged, privileged. That is not reflected on | :13:49. | :13:53. | |
the face of this bill and it needs to be reflected. Mr Speaker, there | :13:54. | :13:57. | |
are many more amendments I would like to move. I will not do so in | :13:58. | :14:02. | |
recognition of the fact others deserve time to speak. The Scottish | :14:03. | :14:06. | |
National Party considers the that the time afforded to the debate, and | :14:07. | :14:15. | |
the many amendments on this bill is wholly inadequate and there are many | :14:16. | :14:19. | |
beyond this chamber who take that view also. | :14:20. | :14:21. | |
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to speak to four different groups of | :14:22. | :14:28. | |
apartments. This is a difficult bill to support. I acknowledge the work | :14:29. | :14:32. | |
that the ministers and the Government has done in trying to | :14:33. | :14:36. | |
work with people on this side of the House and opposition benches to make | :14:37. | :14:40. | |
a bill we can start to feel comfortable with. In terms of of the | :14:41. | :14:48. | |
aapartment I am not a law -- of the amendment. I am not a lawyer. The | :14:49. | :14:54. | |
modification of warrants and these are changes, in my view. As not as a | :14:55. | :14:58. | |
lawyer, they seem to permit, through a major modification to have the | :14:59. | :15:02. | |
potential to change the key components of a warrant. I wonder at | :15:03. | :15:06. | |
what stage do they then need to actually have a new warrant instead? | :15:07. | :15:10. | |
How modified can the warrant be before it needs to become a new | :15:11. | :15:16. | |
warranted? I am not a lawyer, but to me the modification of warrants in | :15:17. | :15:20. | |
the bill at the moment seem to be very, very wide-ranging and very | :15:21. | :15:30. | |
il-defined. Amendments to find the matters through which targeted | :15:31. | :15:36. | |
equipment interference relate by removing broad categories, including | :15:37. | :15:39. | |
equipment interference for training purposes. People outside this House | :15:40. | :15:43. | |
may mot be aware when we talk about that we are talking about hacking. | :15:44. | :15:47. | |
We are basically talking about hacking your mobile phone, hacking | :15:48. | :15:51. | |
your computer. Hacking your e-mail systems. Hacking the apps. It is a | :15:52. | :15:58. | |
very nice way of saying state-authorised hacking. It is what | :15:59. | :16:03. | |
we are talking about here. For me, it is an intrusive power. It is | :16:04. | :16:10. | |
real-time surveillance, as well as access, everything stored from text | :16:11. | :16:15. | |
messages, to E mails, which website you vis -- e-mails, which website | :16:16. | :16:23. | |
you visit. The bill seems to me to provide a hacking warrant, to hack | :16:24. | :16:27. | |
groups or individuals in the UKs. Hacking doesn't seem to be | :16:28. | :16:32. | |
restricted to equipment belonging, used by or in possession of persons | :16:33. | :16:36. | |
or organisations on the face of the bill. So, as even the director of | :16:37. | :16:46. | |
HGCQ, so effectively it would apply to the equipment of a foreign | :16:47. | :16:51. | |
intelligence service. We may say in this House, so what, so be it. What | :16:52. | :16:56. | |
would we say if the warrants allowed it to be all employees and family | :16:57. | :17:00. | |
members of a particular company? Or the people who visit a particular | :17:01. | :17:05. | |
religious venue? Or the people who live in a particular road? Would we | :17:06. | :17:10. | |
say, so what? Should we be bothered? It may sound unlikely, but in the | :17:11. | :17:17. | |
draft equipment interference code of practise it permits the targeting of | :17:18. | :17:21. | |
people who are not of intelligence interest. It allows you to hack the | :17:22. | :17:28. | |
equipment of anybody, anywhere in the UK, or overseas if they choose | :17:29. | :17:33. | |
to do so. I do understand and I have to give way... I am entirely with my | :17:34. | :17:38. | |
honourable friend from Stevenage on this. He says it may not involve | :17:39. | :17:43. | |
hacking a whole street, but it would involve hacking two layers of | :17:44. | :17:48. | |
contacts. Say I call 100 people and the people that that 100 people | :17:49. | :17:54. | |
call, a very typical intelligence exercise pursuing the two rings | :17:55. | :17:58. | |
around people. That could be 100,000 people. Most of whom have nothing to | :17:59. | :18:02. | |
hide at all. But could come under per mant survey | :18:03. | :18:11. | |
lens by the state. I agree with the honourable -- permanent surveillance | :18:12. | :18:14. | |
by the state. I agree with the honourable member. It is not a | :18:15. | :18:17. | |
particularly difficult thing to do at the moment. I think a lot of | :18:18. | :18:20. | |
people don't appreciate what the measures in this bill are doing is | :18:21. | :18:24. | |
authorising state hacking of equipment and due to the rest of the | :18:25. | :18:28. | |
measures in the bill we are not just talking about hacking the equipment | :18:29. | :18:31. | |
of somebody who may be of a particular interest as part of a | :18:32. | :18:34. | |
terrorist organisation. We are talking about every man, woman and | :18:35. | :18:39. | |
child and electronic device inside the United Kingdom, that is where my | :18:40. | :18:44. | |
concerns come forward. Happy to give way. I am grateful for | :18:45. | :18:49. | |
his explanation of his amendment. Surely there are clear limits to | :18:50. | :18:53. | |
what, to the power of equipment interference set out in clauses 91, | :18:54. | :18:58. | |
whereby it has to be necessary. It needs to be proportionate n the | :18:59. | :19:01. | |
interests of national security, et cetera. It is really not fair to say | :19:02. | :19:05. | |
this is a sweeping power where any man, woman or child can be subject | :19:06. | :19:10. | |
to it. I am grateful to the honourable lady | :19:11. | :19:15. | |
for her intervention. The reality is on the bill when you look at | :19:16. | :19:18. | |
schedule four of the bill, there are a range of other organisations that | :19:19. | :19:21. | |
would be able to access this power if they choose to do so. If it was | :19:22. | :19:27. | |
to, if it is thefy man shall conduct authority -- the Financial Conduct | :19:28. | :19:32. | |
Authority. There are organisations able to use these powers, not just | :19:33. | :19:36. | |
the intelligence services. The police services up and down the | :19:37. | :19:41. | |
country at the moment use equipment interference to target criminals. | :19:42. | :19:44. | |
There are a range of these powers currently used. I appreciate the | :19:45. | :19:48. | |
bill is trying to put them on a statutory footing. I understand the | :19:49. | :19:51. | |
need to keep safe. We have to balance it. There comes a point | :19:52. | :19:55. | |
where like 9/11 in the United States, where a lot of different | :19:56. | :20:00. | |
agencies had the information but they were not sharing it. I feel we | :20:01. | :20:03. | |
are getting ourselves into a situation where we have so much | :20:04. | :20:06. | |
information about so many people it will be of no value to us | :20:07. | :20:09. | |
whatsoever. It will be like the internet. You can put anything in | :20:10. | :20:14. | |
and get 3,000 pages back. I think we just need a stronger legal framework | :20:15. | :20:19. | |
if we are going to authorise state hacking of quijt in the United | :20:20. | :20:26. | |
Kingdom. My amendments 188 and very simply ensure that all targets of | :20:27. | :20:30. | |
hacking are properly named or specified. We need that specific | :20:31. | :20:35. | |
legal framework. 173-177, are amendments to try and eliminate the | :20:36. | :20:39. | |
pou ore the Government to compel third parties to assist in carrying | :20:40. | :20:42. | |
out equipment interference. The reason for this is that this | :20:43. | :20:48. | |
compelled the systems at the moment, it is not subject to any judicial | :20:49. | :20:53. | |
authorisation process. It is the relevant organisations turn up to | :20:54. | :20:58. | |
these companies and say we have this warrant so have to help us to move | :20:59. | :21:02. | |
forward and hack their devices. They don't have a choice. Clause 144 | :21:03. | :21:08. | |
contains strict non-disclosure provisions, which are gagging orders | :21:09. | :21:11. | |
which stop anyone from being able to say whether or not they have been | :21:12. | :21:19. | |
involved in this. And the science and technology committee concluded | :21:20. | :21:24. | |
that the industry case regarding public fear about equipment | :21:25. | :21:27. | |
interference is well founded. The code of practise indicates that no | :21:28. | :21:32. | |
company, no matter how small in the United Kingdom, is exempted from | :21:33. | :21:37. | |
these obligations. My amends 196-205 are like the rest of the ameantments | :21:38. | :21:42. | |
trying to get the issue debated and get people aware. National security | :21:43. | :21:47. | |
and technical capability notices should be authority rised to a | :21:48. | :21:50. | |
double-lock by the Secretary of State. I appreciate that the new | :21:51. | :21:54. | |
clause ten and others are moving some way towards doing that. That | :21:55. | :22:00. | |
may make what I am about to say obsolete. I am not a lawyer, as I | :22:01. | :22:04. | |
said. One thing I would like to say is on my understanding of the bill | :22:05. | :22:07. | |
as it was stood before this morning it was effected only the Secretary | :22:08. | :22:11. | |
of State had the power to authorise retention notice and national | :22:12. | :22:14. | |
security notice and a technical capability notice. That was not in | :22:15. | :22:19. | |
keeping p rest of the bill which regarded a judicial commission to be | :22:20. | :22:22. | |
involved in the approval of those areas. So, the notices in effect | :22:23. | :22:27. | |
enable the Secretary of State to demands private companies acted as | :22:28. | :22:34. | |
-- act as a facilitator of that. We need independent oversights and the | :22:35. | :22:37. | |
Government has come some way towards doing that with new clause ten. | :22:38. | :22:42. | |
Technical capability know tisss will impacted on UK businesses. -- | :22:43. | :22:47. | |
notices will impact on UK businesses, requiring companies to | :22:48. | :22:51. | |
build systems which will store data for use by the intelligence | :22:52. | :22:54. | |
agentsies, police and home off fizz. That is what is writ no-one the code | :22:55. | :22:58. | |
of practise. If we look into the codes of practise, one of the things | :22:59. | :23:02. | |
which jumped out at me and I found difficult as a Conservative, was | :23:03. | :23:08. | |
that they will be subjects to a technical capability notice. They | :23:09. | :23:13. | |
must notify the Government of new services and products in advance of | :23:14. | :23:17. | |
their launch, for consideration whether it is necessary to provide | :23:18. | :23:21. | |
technical capability on the new service. In English from, a | :23:22. | :23:26. | |
Conservative point of view that means that UK-based companies | :23:27. | :23:30. | |
launching new products will need permission from the state before | :23:31. | :23:33. | |
they can go to market to identify whether or not the state will | :23:34. | :23:36. | |
require the ability to hack those products. Why on earth would you | :23:37. | :23:40. | |
launch a new service here in the United Kingdom as a small business | :23:41. | :23:43. | |
under those conditions if what is in these code of practises remains in | :23:44. | :23:49. | |
them? Joofrgets Thank you. In many group | :23:50. | :23:54. | |
of amendments the Joint Committee on Human Rights has four issues it | :23:55. | :23:57. | |
would like to raise with the minister on. The first is about the | :23:58. | :24:04. | |
warrants. I really very much follow up the pointeds which have been made | :24:05. | :24:08. | |
by the front bench here, the Shadow Home Secretary and the Shadow | :24:09. | :24:12. | |
Immigration Minister, also the honourable member for Stevenage and | :24:13. | :24:17. | |
the honourable member for Edinburgh South-west. I think we have got | :24:18. | :24:21. | |
to... Our starting point is we have to remember that these warrants give | :24:22. | :24:27. | |
enormous powers. The powers are for those who are authorised to look at | :24:28. | :24:32. | |
your e-mails, read them all. These could include a report sent to you | :24:33. | :24:38. | |
about your medical condition, from a hospital. It involves everything in | :24:39. | :24:43. | |
your e-mail, involving listening to your phone calls as well as looking | :24:44. | :24:47. | |
who you have been making and phone calls from. And also hacking into | :24:48. | :24:51. | |
your mobile phone and turning it into a listening device. It is a | :24:52. | :24:56. | |
very wide-ranging, looking at all your information from your bank and | :24:57. | :25:01. | |
everything. We are talking about very, very wide-ranging powers. | :25:02. | :25:09. | |
At this point I would urge the Minister to recognise that there is | :25:10. | :25:15. | |
a feeling across the House that it is recognised that powers are needed | :25:16. | :25:19. | |
to make us safe but they haven't sufficiently diluted yet and | :25:20. | :25:25. | |
narrowed the circumstances yet in which they should be used and I | :25:26. | :25:31. | |
would urge them to talk again, their own backbenchers and the SNB to make | :25:32. | :25:34. | |
these are targeted powers more targeted. Doesn't this sum up the | :25:35. | :25:43. | |
position that despite the very welcome concessions which our front | :25:44. | :25:47. | |
bench have managed to negotiate with the Government, and I accept | :25:48. | :25:52. | |
entirely their good intentions, the opposition's front bench, the fact | :25:53. | :25:57. | |
is that the powers that this Bill will give to the security | :25:58. | :26:02. | |
authorities is unacceptable despite all those concessions and a very | :26:03. | :26:06. | |
good reason for voting against on third reading. I would say to my | :26:07. | :26:12. | |
honourable friend, let's see whether the minister and the Government will | :26:13. | :26:16. | |
recognise that we are all trying to get the same thing. We are trying to | :26:17. | :26:21. | |
keep the public of the country safe but also trying to protect privacy. | :26:22. | :26:25. | |
We also do it in the recognition and I know my honourable friend will | :26:26. | :26:30. | |
recognise this is that the security services do get tempted to overreach | :26:31. | :26:35. | |
their powers. As night follows day, that is what happens. There are so | :26:36. | :26:39. | |
many examples of this which afterwards people think how on earth | :26:40. | :26:43. | |
could that happen and it happens because when they have power as they | :26:44. | :26:47. | |
get tempted to overreach them. That is why the safeguards are so | :26:48. | :26:51. | |
important and the narrowness of definitions are so important. For | :26:52. | :26:58. | |
example, I myself is subject to Security Service surveillance, not | :26:59. | :27:01. | |
because I was subversive but because I was fighting for human rights, | :27:02. | :27:05. | |
women's rights and workers' rights. The point is that if they can do it | :27:06. | :27:10. | |
they will, unless there is proper dull any age and so I add to my boys | :27:11. | :27:14. | |
who are arguing for a narrower definition of the magic powers. I | :27:15. | :27:21. | |
also added to the voices that are querying about the points for major | :27:22. | :27:25. | |
modifications. The Government have gone such a long way to make sure | :27:26. | :27:30. | |
that these warrants are probably issued, why then drive a coach and | :27:31. | :27:33. | |
horses through it by saying, but if you feel like after the warrant has | :27:34. | :27:39. | |
been issued, you can have a major modification? This is not going to | :27:40. | :27:41. | |
be a modification that will narrow the scope of the warrant, it will | :27:42. | :27:46. | |
only be one that widens it. I know the Government have moved to an | :27:47. | :27:49. | |
extent and have said that major modifications will be notified in | :27:50. | :27:53. | |
the judicial commissioners, but it is not good enough to just tell them | :27:54. | :27:57. | |
you will do a major modification, do need to be a proper approval | :27:58. | :28:01. | |
process. I would say to the Government, I think they should look | :28:02. | :28:05. | |
again at this. The other point is about legal professional privilege. | :28:06. | :28:09. | |
Here I get onto the constitutional point we should bear in mind when we | :28:10. | :28:13. | |
are thinking about what they described as privileges, those areas | :28:14. | :28:16. | |
where we have to be extremely careful. One of the points about | :28:17. | :28:23. | |
lawyers is that lawyers are able to hold the Government to account and | :28:24. | :28:26. | |
it is called the rule of law and therefore you don't want to give the | :28:27. | :28:32. | |
Executive ability in an unjustified way to interfere with the rule of | :28:33. | :28:39. | |
law by undermining people's legal exercise of their rights. Therefore | :28:40. | :28:44. | |
I agree with our front bench and others who have said they should go | :28:45. | :28:48. | |
back to the bar Council and the Law Society and make sure that they have | :28:49. | :28:54. | |
got legal professional privilege properly sorted out. Then I get to | :28:55. | :28:57. | |
the main point is that they want to make here and I am sorry that the | :28:58. | :29:01. | |
honourable member for Gainsborough is not in the chamber at the moment | :29:02. | :29:07. | |
because I very largely agree with him but I think the Joint Committee | :29:08. | :29:10. | |
on Human Rights has got a better way of dealing with this. But we need to | :29:11. | :29:17. | |
remember is MPs is it is not just about the issue of our constituents | :29:18. | :29:21. | |
able to come to talk to us confidentially although we should | :29:22. | :29:25. | |
absolutely defend that and I will just give one example of where in my | :29:26. | :29:31. | |
constituency was MI6 and the cleaners were about to be privatised | :29:32. | :29:36. | |
and sacked and or made redundant so they lived in my constituency and | :29:37. | :29:39. | |
they had signed the official secrets act and told they were to talk to | :29:40. | :29:43. | |
nobody and they weren't allowed to be in a union. They came in and | :29:44. | :29:49. | |
said, one of them was crying, they were very upset, they said, we don't | :29:50. | :29:53. | |
know whether we can speak to you. I said, you can speak to me and they | :29:54. | :29:58. | |
said, we think it is against the law, what we are going to tell you. | :29:59. | :30:01. | |
I said, it doesn't matter what you're going to tell me, your legal | :30:02. | :30:09. | |
right to tell me, as my constituent, something I need to know trumps | :30:10. | :30:14. | |
everything. They then said they were going to be made redundant and they | :30:15. | :30:20. | |
went along to see, I think it was the director general of MI6, and I | :30:21. | :30:25. | |
took with me the deputy General Secretary of the transport and | :30:26. | :30:30. | |
General workers union, the honourable member now offer | :30:31. | :30:33. | |
Erdington and we got them all redundancy payments and that's | :30:34. | :30:39. | |
sorted out. I think the right of individuals to speak to their MPs is | :30:40. | :30:43. | |
important but there is an even bigger constitutional issue and that | :30:44. | :30:46. | |
is the fact that we are here not just to listen to what our | :30:47. | :30:51. | |
constituents say but to hold the Government to account. They are the | :30:52. | :30:57. | |
Executive. Therefore if the idea that the Executive has got the power | :30:58. | :31:03. | |
over those who are supposed to be holding them to account, to hack | :31:04. | :31:06. | |
into their e-mails and listen to their phones, all of that, offers a | :31:07. | :31:12. | |
big prospect of the Executive abusing their power and undermining | :31:13. | :31:16. | |
the legislative ability to hold them to account. The person who is in | :31:17. | :31:21. | |
pole position to defend the importance of the legislature | :31:22. | :31:25. | |
holding the Government to account is not, I'm afraid, be Prime Minister. | :31:26. | :31:30. | |
The Prime Minister is the pinnacle of the Executive. We are here to | :31:31. | :31:35. | |
hold the Prime Minister to account, so I appreciate that what the | :31:36. | :31:38. | |
Minister has done has said, make the Prime Minister consent to all our | :31:39. | :31:43. | |
e-mails being fact and phones being listened to, but that gives me no | :31:44. | :31:47. | |
reassurance are told because he or she is the wrong person. You have | :31:48. | :31:52. | |
gone higher up the tree, but up the wrong tree. The person who is there | :31:53. | :32:01. | |
to protect us in doing our job of holding the Government to account, | :32:02. | :32:07. | |
including the Prime Minister, is the Speaker. That was recognised in | :32:08. | :32:11. | |
relation to the situation of the honourable member for Ashford when | :32:12. | :32:15. | |
there was the question of the warrant being issued, so this is not | :32:16. | :32:19. | |
unprecedented, the recognition that it is the Speaker that has to | :32:20. | :32:24. | |
protect our rights to hold the Executive to account, which with is | :32:25. | :32:27. | |
what we are actually here for. I wouldn't suggest, and basic | :32:28. | :32:30. | |
Committee discussed this at great length, we don't want to suggest | :32:31. | :32:34. | |
that we make the Speaker and arm of the state and make him start looking | :32:35. | :32:38. | |
at warrants for all of us. That is not what we suggest. But we go | :32:39. | :32:42. | |
further than the honourable member from Gainsborough, who says that the | :32:43. | :32:47. | |
Speaker should be notified. We save the Speaker should be notified | :32:48. | :32:51. | |
sufficiently well in advance that he or she feels it is right, they can | :32:52. | :32:58. | |
go and be heard by the judicial Commissioner in order to make their | :32:59. | :33:03. | |
views known so that they actually can have an intervention in the | :33:04. | :33:08. | |
process. I am certain that if it was known that the Speaker would be | :33:09. | :33:12. | |
notified and have the opportunity to go in and speak about it to the | :33:13. | :33:16. | |
judicial Commissioner, that would make the security services much more | :33:17. | :33:24. | |
cautious before they actually go for warrants to intercept all of the | :33:25. | :33:27. | |
communications that we are having to stop I give way. There are two | :33:28. | :33:36. | |
points. She said the Speaker should be involved not but they did. I | :33:37. | :33:40. | |
don't see how the Speaker would not be implicated, in her terms, become | :33:41. | :33:45. | |
an arm of the state, not a phrase I would use. The Speaker would by | :33:46. | :33:50. | |
necessity become implicated because he would have to know the grounds on | :33:51. | :33:56. | |
which the Prime Minister or others were acting. So, I don't really | :33:57. | :34:01. | |
understand how the honourable lady claimed he could be involved but not | :34:02. | :34:06. | |
obliterated. It is true, we are sending part of the process to the | :34:07. | :34:09. | |
Speaker but we're not giving them the power to authorise. To give the | :34:10. | :34:14. | |
power, to make the Speaker be part of the authorising process, somebody | :34:15. | :34:19. | |
who applies for the warrant or somebody like the judicial | :34:20. | :34:21. | |
Commissioner who has to authorise the warrant, I think that would be | :34:22. | :34:27. | |
wrong. But we are talking about, a notification to the Speaker but | :34:28. | :34:30. | |
insufficient time so that of the Speaker is noticing that it is | :34:31. | :34:36. | |
becoming very widespread, they have got the opportunity to go before the | :34:37. | :34:42. | |
Judicial Commissioner and say, look, this is just going on too widely. | :34:43. | :34:47. | |
Remember, once it is in the hands of the security services, all this | :34:48. | :34:54. | |
information, it is... I give way. So the honourable lady is saying the | :34:55. | :34:59. | |
Speaker would know when and who but not what the white? For them to know | :35:00. | :35:02. | |
what worldwide, they would have to be become inculcated in the way I | :35:03. | :35:08. | |
described. No, I think they would have to know the basis of the | :35:09. | :35:10. | |
application if they wanted to because otherwise how could they go | :35:11. | :35:13. | |
before the Judicial Commissioner and say it was unacceptable? People say, | :35:14. | :35:21. | |
could this me, -- if people say, goodness me, if this was information | :35:22. | :35:27. | |
that would be dangerous in the hands of Daesh, then we are in trouble if | :35:28. | :35:33. | |
we have got the Speaker is a sort of person, I would take a slightly | :35:34. | :35:37. | |
different point from the member for Gainsborough because he said it is, | :35:38. | :35:45. | |
politics, versus non-politics, which is the Speaker, it is not politics | :35:46. | :35:50. | |
versus non-politics, it is the legislature versus the Executive and | :35:51. | :35:53. | |
that is the way I think we should think about it. I will give way, but | :35:54. | :36:01. | |
I have got a feeling I will sadly disagree because I heard it | :36:02. | :36:04. | |
intervention earlier and I think it who is barking up the wrong tree. | :36:05. | :36:08. | |
Define myself barking up the same tree is the honourable for | :36:09. | :36:12. | |
Gainsborough is a very sorry state of repair is how the member for | :36:13. | :36:15. | |
Stevenage on my side as well. Typical of my Right Honourable | :36:16. | :36:19. | |
friend to get defensive before she heard the attack. I might honourable | :36:20. | :36:32. | |
friend has been held... She has been a government law officer is | :36:33. | :36:35. | |
Solicitor General and when she was I had every confidence in her to be | :36:36. | :36:39. | |
able to sort out the legal advice she gave is Solicitor General from | :36:40. | :36:45. | |
whatever political position she made herself that sort. Why would she | :36:46. | :36:48. | |
doubt that I Prime Minister could do that as well? Because the Prime | :36:49. | :36:55. | |
Minister is the Executive and you need the separation of powers. You | :36:56. | :36:59. | |
need the balance of powers. I also disagree with the honourable member | :37:00. | :37:02. | |
for Gainsborough when he was talking about what a great guy he is so | :37:03. | :37:06. | |
therefore it's not a problem with him but it might be for the next | :37:07. | :37:09. | |
one. I am on my fifth Prime Minister and they all have something in | :37:10. | :37:13. | |
common, but is that they regard being held to account is a bit of a | :37:14. | :37:19. | |
nuisance. They don't welcome being scrutinised, it is just the nature | :37:20. | :37:25. | |
of the beast. Therefore we have to take that into account and protect | :37:26. | :37:29. | |
the fact that for the rule of law we have to protect lawyers. For freedom | :37:30. | :37:34. | |
of speech and expression we have to protect journalism. And for holding | :37:35. | :37:38. | |
the Executive to account, we must protect our rights in this House. I | :37:39. | :37:42. | |
will give way but I will sit down shortly. I am very grateful to one | :37:43. | :37:47. | |
of my predecessors by relying me to intervene. What if, in a hearing, | :37:48. | :37:52. | |
the Speaker actually agreed with the application and said go ahead, apply | :37:53. | :37:57. | |
for the warrant, we don't have any objection to it. How would a member | :37:58. | :38:01. | |
of Parliament holds a Speaker to account for a decision that affected | :38:02. | :38:08. | |
them? Well, the point is the system has got its accountability through | :38:09. | :38:13. | |
the Home Secretary applying for the warrant through the judicial | :38:14. | :38:17. | |
Commissioner. We are talking about additional protection by way of the | :38:18. | :38:23. | |
Speaker and the Speaker wouldn't be supporting an application, they | :38:24. | :38:27. | |
would just simply be notified. If they had no objection, it would go | :38:28. | :38:30. | |
through and they would have nothing to do with it but they would have | :38:31. | :38:37. | |
knowledge. That is true. But it is just, in a difficult situation, how | :38:38. | :38:42. | |
do you make sure that you don't put all of our rights as a legislature | :38:43. | :38:47. | |
into the hands of the Executive? I appreciate that the Government have | :38:48. | :38:51. | |
tried to work out how to strengthen the safeguards, but the question is | :38:52. | :38:56. | |
not just the strength of the safeguards, it is the | :38:57. | :39:00. | |
appropriateness of them. The Prime Minister is not an appropriate | :39:01. | :39:03. | |
safeguards to protect the rights of us in this House to hold him to | :39:04. | :39:09. | |
account. So, I just ask the Government to look at that again. I | :39:10. | :39:19. | |
do congratulate the Government and our own front bench and the SNP and | :39:20. | :39:23. | |
the backbenchers for working constructively on this. We all want | :39:24. | :39:27. | |
the same thing, to walk the streets safely, sleep safely in our beds, | :39:28. | :39:32. | |
but not have the tempted Executive abusing their power. It is a | :39:33. | :39:40. | |
pleasure to follow the honourable and learn a lady. I shall refrain | :39:41. | :39:47. | |
from getting too dragged away from the specific issues on which the | :39:48. | :39:50. | |
Intelligence and Security Committee have specific amendments but perhaps | :39:51. | :39:54. | |
I should just say this, firstly it seems to me the Government has moved | :39:55. | :39:58. | |
substantially on some of the key issues in providing greater | :39:59. | :40:01. | |
protection for which I think we should be grateful. Secondly on the | :40:02. | :40:04. | |
point raised by the honourable and learn of lady, I had to say aye find | :40:05. | :40:11. | |
the idea that these Baker could provide the necessary safeguard when | :40:12. | :40:16. | |
one looks at the surrounding circumstances, difficult to follow, | :40:17. | :40:19. | |
ultimately the double lock mechanism I think provides by far the greater | :40:20. | :40:25. | |
protection and we have to expect there are scrutiny and oversight | :40:26. | :40:29. | |
mechanisms also in place which would mean if this was becoming a common | :40:30. | :40:33. | |
issue, I think it would in the system that we have, surface | :40:34. | :40:37. | |
properly but with the interception commission it. Ultimately I think it | :40:38. | :40:39. | |
would service with the intentions and security Committee. | :40:40. | :40:50. | |
Quest But I don't really see how the mechanism being proposed, involving | :40:51. | :40:59. | |
the speaker, would in practise provide the safeguard she's seeking. | :41:00. | :41:04. | |
Can I then turn, Mr Speaker, to firstly, amendment 25, standing in | :41:05. | :41:10. | |
the name of the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee | :41:11. | :41:14. | |
which deals with thematic warrants, of which there has been a lot of | :41:15. | :41:18. | |
discussion this evening. I have no doubt that thematic warrants have | :41:19. | :41:21. | |
the potential to include into the privacy of a great many people. In | :41:22. | :41:25. | |
the Intelligence and Security Committee report on the draft bill, | :41:26. | :41:31. | |
we therefore recommended that this greater intrusion be balanced and | :41:32. | :41:36. | |
constrained and they be limited in duration for the period which they | :41:37. | :41:42. | |
could be authorised. We took considerably further, took more | :41:43. | :41:46. | |
evidence from the agencies on thematic warrants. They argued | :41:47. | :41:51. | |
persuasively that if they were issued for a shorter time period it | :41:52. | :41:55. | |
would not allow sufficient time for the operational benefits of the | :41:56. | :41:57. | |
warrant to become apparent before they had to apply for it to become | :41:58. | :42:03. | |
renewed and be recognised the Secretary of State would have | :42:04. | :42:08. | |
limited information on which to assess proportionality. We therefore | :42:09. | :42:11. | |
accept that limiting the duration of the warrant is not the most | :42:12. | :42:16. | |
effective way to which to constrain a thematic warrant. Nevertheless, we | :42:17. | :42:25. | |
remain of the view that the way in which clause 15 is currently worded | :42:26. | :42:31. | |
is a very extensive power indeed. Indeed sub clause two makes clear | :42:32. | :42:35. | |
that a targeted interception warrant gets turned into a thematic warrant | :42:36. | :42:39. | |
if it can relate to a group of persons who share a common purpose | :42:40. | :42:44. | |
or who carry on or may carry on a particular activity. Giving that its | :42:45. | :42:50. | |
ordinary English meaning it becomes apparent immediately that the scope | :42:51. | :42:55. | |
is potentially enormous. Although I want to make the point quite clear | :42:56. | :43:01. | |
that we have seen no examples of this power being miss used in | :43:02. | :43:05. | |
anyway. And that I think presents the House | :43:06. | :43:11. | |
with a challenge. In order to try to meet that challenge, our suggestion, | :43:12. | :43:14. | |
having reflected on it as a committee, was that it might be | :43:15. | :43:20. | |
possible to add an additional constraint by applying, by removing | :43:21. | :43:26. | |
the word "All" and adding the word "sharing a common purpose and | :43:27. | :43:31. | |
"engaging in a particular activity" so as to try and narrow its scope. | :43:32. | :43:36. | |
That is why amendment 25 was tabled in the way it has been. | :43:37. | :43:43. | |
Since then we have, as has often happened in the dialogue which the | :43:44. | :43:47. | |
committee has with the agencies, had further information supplied to us. | :43:48. | :43:50. | |
I have to say persuasive information, which I saw this | :43:51. | :43:54. | |
morning, which indicated that if we were to adopt this particular | :43:55. | :44:00. | |
approach it would have the unintended consequence of making | :44:01. | :44:04. | |
legitimate operations carried out by the agencies impossible. And would | :44:05. | :44:08. | |
therefore place a great burden upon them, because the use of a straight | :44:09. | :44:14. | |
targeted warrant, based on the particular personal organisation or | :44:15. | :44:19. | |
single set of premises could not meet the necessity and | :44:20. | :44:21. | |
proportionality test of having to do something further. So, on that basis | :44:22. | :44:28. | |
I put this amendment forward as a probing amendment to contribute to | :44:29. | :44:31. | |
the debate. I still take the view there is an issue here which the | :44:32. | :44:35. | |
Government needs to consider carefully. | :44:36. | :44:42. | |
It did cross my mind, as I was hearing the various submissions that | :44:43. | :44:47. | |
one possible route might be for the ceration over a protocol to be used | :44:48. | :44:52. | |
by the agencies which could be seen by the Intelligence and Security | :44:53. | :44:55. | |
Committee and which would provide reassurance that the wide scope of | :44:56. | :45:00. | |
the wording could not be open to abuse. | :45:01. | :45:05. | |
And of course the point was perfectly reasonably made, I think | :45:06. | :45:10. | |
by the Home Secretary to me, that the idea that the commissioner would | :45:11. | :45:17. | |
tolerate an abuse which went outside the necessity and proportionality | :45:18. | :45:21. | |
test would in practise, in her view, be rather unlikely. That having been | :45:22. | :45:25. | |
said, all I would like to say to the minister on this is I don't think | :45:26. | :45:30. | |
this issue can simply be ignored. I think something more is needed. On | :45:31. | :45:38. | |
the plain wording of the statute the scope which the common purpose or a | :45:39. | :45:44. | |
particular activity allows seems to me to be excessive. There must be | :45:45. | :45:49. | |
some constrains. I leave it, if I may say to the ingenuity of the | :45:50. | :45:54. | |
minister and his common sense to come up with a solution to this | :45:55. | :45:57. | |
problem, because I think it is a real problem. I detect my honourable | :45:58. | :46:01. | |
and learned friend would like me to give way. I am very grateful. I | :46:02. | :46:06. | |
think my honourable friend can see the problem if we limit matters too | :46:07. | :46:10. | |
much to common purpose we might end up in only being able to deal with | :46:11. | :46:16. | |
conspiracy type offences as opposed to individuals. We are trying to be | :46:17. | :46:20. | |
very careful as to the wording here. And it is certainly isn't the | :46:21. | :46:24. | |
Government's intention to try and do anything by slight of hand to create | :46:25. | :46:28. | |
a situation which will unacceptably wide. Far from it. | :46:29. | :46:32. | |
Well, I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. I have no reason | :46:33. | :46:36. | |
to disagree with his analysis of the way in which this matter has been | :46:37. | :46:39. | |
approached. And I have no reason to disagree | :46:40. | :46:44. | |
with him at all about the necessity of having a thematic warrant in | :46:45. | :46:48. | |
addition to the targeted warrant on premises, individual or a particular | :46:49. | :46:53. | |
organisation. The question is - how can that reassurance be provided? I | :46:54. | :46:56. | |
may simply say, I hope very much that I hope the Government can go | :46:57. | :47:00. | |
away and give this some thought. I suspect it will arise in the other | :47:01. | :47:04. | |
place, unless when it comes to be debated. And it is very important | :47:05. | :47:08. | |
and I think a solution can be found, but I accept that the particular | :47:09. | :47:11. | |
amendment we have tabled here is not on the face of it going to... Well | :47:12. | :47:16. | |
it would provide a solution, it would also place the agencies in | :47:17. | :47:22. | |
difficulty. I give way. Since The Right Honourable gentleman has | :47:23. | :47:26. | |
employed me to apply my ingenuity I will try and do so. This is about | :47:27. | :47:30. | |
proportionality. We heard debate about necessity. Proportionality | :47:31. | :47:35. | |
matters too. And in determining what is reasonable in those... | :47:36. | :47:40. | |
THE SPEAKER: I wish to list on the the tones of the honourable | :47:41. | :47:46. | |
gentleman, as some members do and conceivably people listening | :47:47. | :47:49. | |
elsewhere might wish to hear him. We will be assisted if we face the | :47:50. | :47:51. | |
House. Minister Hayes. I think it is about proportionality | :47:52. | :48:02. | |
and the answer to the honourable gentleman is that, yes, of course, | :48:03. | :48:08. | |
in establish the character of that proportionality and therefore the | :48:09. | :48:12. | |
range that he described, we may need to think about the sort of protocol | :48:13. | :48:16. | |
that he set out. I am grateful to the minister. I | :48:17. | :48:20. | |
leave the matter there. Can I then turn to the next set of amendments | :48:21. | :48:26. | |
19, 20 and 21, which deal with the renewal of warrants? They may appear | :48:27. | :48:31. | |
complicated on the order paper, but they are in fact a simple issue. | :48:32. | :48:34. | |
Warrants for interception last for up to six months. Under clause 29, | :48:35. | :48:39. | |
as it is currently standing, the warrant can be extended by a further | :48:40. | :48:44. | |
six months at any time before the original warrant expires. That | :48:45. | :48:49. | |
creates a loophole because theatrically it would apply a -- | :48:50. | :48:55. | |
allow a warrant to be renewed after being issued, thereby permitting | :48:56. | :48:58. | |
interception for 12 months. That is clearly not what the bill intends. | :48:59. | :49:02. | |
The Secretary of State may argue logically, but the commissioner | :49:03. | :49:05. | |
would never approve such a renewal in this form. She wouldn't either. | :49:06. | :49:10. | |
But nevertheless, it is a loophole which can and should be closed. And | :49:11. | :49:16. | |
these amendments ensure that it is. I hope very much that the Government | :49:17. | :49:23. | |
is able to accept them. Finally, I should mention the amendments tabled | :49:24. | :49:26. | |
in my name only relate to interception and bulk interception. | :49:27. | :49:30. | |
I would be grateful if the minister could assure the House that it would | :49:31. | :49:35. | |
also, if they do accept this amendment, it would be extended to | :49:36. | :49:39. | |
other amendments of a like character, consequential to the | :49:40. | :49:43. | |
bill, to ensure that this power cannot be allowed -- abused in | :49:44. | :49:48. | |
respect of them as well. Finally in this list of amendments, Mr Speaker, | :49:49. | :49:53. | |
there is interception in accordance with overseas requests. This deals | :49:54. | :50:02. | |
with Clause IV 5. Clause 45, Mr Speaker gives effect to the muual | :50:03. | :50:08. | |
assistance in criminal matters and permits an overseas authority to | :50:09. | :50:13. | |
request the support of the UK in undertaking the interception of | :50:14. | :50:18. | |
communications. Rather curiously and I think accidentally it does not | :50:19. | :50:23. | |
repeat the protection which exists in ripper, which ensures that that | :50:24. | :50:28. | |
request can only be made in respect of where a person being intercepted | :50:29. | :50:32. | |
will be outside of the United Kingdom. | :50:33. | :50:35. | |
That seems to us to be another loophole which ought to be dealt | :50:36. | :50:40. | |
with. And while the Government had indicated that this could be dealt | :50:41. | :50:45. | |
with in secondary legislation, we, as a committee, do not consider that | :50:46. | :50:51. | |
is satisfactory, it is too important to be left to secondary legislation. | :50:52. | :50:55. | |
It should appear on the face of the bill. If the amendment we have | :50:56. | :50:59. | |
tabled is accepted then it seems that the matter can be resolved | :51:00. | :51:04. | |
without more ado. Finally, Mr Speaker, can I touch on the matter | :51:05. | :51:08. | |
that was raised by the honourable and learned lady, the member for | :51:09. | :51:12. | |
Edinburgh south-west and others about economic well being. When the | :51:13. | :51:18. | |
committee first came to consider the issue of economic well being as a | :51:19. | :51:24. | |
sub set of national security, and the initial evidence taking sessions | :51:25. | :51:28. | |
that we had, we came to the conclusion it authd to be possible | :51:29. | :51:36. | |
to remove that as a criteria all together. That is why we made the | :51:37. | :51:40. | |
recommendation that economic well being, so far as it relates to | :51:41. | :51:47. | |
national security be removed from the bill for interception. We took | :51:48. | :51:51. | |
the view it would be contained in the sub set of national security. | :51:52. | :51:56. | |
Since we published the report the Government then provided us, through | :51:57. | :52:01. | |
the agencies, with additional evidence redwarding its reason -- | :52:02. | :52:05. | |
regarding its reasoning for including it as a separate ground | :52:06. | :52:08. | |
and provided us with a number of examples of where it was being used | :52:09. | :52:16. | |
or might be used, which illustrated areas where it was useful to have | :52:17. | :52:23. | |
it. I grif gave way. Useful to have it as a separate category. Whilst I | :52:24. | :52:28. | |
am conscious of the fact that The Right Honourable jeman will not be | :52:29. | :52:32. | |
able to go into detail about all the details which were given, for | :52:33. | :52:36. | |
obvious reasons, one thing which can be allowed under the blue brick of | :52:37. | :52:49. | |
this particular -- is public infrastructure. It is where the | :52:50. | :52:54. | |
public and the state needs to be protected. He is right about that. | :52:55. | :53:01. | |
An example and precisely where the example would be to create a severe | :53:02. | :53:04. | |
economic shock to the United Kingdom. Actually, at the end oh tve | :53:05. | :53:09. | |
day, the most persuasive -- actually at the end of the day, the most | :53:10. | :53:14. | |
persuasive argument was adding it separately it added transparency for | :53:15. | :53:19. | |
the purpose of which an investigatory power was being | :53:20. | :53:24. | |
sought. We came to the conclusion it would assist the judicial ministers | :53:25. | :53:28. | |
in the proportionality of the warrant. It highlighted that it fell | :53:29. | :53:33. | |
within a category in which economic well being was present and therefore | :53:34. | :53:37. | |
in practise likely to be subject to very detailed scrutiny. | :53:38. | :53:40. | |
So, for all of those reasons, that is why we did not bring forward a | :53:41. | :53:44. | |
further amendment on that point. Thank you Mr Speaker. Given the | :53:45. | :53:55. | |
lateness of the hour and the number of honourable and Right Honourable | :53:56. | :54:01. | |
members wishing to catch your eye, I hopefully will confine my remarks | :54:02. | :54:05. | |
principally to the amendments which stand in my name. I would like to | :54:06. | :54:09. | |
pick up one or two points from the debate. With regard to the | :54:10. | :54:13. | |
intervention that I made on the Shadow Home Secretary, concerning | :54:14. | :54:18. | |
the extension of the pitch ford inquiry to Scotland, the House may | :54:19. | :54:24. | |
wish to consider the reported case in the Sunday Herald recently of the | :54:25. | :54:33. | |
position of Dr McCerrel, at Glasgow Caledonian University he, himself | :54:34. | :54:38. | |
has discovered recentdly that he is amongst those -- recently that he is | :54:39. | :54:43. | |
among those who has been banned from work in the construction industry. | :54:44. | :54:46. | |
Something of a shock, because I don't think he will mind me saying | :54:47. | :54:52. | |
so, is perhaps more accustomed to labouring in law libraries than on | :54:53. | :54:56. | |
building societies. -- building sites. I know about him. He is a | :54:57. | :55:03. | |
distant cousin of mine and he comes from the more left wing branch of | :55:04. | :55:07. | |
the family, if I may say so. He's been involved over a number of years | :55:08. | :55:16. | |
in a variety of different protests. Particularly perhaps most | :55:17. | :55:20. | |
pertinently surrounding the extension of the M74 motorway around | :55:21. | :55:25. | |
Glasgow in the 1990s. The reason I bring his case to the House's | :55:26. | :55:33. | |
attention is that the inclusion on the list of those blacklisted from | :55:34. | :55:36. | |
working in the construction industry could only have been made as a | :55:37. | :55:43. | |
result of information provided to those compiling blacklists by | :55:44. | :55:46. | |
undercover police officers. That is why it is necessary. It is | :55:47. | :55:55. | |
why it is important that the work of the Pitchford Inquiry should extend | :55:56. | :55:59. | |
to part oss the United Kingdom beyond -- parts of the United | :56:00. | :56:02. | |
Kingdom beyond England and the Home Secretary should make it clear, at | :56:03. | :56:07. | |
the earliest opportunity, that that is her intention, otherwise the work | :56:08. | :56:11. | |
of the Pitchford inquiry will never get to the bottom of the range of | :56:12. | :56:19. | |
enterprises undertaken by undercover police officers. | :56:20. | :56:22. |