06/06/2016 House of Commons


06/06/2016

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/06/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

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.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS