04/11/2015 House of Commons

Let me be clear, the draft Bill we are publishing today is not a return

to the communications bill of 2 12, it will not introduce powers to

allow them to detain Interndt traffic from third parties overseas,

it will not... And it will not ban encryption or do anything to

undermine the security of anyone's data. Today we are setting out a

modern framework to set out powers in a clear way. A new bill that

safeguards anywhere in the safeguards anywhere in the

democratic world, and an approach that sets safeguards for

transparency. It will underpin the work of law-enforcement and the

Security intelligence agenches for years. It is there a licencd to

operate. With the democratic approval of parliament, to protect

national security and public safety. This bill responds to three

independent review is to publish early this year. Three revidws made

clear that the use of investigatory Powers is vital to protecting the

public. They endorsed the powers available to the police and

law-enforcement agencies is proportionate, and they agrded that

the legal framework governing these powers needed updating. While

considering those reviews, we have engaged with experts, acadelics

civil liberties groups and service providers in the UK and overseas,

and also charities overseeing people that the powers are used to

investigate. Copies of the bill will be available in the vote office and

the proposals will be subject to a further consultation and

pre-legislative scrutiny by the committee of Parliament. It will be

introduced in the spring, whll it will receive careful scrutiny. The

means legislation will ceasd to have means legislation will ceasd to have

effect from the 31st of September 2016, but our intention is to pass

the new law before that datd. It will govern all the powers `vailable

to one force wind, security and intelligence agencies and the Armed

Forces to acquire communications data. These include the ability to

retain communications data, to be used as evidence in court and to

advance investigations, the ability to intercept the contents of

communications to tackle terrorist plots and organised crimes. The use

of powers by the security and intelligence agencies in bulk, to

identify the most serious threats to the UK from overseas and to rapidly

establish links between suspects in the UK. It cannot be right that the

police could find an abductdd child of the suspects were using lobile

phones, but if they were ushng social media they would be out of

reach. Such an approach defhes all logic and ignores the reality of

today's digital age. This Bhll will also allow the police to iddntify

to, Internet connection records to, Internet connection records

Some have characterised this power is law-enforcement having access to

people's full web browsing. This is simply wrong. An intranet connection

records as a record of the service we have used, not of every page they

have accessed. The Internet connection record will only show

that they have accessed a shte, not the particular pages.

Law enforcement agencies wotld not be able to make a request for the

purpose of determining, for example, whether someone had visited a mental

health website, a medical wdbsite or even a news website. They would only

be able to make a request for the purpose of determining whether

someone had access to communications website, and illegal websitd or to

resolve an IP address where it is necessary and proportionate to do so

in the course of a specific investigation. Strict limits will

apply to when and how that data can be accessed over and above those

safeguards that apply to other forms of communications data and we will

ban local authorities from `ccessing such data. I have announced today

our intention to ensure that the powers available to law enforcement

and the agencies are clear for everyone to understand and the

transparency report that I'l publishing today will help, and

copies of that report will be available in the vote officd. But

there remain some powers th`t successive governments have

considered too sensitive to disclose, for fear of revealing

capabilities to those who wdan us harm. I'm clear that we must now

reconcile this with our ambhtion to deliver greater openness and

transparency. So the bill whll make explicit provision for all of the

powers available to acquire data in bulk. That will include not only

bulk interception provided tnder the regulation of investigatory Powers

act, which is vital to the work of GCHQ, but also the bulk

communications database rel`ting to the UK and overseas. It is not a new

power but will replace the power under section 94 of the

telecommunications act 1984, under which successive governments have

approved the security and intelligence agencies' access to

such communications data from communication service providers

This has allowed them to thought a number of attacks here in the UK. In

2010, when a group of terrorists were plotting attacks in thd UK

including on the London stock exchange, the use of bulk

communications data played ` key role in MI5's investigation. It

allowed investigators to undercover the terrorist network and understand

their plans. This led to thd destruction of their activities and

successful convictions against all of the group's members. I'vd also

published the agencies' handling arrangements are related to this

power which set out the existing robust safeguards and indepdndent

oversight. These make clear that the data does not include the content of

communications or internet collection records. The bill will

put this power on a more explicit footing and it will be subjdct to

the same robust safeguards that apply to other bulk powers. The

House will know that the powers I have described today are currently

overseen by the interception of Communications Commissioner, the

intelligence services Commissioner and the Chief surveillance

Commissioner, all of whom are serving or former senior judges

This regime worked in the p`st but I'm clear we need to have a

significantly strengthened regime to govern how these powers are

authorised and overseen, so we will replace the existing oversight with

a powerful and independent investigatory Powers Commissioner.

This will be a senior judge, supported by a team of expert

inspectors with the authority and resources to effectively hold the

intelligence agencies and l`w enforcement to account. These will

be world leading oversight arrangements. Finally, I want to

turn to authorisation. Authorising warrants is one of the most

important means by which I `nd other secretaries of State hold the

security and intelligence agencies to account for their actions. In

turn, we are accountable to this House and, through its elected

representatives, to the public. As the House knows, the first duty of

government is the detection of the public and it is a responsibility

this government takes extrelely seriously. -- protection of the

public. All three reviews I have referenced which different

conclusions on the question of who should authorise interception

warrants. The intelligence `nd security committee authorisdd

Woodman supported authorisation by the Secretary of State, Davhd

Anderson said judges had Harriet authorisation and another rdport

said there should be a judicial element but also recognise the

important role of the Secretary of State. I considered the verx good

arguments put forward by thd reviews and I hope the House will agree that

my response provides the delocratic accountability and judicial

accountability. So, as now, the Secretary of State will need to be

satisfied that an activity hs necessary and proportionate before a

warrant can be issued but in future, the warrant will not come

into force until it has been formally approved by a judgd. This

will place a double lock on the authorisation of our most intrusive

investigatory powers. Democratic accountability through the Secretary

of State to ensure our intelligence agencies operate in the intdrests of

the citizens of this countrx and the public reassurance of indepdndent

judicial authorisation. This will be one of the strongest authorhsation

regimes anywhere in the world. And for parliamentarians, we will go

even further. This bill will, for the first time, put into law the

Prime Minister's commitment that in any case where it is proposdd to

intercept the communications of a parliamentarian, including lembers

of this House, members of the House of Lords, UK MEPs and members of the

devolved legislators, the Prime Minister would also be constlted.

The legislation we are proposing today is unprecedented. It will

provide unparalleled openness and transparency about our investigatory

powers. It will provide the strongest safeguards and word

leading oversight arrangements and it will give the men and wolen of

our security intelligence agencies and our law enforcement agencies,

who do so much to keep us s`fe and secure, the powers they need to

protect our country, and I commend this statement to the House. Mr Andy

Burnham. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I welcome the Home Secrdtary's

comprehensive and detailed statement, and the advance notice

she has provided? Huge changes in technology have clearly left our law

is outdated and made the job of the police and the security services

harder. In a world where thd threats we face, internationally and

domestic league, are growing, Parliament cannot sit on its hands

and leave blind spots where the authorities can't see. This debate

will be seen through the prhsm of extremism and terrorism but as the

Home Secretary said, it is `bout much more. It is about shout sex

works but Asian, serious online fraud and other important

functions. -- about child sdxual exploitation. We support thd

government in its attempt to update the law in its important and

sensitive area and we share the government's goal of creating a

world-class framework. But our position on these benches is clear.

Strong powers must be balanced by strong safeguards for the ptblic, to

protect privacy and long-held liberties. From what the Hole

Secretary has said today, Mr Speaker, it seems clear to le that

both she and the government have been listening carefully to the

concerns that were expressed about the original legislation th`t was

presented in the last Parli`ment. She has brought forward much

stronger safeguards, partictlarly in the crucial area of judicial

authorisation. And, Mr Speaker, I think it would help the futtre

conduct of this important ptblic debate if this has sent out a

unified message today that this is neither a smoothers' charter nor a

plan for mass surveillance. -- a snoopers' charter. I would buy Deco

the Home Secretary's thanks to the intelligence and Security committee

and committed to David Anderson QC who has done the House a huge

service in setting out the basis for eight consensus on these important

matters. Can the Home Secretary tell us if David Anderson has expressed a

view on her draft bill, whether he supports the measures contahned

within it and if he is satisfied with the checks and balances on

powers and safeguards? The House will want reassurance that this bill

carries forward some of the safeguards of previous legislation,

particularly the ripple leghslation, particularly in relation to the

threshold of the use of the most intrusive powers. So can shd assure

the House that the far-reaching powers of content intercepthon will

only be used for the most sdrious of crimes, as it was in the orhginal

legislation? We welcome what the Home Secretary has said abott

internet connection records and local authorities but the House will

have been listening carefully to what she had to say about d`ta

retention and bulk storage. On the issue of data retention by the

authorities, can she say more about what kind of data will be stored,

for how long and whether thd information will be held in anon I

is for? This is important bdcause public concern in this area will

have risen following the attack on data held by talk talk and H think

she said at the beginning of her statement, 90% of commercial

organisations have experienced a data breach, so people will have

listened to that. What lessons has she jaunt from that attack `nd does

she believe there is a need for the enhancement of security of bulk

storage arrangements by both the public and private bodies? On

encryption, the Prime Minister spoke some months ago about the

possibility of introducing ` ban. Clearly that is not the polhcy that

the Home Secretary has just outlined. Can she explained the

reason for the change in approach? Alongside the proposals on

encryption, it is clear that the bill would place a range of new

legal duties on communication providers but can she tell the House

whether all major providers support proposals, including those based

overseas? I listened carefully to what she had to say on this point

and she implied that the me`sures in this bill would not apply to

organisations based overseas and that would seem to suggest that

there is quite a large hole here that this legislation won't cover,

so can she say more about that and reassure us on whether they will

have a voluntary arrangements in that area? Can she also say whether

these measures will apply to individuals, Mr Speaker, because we

are seeing rapid change in the developed of online applications and

we need to know whether indhviduals might be liable in this are`, too.

The whole house will welcomd what she had to say about the Wilson

doctrine but she didn't mention journalistic sources and can she say

whether the legislation will provide protection there? I will return to

the crucial area of authorisation. This was the key demand of ly

predecessor and one that I have reiterated. We are pleased to see

that the Home Secretary has listened. The 2-stage process she

advocates seems to have the merit of both arguments, both of public and

political accountability and of to build trust in the system. But there

may be a worry that it might build in time delays. Can the Secretary of

State say more about how thhs process would work in practhce and

how those delays could be avoided? Will judge as a sign of warrants in

all cases and can she say if the Secretary of State and the judge

come to different conclusions, who will have the final say? Finally, Mr

Speaker, as well as looking at the specific proposals in this bill it

is important to look at the wider context in which they are

introduced. She will know that there will be fierce in some commtnities,

particularly the Muslim comlunity, that these powers will be used

against them disproportionately and we have also seen in the past how

police powers have been wrongly used against trade Unionist. Davhd

Anderson rightly lay great dmphasis on the need to build trust `nd a new

framework. It does not help create the right context when the Prime

Minister suggests the entird Muslim community quietly condones

extremism, nor does it build confidence in this new bill when, at

the same time, the government is seeking to legislate in the trade

union bill to impose new requirements on trade unionhsts on

the use of social media and monitoring of it by police. As the

right honourable member for halt price and Howden has said, this

isn't Franco's Britain. Can Home Secretary see that continuing to

build on the trust she has lade today, the government needs to drop

some or of its divisive measures, starting with the measures hn the

trades union bill? The issuds this proposed legislation seeks to tackle

go way beyond party politics. Any government will face a diffhcult

task of balancing the securhty of the nation with privacy and Liddy is

of individual citizens and does somebody who was in the Homd Office

on 9/11, I know that talent has got harder in recent years. We will

examine the detail of the draft bill and safeguards to build trust but

having listened carefully to what the Home Secretary had to s`y today,

I believe she has responded to legitimate concerns and bro`dly got

that difficult balance right. First of all, may I thank the right

honourable gentleman for thd tone that he adopted in most of his

response to my statement, and the clear, that he made, both of the

willingness to understand and accept the importance of this legislation

and that it is not mass surveillance. I think we sh`re that

message and it should go out very clearly from this House tod`y. These

are important powers that are necessary to keep us safe and secure

but they should have the right safeguards, as The right honourable

gentleman has said. He asked a lot of questions in his responsd so I

will attempt and as many of them as possible but if I do miss any of

them, I will respond him in writing. But before I come to the spdcific

questions, I just want to address the issue of the reference he made

to the Prime Minister at thd end of his speech, which I have to say to

him was not, I think, justified by the rest of the town that hd had

adopted in his speech. -- the tone. What we are doing our countdr

extremism strategy, which is a strategy that deals with extremism

of all sorts, Islamist extrdmism and neo-Nazi extremism, what we are

saying very clearly is that we want to work with people, mainstream

voices in communities, to hdlp to encourage those mainstream voices

and to work with people to dnsure that where they are in isol`ted

communities, will identify the barriers that cause that isolation

and that's why Louise Casey is doing the very impertinent work that she

is. So the characterisation of the prime lister's, it is not one that I

recognise. Records will be required to be

retained for up to 12 months. It is not about what pages people have

been looking at, just access to a particular website or communication

device. He asked about cyber attacks, and the message is very

simple, that is criminals are moving into more online crime, we need to

agencies have the power to be able agencies have the power to be able

to deal with it and work in that to deal with it and work in that

space, which is what today hs all about. On encryption, the

requirement currently in secondary legislation, that those companies

who are issued with a warrant should take reasonable steps to be able to

respond to that in unencrypted form, is being brought into the face

of legislation, but we're not banning encryption. Would rdcognise

it plays an important part hn keeping the details secure. He asked

about providers, and I think there about providers, and I think there

may be a slight misunderstanding about overseas. There are some

elements that we are not repuiring them to do, but it is still our view

that a warrant is issued here should be able to be exercised agahnst an

overseas provider. It is thd case that the work that a previots member

did suggested that there was some scope for greater form of agreement

in this area, which is a matter of the government will continud to look

at. On journalistic sources, we will look into this legislation `sh boot

into the legislation what wd put into the code earlier this xear

which is for access for the journalist source, it will require

authorisation, and the point of the double lock is that both parties

have to authorise the warrant to authorise the warrant the go-ahead.

There will be all urgency. Ht will be an urgent process, so it will be

possible for the Secretary of State to sign a warrant for it to come

immediately into effect and then there will be a period of thme

within which the judge will have to review it and decide whether Richard

continue or not. We will look to ensure that the time delay hs as

little as possible between those parts of the process. But the

purpose of a double lock is that there is double authorisation. -

decide whether it should continue or not. I found myself in the judicial

authorisation aspect of it. Will this replace all 66 statutory

approval mechanisms for intdrcept and use of communication data? Will

the judiciary who are involved in the procedures be appointed by the

commission or by the Prime Minister? And will members of

Parliament get the same protections she referred to on communic`tions

data that are now being extdnded to journalists, because my

understanding is that is not the case. Regarding the warrant subject

to the double lock, it is the warrant tree which is currently it

will in future have the double lock on it. We will be in discussion with

the investigatory Powers Commissioner, after appointhng them,

and then we will decide who should be under that commissioner, and the

area of expertise they should have. I have said to the Justice Secretary

in Scotland and the Minister in Northern Ireland that we wotld

expect to ensure that Scotthsh legal expertise and Northern Irel`nd

expertise are available to that Commissioner. Halas Bill on this

important subject hit the btffers, but this Bill is a much improved

model. Batch her last Bill. I do feel that it still retains some of

the flaws of its predecessor. The the flaws of its predecessor. The

Home Office has put in a lot of work, which I welcome, as I do the

dropping of some of the key provisions on third-party d`ta and

encryption. But I am still ` bit confused of the advanced brhefings

on the bill, some of which suggest it is a rather cold departure from

its predecessor, and others that much of it is still the samd. It

the detail. The Home Secret`ry set the detail. The Home Secret`ry set

out a somewhat complex double lock out a somewhat complex double lock

compromise which may incur some compromise which may incur some

faster to provide Ford direct faster to provide Ford direct

judicial authorisation? Why has she not decided to do that? On

browsing, I strongly welcomd what browsing, I strongly welcomd what

looks like a more proportionate method. Finally cannot she tell the

House will -- and she tell the House white there will not be a proper US

style civil liberties board to provide scrutiny on these txpe of

ills in the future? The right honourable gentleman, he sahd there

was some confused briefing, but I would say there were some dhfferent

reports in newspapers, which is not reports in newspapers, which is not

necessarily the result of briefing, and it is the case that what is the

situation in relation to thd Bill is what I have set out today. @nd that

is what... The honourable l`dy says that I went on TV, yes, and I am

relation to the difference of this relation to the difference of this

bill from the draft Communications data Bill, that some of the more

contentious elements are not in this Bill, so for example the repuirement

for UK communication servicd providers to retain and accdss

third-party data from other overseas providers, and web browsing issues

are not in this. Neither ard the particular requirements that we were

going to .2, the US and overseas communication service providers in

terms of the detention of d`ta on the same obligations as UK

judicial independence but also judicial independence but also

public accountability. That is what you get through membership of this

House. He speaks about retrospective data, I would give him the case of

the abducted child. You want to see who that person was in cont`ct with,

can do it on telephone records, but can do it on telephone records, but

not if they were using soci`l media app. I welcome her statement and the

will work and Security Commhttee will work and Security

will work Corporation to provide will work Corporation to provide

scrutiny for this. In March there were 54 specific recommendations. I

appreciate that in part the draft appreciate that in part the draft

those recommendations, but there is those recommendations, but there is

a duty on the government to provide a specific response to the HSC

honourable friend that in the course honourable friend that in the course

of the next few weeks while this debate is taking place, the

government should provide stch a response. It could be an short

form, but it will enable thd House and the public to identify those

the course of the debate and to the course of the debate and to

identify what has been taken on board and what may have even

properly rejected by the government. I would seek an assurance that that

will happen. I thank him for his question. The Intelligence `nd

Security Committee's report went wider than the issues we ard dealing

with today in terms of investigatory Powers. But I can assure hil that in

relation to those aspect whhch dealt relation to those aspect whhch dealt

with the powers, in a sense the government's new bill is a response

to the report, but he knows we have been looking carefully at the full

set of recommendations from the previous ISC, and will respond to

his committee in due course and in a timely fashion. I would likd to

thank her for her statement today, and for the care that has bden taken

to address many concerns rahsed I would also like to thank her for the

conversations I have had with her and her ministers regarding the

publication of the draft Bill. I would like to thank her for

confirming that a member of the confirming that a member of the

Scottish National Party will serve on the joint committee scrutinising

the Bill. I am grateful for those comments and I would grateftl if she

would confirm that she will continue to have an open door policy

regarding this. While we have political differences, therd will be

some political differences over the content of the draft Bill, `nd as

the honourable member said, the devil is in the detail. But we can

all agree that we have a responsibility to protect the right

of our citizens while being realistic about the threats we face.

We live in dangerous times with threats of conflict and an

accelerating pace of technological change which is unfortunately often

first embraced by those who intend harmful stop we should put on record

our appreciation to those who are charged with keeping us safd, the

police and intelligence services, but we should also thank calpaigning

groups such as liberty and `mnesty who remind us why it is important to

protect Civil Liberties. Thdy are protected at the cost of thd lives

of great many people who we will remember this Remembrance Stnday.

David Anderson said in his report that the law in this area w`s

needing an overhaul and we needed a comprehensive local thing whth the

changes of technology, but `lso takes into account human rights and

Civil Liberties. Only time `nd careful scrutiny will show hf this

happens, but I would like hdr to see that key aims will be met bx the

Bill. Other countries are looking to Bill. Other countries are looking to

what we do here, and it is hmportant what we do here, and it is hmportant

we get it right. We believe that access to private communications

must always be necessary, t`rgeted must always be necessary, t`rgeted

and proportionate, and I wotld be grateful if she would confirm she

agrees with us in that respdct. Safeguards are crucial,... Hn common

the House, we hold the view that the House, we hold the view that

judicial oversight and organisation of access may in large part be the

answer the concerns. And we are concerned that if it is the Home

Secretary's intention to proceed with the hybrid system

both political and judicial both political and judicial

might add an unnecessary laxer of might add an unnecessary laxer

democracy and could lead to errors democracy and could lead to errors

and delays in urgent situathons and I wondered if she can give ts any

that she is indicating the that she is indicating the

protection that will be put on a statutory footing, which will be put

confirmed the scope of that confirmed the scope of that

protection will also protect those protection will also protect those

such as they are constituents and such as they are constituents and

whistle-blowers, and there will be judicial oversight. Finally, this

Bill concerns not only the hssues of national security, but issuds of the

investigation of serious crhme, and it will accordingly impinge on areas

Can she confirmed she is aw`re of Can she confirmed she is aw`re of

that and that legislative consent motion will be required? I thank her

for quite a number of questhons In for quite a number of questhons In

relation to the point she m`de earlier, about the open door, I have

this legislation, my offici`ls have this legislation, my offici`ls have

been in touch with Scottish Government officials, and whll

continue to be. I am aware this impinge is an aspect devolvdd to the

Scottish Government, and in relation to the signature of one -- warrants.

We will work with the Scotthsh Government to ensure that any

legislation necessary, if one is necessary, and that is being worked

through by officials. Particularly in the ass but she

relates to in terms of the `ss but she relates to in terms of `

specific issue that has been raised by the Scottish Government. We have

every confidence that the processes we are putting in place will not add

greater bureaucracy but will provide greater bureaucracy but will provide

process by which the Secret`ry of process by which the Secret`ry of

State can authorise a warrant to go into place immediately with a speedy

review by the judge to ensure that there is still that authorisation.

She asked if the aims of David Anderson, particularly in rdlation

to a comprehensibility legislation, had been met. I have to say that I

do think, I genuinely believe, this is a clearer and more comprdhensive

piece of legislation, althotgh at this length some members of the

House might wonder when one can say that but it will be. I think it is

an important piece of legislation which will set out much mord clearly

the different powers that are available to the authorities. She

raised the issue of this city and proportionality of the stop of

course, warrants will still need to be judged on whether they are

necessary and proportionate. That will be the criteria that whll

continue to apply. In relathon to the issue of liberty versus

Security, some people think this is a 0-sum game and that if yot

increase one reduce the othdr. I'm very clear that you can't enjoy your

liberty until you have your security. The Home Secretarx quite

rightly paid tribute to the success of stopping numerous attacks on the

public. That is not just down to the profession and skill of those in the

security services but to thd rapid decision-making process we currently

have involving warrants. Shd and I know acutely that this is a very

serious responsibility but H believe strongly these decisions should be

made by an elected member of the Scouse, accountable to this House.

-- of this House. I'm concerned that involving another decision laker

from the judiciary, who may not have particular skills in this area, will

bring delay and will bring complication. Many times I was

approached at very short notice are difficult times of the day, early in

the morning, and made a dechsion, fully aware that I would be hell to

scrutiny later post can she explain how this system will work? ,- held

to scrutiny. Can she explain how many hours later the decision will

be held to scrutiny by the judge? Will there be the ability to discuss

the areas of concern and will be intelligence services who prepare

the material, which I always found but Tilly is an correct,

professionally drafted, havd opportunity, if the Secretary of

State has understood the grounds for the judge throwing out a warrant, an

opportunity to come back with further applications with ftrther

detail? Thank you and I thank my right honourable friend to, as he

says, in former role of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, did see

the process of approval warrants. I'm very conscious of the issue of

warrants and that they are `ble to be put in place in a reason`ble time

frame. There are already, bdtween the Home Office and the sectrity

of time in which will take the of time in which will take the

Secretary of State to deal with the warrant and the to process the

warrant and we would expect to put similar agreements in place with the

judicial commissioners, so ht's very clear the time within which any

warrant needs to be considered. The judicial commissioners will apply

the same principle as will be applied by a court on an application

for judicial review when thdy are considering the warrants under the

powers that they will be given, but there will be a process by which it

will be possible, in an emergency situation, for a Secretary of State

authorise a warrant that will then come into place immediately. In

normal circumstances, the double lock will be required for the

warrant to be exercised but in an emergency, it will be possible for

it to be exercised purely on the Secretary of State's authorhsation.

The judicial commissioners should then review that decision whthin

five days and they will makd a decision as to whether the warrant

can continue, whether it should be stopped and if it is stopped whether

the material should be kept in certain circumstances or whdther the

material that has been gaindd should be destroyed. Today the Homd

Secretary has ripped up a phece of legislation that has been unfit for

purpose. I particularly welcome the ban on local authorities accessing

information about their own citizens. Although I welcomd the

additional judicial scrutinx, my concerns are these. Who will train

the judges to deal with this very complex area? Because you whll need

a panel of judges and a loss of expertise. Will she continud working

with the internet providers to ensure that we track people of

interest? And I know the Hole Secretary said that the information

is equivalent to an itemised bill but there is a lot of inforlation in

an itemised bill. If I was to look at her itemised telephone bhll and

she was to look at mine, we might be surprised at who we were

telephoning. LAUGHTER

I think my honourable friend has made the right response to that

particular answer in their sedentary suggestion of, "speak for yourself"

. There is an issue in relation to the judicial panel. There whll need

to be a number of judges who are brought together for this. Ht is not

the first time that changes have been made in matters relating to

national security, where thd judges are dealing in different

circumstances from which thdy have done previously, but judges are used

to making independent decishons on judicial review basis and the basis

of the law as they know it. A Secretary of State who, likd myself,

has been in position for sole time has seen a history of national

security operations, for ex`mple, that gives a level of experhence

that will not be there the first time a judge looks at this `nd

ensuring they are aware of that national security background will be

part of the process but I h`ve more faith in the judiciary and their

ability to work independently in this than perhaps the right

honourable gentleman does. Can I agree with the Home Secretary on the

importance of putting faith in the ability of the judiciary? Whll she

tell us what consultation she is going to have with the Lord Chief

Justice about the selection of members of the panel that whll be

appropriate security vetted? Can she ensure, for example, that an

appropriate senior judge is available to be on call on ` 24 hour

basis, as is perfectly common in other types of judicial revhew

proceedings, so the delay is minimised? Will she also give us

more detail as to how the appointment of judicial

commissioners is to take pl`ce and who will be responsible for that?

And will she undertake that the ambition to introduce the bhll by

the spring will in no way truncate the pre-legislative scrutinx by the

committee? On the last point, we will be talking to the joint

scrutiny committee chairman as to the appropriate timetable btt we do

intend this to be, although we've got the deadline of December 20 6,

we want to make sure this is a proper process by the joint

committee and the timetable will reflect that. On a number of issues

that he raised in relation to the judicial commissioners and the

independent investigatory Powers Commissioner, we have, as mx

honourable friend might havd imagined, already been having

discussions with the judici`ry in relation to this matter. We would

not be putting this into a piece of legislation unless we had spoken to

the judiciary about the reqtirements that will be there but therd will be

ongoing discussions about the precise elements that he and a

number of others have raised in relation to the choice and the

numbers of judicial commisshoners who will be required. Both the

police and the agencies will agree with what the Home Secretarx and the

Shadow Home Secretary have said about the need for both powdrs to

deal with serious threats and the safeguards that are needed hn a team

Chrissy. So can I welcome agreement to judicial authorisation and her

significant statement about transparency, both of which reflect

the David Anderson report? But can I particularly ask about the

investigatory powers Commissioner. It sounds like something we have

called for but will it be accountable to the Executivd and to

the Prime Minister, which h`s limited the operation of sole of the

existing commissioners, or will it instead be accountable to P`rliament

or to the ISC and how will ht interact with the existing

counterterror review becausd I do think they've done this and has done

an extremely good job in th`t role. On the last point that she raised,

there is no intention to ch`nge the role of the independent revhewer of

terrorism legislation. We h`ve made some legislation changes to that but

there is no intention to ch`nge that role. We are discussing with David

Anderson, ensuring that he has extra support for the role that hd is

required to do. The appointlent - and I apologise to my honourable

friend and others who had r`ised this question - of the investigatory

powers commission will be a prime ministerial appointment and the

Prime Minister will appoint such members of other judicial

commissioners as are considdred necessary and the bill will set out

relevant qualifications that the judicial commissioners need to have

in order to be able to undertake their role. And, of course, as the

right honourable lady will know the existing commissioners do, hn fact,

report annually on the work that they undertake. It is a gre`t pity,

I think, that that part of our process of oversight has never

really been seen by the public, precisely because their reports

normally show that the agencies are doing a very good job, and their

four doesn't hit the headlines in the way that another sort of report

would. We would expect that the independent investigatory powers

commission would be insuring that they are making recommendathons

potentially, but also making public their views on the processes that

they see. More than three dozen members are still seeking to catch

my eye and if I'm to have any realistic chance of accommodating

them without intruding necessarily on other business, brevity hs now

required. Constituent of mine in Cheltenham who work at GCHQ are some

of the most talented and dedicated public servants anywhere in this

country but they are also conscientious and scrupulous about

acting within the law. Does the Secretary of State agree with me

that these measures contain a clear authorisation oversight fralework,

including a welcome judicial element, which can command public

confidence and crucially allow them to do their vital work with

professionalism and bright? My honourable friend does well in

speaking for his constituency work at GCHQ and, indeed, for all of

those who work at GCHQ, and I've met and dealt with a number of them and,

indeed, with our other security agencies, Sisi and MI5. I c`n say,

absolutely, as he says, thex work with extreme professionalisl in the

work that they do and they take extreme care about the powers that

they exercise. They are verx conscious of the powers that they

hold and they are very careful in the exercise of those powers and I

think, as my honourable fridnd says, this bill does provide that

important, strong oversight arrangement that will enabld the

people at GCHQ and our other agencies to get on with the job that

they do so well day in and day out. Whatever is necessary in colbating

terrorism and other forms of criminality, can I tell the Home

Secretary that I remain concerned, even if I are one of the few who do

remain concerned, about the excessive powers which will be given

to the security authorities in addition to what they already have,

though judicial involvement is better than no judicial involvement.

I consider, and I hope the Home Secretary will bear in mind, there

is a good deal of concern ottside this House and I certainly consider

that if this measure were to be passed along the same lines, without

substantial amendments, it would be very unfortunate and a bittdr blow

for Civil Liberties. I have to say to the honourable gentleman that he

said that he thought there were substantial new powers in this bill.

There are not substantial ndw powers in this bill. What this bill does

primarily is bring together the powers that are spread across a

number of pieces of legislation primarily Ripa but others as well,

into one single piece of legislation in a much clearer, more, sensible

form that has previously bedn the case. There is a new power, which is

the issue of the intranet connection records and the limited accdss to

those intimate connection rdcords, but the other powers which `re in

this bill are powers which `lready exist. What we have in this bill is

strengthened safeguards and a strengthened organisation sxstem.

Can I welcome the Home Secrdtary's careful and both will appro`ch to

this sensitive area, which hs so important for all our safetx in this

country, and in particular the new provisions judicial oversight. If my

right honourable friend anthcipates that additional specialist training

will be required by members of the judiciary in order to fulfil the

wide and dream it she has ottlined today, will it be possible to ensure

that there is no delay in pttting that training in place? -- the

widened ream it. I thank my right honourable friend and she is

absolutely right, and we will be taking every step to ensure that as

soon as the legislation is hn place it is possible to put the ndw

processes and structures into operation and that will, of course,

mean ensuring that those who will be appointed to the investigatory

powers commission and the jtdicial commissioners will have the

necessary training to ensurd that they can undertake the role we will

be giving them. The Secretary of State will be aware that whdn she

sought support from this bench in the past for national securhty

issues, it has always been willingly given. However, sometimes wd find it

hard to take when the government does not tackle serious and

organised crime on the ground in Northern Ireland, and the front

bench could take measures immediately by way of statutory

instruments to address serious and organised fuel crime and thdy should

do that urgently. Turning vdry directly to the issue of thd bill,

does the Secretary of State recognise that some of the lajor

godfathers of that serious `nd organised crime will be in direct

communication with some polhtical representatives in Northern

Ireland? And there four to `void the department that we had over the

National Crime Agency legislation she should avoid a legislathve

consent motion for Northern Ireland. I would point out to him th`t we

work very hard to ensure thd National Crime Agency was able to

work in Northern Ireland, which it is now doing. Therefore I al

tackling serious organised crime. As to the issue for legislativd consent

motion in Northern Ireland, I am not aware that such a motion with the

necessary, but will be speaking with the Northern Ireland Executhve about

these matters as indicated darlier. these matters as indicated darlier.

I thank my right honourable friend for coming to the House tod`y and

giving a comprehensive approach to these issues. She's right to do so

because it will affect fund`mentally the civil liberties and rights for

those in the country. She whll need to look precisely other words in the

Bill, because there has been a certain amount of spin in the papers

recently, and we need to look at what is suggested. Regarding

warrantry, I am inclined to agree that the jewel key is the rhght way

to proceed. -- dual'. But does she agree that the judges should not be

those who work to closely whth the police, whose word will not trusted

if it is they who are given such a role? I thank him for the work he

did regarding warrantry, and it is the case that those who are

appointed as judicial commissioners will have to have held high office,

so we will be setting a thrdshold high for those appointed to this.

This is an important part of the This is an important part of the

bill, and those who are appointed must be seen as having the

independence necessary to ghve extra confidence in the process. On one

particular question, is she happy that the combination of the triple

lock is the best way to enstre that the extra safeguarding is provided?

Yes, I am, and I apologise because I think some others raised thhs in the

questions. It is important to introduce the third element of

consultation with the Prime Minister, so that everyone will be

clear in this House that anx request to intercept the communicathons of a

member of this House, the House of Lords or the other legislattres We

will be discussing with the Scottish Government the process in place in

relation to those warrants currently signed by Scottish ministers, but I

go, and I hope it will give people go, and I hope it will give people

confidence in the process. Can I congratulate her for her st`tement,

and also the right honourable gentleman for his remarks,

particularly around the misnomer of the snoopers charter. Often

decisions, such as the Septdmber decisions, such as the Septdmber

dossier in 2002, in which the intelligence services reput`tion has

yet to fully recover. What does she think has to be done to further

improve the public's understanding of the work they do on their

behalf, and of course I pay tribute behalf, and of course I pay tribute

to the remark she made in hdr statement today around a dotble lock

draws on the three reports from draws on the three reports

which she refers, which is ` good which she refers, which is ` good

more can be done and I would more can be done and I would

grateful if she could say what more we can do as the bill passes through

the House. He raises an important point of highlighting the mdmbers

the public the nature of thd work the public the nature of thd work

that the agencies do, and where and that the agencies do, and where and

number of steps which have `lready number of steps which have `lready

been taken but upon which wd will be building to make sure we have that

confidence. I would point to the way in which the agencies have ` more

willing to come forward and explain willing to come forward and explain

public. I am thinking about the public. I am thinking about the

director-general of MI5, dohng a radio interview, the first time this

has been done, and anyone rdading the Times and the last couple of

weeks will have seen some rdporting weeks will have seen some rdporting

in relation to the operations of GCHQ, and this is important because

it helps the public underst`nd what the agencies are doing. A l`rge

number of constituents have contacted me on this matter. Which

he accepted concerns about the proposals go well beyond wh`t are

Liberties lobby? It is important Liberties lobby? It is important

that members of the House m`ke clear to people exactly what the

government is proposing, and the government is proposing, and a

strengthened safeguards the government is putting in thhs Bill.

I would refer him to the review that David Anderson did, and he cited

polling of members of the ptblic which showed that members of the

public wanted them to have the powers that keep people safd. We

often hear about the right of criminals not to have their privacy

intruded upon. Will the Homd Secretary inform the House `bout the

perspective of victims of crime She makes an important point and I met

with representatives of grotps who support and campaign for victims of

crime, victims of child sex abuse, rape and stalking, who were very

clear that from their point of view they need to make sure that the

police and others have the `bility to use their powers to make sure

they can bring perpetrators of these terrible crimes to justice. A few

weeks ago the government's PC at public expense seemed to argue that

modern technology had rendered the Wilson doctrine impractical and it

was not up to much anyway. Know that it has been reborn in the statement,

can she tell us what has happened to modern technology over the last few

weeks, which now makes practical what was impractical, and how will

that extend to whistle-blowdrs who that extend to whistle-blowdrs who

may be contacting their MP or MSP? I am not sure I recognise the

description he has given, I was clearing the statement I made less

than two weeks ago, in relation to the doctrine, that it still exists.

I think there has been over time a mythology that has grown up around

what the Wilson doctrine actually met because I think members of the

House. But it meant no communications would ever bd

intercepted, which is not what the doctrine said. If the first duty of

the government is the protection of the realm, and the second dtty is

that those things are fit for purpose, then they have passed this

test with flying colours today. In passing she mentioned the bdnefits

her proposals will have in terms of clamping down on paedophiles and

father of three young children, I father of three young children, I

welcome that, as I'm sure do all the constituents. Can she flesh out a

little further what then if it's she sees to those involved in clamping

down on this, what this will deliver? I will give him ond example

in relation to the Internet connection records power we are

introducing. In a recent survey of over 6000 cases, CEOP said the Rover

860 people who could not be identified because they did not have

this power. With the power they would have been able to identify

it. About it, the paedophilds were not able to be identified. Over

30,000 individuals were identified in engaging in online child abuse,

but only 1000 were actually followed but only 1000 were actually followed

up, so I wondered, with the new powers in the draft bill, whll they

be matched with resources to ensure prosecutions and safeguarding

interventions can take placd as well? As I just indicated, the point

is that the increased power is in relation to Internet connection

records, giving a greater records, giving a greater

responsibility to CEOP and others to identify those who are paedophiles

omitting these crimes, and the omitting these crimes, and the

National Crime Agency has bden clear that they continue to look `t these

issues of people looking at online images and continue to take

advantage -- action against them. May I suggest new technologhes will

be up dated, such as Facebook messenger, which did not exhst

previously. What assurances will she give that we do not need to return

to this very soon? This leghslation will last for a good number of years

and will take account of thd fact that new technology develops.

However one of the concerns raised about the draft Communications data

Bill was that it was drawn so wide that there was great concern about

what the authorities might have been able to do, so we have had to

balance it very carefully. But we are very conscious of the nded to

ensure that the bill enables us to move forward as technology develops.

Can I welcome the statement today, but it appears that every

application will give limitdd revision for investigators

accessibility. Every time something is found within an investig`tive

process, do they have to go back to the Secretary of State and the judge

double lock makes allowances... The double lock makes allowances... The

access to communications data will continue to be undertaken in

same process currently, which does same process currently, which does

not involve warrantry from the Secretary of State. The Homd

particularly on the introduction on particularly on the introduction on

the judiciary oversight, whhch she the judiciary oversight, whhch she

will be aware that many of ts on all sides of the House regard as an

essential step forward in m`king sure she can promote at the same

Civil liberties of people, which as Civil liberties of people, which as

she says are not individual, they go together. In addition to thd double

lock, has she considered anx kind of reconciliation methods so that if

the judge and Home Secretarx come to different differences that there is

a way they can resolve it, a way they can resolve it,

the intelligence services come back the intelligence services come back

again so that warrants are not lost? He makes an important point. I did

not respond to a previous intervention on this, I apologise.

In the current system, if the Secretary of State denies a warrant

and says he or she does not think it should be put in place, it hs open

to the agency concerned to look again, and to come forward with

either more information or to abandon the warrant or look at a

different warrant they may wish to bring forward, and that process will

continue to be possible in the new system. David Anderson calldd for

prior judicial authorisation in his report, as she has acknowledged He

also said that the new law should comply with human rights st`ndard.

Will the Home Secretary confirmed that the bill will comply whth this

and the European Convention on Human Rights? As he will be aware it is

necessary for ministers to look at that issue with any legislation they

bring before the House, which has happened. I have every confhdence

that this will comply with human rights requirements. May I welcome

the Home Secretary's balancdd the Home Secretary's balancdd

approach she has set out today. Is it not important that we continue to

reassure the public that thhs is not a proposal for a mass survehllance,

and to restate the essential need for this, which is that there is a

new form of technology which new form of technology which

effectively the law-enforcelent and effectively the law-enforcelent and

intelligence agencies are shielded from, simply because the law has not

kept up with that technical -- technological development, so it is

necessary to update the law with essential safeguards.

I think you had hoped the n`il on the head. He has put it perfectly

dustup technologically has loved on, the law hasn't. We need to tpdate

the law so that our securitx agencies have the powers thdy need

to keep us safe. Can we havd an idea of any benchmarks which in form the

Home Secretary's declaration to us that these will be world le`ding

oversight arrangements? I c`n say to the honourable gentleman th`t I

know, as, indeed, I think the honourable member for Edinbtrgh

South West indicated, there are other countries that are looking to

this legislation precisely because they feel that we are forging a path

ahead in relation to this sort of legislation and they will bd looking

very closely at what we do `nd perhaps looking to adopt sole

elements of this in their own legislation. Could the Home

Secretary comment on Lord pollard, the former independent revidw of

terrorism, that judges are very good quality women and men but if judges

are going to authenticate these issues, they have to learn `bout

national is the? Could I also ask the Home Secretary that we've heard

about three reports that have influenced the government's thinking

on this traffic bill. Could the Home Secretary tell us who else the

government has consulted, especially communication companies and internet

providers, when drafting thhs legislation? My honourable friend

quotes Lord Carlisle, who w`s a previous independent review of

terrorism legislation and, of course, it will be necessarx for any

judicial commissioners who `re undertaking this warrant trdats to

be aware of the context in which they are taking those decishons

There has been a large numbdr of meetings with internet servhce

providers, both from the UK and overseas. I am the security minister

held round tables with US internet service providers. I met soleone I

was in the United States in September. We held a round table

with UK providers, with civhl liberties groups and with charities

representing victims of these are serious crimes. Can I welcole the

tone and nature of the statdment? Can I ask the Home Secretarx, what

is in particular there in rdlation to the fact that 12 months hs the

right amount of time that the police and security agencies will benefit

from the data? That is the period of time that is currently in the

legislation that we reinforced in the data retention in investigatory

powers act in 2014. We lookdd again at this period of time following the

digital right island came ott of the European Court of Justice and felt

that the balanced an appropriately it had been able to be held for up

to 24 month but we felt that it was a balance between not holding data

for too long but having it for a sufficient period of time to do the

job that the authorities nedd, and that up to 12 months with the right

and appropriate time frame. I welcome my right honourable

friend's statement and wantdd to ask about the issue of cyber bullying.

When we talk about nefarious online activity, this is a very worrying

area, particularly given th`t it relates to young, vulnerabld people

in many cases and in the most serious cases has led to suhcide.

Can I ask her to clarify, in those most serious cases, would these

powers be able to be used to but the perpetrators behind bars? Wdll, my

honourable friend is right to raise the incidence of cyber bullxing that

take place that affect the lives of too many young people and, `s he

said, sometimes with tragic consequences. They will be `

definition of serious crime. Serious crime is one of the areas in which

it is possible for the agencies to apply for interception warr`nt -

warrantry and I would expect that the most serious and that that would

come into that definition btt I will check that point and write to him,

if I may. Thank you, Mr Spe`ker The bill that has been presented, does

it deal with the issue about when somebody is actually applying to go

through the browsing, the dhrectory, as the Home Secretary refers to Can

we be assured that if there is no procedures at the moment in the

bill, could they think about having a system where, for example,

somebody at the rank of chidf superintendent is that inithal

permission to be able to go through the browsing history and thdn

secondly to look of the criteria for that initial browsing to be done? I

say to the honourable lady that law enforcement will not be abld to have

access to browsing history. They will just be able to have access to

the first device or social ledia site that the individual device

accessed for the limited purposes that I've set out, for IP

resolution, for whether somdbody is looking at an illegal website or

looking at communication services that they have accessed. Thd

arrangements for the authorhsation of that are the arrangements that

have existed for communicathons data in relation to telephony. These were

looked at by the joint scrutiny committee who said that thex were

the right process and that they were indeed a process which led to

serious and proper consider`tion of this access, albeit that it is not

the browsing history, and that that was the right measures that were

already being taken in that authorisation process. I don't wish

to embarrass any individual honourable member but can I just

gently point out that a member who was not here at the start of the

statement, or who has gone hn and out of the chamber during the course

of it, should not be standing and expecting to be called? We have a

very long established practhce that a member must be present at the

start of the statement and remain present at the start of the

exchanges and I think, on the whole, the House will think that that is a

very proper courtesy. I welcome this statement which will help m`ke the

country safer, prevent local authorities from accessing

communications data. The Hole Secretary rightly condemned the

extraordinaire claim by the shadow home secretary in an otherwhse

positive response that the Prime Minister had said that the dntire

Muslim population condoned extremism. Would she confirled to

the House today that in his speech on the 7th of October, he

specifically recognised the value of religious teaching across all

religions but that the teaching of intolerance or separatism w`s not

acceptable? Would she also `gree with me that many of us no good

examples of examining teachhng in our insurgency is and that the

message is very clear. -- Islamic teaching. We should unite against

extremism using all modern tools appropriately and if you have

nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear? He is absolutely right that

the Prime Minister, in the speech in which he referred to, did wdlcome

and recognise the important role that faith teaching plays in our

side take on what we all wish to see an end to is intolerance, sdparatism

and division and those who would seek to divide our communithes, and

that is what our counter extremism bill is so important for. As the

home affairs spokesman for our party, can I commend the Secretary

of State for the reassurancds you have given in your statement this

afternoon and your statements over the course of the weekend about

crucially what is in this bhll but, that's more importantly still, what

is not contained within this bill. We are grateful for those

indications. There was an exchange earlier, Mr Speaker, about the

composition of the joint legislative scrutiny committee. Can I encourage

the Home Secretary to consider making sure that it is composed to

reflect this House but, mord importantly, the regions of this

United Kingdom, and that Northern Ireland's voice can be presdnt in

most discussions to make sure that the legislation we are proposing

today is in full cognizance of the effects and impacts in Northern

Ireland? As the honourable gentleman may recognise, the decisions about

the composition of committeds is a matter which is taken up by the

business managers in the Hotse. But I can assure him that it is my

intention, as I indicated to David Ford one I spoke to him yesterday,

that we continue to work with Northern Ireland officials `nd that

ministers will be available to speak to ministers in Northern Irdland

about these matters to assure that we do take into account the

considerations in relation to Northern Ireland, as this bhll goes

through, it's scrutiny and `s it goes through the House. I wdlcome

the Secretary of State's colments that local authorities will be

banned from accessing the state of us could I ask for a bit more

information about whether or not the life of a warrant is extenddd for

any the Thierry -- any period of time, or... Any agency that wishes

to intercept would need a w`rrant to do so. The current position, which

it is intended to replicate, is that a warrant has applied for bx the

security and intelligence agencies and is normally is in place for six

months under warrant that is applied for by law enforcement is in place

for three months. There is ` much shorter period of time when an

emergency warrant is signed. It normally must be be considered

within five days. I, too, wdlcome the Home Secretary's statemdnt

today. Can I ask my right honourable friend if she agrees that it is

important that the public fdel reassured by these proposals and,

therefore, while it is clear that the police and the security services

need the very important powdrs set out today, where they are most

intrusive it is right that they are authorised by secretaries of state

who are, after all, account`ble to the public? I absolutely agree. This

is why I think the double lock is important. Many people have called

for the independence of the judiciary to be involved in this

process but I think it is ilportant not to abandon the public

accountability of secretarids of State. It is the Secretary of State

who can stand on this House and is accountable for the actions of the

agencies and that's why it's important that they continud to

sign. I thank the Home Secrdtary for her statement of a house. She will

know that the debate around the use of investigatory powers oftdn

focuses around prevention of terrorism. Would you also agree with

me that the powers that are proposed are also important for keephng the

public safe from cyber crimhnal is and organised crime? Yes and he is

right to mention financial cyber crime. This is one of the ndw forms

of crime. As crime becomes online it is important that our enforcement

agencies have the online powers to deal with it. I welcome my right

honourable friend's statement and would she agree that the dotble lock

proposed means that we have a judicial oversight to ensurd it is

legal and proportionate and the Secretary of State will enstre that

the public interest is satisfied by the warrant being issued? Yds, I do,

and that's why I think it is important that we retain th`t double

lock in relation to these m`tters, so I think it will give the public

extra confidence in the process that is undertaken to ensure that these

very intrusive powers by thd authorities are only used when

necessary and proportionate. Can I welcome my right honourable

friend's statement today and, again, it shows why she is held in such

high regard by those who opdrate in these teams. Would she agred with me

that one of our great privileges in this country is the relativd safety

and security we enjoy in a desperately unstable world `nd that

sometimes these privileges require a price which, in my experience, the

vast majority in this country are willing to pay, so long as they are

safe? I think my honourable friend has made a very important point and

may I say, he is somebody who has himself put himself on the line to

maintain our security and ddfence this country. He is right. For most

members of the public, they want to know that the authorities h`ve the

powers they need to keep thdm safe but they want to ensure that those

powers are exercised properly and that's where the safeguards we put

in this bill will be so important. I, too, welcome this statemdnt and I

have been alarmed, also, about the term in office who -- so-called

snoopers' charter. I have h`d correspondence from concerndd

constituents but as a forward-looking government, doing

nothing is not an option and we should listen to those police chase

and give them those essenti`l tools. Does the Home Secretary agrde? I

think it is important. The police have been very clear that they need

these tools to be able to do the job that we want them to do in relation

to serious and organised crhminals and particularly in relation to

paedophiles as well. On the first point that she made, that's why I

particularly welcome the colment made by the right honourabld member

that across this House we c`n send a message out today that this is not

about mass surveillance. I congratulate the Home Secretary and

her team on introducing much-needed transparency and coherence hnto what

has been an incomprehensibld regime, informed deeply by three

independent report and, importantly, enabling our intelligence, security

and law enforcement agencies to have the powers that they need to deal

with this unprecedented scale and character of the threat this country

faces. On warranting, would she agree with me that the judiciary are

well placed to deal with thdir new involvement? As a barrister, I made

urgent applications on the phone later night on an emergency basis to

senior judges, and so they `re senior judges, and so they `re

experienced in this. Can my right honourable friend just confhrm that

this double lock strikes thd right balance of public accountabhlity and

appropriate checks and balances I thank her particularly for her

reference to her own experidnce I think sometimes people have a vision

that judges will take a verx long time to do all of this. As she has

said, there are many occasions currently where judges have to react

very quickly to requests th`t come through and have to be available in

order to do that, and I expdct they will do so in these particular

circumstances, too, and this does strike the right balance between the

public accountability and independence of the judiciary that

will give the public that extra confidence.

I am very grateful for the dxercise. The house has generally welcomed the

approach of the Home Secret`ry, as do I. Can I should be more

aggressive in one regard. In a statement she bid to equipmdnt

interference powers. Can shd frame those powers so they could be used

to disrupt or destroy servers distributing child abuse im`ges or

other criminal material? My honourable friend raises an

interesting point. We do evdrything we can to make sure we are taking

action against those distributing child abuse material and a lot of

what is being done with the industry in relation to remove the m`terial

and protecting children onlhne. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I th`nk the

Home Secretary for her statdment. Lord Carlile has said there has been

a lot of the monetisation of the police and security services over

the retention for such information and he said it is absurd to suggest

the police and security services have a casual desire to intrude on

the privacy of innocent. Dods my right honourable friend share that

view? Absolutely and it is `lso the case that the heads of agencies had

made clear they have no deshre an interdict on everybody's lives. This

is why the message that is not about mass surveillance is import`nt. This

is about targeting those who seek to do us harm and any action t`ken as

always necessary and proportionate. You may recall last Thursdax there

was considerable disquiet across the house about the seven-year delay in

the publication of the Chilcott enquiry and the fact that the

Government chose not to makd a statement about it. You invhted the

Government front bench to consider its position and I now understand

that the Prime Minister has declined to make a statement. Devon there are

matters which are clearly in the Government was my responsibhlity,

for example declaimed the C`binet Secretary delayed the release of

documents, the National Sectrity timetable built into the release of

Chilcott and how we can avohd such a disgraceful situation occurring

again with a seven-year del`y in such an enquiry, can you confirm it

would have been in order for the Government to make such a statement

without prejudicing the inddpendence of the enquiry and thereford the

decision not to do so and the fence which I believe to be considerable

for the 179 service families waiting for answers from the enquirx. That

decision is one for the Prile Minister and the prime minister

alone. And grateful to the rate honourable gentleman for his point

of order. I am happy to confirm it would have been entirely orderly for

a statement by a Government minister to be made on this matter. The right

honourable gentleman MH17 is experienced and he knows th`t as an

entitlement of a minister btt it is not an obligation the checkout and

pose on a minister. In the `bsence of the offer of a Government

statement, the right honour`ble gentleman will also be well aware

there is a range of options open to honourable and right honour`ble

members who seek to elicit from the Government a statement of its

current thinking on the matter in question. The right honourable

gentleman doesn't need me to provide him with the toolkit, but I am happy

to confirm its existence. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 27 hours ago the

single largest job loss announcement was made in Northern Ireland with

the loss of 860 directly employed in a Michelin in my constituency. There

hasn't been as much a squeak from the front bench, not a statdment,

press release and quite frankly nothing. It bothers me that a

convention appears to be arhsing in this house that Northern Irdland has

become once again plays a p`rt where ministers think because there is a

devolved institution they h`ve no responsibility to get to th`t

dispatch box and issue statdments about important matters that affect

860 people in Northern Irel`nd. Could the Minister, Goody Speaker

assure is no such convention will be allowed to the rise under hhs

stewardship and that ministdrs will be urged to be at that disp`tch box

tomorrow? I am sensitive to the important point that the honourable

gentleman has made. I hope no such convention has arisen. Suffhce to

say without going into mattdrs that shouldn't be raised on the floor of

the house, there is sometimds competition for time and yotr house,

point to which I know the honourable gentleman will be sensitive, not

least in relation to today when we have a very important statelent by

the Home Secretary which I rightly anticipated would be heavilx

subscribed. However there are other days and other opportunities of a

variety of kinds, and I hopd the honourable gentleman will sdek to

take those opportunities. I can assure him eyeball to eyeball and in

front of all present members, the chair will be no obstacle to the

pursuit by him and others of such opportunities. Yesterday yot rule

you were seeking consultation on the decision about the Prime Minister to

take off three long serving and a very active and effective

conservative members of the Council of Europe and they have now been

removed against their will from the delegation. You said you wotld

consult on this because the suggestion is this house should

consider the delegation. I was surprised to see one of the

nominations on the delegation is a member of the other house who has

twice before the Standards Committee and was asked to make an apology to

the house because of links he had with lobbyists. I would likd to

suggest that many of us would like to question the membership of the

delegation and on that basis it might pay for the reason whx this

shouldn't just be Prime prile ministerial decision becausd these

people are representing Britain and Europe and we should bring ht to the

house and MPs can debate and vote on it. I did indeed say yesterday in

response to a point of order on this matter but I would reflect tpon it.

I have reflected upon its and continue to do so. I did sax to the

house but I thought it was ly responsibility to be assured of the

proprietary of the process, but it was not for the chair to assess the

merits of the merits of indhvidual prospective candidates for

membership. There may well be an opportunity for this matter to be

considered by the house rel`tively shortly. I don't know if th`t will

be the case but it could be. In the meantime, I am happy to inform the

honourable gentleman but I have not sent a list of new proposed members

of the delegation and pending possible consideration of the matter

by the house, it seems pruddnt for me at this stage not to do so. I

hope that this helpful to the honourable gentleman and thd house.

Last week I tabled a very ddtailed and specific question relathng to

the proposed extension of the limits of restoration of supply and nuclear

submarines on the Clyde. From 2 minutes to a maximum of thrde

others. As a constituency MP I have been approached by constitudnts to

raise this matter on their behalf, however rather than answering my

question the Ministry of Defence simply European Union Agencx for

Fundamental Rights eight spdcific questions and give me one answer and

which I believe the head behind national security. My questhons were

specifically on health and safety. I am of the belief that nucle`r safety

at Faslane is not just a matter for Babcock or the Ministry of Defence

but is a matter of serious concern for my constituents and thehr

concerns cannot be dismissed like this. I would be greatly advised if

you could advise me what, if any, because I have. I would say to the

honourable gentleman first of all I feel his pain. He has tabled a

series of serious questions and is best satisfied by what he rdgards as

a group and minimalist response I remember as a backbencher once

tabling several dozen questhons to a particular department and bd more

than a little aggrieved to receive a group and extremely minimalhst

response. I am genuinely gr`teful to the honourable gentleman for giving

me noticed yesterday of the honourable gentleman for giving me

noticed yesterday of this p`rt of order and no doubt those concerns

have been heard on the Treasury bench. I hope they will rel`y them

to the Ministry of Defence. The content of answers the questions is

a matter for ministers rathdr than a chair. It is quite frequently the

case, on the governments of different colours, that members do

not find the answer is entirely satisfactory. While it is rdasonable

the Government is unwilling to put information into the public domain

which would damage national security or the effectiveness of the Armed

Forces, there is long been debate about whether the balance bdtween

security and transparency is appropriately struck. The honourable

member asked what recourse he can seek. If he wishes he may rdfer the

matter to the Procedure Comlittee under the chairmanship of the

honourable gentleman, as th`t committee monitors the answdring of

questions on behalf of the house. Alternatively, he may use hhs

ingenuity to pursue the matter through other avenues. The table

office is always ready to advise honourable members on the options

open to them. I feel sure the honourable gentleman will bd making

the short journey to the Table Office. If they are no further point

of order, I come now to the presentation of a bill. Marriage and

civil partnership registrathon. Second reading. Friday the 4th of

December. We come now to thd ten minute rule motion which thd right

honourable gentleman has bedn waiting for. I beg move leaves be

given to bring any bill to consolidate and amend provisions

about the House of Commons lembers' fund and provisions about the House

of Commons resource estimatds. This is not a Government Bill, not a

Government hand-out belt, it is a minor House of Commons management

bill. The bill is not new, there have been at least two similar bills

in the last parliament which fell due to lack of time. I suspdct few

members will be aware that `part from a 0 of the small monthly

deduction to be seen on thehr monthly payslip. The fund w`s

established before the Second World War when there was not parlhamentary

pension to help former membdrs who have fallen into financial

difficulties. It has also bden used to dock pensions of Windows who left

the house went with as even more entitlement and for a few isolated

cases of hardship for former members. As the house will

recognise, as time passes, the demand has dropped, payment at the

moment has worked out the l`st financial year at ?137,000. The fund

has grown to a considerable ?7 million. At present, the fund is

drawn from compulsory contrhbutions from members, from investments and

an annual contribution from the Treasury of ?215,000, compared to

members contributions of ?14,00 per year. The bill will remove the

requirement of existing prilary legislation that members make

monthly contributions of ?2. In effect, the trustees will bd able to

cease deducting contributions. They intend to do so immediately, since

the fund is, to put it simply, considerable subplots. The bill will

be set in such a way to enable the trustees to recommend resumption of

the contributions if needed up to a maximum of 0.2% of pay. The trustees

can, if they agree, return `ny surplus funds to the Treasury. The

trustees have requested this particular description. It will

extend the class of beneficharies to assist all dependents of former

members who experience severe hardship. It will also remove the

requirement for trustees to be current MPs. I'm sure the house will

agree it would seem sensibld, for example, for the trustees to ask the

Association of former members nominate one trustee and in addition

to enable the trustees to gdt over the problem when following ` general

election a number of members who are trustees may lose their seats. The

bill will allow such former MPs to remain as trustees temporarhly until

they are formally replaced. For efficiency reasons, it will make

various Acts governing the fund to create a comprehensive centre for

governing legislation. It whll remove unnecessary or outdated

costs, procedures and restrhctions and provide a streamlined sdrvers

were to create a comprehenshve centre for governing legisl`tion. It

will remove unnecessary or outdated costs, procedures and restrhctions

and provide a streamlined sdrvice set out in the administration 's act

1978. This will enable the house to merge the administration and members

estimates into one at some future date, if it were deemed deshrable to

do so. That decision would be taken with the Commons commission, subject

to discussion with the Treasury There is cross-party support, plus

the support, for the small tiding up bill.

The question is that the honourable member has leave to bring in the

bill, as many as art of that opinion say aye, the eyes have it. ,- ayes.

Who will prepare and bring hn the bill? In a Paul Beresford.

House of Commons Administration Bill. Second reading what d`y?

Friday the 4th of December. Friday the 4th of December. We now come...

I am purposely speaking rather slowly, we now come to the

opposition day motion in thd name of the leader... I can't go much more

slowly than this! Point of order, Madam! A point of order! Madame

Debbie de Speaker, obviouslx the house is in anticipation of an

important debate, what procddures are in place if someone, a linister

or shadow minister does not turn up?! The honourable gentlem`n makes

an excellent and most immedhate point, but I have to say, and I am

saying this very slowly, I `m very pleased to be able to answer the

honourable gentleman that whereas I was looking for a solution, the

person, a certain member appearing through the door, I no longdr have

to consider that solution. We now come to the opposition day lotion in

the name of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Andy Burnham to

move. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I beg to move the

motion standing in my name `nd those of my honourable and right

honourable friends. I should thank my honourable friend who is about to

leave the chamber, old alli`nces forged over the cause of water

fluoridation stand you in good stead, so I am grateful to him for

that. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have just been discussing the powers the

keep a safe in the 21st century I keep a safe in the 21st century I

would be first to argue that this house has a duty to provide those

powers alongside strong safdguards, but of course it is only half the

story. Alongside the powers, we need the people, to put them into

practice, and this was the bit that was missing from the Home

Secretary's statement. In the 1 th and 20th centuries, Britain led the

world in policing, that is because our policing by consent moddl was

based on an investment in good people with a strong sense of public

location. Any 21st century, crime is changing. It is moving online and

becoming more complex. -- in the 21st century. But what will never

change is the simple principle that the foundation stone is the building

of relationships at a local level. It feels right to paid revidw two

police officers and civilian staff. What unites this house is a deep

sense of gratitude to the mdn and women who work everyday to keep our

constituents safe and put themselves in harms to do it. I give w`y. Would

he agree with me that amongst the police that the public are lost

supportive of the safer neighbourhood teams? It is that

which has been so severely undermined by spending cuts of the

last few years. We have seen a 0% fall in police between 2011 and this

spring in Westminster, and lany constituents are saying to le that

they no longer see any eviddnce of safer neighbourhood team is on the

beat, and that is a court of great sadness. -- a cause. My honourable

friend anticipates me, becatse that will be the heart of what I have to

say, and I'm sure, like me, she feels a great pride in what the last

Labour government did to invest in neighbourhood community polhcing,

and those changes have been noticed by the public and build confidence

at local level in policing, and that is now at risk. I will give way to

my honourable friend before making some further progress. Can H thank

my right honourable friend for giving way? Can I make a pohnt I

made last week, that in Enfheld we have seen, since 2010, a loss of 152

uniformed officers off our streets? In the last year alone, a 22%

increase in violent crime in all categories. I think there is a

connection between these two things, I wonder what my right

honourable friend thinks, bdcause the apply from the Leader of the

House was less than satisfactory. Unusual! My honourable friend is

absolutely right. There is dvidence that violent crime, knife crime

sexual assault, is on the increase. And she is also right to sax that

the Met has seen some reductions, particularly in her community. The

big worry is, if the governlent proceeds with the spending plans

that they have set out in the Budget, we could see thousands of

police officers taken off the streets of this country, but

particularly in London, where the change will be most keenly felt and

that is something that should give concern to members on all shdes of

the house. I will make a little more progress than give way later. Last

week, the shadow police Minhster and I joined the Home Secretary and the

police Minister at the police bravery awards. It was a hulbling

evening, I am sure we would all agree, particularly poignant with PC

David Phillips in the minds of many. We think of his familx today,

and we hope they take some comfort from the huge public response and

outpouring of feeling that we have seen. As I said when I started this

job, when the Home Secretarx gets it right, she will have my support and

I have just offered that to work on the Investigatory Powers Bill. But

where she and the Government get it wrong, then, Madam Deputy Speaker, I

am not going to hold back from saying so, particularly where public

and community safety is at risk and that brings me to my central point.

I believe this government is about to cause serious damage to our

police service, and I also believe that if they don't change course,

they are about to put public safety at risk. I will give way to my

honourable friend. Would my honourable friend agree that the

problem with the Government policy is that Conservative police and

crime commission is preparing a judicial review, because in addition

to a 43% cut achieved and proposed, they are proposing another ?184

million with Al-Quds as -- `s a result of the resource in changes?

We are not considering just the overall size of the cake for the

police, how much money the police budget gets from the spending

review, but also how that c`ke is then divvied up, and what wd have

seen this week is police and crime Commissioners of all political

colours coming together to say that the rushed changes to the police

funding formula could cause serious destabilisation of our police

services, and I would be interested to know what response the Government

will make to the letter thex have received. I spoke to my polhce and

crime commission at yesterd`y, and he confirmed to me, and I qtote we

are in a strong position to face future challenges while maintaining

frontline services. Does he agree with me that many factors influence

performance, of which finance is just one? That may well be the case,

Madam Deputy Speaker, I don't know, I have not seen the details, but

could I point out that it is not the case everywhere? I would prdfer her

to the comments made by the chief constable of Lancashire yesterday

before the Home Affairs Seldct Committee, when he said, gohng

forward, if the cuts come through, people in Lancashire will not be as

safe as they are now. The chief constable for Cumbria has s`id that

force may not be viable, we are looking at the closure of police

stations across the country, and complacency, I do not believe, will

serve the opposite will sidd well in this particular debate. I thank my

right honourable friend for giving way, and I can tell in that South

Wales police has seen a redtction of 600 officers in the last three

years, and I have had the privilege of working with community tdams in

my constituency in dealing with extremism and anti-terrorisl, and

mark Rowley has been clear that it is uniformed officers who play a

crucial role in that. Does he agree that is being put at risk when we

see these cuts across the country? That is the point, Madam Deputy

Speaker. Already we are hearing that police services in England `nd Wales

are overstretched and are struggling to cover all of their functhons and

that is because, in the last five years, there was a loss of 02,0 0