15/03/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.Myers. -- Mars. I received an update that a signal has been received and

:00:00. > :00:08.we can successfully say that the launch has been a success. Thank

:00:09. > :00:19.you. Order! We come now to the urgent question. Mr Hilary Benn.

:00:20. > :00:23.Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. To ask the Secretary of State for

:00:24. > :00:26.Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the

:00:27. > :00:29.announcement by Russia that it is redeploying the main part of its

:00:30. > :00:38.force from Syria, and the implications of this for the peace

:00:39. > :00:43.process? We have of course seen the media reports of Russian withdrawal

:00:44. > :00:47.of forces, including this morning that the first group of Russian

:00:48. > :00:51.planes have left the airbase to return to Russia. However, I should

:00:52. > :00:56.tell the House that none of the members of the International Syria

:00:57. > :01:00.support group, as far as I have been able to determine, had any advance

:01:01. > :01:04.notice of this Russian announcement, and we are yet to see any detailed

:01:05. > :01:09.plans behind Russia's announcement yesterday. We do not yet have any

:01:10. > :01:14.independent evidence to verify Russia's claims that military

:01:15. > :01:18.withdrawals have already begun. We are monitoring developments closely.

:01:19. > :01:25.It would be important to judge Russia by its actions. It is worth

:01:26. > :01:31.remembering that Russia announced withdrawal of forces in the Ukraine,

:01:32. > :01:35.which later turned out to be routine rotation of forces. So if there's

:01:36. > :01:39.announcement represents a genuine decision by Russia to continue to

:01:40. > :01:43.de-escalate the military conflict, to ensure compliance with the

:01:44. > :01:47.Association of hostilities, and to encourage the Syrian regime and to

:01:48. > :01:52.participate in peace negotiations in good faith, then it would be

:01:53. > :01:54.welcome. Now is the time for all parties to focus on political

:01:55. > :02:01.negotiations, which resumed yesterday in Geneva. Because only a

:02:02. > :02:07.political transition away from Asad's rolled to a Government

:02:08. > :02:13.representative of all Syrians will deliver the peace that Syrians are

:02:14. > :02:17.desperately need. It will give us a Government in Damascus able to focus

:02:18. > :02:20.on defeating terrorism and rebuilding Syria. There can be no

:02:21. > :02:28.peace in Syria while Asad remains in power. Russia has unique influence

:02:29. > :02:33.to help make these negotiations succeed, and we sincerely hope that

:02:34. > :02:38.they will use it. Since it came into force on the 27th of February, the

:02:39. > :02:43.cessation of hostilities has resulted in a significant reduction

:02:44. > :02:47.in violence in Syria. However, there have been a significant number of

:02:48. > :02:51.reports of violations, including the continued use of barrel bombs, which

:02:52. > :02:58.we have been discussing with our partners in the ceasefire task force

:02:59. > :03:04.in Geneva. We have serious concerns that the Assad regime has been using

:03:05. > :03:08.the cessation of hostilities to pursue its military objectives and

:03:09. > :03:12.that it is not serious about political negotiations. Swift action

:03:13. > :03:18.to address these violations is therefore vital to reduce the

:03:19. > :03:22.violence and show the Syrian people, including the Syrian opposition,

:03:23. > :03:28.that both Russia and the Assad regime are abiding by the terms of

:03:29. > :03:33.the cessation of hostilities. Failure to do so threatened the

:03:34. > :03:37.prospects for big continued political negotiations. We look to

:03:38. > :03:41.rush up as guarantor with the regime and its backers to use its unique

:03:42. > :03:46.influence to use compliance and to make very clear to the Assad regime

:03:47. > :03:51.that their expectations, that they must negotiate in good faith. After

:03:52. > :03:58.investing so much an aside, Mr must show the world that he can exercise

:03:59. > :04:04.control over his protege. At the same time, we called for a complete

:04:05. > :04:09.and unfettered humanitarian access across Syria, and an end to all

:04:10. > :04:12.violations of international humanitarian law in accordance with

:04:13. > :04:19.the security council resolution. We are relieved that desperately needed

:04:20. > :04:25.aid convoys are now arriving in some besieged areas in Syria, including

:04:26. > :04:30.some of those named in the Munich ISG agreement. It is imperative that

:04:31. > :04:42.this continues, that in particular access is provided to the town has

:04:43. > :04:45.not seen any aid yet. We must sustain humanitarian access across

:04:46. > :04:51.Syria. Mr Speaker, no one would be more delighted than me if after five

:04:52. > :04:54.months of relentless bombing Russia is genuinely winding down its

:04:55. > :05:00.military support to the brutal Assad regime. But, as in all matters

:05:01. > :05:05.related to Russia, it is the actions, rather than the words, that

:05:06. > :05:08.count. We should be watching carefully over the coming days to

:05:09. > :05:16.see if the potential promise of this announcement turns into reality. And

:05:17. > :05:20.very grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that reply. The

:05:21. > :05:24.conflict in Syria has now raged for five years. Half the population have

:05:25. > :05:28.fled their homes and neighbouring countries have borne the brunt of

:05:29. > :05:35.the refugee crisis and according to the Syrian Observatory, over 360

:05:36. > :05:40.thousand people have lost their lives, mostly at the hands of

:05:41. > :05:47.President Assad. In the past six months, Russian districts alone have

:05:48. > :05:51.killed 1700 civilians. The withdrawal of Russian forces will be

:05:52. > :05:54.cautiously welcomed by all of us, but I agree with the Foreign

:05:55. > :05:58.Secretary that it needs to be carried through, in particular if it

:05:59. > :06:03.is going to be support the ceasefire. The secretary has told

:06:04. > :06:06.the House that he has not received any direct information about the

:06:07. > :06:13.likely timescale and extent of the withdrawal. Could he however comment

:06:14. > :06:16.on the statement reported and attributed to a Russian defence

:06:17. > :06:20.Minister, who said that Russian forces will continue to attack

:06:21. > :06:23.so-called terrorists, a term that they have used in the past to cover

:06:24. > :06:28.its tracks and the Syrian opposition? Can he tell has what

:06:29. > :06:33.discussions he has had about the Russian Foreign Minister about this?

:06:34. > :06:37.How might this change the type of missions that the RAF and others in

:06:38. > :06:47.the anti Dyas coalition and taking in Syria? Given the latest extent of

:06:48. > :06:50.the ceasefire, what action is the British Government and other

:06:51. > :06:54.Government is proposing to take about this? Does he agree that a

:06:55. > :06:57.full withdrawal would improve the confidence of opposition forces

:06:58. > :07:02.within the ceasefire and help to ensure that their book is

:07:03. > :07:08.participation in the process. What does he think will be the impact of

:07:09. > :07:12.the ceasefire and the withdrawal of the international community to

:07:13. > :07:15.safely provide the humanitarian aid he has referred to, in particular to

:07:16. > :07:21.the towns and areas that have been besieged, given the continuing

:07:22. > :07:32.concerns that the international committee have expressed. Potential

:07:33. > :07:42.war crimes committed by to the council this week, what does he

:07:43. > :07:45.think about any war crimes being committed to the courts? Finally,

:07:46. > :07:51.what discussions has he had with other members of the International

:07:52. > :07:56.Syria support group about the prospects for the latest round of

:07:57. > :08:00.peace talks taking place in Geneva? Does he agree with me that both

:08:01. > :08:05.Russia and Syria needs to ensure that all issues are on the table if

:08:06. > :08:14.the Syrian people are to seek peace and stability finally returned to

:08:15. > :08:18.their war-torn country? I'm grateful to the right honourable gentleman,

:08:19. > :08:24.and as he rightly says, it is now five years since this terrible civil

:08:25. > :08:28.War began and he set out absolutely correctly the scale of attrition

:08:29. > :08:33.that the Syrian people have faced in that time. He referred to the

:08:34. > :08:39.remarks attributed to the defence Minister of Russia saying that

:08:40. > :08:43.Russia would continue to attack terrorists. This is exactly the

:08:44. > :08:45.formula that the Russians have used in the past when attacking the

:08:46. > :08:51.moderate opposition. They have always asserted that they only

:08:52. > :08:53.conduct air strikes against terrorists, so it's not terribly

:08:54. > :08:59.reassuring that if you hours after the announcement of a withdrawal of

:09:00. > :09:02.their military forces, the defence minister as saying that they will

:09:03. > :09:09.continue to attack terrorists. He asked me about discussions with the

:09:10. > :09:12.Foreign Minister of Russia. I have had no such discussions since the

:09:13. > :09:17.announcement was made, although I have spoken to American colleagues

:09:18. > :09:22.to assess what information they have. The UK mission in Syria will

:09:23. > :09:30.not change as a result of withdrawal of Russian forces. UK air strikes

:09:31. > :09:37.are primarily targeted against, exclusively targeted against the

:09:38. > :09:41.east of the country. They will continue to be so targeted. He asked

:09:42. > :09:45.about the latest assessment of the ceasefire. We held a meeting in

:09:46. > :09:51.Paris on Sunday, in which we reviewed the situation on the

:09:52. > :09:55.ground. The reality is that after a lull in the level of air strikes

:09:56. > :10:04.immediately after the cessation of hostilities, they have grown

:10:05. > :10:06.steadily and on March the 10th, we assessed Russian air strike threat

:10:07. > :10:22.the same level as priest as priest decision of hostilities.

:10:23. > :10:28.If Russia carries out a full withdrawal of its forces which I

:10:29. > :10:34.don't think is what even the Russian announcement is suggesting, but if

:10:35. > :10:37.it were to carry out a full withdrawal of forces, that would

:10:38. > :10:42.certainly change the balance of power and military advantage on the

:10:43. > :10:45.ground in a very significant way. With regard to access for

:10:46. > :10:51.humanitarian aid, it is not the Russians that have been impeding

:10:52. > :10:55.access for humanitarian aid, but the Syrian regime. Therefore the

:10:56. > :10:59.question is around how much leveraged the Russians have over the

:11:00. > :11:02.regime, and how much they are prepared to exercise, and one could

:11:03. > :11:08.speculate about whether this announcement is in fact an exercise

:11:09. > :11:16.by Russia in reminding the regime of its position as a client operating

:11:17. > :11:22.at Russia's will. On the International Criminal Court the two

:11:23. > :11:27.major impediments, the first is that Syria is not a signatory to the ICC

:11:28. > :11:33.Convention, the second is that of course Russia holds a veto in the

:11:34. > :11:40.Security Council. So whilst we all seek to bring those responsible for

:11:41. > :11:43.the terrible crimes committed in Syria to justice, I would advise the

:11:44. > :11:55.right honourable gentleman not to hold his breath just for this

:11:56. > :11:59.moment. Finally, the eye S SG hasn't met in ISSG format recently, but we

:12:00. > :12:04.have had opportunities to talk about the agenda for the peace talks at

:12:05. > :12:08.Geneva, we are very satisfied with the approach taken, it is a very

:12:09. > :12:14.sensible approach which recognises that bluntly as soon as we get to

:12:15. > :12:20.the difficult subjects, the talks may run into extreme difficulty, and

:12:21. > :12:24.therefore seeks to begin by discussing some rather less

:12:25. > :12:27.controversial subjects to try to at least generate some momentum before

:12:28. > :12:33.we come to the rather more difficult issues. But I have to say again that

:12:34. > :12:38.the sticking point is transition. We are clear, resolutions of the ISSG

:12:39. > :12:42.are clear, that the way forward has to be through a transitional regime.

:12:43. > :12:45.Which moves us from the current position with Assad in power to a

:12:46. > :12:52.new position with Assad out of power. The Russians, the Syrians,

:12:53. > :12:57.the Iranians, still do not accept that principle, and unless and until

:12:58. > :13:01.it is accepted, the talks going on in Geneva may linger for a while but

:13:02. > :13:09.they will not ultimately be able to make significant progress.

:13:10. > :13:13.Does the Foreign Secretary agree in so far as he refers to Russia

:13:14. > :13:16.sending him a message to -- a message to Assad that this is

:13:17. > :13:19.potentially helpful as far as the peace process is concerned by

:13:20. > :13:25.ensuring that Assad doesn't overplay his hand in the peace talks? But the

:13:26. > :13:32.actual threat to the peace process comes from across the border in

:13:33. > :13:38.Turkey, which is no longer led by a constructive and rational partner in

:13:39. > :13:45.the process, and the actions of the president should be giving all of us

:13:46. > :13:51.the gravest concern as he presides over a disintegrating democracy and

:13:52. > :13:55.a war on part of his own people. It is possible that the Russian

:13:56. > :13:59.announcement is intended as a message to the Assad regime. Don't

:14:00. > :14:06.overplay your hand, get to the negotiating table and engage. It is

:14:07. > :14:10.also possible that it is intended as a message to the moderate opposition

:14:11. > :14:15.that if they do what is expected of them, because it has not been that

:14:16. > :14:19.easy to persuade them to attend the Geneva talks when Russian bombs are

:14:20. > :14:22.still raining down on their positions, then that is all

:14:23. > :14:28.positive. But unfortunately none of us knows what the intent of Mr Putin

:14:29. > :14:34.is when he carries out any action, which is why he is a very difficult

:14:35. > :14:39.partner in any situation. On the question of Turkey, I would just say

:14:40. > :14:46.this. Turkey remains an important Nato ally, and a vital security

:14:47. > :14:53.partner for the UK. And I think when we look at events in Turkey, whilst

:14:54. > :14:58.he can refer as he did to recent legislative changes and actions of

:14:59. > :15:04.the administration, we should also acknowledge the terrible challenge

:15:05. > :15:09.that the Turkish people are facing from terrorism, with multiple deaths

:15:10. > :15:13.on the attack on Sunday in Ankara, hundreds of security force members

:15:14. > :15:19.killed over the last nine months, 100 or so, many more than 100

:15:20. > :15:23.civilians also dead. So we have got to understand the challenge that

:15:24. > :15:28.Turkey faces, and I would assert as we do in relation to every country,

:15:29. > :15:32.the right of the Turkish people and the Turkish Government to defend

:15:33. > :15:41.themselves against attack, when they face this kind of terrorist attack.

:15:42. > :15:45.It is almost five years to the day since the uprising against a side.

:15:46. > :15:54.11 million displaced, 80% of severe's children damaged by the

:15:55. > :15:58.civil conflict. -- Syria's children. When we debated this two weeks ago

:15:59. > :16:00.there was scepticism across the chamber about the ceasefire,

:16:01. > :16:06.although there have been significant breaches it has resulted in a huge

:16:07. > :16:10.elimination of violence. It is the only ceasefire we have got. -- and

:16:11. > :16:16.mean you should -- diminishing. Is it not the most credible explanation

:16:17. > :16:21.for the Russian announcement, is that it is going to pressurise Assad

:16:22. > :16:26.into taking a more flexible attack -- approach in the peace talks? And

:16:27. > :16:30.if that is the case, it would be better if the Foreign Secretary had

:16:31. > :16:34.the welcome and then the caveats, since it is not only the only

:16:35. > :16:40.ceasefire we have got, it is also the only peace process we have got.

:16:41. > :16:44.I think we all start out with hope and we end up with experience, and

:16:45. > :16:52.in dealing with Russia I think putting the caveat first is probably

:16:53. > :16:55.always sensible. It is a credible interpretation of what Mr Putin has

:16:56. > :17:02.done, but unfortunately, unlike almost every other party with which

:17:03. > :17:06.we work in these situations, we have no insight at all into Russia's

:17:07. > :17:13.strategy, Russia's thinking, tactics, so we are left guessing.

:17:14. > :17:17.And here we are 24 hours later, none of us including the Americans, who

:17:18. > :17:21.Russia apparently craves a bilateral partnership with over Syria, having

:17:22. > :17:26.any insight into what the purpose of this move is.

:17:27. > :17:30.Can I invite my right honourable friend to admit that we have

:17:31. > :17:34.probably be -- been unwise to become hooked on the simplest at notion

:17:35. > :17:38.that the removal of Assad is a prerequisite for any solution at all

:17:39. > :17:43.in Syria's is it not the case that even with this change in Russian

:17:44. > :17:50.tactics, any progress towards peace is bound to retain any messy

:17:51. > :17:53.elements within it? What is the Foreign Secretary think this

:17:54. > :18:04.supposedly it from it for all the Syrian people is actually going to

:18:05. > :18:08.come from? I can't agree, -- we assert that the removal of a side is

:18:09. > :18:22.a prerequisite for peace, that is not a moral judgment -- Assad.

:18:23. > :18:29.Somebody who has killed 360,000 of his people.

:18:30. > :18:32.We also want a reconciliation between the different factions in

:18:33. > :18:36.Syria, and those fighting against the regime are not going to lay down

:18:37. > :18:41.their arms, they are not going to lay down their arms, unless and

:18:42. > :18:45.until they are given an assurance that Bashar al-Assad will not be

:18:46. > :18:50.part of the future in Syria, and yes of course it will be messy. And of

:18:51. > :18:54.course he is right that there will be many stumbling blocks along the

:18:55. > :18:57.way. But it is possible to envisage a transition which will see the

:18:58. > :19:03.infrastructure of the state remain in place, but replace Bashar

:19:04. > :19:10.al-Assad himself with another figure, possibly from within the

:19:11. > :19:15.Alawite community as a head of a transitional administration.

:19:16. > :19:19.The Foreign Secretary is quite right to treat this Russian announcement

:19:20. > :19:24.along with all Russian announcements with extreme caution. But if this

:19:25. > :19:28.does turn out to be positive, would that not vindicate the robust

:19:29. > :19:30.approach that Britain and the European Union have taken towards

:19:31. > :19:34.President Putin, and vindicate the decision taken by this House to

:19:35. > :19:42.extend the highly successful IVF mission in Iraq, to Syria?

:19:43. > :19:47.-- aria. I'm convinced myself that President Putin only recognises

:19:48. > :19:53.strength. Everything is black and white, you are either standing up to

:19:54. > :19:59.him or you have caved in. The action that the European Union took in

:20:00. > :20:03.imposing sanctions against Russia over Ukraine surprised the Russians,

:20:04. > :20:08.we know that, they didn't expect that the EU would be able to

:20:09. > :20:13.establish unanimity to do this. It is so -- it surprised them even more

:20:14. > :20:16.that we have managed to renew those distinctions twice and we are coming

:20:17. > :20:22.up to the point that we will renew them again, -- sanctions. It has

:20:23. > :20:29.surprised the Russians that the Coalition has held together in

:20:30. > :20:34.respect of the battle against. Sticking to our guns, working with

:20:35. > :20:39.the Russians where they are prepared to align with our objectives, and

:20:40. > :20:42.being clear about our requirement of the Russians to comply with their

:20:43. > :20:49.obligations under international law. That is the right way to proceed, I

:20:50. > :20:54.don't think that seeking concessions to or favours from Mr Putin is a way

:20:55. > :21:00.forward, it simply doesn't work like that.

:21:01. > :21:05.In these very early days of the ceasefire and the talks in Geneva,

:21:06. > :21:10.would my right honourable friend agree that in cautiously welcoming

:21:11. > :21:13.this reported withdrawal of Russian troops we should not lose sight of

:21:14. > :21:17.the need for the ongoing humanitarian aid to make sure it is

:21:18. > :21:21.delivered to those in Syria and the region who need it, and to securing

:21:22. > :21:27.a peaceful, long-term political solution to this problem.

:21:28. > :21:33.The two reasons why the humanitarian aid has to go on being delivered,

:21:34. > :21:35.and getting into parts it hasn't yet reached, first the obvious reason

:21:36. > :21:41.that people on the ground desperately need it, but also to

:21:42. > :21:45.enable the opposition who are at Geneva to stay there and carry on

:21:46. > :21:50.talking. They are finding it very hard to maintain their legitimacy,

:21:51. > :21:54.their credibility, with their supporters on the ground, if no

:21:55. > :21:59.humanitarian aid is getting through and regime bombs, Russian bombs are

:22:00. > :22:12.still falling on them. The Foreign Secretary said he has

:22:13. > :22:16.not talked to Mr Lavrov. Why is that? Again, experience. I

:22:17. > :22:24.haven't tried, and I have no doubt that I could predict quite confident

:22:25. > :22:28.leave the outcome of a call to Foreign Minister Lavrov. I have had

:22:29. > :22:32.many calls with him on the course of our regular meetings over Syria

:22:33. > :22:37.related events, none of them fruitful.

:22:38. > :22:41.It is depressing to calculate the sum total of human misery that has

:22:42. > :22:48.resulted from Russia's intervention in this bloody civil war. Which has

:22:49. > :22:53.gone right from vetoing attempts by countries to get an early resolution

:22:54. > :22:59.to Assad and a transition Government in the early days, right through to,

:23:00. > :23:05.as one NGO put it to me, the bombing of a hospital for time by Russian

:23:06. > :23:10.planes. Can I reemphasise by asking my right honourable friend to treat

:23:11. > :23:16.with huge caution this move, and hold Russia responsible for any war

:23:17. > :23:21.crimes they have risen -- committed? My honourable friend reminds of

:23:22. > :23:26.cosmopolitan fact, somebody goes in -- an important fact, somebody

:23:27. > :23:30.starts bombing civilian populations and destroy hospitals and schools.

:23:31. > :23:34.If they do decide five months later that they have done enough, let us

:23:35. > :23:38.not give them too much praise. It is a bit like, you know, did you stop

:23:39. > :23:44.beating his wife? The fact they are there in the first place is

:23:45. > :23:47.something we have to continually protest about, and we shouldn't give

:23:48. > :23:52.them any credit for St Brelade withdrawing from these illegal

:23:53. > :23:57.activities. -- simply withdrawing. Despite

:23:58. > :24:01.Russia's announcement many countries remain fully committed to military

:24:02. > :24:07.action in Syria, we have seen an escalation over five years of the

:24:08. > :24:10.humanitarian crisis and the refugee crisis across Europe. Can the

:24:11. > :24:13.Secretary of State tell the House, what proportion of Government

:24:14. > :24:18.spending relating to the crisis has been spent on military action? As

:24:19. > :24:22.compared to the provision of humanitarian aid. And building a

:24:23. > :24:26.long-term peace solution for the people of Syria.

:24:27. > :24:34.I can't give the lady the precise figures, but we have contributed

:24:35. > :24:40.over ?1.1 billion of humanitarian aid to Syria and the neighbouring

:24:41. > :24:43.countries to is support displaced persons and refugees. Military

:24:44. > :24:55.operation, which has been running in Syria since the boat of this House a

:24:56. > :25:00.mere month ago -- the vote. I am quite certain it will be in the

:25:01. > :25:04.double figures of millions. Given Russia's past history in the last 30

:25:05. > :25:09.years of changing horses at the last moment, would he now be advising

:25:10. > :25:16.President Assad to double his bodyguard? Well, the relationship

:25:17. > :25:22.between President Assad and President Putin is a subject of

:25:23. > :25:30.great speculation among colleagues on the ISS G circuit. I am clear

:25:31. > :25:34.that the situation is the same as it has always been. President Putin

:25:35. > :25:40.could have ended all this years ago I a single phone call to President

:25:41. > :25:49.Assad, offering him some fraternal advice about his future health and

:25:50. > :25:52.well-being. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree with the Foreign Secretary

:25:53. > :25:56.that we should be cautious about these latest developments, but can I

:25:57. > :26:02.ask him whether he thinks that Assad is in a stronger position now than

:26:03. > :26:06.he was six months ago? In military terms, certainly. The Russian

:26:07. > :26:13.intervention has prevented the collapse of regime forces, restored

:26:14. > :26:18.morale among regime forces, allowed the regime to take ground,

:26:19. > :26:22.consolidate decisions, move forces around in a strategically

:26:23. > :26:26.significant way in the country, and has damaged and demoralised

:26:27. > :26:30.opposition groups. There is no doubt at all about that. The question of

:26:31. > :26:37.course, if there is a genuine withdrawal of Russian air cover, how

:26:38. > :26:40.long that improvement can be sustained, because we know that the

:26:41. > :26:47.Syrian regime forces are fundamentally hollowed out after

:26:48. > :26:50.five years of civil war. Without the Russians there to stiffen the spine,

:26:51. > :26:56.it is not clear how long they would be able to maintain the initiative.

:26:57. > :27:01.Assuming that the Russian withdrawal does take place, I and there is no

:27:02. > :27:08.certainty in fact, will be UK air forces be taking over Russian

:27:09. > :27:17.targets against Daesh, with the intensity of the arguments against

:27:18. > :27:21.Daesh is not Russian withdrawal? I can't comment about what will drive

:27:22. > :27:26.US and UK targeting decisions. What I can say is that the Russian air

:27:27. > :27:31.force operates largely within a part of Syria which is heavily protected

:27:32. > :27:35.by the Syrian integrated air defence system. The Russians are able to

:27:36. > :27:39.apply there because they are operating in a permissive

:27:40. > :27:41.environment for them, not least because Russian technicians

:27:42. > :27:47.controlled the Syrian defence system. It would not be the same

:27:48. > :27:50.situation for US, UK and other coalition partners. I don't think

:27:51. > :27:54.there can be an assumption that Western members of the coalition

:27:55. > :28:00.would be able to take over all of the targeting activity against Daesh

:28:01. > :28:03.that is currently being taken out by the Russians. Whilst acknowledging

:28:04. > :28:07.that Assad is principally to blame for the submission of his own

:28:08. > :28:12.citizens, and therefore the departure of the Russians is

:28:13. > :28:16.unlikely to have an effect on the humanitarian aid system, does the

:28:17. > :28:19.Foreign Secretary envisage any new initiatives to ensure that aid does

:28:20. > :28:25.reach the parts of Syria that are currently being stars? The situation

:28:26. > :28:30.on humanitarian aid is that it is there. It is ready to move. The

:28:31. > :28:36.world food programme has got the resources it needs, the food and

:28:37. > :28:41.other medical supplies ready to go. The issue is simply access,

:28:42. > :28:45.principally that is an issue of regime obstruction. In some places,

:28:46. > :28:52.it has been overcome. In other places, it is still a problem. This

:28:53. > :28:55.is something that UN people are working on day and night on the

:28:56. > :28:58.ground to try and resolve. It is literally progressing through one

:28:59. > :29:04.checkpoint and then trying to negotiate through the next

:29:05. > :29:09.checkpoint. Following on from the question from my honourable friends

:29:10. > :29:13.from Huntington, the Kremlin say that the Russian presence in Syria

:29:14. > :29:20.is to counter terrorism, but there are no terrorism groups with fighter

:29:21. > :29:22.jets. Is it not the case that if Russia are serious about

:29:23. > :29:29.de-escalating the situation and moving towards a peaceful solution,

:29:30. > :29:36.that they will also withdraw the S 400 system? I think our

:29:37. > :29:40.understanding is that the S 400 system was probably deployed in

:29:41. > :29:45.order to protect the Russian installation, so it was part of the

:29:46. > :29:50.protective bubble that the Russians delivered into Syria around their

:29:51. > :29:56.own installations to their bases and a naval port. We will obviously have

:29:57. > :29:58.to wait and see the extent, if any, of the withdrawal that has been

:29:59. > :30:06.announced, and whether it includes those weapons. In seeking further

:30:07. > :30:11.clarity on this deeply cynical announcement, can he or his US

:30:12. > :30:14.allies clarify that the Russians Government has set out any

:30:15. > :30:16.conditions linked to their withdrawal that will negatively

:30:17. > :30:24.impact on the political negotiations. Given the tens of

:30:25. > :30:30.thousands of vulnerable Syrians that exists up and down the country,

:30:31. > :30:33.should we be looking at a bombing zone, particularly along the border

:30:34. > :30:42.of Turkey. As far as we're aware, there is conditionality appointed

:30:43. > :30:47.with it. It was a unilateral action announced by Russia, so the

:30:48. > :30:52.withdrawal is a unilateral action. No negotiations or conditionality.

:30:53. > :30:58.She me about no bombing zones. The problem with a no bombing zone is

:30:59. > :31:06.essentially the point I have just made to my honourable friends, that

:31:07. > :31:10.Syria has a very capable ground to air integrated defence Systems,

:31:11. > :31:13.which makes it difficult for anybody's invoiced in a

:31:14. > :31:24.non-permissive environment to enforce such a no bombing zone. --

:31:25. > :31:30.enforce. It is possible to enforce a no bombing zone around Syria, but

:31:31. > :31:37.they would be complex issues involved. It has been raised and

:31:38. > :31:43.discussed, but so far volunteers to police such a no bombing zone have

:31:44. > :31:49.not been rushing forward. The Foreign Secretary referred to Iran

:31:50. > :31:55.earlier. People know that the two regional powers of Iran and Saudi

:31:56. > :32:00.Arabia have vastly contradictory views of Syria, and in particular

:32:01. > :32:04.the future of president Assad. We'll use has good offices to make sure

:32:05. > :32:08.that these two countries get around the table to negotiate like we saw

:32:09. > :32:11.in Vienna? Until there is greater dialogue between these two powers,

:32:12. > :32:15.they will continue to be the tensions that we have seen over the

:32:16. > :32:22.last five years will stop he is right that Iran and Saudi Arabia

:32:23. > :32:26.have fundamentally different views about the future trajectory of

:32:27. > :32:31.Syria, but they are both part of the ISS G. They both did come to the

:32:32. > :32:36.table in Vienna and sit there for two days, or wherever it was, and

:32:37. > :32:40.talked to each other, and they are still both showing up to regular

:32:41. > :32:44.ISSG meetings. It doesn't mean they agree with each other, but it is

:32:45. > :32:51.progress, that they are at least sitting around the same table. Thank

:32:52. > :32:54.you. The Foreign Secretary has mentioned the humanitarian convoys

:32:55. > :33:01.on the ground in Syria. More of them are getting through, but it is

:33:02. > :33:05.nowhere near the access the United Nations would need. What is the

:33:06. > :33:08.Foreign Secretary's assessment of how this latest Russian announcement

:33:09. > :33:14.may give further opportunities to put pressure on the Syrian regime

:33:15. > :33:20.itself to allow more aid through? As I have already said, I don't think

:33:21. > :33:23.that even if the Russians do withdraw forces, I don't think

:33:24. > :33:31.that'll make any direct impact the ability of human supplies to get in.

:33:32. > :33:35.Obviously, the things that almost assist the humanitarian supplies is

:33:36. > :33:38.the continuation of a cessation of hostilities. What actually happens

:33:39. > :33:45.on the ground next will depend on how any Russian withdrawal takes

:33:46. > :33:51.place, over what time period, and how the regime 's response to that.

:33:52. > :33:59.The cynic may suggest that the Syrian regime may have use the last

:34:00. > :34:02.two weeks to prepare for this moment. Perhaps the Syrian regime

:34:03. > :34:10.did know it was coming and perhaps they are prepared for it. The

:34:11. > :34:14.intervention by Russia in Syria was a surprise to the west. This

:34:15. > :34:19.withdrawal, if it is genuine, is also a surprise. Russia's

:34:20. > :34:25.interventions have been unhelpful but influential. Can he advise me

:34:26. > :34:31.what steps we can and are taking with our allies to stop Russia

:34:32. > :34:37.setting the agenda in Syria? It is a good question. It very difficult one

:34:38. > :34:46.to answer. The fact is, that all the other partners, the Western partners

:34:47. > :34:52.in this enterprise play by the rules of the international system. They

:34:53. > :34:56.are transparent about their intentions. We had a debate in this

:34:57. > :35:02.Parliament, a discussion that went on for a couple of years, before we

:35:03. > :35:07.got to the point of deciding to engage in air strikes in Syria. The

:35:08. > :35:11.entire world knew about the debate in the UK and where is the fault

:35:12. > :35:15.lines were in that debate. Unfortunately, Russia is a state in

:35:16. > :35:25.which all power is concentrated in the hands of one man. Decisions are

:35:26. > :35:29.made apparently arbitrarily, without any advance signalling, and as we

:35:30. > :35:35.are now seeing, they can be and made just as quickly. This is not a

:35:36. > :35:39.recipe for enhancing stability and predictability and the international

:35:40. > :35:43.scene. It makes the world a more dangerous place, not a less

:35:44. > :35:50.dangerous place. The Foreign Secretary is right not to spin

:35:51. > :35:55.Putin's announcement, but to wait for the evidence. If however it does

:35:56. > :35:58.serve to recondition some of Assad's assumptions about the negotiations,

:35:59. > :36:02.and if it does mean that elements in the opposition feel a bit more

:36:03. > :36:06.encouraged about the worth of their purpose in the negotiations, we

:36:07. > :36:14.should also be looking at it as an opportunity to make the dialogue

:36:15. > :36:21.more inclusive, not least for women. Our intention is that the dialogue

:36:22. > :36:27.showed the inclusive, representative of all faith groups, all ethnicities

:36:28. > :36:30.within the Syria, and also representative of civil society,

:36:31. > :36:37.including, of course, women. We shouldn't forget that before this

:36:38. > :36:44.horror started, Syria was in, bizarrely, one of the most liberal

:36:45. > :36:48.countries in terms of tolerance of religious minorities, tolerance of

:36:49. > :36:53.secular behaviour, the role of women, participation of women in

:36:54. > :36:56.society and the professions and employment. That is something that

:36:57. > :37:07.we would certainly need to get back to you, as Syria Read normalises in

:37:08. > :37:11.the future. Would he agree with me that one of the greatest problems we

:37:12. > :37:18.face in this situation, we have no real idea of the military resources

:37:19. > :37:24.that Russia put into Syria, so have no idea whether they have really

:37:25. > :37:28.withdrawn from Syria. Have you taken this into account in the coming

:37:29. > :37:32.months? I'm not sure I entirely agree. I think we have quite a

:37:33. > :37:40.reasonable assessment of the military resource that Russia has in

:37:41. > :37:43.Syria and we will be able to now monitor whether that resource is

:37:44. > :37:52.being genuinely withdrawn, or simply rotated. Given that Daesh has not

:37:53. > :37:57.been the main focus of Russian air strikes, to what extent does my

:37:58. > :38:05.friends think that the Russians would advocate a petition of Syria?

:38:06. > :38:11.It's a subject of speculation, whether the immediate objective of

:38:12. > :38:17.the Assad regime and indeed of the Russians is to carve out some kind

:38:18. > :38:22.of mini state in the north-west of Syria, but, as I have said many

:38:23. > :38:25.times this morning, because we have no dialogue about these things,

:38:26. > :38:36.because Russia is completely and transparent about its motives and

:38:37. > :38:40.its plans, we can only speculate. For any peaceful transition in

:38:41. > :38:46.Syria, along with the Russian withdrawal, Iran would also need to

:38:47. > :38:48.withdraw its militia, military personnel, military advisers, which

:38:49. > :39:00.had been supporting the brutal Assad regime. Do we have any news on that?

:39:01. > :39:03.Well, our views are that my honourable friend is right. Clearly,

:39:04. > :39:09.for there to be a sustainable peace in Syria, the militias and the

:39:10. > :39:14.Iranian sponsors and advisers will have to be stood down, just as the

:39:15. > :39:19.Russians will have two withdraw their forces. But we have no

:39:20. > :39:25.indication yet that we are going to see a matching announcement from

:39:26. > :39:32.withdrawal of Iranians back to withdrawal of Iranians back to

:39:33. > :39:36.forces from Syria. Given the experience we had in Crimea and

:39:37. > :39:40.eastern Ukraine, when forces that looked like Russian forces were and

:39:41. > :39:44.like Russian forces and behaved like them arrived and then disavowed,

:39:45. > :39:48.what confidence do we have that this will be a genuine withdrawal and we

:39:49. > :39:51.won't see forces carrying a Russian flag disappeared, only to be replace

:39:52. > :39:56.on the ground by first-ever suspiciously like them?

:39:57. > :40:03.What we are primarily talking about here is a forces, and that trick is

:40:04. > :40:08.a little more difficult to perform when we are talking about advanced

:40:09. > :40:13.strike aircraft. But we can't roll out the possibility of Russian

:40:14. > :40:16.sponsored irregular forces playing some future role in this conflict.

:40:17. > :40:23.-- ruler. Before we come to points of order

:40:24. > :40:27.only to make a short statement which I hope will help the hosts in the

:40:28. > :40:32.matter to come. Owing to a printing error, and incorrect version of the

:40:33. > :40:40.programme motion has been printed on the order paper. The collection will

:40:41. > :40:45.be in the vote office and online shortly. -- correction. The

:40:46. > :40:49.significant difference is that two days are proposed for consideration

:40:50. > :40:55.and third Reading, rather than the one day referred to incorrectly on

:40:56. > :41:00.the order paper. -- third reading. And the motion will be moved in this

:41:01. > :41:05.correct form after second reading. My understanding is that two days we

:41:06. > :41:14.wanted by all parties, so they should I think be rejoicing about

:41:15. > :41:19.this matter. It wasn't a point of order, it was a

:41:20. > :41:22.statement at the right honourable gentleman's usually got points of

:41:23. > :41:28.order before breakfast, lunch and dinner so I am happy to hear his

:41:29. > :41:34.point of order. His statement that the two days was

:41:35. > :41:38.agreed by all parties is actually agreed by the frontbenchers. Many of

:41:39. > :41:44.us believe that this enormous constitutional Bill about privacy

:41:45. > :41:47.and security requires four days, that is at least a dozen major

:41:48. > :41:54.things that need to be dealt with, and we will not be able to do it in

:41:55. > :41:58.committee. I ask him actually, can he give his advice to us as front

:41:59. > :42:09.bench -- backbenchers, how do we get this Bill debated properly? I

:42:10. > :42:13.respect the right honourable gentleman's sincerity, and what is

:42:14. > :42:18.wanted by the frontbenchers is not necessarily the same as what is

:42:19. > :42:22.wanted by the back. I have no control over the programme motion.

:42:23. > :42:29.And that is a matter for the House. All I can say is that if there is

:42:30. > :42:34.very strong cross-party feeling, I have a sense that ministers will

:42:35. > :42:39.inevitably be on the roof and -- receiving end of it. And having got

:42:40. > :42:43.the list in front of me is the right honourable gentleman is subtly in

:42:44. > :42:45.the process advertising his own interest in being called to speak, I

:42:46. > :42:56.think his effort has been successful. Part of order, Mr Andrew

:42:57. > :43:01.Griffiths. A few moments ago amongst all the excitement of hearing what

:43:02. > :43:05.the Government were doing to support the pubs industry, and in event

:43:06. > :43:13.today forgot to draw the House's attention to my register of

:43:14. > :43:18.interests. -- inadvertently. Good I rectify the mistake? He has found

:43:19. > :43:25.his own salvation. I am deeply indebted to him, as of course is the

:43:26. > :43:29.House. On March the 8th, the Member for Birmingham Yardley made a very

:43:30. > :43:34.powerful speech in this chamber which you yourself described as

:43:35. > :43:38.moving. And the most striking part of that speech is when she read out

:43:39. > :43:44.a list of the names of women who have died in the past year as a

:43:45. > :43:51.result of domestic violence. In 2009, after lists of those who had

:43:52. > :43:55.fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan had been read in this chamber,

:43:56. > :44:00.prohibition was introduced from the chair saying that no longer would

:44:01. > :44:05.members be allowed to read out lists of the fallen, and we are now in the

:44:06. > :44:09.strange permission where it is permissible to read at those who

:44:10. > :44:12.have died as a result of domestic violence, but prohibited to read out

:44:13. > :44:17.the lists of those who have fallen in the service of this country.

:44:18. > :44:20.Could you reflect on this, and introduce perhaps a rule that would

:44:21. > :44:28.allow members to make the speeches they decide to make rather than the

:44:29. > :44:33.limited by conditions laid out by the chair? I thank the honourable

:44:34. > :44:37.gentleman for his point of order, and for his characteristic courtesy

:44:38. > :44:41.in giving the advance notice of it. I appreciate that the honourable

:44:42. > :44:45.member feels that there is inconsistency between the latitude

:44:46. > :44:49.allowed by the chair to the honourable lady, the Member for

:44:50. > :44:52.Birmingham Yardley, in the debate to mark International women's's day,

:44:53. > :44:56.and earlier rulings from the chair on his own attempts to read out the

:44:57. > :45:00.names of members of the Armed Forces who had died in operations overseas.

:45:01. > :45:06.These are matters of judgment for the chair. And my immediate response

:45:07. > :45:12.to him, I am happy to reflect upon it further, is that they are I think

:45:13. > :45:19.best approached on a case-by-case basis. My concern is that there

:45:20. > :45:24.should be reasonable -- reasonableness and balance in this

:45:25. > :45:34.-- these matters. I don't think the House would receive it well if list

:45:35. > :45:43.reading became a very regular phenomenon. Or indeed if I may say

:45:44. > :45:46.so, a repetitive campaign tool. However, I simply say to the

:45:47. > :45:54.honourable gentleman that it is open to members to seek my thoughts in

:45:55. > :46:01.advance on these matters, if they have such an intention in mind. And

:46:02. > :46:04.I think I will if I may leave it there for today, I appreciate his

:46:05. > :46:11.sincerity and I hope he appreciates mine. If there are no further points

:46:12. > :46:18.of order, we come now to the ten minute rule motion. Caroline Flint.

:46:19. > :46:22.I beg to move that need be given to bringing in a Bill to reply --

:46:23. > :46:26.require certain multinationals to include within the annual financial

:46:27. > :46:29.reporting specified information prepared in accordance with the

:46:30. > :46:35.organisation for economic cooperation on a country by country

:46:36. > :46:39.basis and for connected purposes. My thanks for the opportunity to

:46:40. > :46:44.prevent -- present this modest Bill, which seeks to move in tackling tax

:46:45. > :46:48.avoidance but takes it one step further. One small step for this

:46:49. > :46:53.House, but the results of which will be a huge step forward for those who

:46:54. > :46:59.believe in tax justice, fairness and transparency in the UK and globally.

:47:00. > :47:04.My Bill will ensure the important -- that important information about

:47:05. > :47:10.large companies is published by a -- companies house. Information that by

:47:11. > :47:15.UK law, such companies will have two provide to HMIC from the first

:47:16. > :47:19.January this year. I'm delighted my Bill has received cross-party

:47:20. > :47:24.support and is being backed by the tax Justice network, Oxfam,

:47:25. > :47:27.Christian Aid and others. We all shared concerns that the way in

:47:28. > :47:33.which multinational companies shift profits to low tax dominions,

:47:34. > :47:39.sometimes even when the employees there are zero. The headlines caused

:47:40. > :47:42.by the recent Google tax deal reflected public consternation. How

:47:43. > :47:47.could a company with thousands of UK employees, five offices, a new ?1

:47:48. > :47:52.billion headquarters to be built near King's Cross with the UK only

:47:53. > :47:57.second to the US in terms of revenues, only pay up ?130 million

:47:58. > :48:03.in tax after six years of investigation into a tax period of

:48:04. > :48:08.ten years? Bear in mind their global revenues for 2015 were $74 billion.

:48:09. > :48:12.With my colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee, we questioned

:48:13. > :48:19.both Google and HMIC. But we are still unclear as to whether the

:48:20. > :48:22.hundred 30 -- ?130 -- 100 ?30 million represented a good deal. I

:48:23. > :48:26.understand the protection of tax Prevacid, especially when it comes

:48:27. > :48:31.to individuals. But we live in a world where multinationals you

:48:32. > :48:38.transfer pricing and shell companies to shift profits from one country to

:48:39. > :48:42.another. -- tax provision. Isn't it extraordinary that in 2010 Bermuda

:48:43. > :48:49.had total reported corporate profits that were the equivalent of 1643% of

:48:50. > :48:55.their actual GDP? Could that be because Bermuda has a zero rate of

:48:56. > :48:59.corporation tax? Isn't it extraordinary that sales staff for

:49:00. > :49:04.Google in the UK sell an advert to a company in the UK, yet the

:49:05. > :49:14.transaction is confirmed online via Ireland, where the prevailing

:49:15. > :49:17.corporate tax rate is 12.5% as opposed to 20% in the UK? This

:49:18. > :49:19.problem is not confined to Google or online businesses. Coffey chains,

:49:20. > :49:22.oil companies, drinks companies, pharmaceuticals, what they all have

:49:23. > :49:26.in common is that they are multinationals. The back -- the

:49:27. > :49:30.impact of entirely lawful manipulation of different countries

:49:31. > :49:35.proposed tax rules is that countries find the tax base is undermined and

:49:36. > :49:38.profits are shifted not through any real economic activity but through

:49:39. > :49:48.arbitrary internal charges between different units of the same company.

:49:49. > :49:51.The impact is to create unfair competition providing a competitive

:49:52. > :49:56.advantage over say, a domestic UK rival paying 20% tax on its profits.

:49:57. > :50:03.It is these strange arrangements that enabled Facebook to pay just

:50:04. > :50:11.?4377 in corporation tax in 2014. The same year it paid 35mm pounds in

:50:12. > :50:17.bonuses to UK-based staff. That is a very, very strange form of

:50:18. > :50:24.performance pay. AstraZeneca paid no corporation tax in 2014, 2015, yet

:50:25. > :50:30.2014 was a remarkable year for them according to its CEO. It had full

:50:31. > :50:34.year revenues of over $26 billion. Vodafone, British American Tobacco,

:50:35. > :50:39.the list of corporate giants with like UK tax bills goes on. I fully

:50:40. > :50:43.support the Chancellor's legislation to require financial reporting to

:50:44. > :50:47.HMIC from UK-based multinationals with revenues in excess of

:50:48. > :50:52.approximately ?600 million, and UK units of such companies, whether

:50:53. > :50:56.parent company is based in a country which does not yet agreed to country

:50:57. > :51:02.by country reporting. This reporting in accordance to OECD guidelines

:51:03. > :51:06.would include showing for each tax jurisdiction in which they do

:51:07. > :51:11.business, the amount of revenue, profit before income tax and income

:51:12. > :51:14.tax paid and approved. And their total employment capital of retained

:51:15. > :51:19.earnings and tangible assets. They would also be required to identify

:51:20. > :51:23.each entity within the group doing business in a particular tax

:51:24. > :51:26.jurisdiction, and provide an indication of business activities

:51:27. > :51:31.within a selection of broad areas which each entity is engaged in. The

:51:32. > :51:36.Government's proposals would make about 400 companies share some or

:51:37. > :51:47.all of its -- their activities worth world from -- worldwide, but we can

:51:48. > :51:49.do more. By requiring this information to be published, not

:51:50. > :51:51.only will HMIC see the bigger picture so will we. Publication is

:51:52. > :51:53.one way to ensure that these companies explain their tax planning

:51:54. > :51:57.but also restore the tarnished reputations. I believe it would

:51:58. > :52:05.deter companies from using tax havens and shell companies, sent a

:52:06. > :52:14.strong signal to developing countries. Charities say that

:52:15. > :52:17.developing countries lose more in potential revenue each year owing to

:52:18. > :52:21.corporate tax dodging than the amount given annually in overseas

:52:22. > :52:28.aid by all richer countries. That made me stop and think. Stop and

:52:29. > :52:32.think about how much more we could do to enable developing countries to

:52:33. > :52:38.prosper and be more self-sufficient through measures such as my Bill. Ed

:52:39. > :52:44.is vital for pro-relations, but just as important is a hand-out, -- hand

:52:45. > :52:47.up, not just a hand-out. That will not happen unless we force this

:52:48. > :52:52.companies to come clean. I looked the Chancellor for support with my

:52:53. > :52:56.Bill, and I may be onto a winner when the budget is announced

:52:57. > :52:59.tomorrow. I reminded the Chancellor in the letter that this Bill is in

:53:00. > :53:03.keeping with his own sentiments, when in February he told an

:53:04. > :53:07.international meeting of finance ministers, "I think we should be

:53:08. > :53:11.moving to more public, country by country reporting, this is something

:53:12. > :53:17.the UK will seek to promote internationally." I agree, but I say

:53:18. > :53:21.to the Chancellor, why wait? The tide is turning against secrecy,

:53:22. > :53:25.with business led organisations encouraging firms to be open about

:53:26. > :53:29.their taxes and not to use tax havens. It's immoral's budget or the

:53:30. > :53:33.Finance Bill that follows, the Government can adopt this measure

:53:34. > :53:40.and be in front of the pack. -- in tomorrow's budget. We all want

:53:41. > :53:44.successful companies in the UK, as do our constituents. But we want

:53:45. > :53:48.them to pay fair tax. Too many multinational companies seem to be

:53:49. > :53:53.choosing the tax they want to pay, rather than paying the tax they

:53:54. > :53:57.should pay, by a complicated international arrangement. The

:53:58. > :54:00.winners from public reporting are the Government, HMIC, those

:54:01. > :54:04.businesses and taxpayers who have already paid fair taxes, and

:54:05. > :54:09.developing countries who are losing out. But multinationals should not

:54:10. > :54:26.see this as a threat, but as an opportunity to

:54:27. > :54:30.restore the reputation of their brand. They can be winners as well.

:54:31. > :54:32.My Bill has received support from right honourable and honourable

:54:33. > :54:34.members across the House, I am so delighted to have received support

:54:35. > :54:36.from ten of my colleagues reflecting all the political parties on the

:54:37. > :54:39.Public Accounts Committee. Members from five separate parties have

:54:40. > :54:41.agreed to sponsor the Bill. And I thank them for that. It is time for

:54:42. > :54:44.multinational corporations to come clean and play fair with Government

:54:45. > :54:48.and the public. And we can start with the UK. In the interests of

:54:49. > :54:55.social justice, fairness and yes, it -- good business, I commend the Bill

:54:56. > :54:57.to the House. Vote-macro As many as are of the

:54:58. > :55:04.opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no".

:55:05. > :55:09.I think the ayes have it. Who will repair -- prepare and bring in the

:55:10. > :55:14.Bill. Karen Smith, Anne-Marie Trevelyan,

:55:15. > :55:17.Nigel Mills, Dame Margaret Hodge, Stephen Kinnock, Jeremy Lefroy,

:55:18. > :55:36.Doctor Philippa Whitford, Mark Durkan and myself.

:55:37. > :56:15.Multinational Eterprises financial transparency. Friday, 22nd of April.

:56:16. > :56:24.Clark will now read the orders. Investigated powers. How he received

:56:25. > :56:28.a communication from the government, about the interception of

:56:29. > :56:31.Communications department, under those bill, if the government

:56:32. > :56:34.decides to intercept the communications of members of

:56:35. > :56:46.Parliament, they have got to consult the Prime Minister, is it not wise

:56:47. > :56:49.we consider you as well? You have to ensure the independence of this

:56:50. > :56:56.Parliament, it is surely not correct that one part of the executive

:56:57. > :57:04.should and does it communications, and the head should authorise?

:57:05. > :57:19.Nobody should be judged, in his or her own course. I am here merely to

:57:20. > :57:22.serve. It is good, of the honourable gentleman, to put me for this

:57:23. > :57:32.voluntarily rule. Those should be the judge. But I do note the

:57:33. > :57:39.substantive point, and if you sure that the Home Secretary will have

:57:40. > :57:43.heard what he has to say. If she does not respond to his point, he

:57:44. > :57:49.will probably make it again, and again, and conceivably, again. To

:57:50. > :58:00.move the second reading, the Home Secretary. Thank you Mr Speaker. Mr

:58:01. > :58:12.Speaker, before I began, members of the house will be aware of the death

:58:13. > :58:16.of a prison officer attacked ten days ago in east Belfast. The

:58:17. > :58:24.deepest sympathies, to his friends, family and colleagues. Consolidating

:58:25. > :58:29.the country's investigative powers, inner wheel all that will stand the

:58:30. > :58:34.test of time. Over the last two years, detailed analysis of those

:58:35. > :58:40.investigatory powers,, consultation with law enforcement, intelligence

:58:41. > :58:44.agencies, and industry. And following the publication of the

:58:45. > :58:50.draft last autumn, scrutiny by a joint committee of both Houses of

:58:51. > :58:56.Parliament, and the science and technology committee. I want to

:58:57. > :59:08.begin by placing an Rickard, my gratitude to the cheer people of

:59:09. > :59:12.those committees, and noble lord Murphy, for the work that those

:59:13. > :59:17.members have undertaken. The scrutiny has helped to improve the

:59:18. > :59:29.bill, reflecting the majority of recommendations. The revised bill is

:59:30. > :59:34.clearer. It includes stronger privacy, bolstering protection, and

:59:35. > :59:41.prevents agencies from asking foreign agencies to intercept

:59:42. > :59:46.communications, unless the other one and approved by the Secretary of

:59:47. > :59:54.State. It reduces the amount of ten, in which urgent warrants must be

:59:55. > :59:56.reviewed, from five to three. And it strengthens the perils of the

:59:57. > :00:01.Commissioner. Alongside introduction of the bill, also records of

:00:02. > :00:17.practice, so that they could be reviewed. Under this bill... The

:00:18. > :00:21.present system, to be reduced to one, can the Secretary of State

:00:22. > :00:24.convince the house, it is in the interests of freedom and democracy,

:00:25. > :00:34.that we reduce the number of commissioners? I have to say to the

:00:35. > :00:40.honourable gentleman, one person overseeing the commission, they will

:00:41. > :00:49.have an dobbing a number of judicial commissioners. Extensive expedience,

:00:50. > :00:59.undertaking tasks, the question of the new process of authorisation.

:01:00. > :01:04.Also, undertaking the inspection and review of the operation of the

:01:05. > :01:11.agencies. In the way the three have so far. This is actually going to

:01:12. > :01:15.enhance the oversight. Mr Speaker, the scrutiny that this bill has

:01:16. > :01:19.undergone, builds upon the previous work of the Intelligence and

:01:20. > :01:26.Security Committee, the independent enquiry, into the practices,

:01:27. > :01:33.convened by the Royal United services, and carried out by David

:01:34. > :01:38.Allison QC. All the reviews made clear, that legislation made clear

:01:39. > :01:44.the of communications needed to be consolidated and made clear. Taken

:01:45. > :01:49.together, the scrutiny that this has received could be without

:01:50. > :01:56.precedence. Three reports informed the drafting. The committees then

:01:57. > :02:05.scrutinise that, I now that precedes, for proper consideration

:02:06. > :02:12.by both Houses of Parliament. This bill will provide world leading

:02:13. > :02:18.information. It is going to provide unparalleled openness, treat the

:02:19. > :02:29.stronger safeguards and establish a rigorous oversight fishing. The data

:02:30. > :02:32.prevention act, which it intends to replace, contains a sunset clause,

:02:33. > :02:40.requiring us to pass legislation by the end of 2016. This is the team

:02:41. > :02:48.table set by Parliament. And threats we face mean we have to. Terrorists

:02:49. > :02:53.are operating online, with the region that has never existed

:02:54. > :02:58.before. They will continue to do so, so long as it gives them a perceived

:02:59. > :03:05.advantage. We must ensure that those charged with keeping us safe are

:03:06. > :03:10.able to keep his. This will provide the intelligence agencies with the

:03:11. > :03:15.peril that they need, and it will ensure that they can continue the

:03:16. > :03:20.tremendous work that so often goes unreported. To protect the people of

:03:21. > :03:30.this country, from those who mean heart. -- harm. The Intelligence and

:03:31. > :03:37.Security Committee concluded that privacy protection should form the

:03:38. > :03:41.backbone of the legislation, that is indeed the case. It's strictly

:03:42. > :03:49.limits the public authorities can use these investigatory powers, has

:03:50. > :03:56.the sort, and sets it in more detail the safeguards that are to the

:03:57. > :04:00.material obtained. Bill starts with an assumption of privacy, and

:04:01. > :04:09.communication, part one provides an offence for unlawful interception,

:04:10. > :04:13.it can be resulting in a custodial sentence. Recklessly obtaining

:04:14. > :04:19.communication data, without lawful organisation. Misuse of these

:04:20. > :04:28.powers, by police, and other authorities would be the penalties.

:04:29. > :04:30.And it abolishes the powers, to obtain communications data. Public

:04:31. > :04:41.authorities would in future only be able to obtain the minute you

:04:42. > :04:44.through the powers, in this Bill. Can I thank the Home Secretary. We

:04:45. > :04:55.know that their internet service providers are vulnerable, to

:04:56. > :05:00.hacking. Some newspapers, not adverse to passing brown envelopes.

:05:01. > :05:07.Is the Home Secretary satisfied that this can prevent, that hacking,

:05:08. > :05:15.access to an individual's personal information? In relation to the

:05:16. > :05:24.investigatory powers,, it sets out enhanced safeguards, for those

:05:25. > :05:27.arrangements. As the honourable gentleman will know, issues of

:05:28. > :05:32.inappropriate access to information have been a matter of court cases.

:05:33. > :05:35.It is tightly correct that these matters are being accessed

:05:36. > :05:42.criminally, that should be good with. What I have just set out, new

:05:43. > :05:47.offences with this. Dealing with questions, or people obtaining

:05:48. > :06:00.knowingly or recklessly, communications data. She will know

:06:01. > :06:04.that I am a supporter of this. But does she have my concerns, looking

:06:05. > :06:14.at international human rights, Imogen European crevasses, --

:06:15. > :06:18.emerging European privacy laws, even if this bill became an act of

:06:19. > :06:30.Parliament, could she foresee any problems, internationally? The

:06:31. > :06:35.honourable gentleman raises an important point. Many of the

:06:36. > :06:42.internet service providers, based in other countries. One of the other

:06:43. > :06:47.issues that we have been continuing to progress, discussions with the

:06:48. > :06:49.United States authorities, about the Christian under which circumstances

:06:50. > :06:55.it is possible to ensure that warrants issued there, can be

:06:56. > :07:00.exercised across the United States. We are always have had territorial

:07:01. > :07:07.jurisdiction, the previously pro-government that introduced the

:07:08. > :07:10.legislation also establish that jurisdiction. It has never been

:07:11. > :07:17.tested but we have that discussion with the united states. The Home

:07:18. > :07:28.Secretary recently met with my constituents. Barry. 14-year-old

:07:29. > :07:37.son, groomed online then murdered. Could the Home Secretary explain how

:07:38. > :07:46.the bill would help prevent any similar cases? Absolutely tragic

:07:47. > :07:57.case. I know the enormous distress that was caused. Not just by the

:07:58. > :08:04.grooming. But other actions, that have taken place and is. What we are

:08:05. > :08:09.doing with them this legislation, I think is ensuring that the

:08:10. > :08:15.authorities, more enforcement, the police, will have powers to be able

:08:16. > :08:28.to better investigate those sort of incidents. Sadly, the incident that

:08:29. > :08:31.led to that date. Restricting the use of powers outside of the

:08:32. > :08:36.legislation, for equipment interference. The police or

:08:37. > :08:40.intelligence agencies, wishing to interfere with the smartphone, to

:08:41. > :08:46.obtain vital evidence, I warrant would be required. And it also

:08:47. > :08:53.responds to the recommendations of the Intelligence and Security

:08:54. > :08:55.Committee, placing a statutory suspension, for other countries to

:08:56. > :08:59.intercept communications of somebody and United Kingdom. No suggestion

:09:00. > :09:05.that the agencies could use international relationships to avoid

:09:06. > :09:12.the safeguards. And for the avoidance of doubt, to answer some

:09:13. > :09:14.questions, I cultivate the territorial jurisdiction, I meant

:09:15. > :09:19.extraterritorial destruction. The house is going to know that the

:09:20. > :09:25.interception of community should, listening to a telephone, is one of

:09:26. > :09:30.the most sensitive and intrusive capabilities available to more

:09:31. > :09:34.enforcement. It is also one of the most valuable. Over the past

:09:35. > :09:47.decades, interception has played a part in every top piracy, --

:09:48. > :09:50.priortity MI5 cases. In the interests of national security,

:09:51. > :09:59.economic well-being the United Kingdom. Authorising warrants is one

:10:00. > :10:03.of the most important means, by which the secretaries can hold

:10:04. > :10:08.law-enforcement to account for their actions. We had accountable to the

:10:09. > :10:12.host, through elected representatives to the public. But

:10:13. > :10:16.part two is going to introduce an important new safeguards. As

:10:17. > :10:22.Secretary of State, they will need to be satisfied that the activity is

:10:23. > :10:25.proportionate. But in future, it cannot be issued until a decision to

:10:26. > :10:32.issue it has been formally approved by the judicial Commissioner. This

:10:33. > :10:35.will place a double what, organisation, preserving the vital

:10:36. > :10:37.element of democratic accountability, but introduce

:10:38. > :10:47.independent judicial authorisation. I am grateful to the honourable

:10:48. > :10:52.lady. She may have seen a letter in today's Guardian from a number of

:10:53. > :10:56.lawyers, which suggested that this legislation was intended to give

:10:57. > :10:59.generalised access to electronic communications content. Which she

:11:00. > :11:05.agree that that is the very thing which this Bill does not actually do

:11:06. > :11:11.at all? And that the double lock mechanism is there as an assurance

:11:12. > :11:14.that it doesn't happen. My right honourable friend is right, the

:11:15. > :11:20.point about this Bill is that it will only be possible to access, to

:11:21. > :11:24.intercept communications, under this dual authority, this double lock

:11:25. > :11:28.that has been put into place, and it is not the case that the authorities

:11:29. > :11:33.are looking for a generalised access to the contents of communications. I

:11:34. > :11:39.thank my right honourable friend for bringing that to the attention of

:11:40. > :11:46.the House. I will give way to my right honourable friend. As she

:11:47. > :11:52.quite rightly says, should -- this is an important power but also a

:11:53. > :11:56.very sensitive one. She exercised it about two and a thousand times a

:11:57. > :12:04.year, about ten times a working day. How long does she take typically

:12:05. > :12:08.over one of these decisions? It is impossible to put a time on it

:12:09. > :12:12.because each decision differs. The amount of information that's

:12:13. > :12:17.available, the type of case, the extent to which it we refer -- may

:12:18. > :12:20.refer to a matter already being considered, so the amount of time

:12:21. > :12:31.and give to each case is the amount of time necessary to make the right

:12:32. > :12:38.judgment each case. -- to each case. There have also been cases where

:12:39. > :12:41.police misconduct is alleged and intercept has been used, and

:12:42. > :12:47.subsequently it has been hard to use that in the -- evidence in front of

:12:48. > :12:51.a jury, particularly one in a coroner's court. Does she envisage

:12:52. > :12:57.any change in relation to that, is she minded to put that on the face

:12:58. > :13:00.of the legislation? He has raised an important point, he will be aware of

:13:01. > :13:05.one particular case in recent years where this has been the case,

:13:06. > :13:09.whether question of the admissibility of evidence at an

:13:10. > :13:13.inquest has been an issue. This is a matter we are not putting on the

:13:14. > :13:16.face of this Bill, it is a matter that was explored previously when

:13:17. > :13:23.the closed material proceedings were in certain cases, but we are looking

:13:24. > :13:27.actively at whether there are other means in which we can ensure that

:13:28. > :13:34.the appropriate information is available when those sorts of cases

:13:35. > :13:37.are being considered. And someone who also has signed thousands of

:13:38. > :13:43.these warrants, I think I would have welcomed this judicial commissioner

:13:44. > :13:45.having a look as well, and I congratulate my right honourable

:13:46. > :13:51.friend on making this very significant came -- change. Does she

:13:52. > :13:54.recall in the Bill, which additional commissioner who will only have the

:13:55. > :14:00.powers to act in the same way that a judge might act in a case of

:14:01. > :14:04.judicial review? Which means only overruling her if she is behaving in

:14:05. > :14:08.some completely unreasonable way. Does she think that is necessary,

:14:09. > :14:10.and should not accept that might be some value if age additional

:14:11. > :14:18.commissioner disagrees with her in at least having a discussion which

:14:19. > :14:21.covers broader principles of judgment and doesn't just base it on

:14:22. > :14:27.the fact that she is somehow behaving in a way no reasonable man

:14:28. > :14:31.or woman otherwise would. My right honourable friend, with a degree of

:14:32. > :14:35.prescience, has referred to the next issue I was going to address. I was

:14:36. > :14:38.going to point out that I know that some honourable and right honourable

:14:39. > :14:43.members had scrutinised the language in the Bill and had raised exactly

:14:44. > :14:47.this issue. I want to be clear about this. Under the Bill it will be for

:14:48. > :14:51.the traditional commissioner to decide the nature and extent of the

:14:52. > :14:55.scrutiny that he or she wishes to apply. And crucially I think I can

:14:56. > :14:57.reassure honourable and right honourable members that

:14:58. > :15:02.commissioners will have access to all of the material that was put the

:15:03. > :15:05.Secretary of State. So the traditional commissioner will not

:15:06. > :15:09.just be looking at the process but will actually be able to look at the

:15:10. > :15:17.excessive -- proportionality of the warrant being proposed. I would like

:15:18. > :15:23.to make a little progress... A little supplementary, if I may? It

:15:24. > :15:27.is more than my life's worth not to give way to for my cube -- Home

:15:28. > :15:33.Secretary! Sometimes the information is very simple, very limited. Will

:15:34. > :15:39.the traditional commissioner have the ability to ask for more

:15:40. > :15:43.information which has not gone before the Home Secretary, if he or

:15:44. > :15:47.she, the Jewish additional commissioner really wishes to know a

:15:48. > :15:53.bit more about this one, to check what has been put towards -- for the

:15:54. > :15:57.Home Secretary? -- traditional commissioner. It is important that

:15:58. > :16:01.the Secretary of State of age additional commissioner make

:16:02. > :16:07.decisions on the basis of the same information being available. If the

:16:08. > :16:10.traditional commissioner decides there is not sufficient information,

:16:11. > :16:15.he or she would refuse that warrant. It would be open to the Secretary of

:16:16. > :16:18.State to appeal to the investigatory Powers commissioner to look at that

:16:19. > :16:22.particular one again, or it might be if it had been refused in that

:16:23. > :16:28.circumstance that actually the Secretary of State would say

:16:29. > :16:34.themselves, take the warrant back, put more information back and

:16:35. > :16:43.resubmit that warrant. I will give way to the Scottish national

:16:44. > :16:46.spokesman. On a point of clarification, regarding the letter

:16:47. > :16:49.to the Guardian, is the honourable lady aware that what this letter is

:16:50. > :16:54.taking issue with is bulk interception warrants and bulk

:16:55. > :17:00.equipment interference warrants, which even the ISC said should be

:17:01. > :17:04.removed from the Bill? I will come onto the issue of mock warrants, but

:17:05. > :17:09.what was clear from the committee reports that came forward was that

:17:10. > :17:14.the powers that are in this Bill are necessary. The ISC raised a question

:17:15. > :17:18.the bulky equipment interception warrants. The Government has been

:17:19. > :17:22.able to produce further information on all bog cases, following that. We

:17:23. > :17:28.published some case studies, examples of how these powers would

:17:29. > :17:34.be used. -- bulk cases. I will give way to the honourable lady.

:17:35. > :17:37.Can I take her to the other end of the telescope on this matter,

:17:38. > :17:41.because one of the concerns people have about a generalised access

:17:42. > :17:46.point is not with the warrants, but with the notion that you can

:17:47. > :17:52.separate out contact and content. But the idea that there would be

:17:53. > :17:56.access to content date -- contact -- contact data, which would be blurred

:17:57. > :18:01.with content data online. Does she accept there is a challenge Re:

:18:02. > :18:04.separating contact and content data. It is not the same as a phone record

:18:05. > :18:11.when you look at somebody's intimate correspondence.

:18:12. > :18:14.I know this issue was -- Internet correspondence.

:18:15. > :18:19.I know this issue was raised, and has been raised in relation to the

:18:20. > :18:23.Internet connection records power. But it is absolutely possible, and

:18:24. > :18:27.we have been talking at length with the companies, to be able to

:18:28. > :18:32.separate in Internet connection records for example the device or a

:18:33. > :18:36.website that a particular device has accessed, and not then go into the

:18:37. > :18:40.content of whatever it is that is being looked at in relation to that.

:18:41. > :18:46.It is very important that I make that clear, because when -- we're

:18:47. > :18:50.not talking about looking at people's Web browsing history,

:18:51. > :18:56.simply that initial of contact. Can I also say in relation to the

:18:57. > :19:01.authorisation process we have been discussing in relation to questions

:19:02. > :19:05.raised by my right honourable and learned member for Rushcliffe, but I

:19:06. > :19:10.welcome the joint committees clear endorsement of the double knock

:19:11. > :19:13.regime. And I have to say to members of this House that those who think

:19:14. > :19:19.that the senior division should -- judiciary will simply rubber-stamp

:19:20. > :19:27.decisions, have simply never with protest judges. The provisions have

:19:28. > :19:32.also been tightened in response to pre-legislative scrutiny, in

:19:33. > :19:37.response -- in regard to urgent warrants. If I may make a little

:19:38. > :19:42.more progress. In urgent circumstances such as a fast-moving

:19:43. > :19:48.kidnap investigation, a warrant can still come into force as soon as the

:19:49. > :19:54.Secretary of State has authorised it, but if this -- commissioner

:19:55. > :19:59.disagrees with the Secretary's decision, he can agree that all

:20:00. > :20:03.material will be destroyed. The Bill also provides sufficient safeguards

:20:04. > :20:06.for parliamentarians and lawyers' communications. In any case where it

:20:07. > :20:10.is proposed to intercept parliamentarians' communications,

:20:11. > :20:18.the Prime Minister would be consulted. As for legally privileged

:20:19. > :20:27.communications, it can also -- only be accessed in specific situations.

:20:28. > :20:31.Such as in the context of the loss of life. But of course members of

:20:32. > :20:37.Parliament should not be above the law, and the procedure would ensure

:20:38. > :20:42.that members -- we all recognise that. But in some of the most dodgy

:20:43. > :20:47.regimes of which I was of course is not one, governments do intercept

:20:48. > :20:50.communications of members of Parliament, so surely an extra

:20:51. > :20:56.safeguard to be absolutely assured would be that the Speaker looked at

:20:57. > :21:01.this as well. Why not? I heard his exchange with the Mr Speaker

:21:02. > :21:08.earlier. I think the important extra safeguard being put in, there are

:21:09. > :21:10.two, the first is on the face of the Bill that the Prime Minister will be

:21:11. > :21:15.consulted, but also it has that double knock authorisation, so it is

:21:16. > :21:23.the case that in future interception of anybody's warrant, including

:21:24. > :21:28.members of parliament, should that be the case, will not just be

:21:29. > :21:31.subject to the determination of a democratically elected individual

:21:32. > :21:33.but will also be subject to the independent decision of the

:21:34. > :21:42.judiciary, through the judicial commissioners. I think that is an

:21:43. > :21:47.important safeguard. She was right to point to the patchy relationship

:21:48. > :21:50.between the judiciary and governments of all colours, but I

:21:51. > :21:55.think the Bill strikes the right balance. It strikes me as being

:21:56. > :22:00.absolutely imperative, somebody who is democratically accountable this

:22:01. > :22:04.House in the country, has almost the first say on whether these things

:22:05. > :22:07.are going to be done. Perfectly right for a judge properly trained

:22:08. > :22:17.to have an overdue asthma overview of it, -- but if we were to lose

:22:18. > :22:22.this provision, that would be a retrograde step. I think we have got

:22:23. > :22:25.the balance right, many people have said just have judicial

:22:26. > :22:29.authorisation, some believe it should just be Secretary of State

:22:30. > :22:37.authorisation. I think having the two we get that Democratic began --

:22:38. > :22:42.accountability. I will make some progress if I may, my honourable

:22:43. > :22:47.friend may try again but I will make some progress because I wanted to

:22:48. > :22:54.know to communications data. That is the who, when, where, and how of a

:22:55. > :22:57.communication. Such communications data is vital to investigations

:22:58. > :23:02.carried out by the police and security agencies. It has been used

:23:03. > :23:07.and 95% of all organised crime prosecutions by the CPO, it is used

:23:08. > :23:10.to investigate, understand and disrupt terrorist prompts -- plots,

:23:11. > :23:14.it has played a part in the investigation of some very serious

:23:15. > :23:19.crime cases, it can tie suspects and victims to a crime scene, proved or

:23:20. > :23:23.disproved alibis, and it can help to locate a missing child or adult.

:23:24. > :23:28.Part three and four of the Bill will therefore proved -- preserve this

:23:29. > :23:33.power for the police and security agencies, but also provide strong

:23:34. > :23:36.privacy safeguards. Requests for communications data will require the

:23:37. > :23:43.approval of an independent designated senior officer. In

:23:44. > :23:46.addition, requests by local authorities also require

:23:47. > :23:50.authorisation by a magistrate, and requests by any public authority,

:23:51. > :23:55.including the security and intelligence agencies, to identify a

:23:56. > :24:02.journalist's source, will require the authorisation knowledge

:24:03. > :24:07.additional commissioner. It doesn't make sense that were communication

:24:08. > :24:10.takes place using social media communications applications, those

:24:11. > :24:15.communications are currently out of reach. In respect of our -- online

:24:16. > :24:20.child sexual exploitation, the absence of these records often makes

:24:21. > :24:24.it impossible to identify abusers. Such an approach defies logic and

:24:25. > :24:28.ignores the realities of today's digital age. So the only new power

:24:29. > :24:32.in the Bill is the ability to acquire communications services

:24:33. > :24:40.providers to retain Internet service connection records. I want to be

:24:41. > :24:43.quite clear and reiterate what I said earlier, the Internet

:24:44. > :24:49.connection records do not provide access to a person's full web

:24:50. > :24:54.browsing history. It is a record of what Internet services, a device or

:24:55. > :24:57.a person has connected to, not every web page they have visited. I am

:24:58. > :25:01.pleased that the joint committee agreed with the Government on the

:25:02. > :25:04.necessity of this power and concluded that on balance, there is

:25:05. > :25:05.a case for Internet connection records as an important tool for law

:25:06. > :25:21.enforcement. Is a indeed, the committee went

:25:22. > :25:25.further, and said law enforcement should be able to investigate for a

:25:26. > :25:33.wider range of purposes, that reflects the recommendations. I

:25:34. > :25:40.generally don't much -- give way to the honourable gentleman. The joint

:25:41. > :25:45.committee also wanted clarification, on what those records were, and I

:25:46. > :25:49.would welcome the Home Secretary's students, that the capability was

:25:50. > :25:58.available for the retention of those records. At at whose course? We have

:25:59. > :26:02.clarified definitions, that was a point that was clarified not only by

:26:03. > :26:07.the committee, but the science and technology committee. Also, add

:26:08. > :26:11.looking at this particular issue, we have spent a long time, and continue

:26:12. > :26:16.to spend a long time, discussing with the companies who will

:26:17. > :26:20.potentially be subject to such notices, the technicalities. But

:26:21. > :26:24.different companies operate in different ways, I reiterate the

:26:25. > :26:29.point that I have made previously, that the government will reimburse

:26:30. > :26:37.the operational cost that these companies will be subject to. As has

:26:38. > :26:45.been cynically deviously. -- said previously. It is important, because

:26:46. > :26:52.I support the Home Secretary's objectives, but then fell is going

:26:53. > :26:57.to cost about 180 million. As she satisfied, that that would cover the

:26:58. > :27:13.cost of implementation of such that skill? -- scale? The raised that

:27:14. > :27:18.with me. We have been discussing in detail, issues about the technical

:27:19. > :27:24.arrangements, for intimate detection to lawful record, but also that the

:27:25. > :27:33.costs that the government is going to be prepared, as it is just now,

:27:34. > :27:37.to provide for those costs. The Home Secretary has been very generous. We

:27:38. > :27:43.welcome the improvements that have been made, but I hope the Home

:27:44. > :27:47.Secretary received my letter, the concerns, because we think that the

:27:48. > :27:54.technology capability notices, remain an earlier of uncertainty. --

:27:55. > :27:58.area. Despite the commitments that have been made from the dispatch

:27:59. > :28:03.box, we need long-term certainty, regarding reimbursement of costs.

:28:04. > :28:13.This would be central to the loving the court heard and legislation, fit

:28:14. > :28:19.for a fast moving area of the economy. We need the still with as

:28:20. > :28:29.quickly as possible. Can I reiterate, to my honourable friend,

:28:30. > :28:33.100% of the compliance costs will be met by the government. She has asked

:28:34. > :28:37.me to provide a long-term commitment, we have been clearer in

:28:38. > :28:47.terms of the legislation, but it is not possible for one government to

:28:48. > :28:53.buy into the hands of any future government. In addition, alongside

:28:54. > :29:00.the codes of practice, I have at the request of the joint committee,

:29:01. > :29:07.published by comparison, those set out by Denmark. And I have held

:29:08. > :29:11.discussions, with united States communication providers, and we will

:29:12. > :29:15.continue to work closely with them as we implement this. As a guarantee

:29:16. > :29:18.of this, we have included a commitment that the Home Secretary

:29:19. > :29:23.will report to Parliament on how the bill has been operating after six

:29:24. > :29:26.years, if Parliament agrees it is the intention that the joint

:29:27. > :29:32.committee of both houses will be formed after five years of the bill

:29:33. > :29:40.receiving joint ascent, we can inform the Home Secretary's report.

:29:41. > :29:48.Part five deals with increment. Such as computers, smartphones. I'm

:29:49. > :29:53.bringing existing powers, and responding to the recommendations

:29:54. > :29:57.made by David Anderson QC. It makes the use subject to the use of

:29:58. > :30:02.warrants, approved by the judicial Commissioner. Honourable member is

:30:03. > :30:05.well-known that not only are these available to more enforcement, but

:30:06. > :30:14.vital to so much work. This capability is also used in

:30:15. > :30:25.exceptional circumstances, most typically to identify missing

:30:26. > :30:27.people. For example, when a child goes missing, and parents know the

:30:28. > :30:31.passwords to social media, they should be able to use that. It makes

:30:32. > :30:38.clear that they can be used to save lives. Nevertheless, intrusive, and

:30:39. > :30:54.it must be limited. In future, all of this will require the approval of

:30:55. > :30:58.the judicial Commissioner. Equipment interference wants me only be of

:30:59. > :31:03.documentation service providers with the agreement of the Secretary of

:31:04. > :31:06.State. Alongside these codes of practice, in response to

:31:07. > :31:13.recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee, we published

:31:14. > :31:18.a case, about how it can be used, and is more necessary than ever

:31:19. > :31:23.before. Of course, limits to how much can be said about these

:31:24. > :31:27.capabilities, without having an advantage given to criminals. For

:31:28. > :31:36.that reason, intelligence agencies have provided more detail on this,

:31:37. > :31:44.to the committee. Bulk powers are vital. They have played a

:31:45. > :31:51.significant part in every major counterterrorism event, in each of

:31:52. > :31:58.the seven plots stopped since November 20 14. Detecting 95% of

:31:59. > :32:04.cyber attacks, identified by GCHQ. And they have enabled over 90% of

:32:05. > :32:12.the targeted military operations, during the campaign in the south of

:32:13. > :32:22.Afghanistan. Part six places these powers on a clear footing. In

:32:23. > :32:26.future, bulk warrants will need to be issued by double lock. And it

:32:27. > :32:43.would need to be for operational purposes, and an independent judge.

:32:44. > :32:50.Although all liberal members will the Home Secretary agree, it is not

:32:51. > :32:54.in fact prevent parliamentarians, Skip top by collection provisions,

:32:55. > :32:57.or with communications data, or at internet connection records, that

:32:58. > :33:05.could lead to result was being identified. A variety of responses

:33:06. > :33:15.that I would give. She needs to know, that predominantly, bulk

:33:16. > :33:28.powers, used for foreign usage. In the use of bulk powers, still that

:33:29. > :33:36.doubletalk authorisation. It is subject to the same case, the

:33:37. > :33:41.proportionality. Mr Speaker, part seven applies the same safeguards.

:33:42. > :33:44.Information of this tape is already used by the security and

:33:45. > :33:50.intelligence agencies, to keep us safe, and could be required under

:33:51. > :33:55.existing powers, but it uses the seat detections, so that it is

:33:56. > :34:00.always subject to strong safeguards, irrespective of how was required. I

:34:01. > :34:04.have said that the privacy safeguards are part of this, and the

:34:05. > :34:14.guarantors will be adhered to, the new investigatory Commissioner. The

:34:15. > :34:18.Commissioner, who will hold, or her field judicial office, will oversee

:34:19. > :34:22.a new body, bringing together existing responsibilities, the

:34:23. > :34:27.interception of communication, and the Chief surveillance Commissioner.

:34:28. > :34:31.The new powers Commissioner will be given an enhanced budget, and a

:34:32. > :34:36.dedicated staff of inspectors, as well as technical experts and

:34:37. > :34:41.independent advisers. They will have access to the agencies, and remit to

:34:42. > :34:46.provide Parliament and the public with meaningful the assurance about

:34:47. > :34:54.how it has been used. When somebody has suffered, as a result of serious

:34:55. > :35:00.error, they can inform the victim, without the need to consult the

:35:01. > :35:07.tribunal. It can award compensation, take other action and fuse

:35:08. > :35:13.appropriate. I turn to part nine. That provides for request to be made

:35:14. > :35:17.to internet service providers, for technical capabilities in order to

:35:18. > :35:23.give warrants, and maintain the ability to provide communications,

:35:24. > :35:30.let me be clear, this provision only maintains the status quo. It allows

:35:31. > :35:35.law enforcement and security agencies to ask companies, to remove

:35:36. > :35:43.encryption, that has been applied for on the behalf. It could not be

:35:44. > :35:48.used to ask companies to do anything it is not reasonably practical for

:35:49. > :35:54.them to do. Finally, alongside the bill, we have taken for the

:35:55. > :36:05.recommendation made to develop an international framework, so that

:36:06. > :36:08.international companies can do so, and we are in discussion. It is

:36:09. > :36:13.drafted to accommodate any such agreement, any company call

:36:14. > :36:18.operating, would not be subject to enforcement action through the

:36:19. > :36:26.courts. Mr Speaker, this bill provides unparalleled transparency,

:36:27. > :36:30.on the most robust safeguards, but it will also provide law enforcement

:36:31. > :36:35.and intelligence agencies with the powers that they need to keep us

:36:36. > :36:39.safe. Because it is important, it has been subject to unprecedented

:36:40. > :36:45.levels of scrutiny, it has resulted in a bill that protects privacy and

:36:46. > :36:50.security. It is truly world leading. I look forward to the revised bill,

:36:51. > :36:58.receiving cheerful consideration, and I commend it to the house. The

:36:59. > :37:10.question, the Bill be read a second time. Andy Burnham. I echo the

:37:11. > :37:15.condolences, paid to the police officer, who lost his life on his

:37:16. > :37:20.duties. Let me start with the principle, that I think we have

:37:21. > :37:24.broad agreement. From those ventures, to these, from the party

:37:25. > :37:31.to the security services, we have a consensus that the country needs to

:37:32. > :37:34.update its laws in this area. If the police and security services are to

:37:35. > :37:39.be given these powers, broad agreement that those powers be

:37:40. > :37:42.balanced, with stronger safeguards for the public that previously

:37:43. > :37:53.existed. That seems a good platform from which to start. This bill is

:37:54. > :38:01.commonly seen, through the prism of terrorism, bucket is much more, if

:38:02. > :38:04.you were the parents of a missing child, you would want the police to

:38:05. > :38:14.have access to all the information to bring them to safety. This is

:38:15. > :38:24.about the ability to locate missing children, preventing extremists,

:38:25. > :38:30.creating hatred, and though defending the liberties that we all

:38:31. > :38:35.enjoy. But we are some way, from finding a consensus, in the form

:38:36. > :38:46.that this legislation should take. The months after I was elected, two

:38:47. > :38:52.planes flew into the WTC in New York. 15 years since, we have always

:38:53. > :38:57.been engaged in a frantic search, the right balance between privacy,

:38:58. > :39:13.and collective security. As of yet, we have not managed to find out. The

:39:14. > :39:19.arguments in this bill, the last Parliament, loom over the debate

:39:20. > :39:25.today, as does the stand-off between Apple and the FBI. That is an

:39:26. > :39:30.unhelpful backdrop to this debate, it suggests that it is in

:39:31. > :39:36.reconcilable, a question of either or, choosing one or the other. I do

:39:37. > :39:40.not fully that is the case. We all have an interest in maximising

:39:41. > :39:46.individual privacy, and collective security. At the House of Commons,

:39:47. > :39:51.the objective should be to give constituents both. Finding that

:39:52. > :40:03.balance, it should be the task over the next nine months. The simple

:40:04. > :40:10.fact, Britain needs a new law in this area. A great opposition, risks

:40:11. > :40:15.sinking this, leaving the interim laws in place. To go along with

:40:16. > :40:19.that, abdicate responsibility to the police, security services and most

:40:20. > :40:22.importantly the public. I am not prepared to do that. Just as

:40:23. > :40:24.importantly, it would leave the public with weaker safeguards, and I

:40:25. > :40:36.am not prepared to do that. He rightly says that this bill will

:40:37. > :40:41.help fight terrorism. Will he join me in welcoming these powers to

:40:42. > :40:47.fight cyber crime and financial crime and join me to vote for it? I

:40:48. > :40:50.won't be joining him in the lobby tonight because I don't believe the

:40:51. > :40:56.bill is acceptable in its current form, as I will go on to explain. As

:40:57. > :41:01.he will have heard from my opening remarks, I have broad agreement with

:41:02. > :41:06.the objectives of the government and I do not seek to play politics with

:41:07. > :41:15.the bill or drag it down and I hope you will find some assurance in

:41:16. > :41:18.those words. I am grateful. His position doesn't sound particularly

:41:19. > :41:22.persuasive or tenable cobber certainly to those outside this

:41:23. > :41:30.place. I wonder what he thinks about the message it sends, from the

:41:31. > :41:34.supposedly government in waiting, that instead of thrashing out the

:41:35. > :41:38.detail when the bill goes to report, by abstaining this evening the

:41:39. > :41:43.message will be clear of what the Labour Party things on this

:41:44. > :41:47.important issue. I disappear entirely -- disagree. We will not

:41:48. > :41:53.oppose it, we will be responsible. I recognise that the country needs a

:41:54. > :42:00.new law but I also think that the government will is not yet worthy of

:42:01. > :42:05.the support, because there are significant weaknesses in the bill.

:42:06. > :42:10.I am not prepared, I am sorry, to go through the lobby tonight and give

:42:11. > :42:14.his government a blank cheque. I want to see changes in the Bill, to

:42:15. > :42:20.strengthen the bill, and when they listen they will earn our support

:42:21. > :42:25.and that seems to me to be into highly appropriate and responsible

:42:26. > :42:28.for an opposition party. The higher degree of consensus we can establish

:42:29. > :42:33.behind the bill, the more we will create the right climate in the

:42:34. > :42:37.country for its introduction. As the Home Secretary said, possibly create

:42:38. > :42:42.a template that can be copied around the world, advancing the cause of

:42:43. > :42:47.human rights in the 21st-century. The prize is great and that is why I

:42:48. > :42:53.ask this side to work constructively towards it and why I will repeat

:42:54. > :42:58.today that I don't think our mission is helped by misrepresentation. In

:42:59. > :43:05.my view it is lazy to label this bill a snooper's charter or a plan

:43:06. > :43:08.for mass surveillance. Worse, it is insulting to people who work in the

:43:09. > :43:12.police and security services. It implies they choose to do the jobs

:43:13. > :43:18.they do because they are busybodies who like to spy on the public rather

:43:19. > :43:23.than serve the public. I don't accept that characterisation, it is

:43:24. > :43:29.fair and it do ministry -- diminishes the difficult work they

:43:30. > :43:34.do to keep us safe. I will give way. Thank you. Will he agree that the

:43:35. > :43:39.three independent reviewers all agreed that our services

:43:40. > :43:43.categorically don't carry out mass surveillance and work within the

:43:44. > :43:48.boundaries of the legislation. I agree, and the idea that they might

:43:49. > :43:53.do, that they have time to do that is fanciable -- fanciful. They go to

:43:54. > :43:57.the people that they need to be concerned about and that is why I

:43:58. > :44:05.reject the characterisation often placed on this legislation. What

:44:06. > :44:10.does he make on the United Nations special member for privacy, who last

:44:11. > :44:16.week criticised the bill, saying authorising this interception would

:44:17. > :44:20.legitimise mass surveillance? We need to explore the plans in detail

:44:21. > :44:25.as part of this bill. As I said, I don't accept that this is a plan for

:44:26. > :44:29.mass surveillance but we need to work harder in the next nine months

:44:30. > :44:36.to take those concerns are away. In a moment. With all of the concerns,

:44:37. > :44:40.all of the points I have made, I have to say that there are concerns

:44:41. > :44:46.that people have about this bill that are well founded. There is a

:44:47. > :44:50.genuine worry, we just heard it, that providing for the accumulation

:44:51. > :44:56.of large amounts of personal data presents risks to people's privacy

:44:57. > :45:02.and online security. In a moment. There is a more specific worry, that

:45:03. > :45:07.investigatory powers can be of -- abused and in fact have been in the

:45:08. > :45:11.past. In recent years they have been revelations about how bereaved

:45:12. > :45:15.families, Justice campaigners, environmental campaigners,

:45:16. > :45:20.journalists and trade unionists have all been subject to inappropriate

:45:21. > :45:24.police investigation. What justification could there ever have

:45:25. > :45:29.been for the Metropolitan Police to put the noble Baroness Lawrence and

:45:30. > :45:34.her family under surveillance? Although it has not been proven, I

:45:35. > :45:38.know the Hillsborough strongly suspect that the same was done to

:45:39. > :45:46.them. I give way to the honourable gentleman. I thank him. A lot of the

:45:47. > :45:50.debate has been about looking into people's files. This should be about

:45:51. > :45:55.victims, it should be about children who have been victims of crime. Has

:45:56. > :45:59.he had any representations from most charities that wrecked -- represent

:46:00. > :46:06.victims of crime and children's charities? I have had them, the

:46:07. > :46:11.government has had them. This is about more than terrorism, it is

:46:12. > :46:15.about giving the police and security services the tools they need to keep

:46:16. > :46:22.us safe in the 21st-century. That is why I am not playing politics with

:46:23. > :46:26.this bill. I actually take quite a careful and considered approach. But

:46:27. > :46:31.the government has not yet done enough to earn my support. I have a

:46:32. > :46:36.lot of respect for the honourable gentleman. Can I congratulate him on

:46:37. > :46:42.what he said about rejecting the conspiracy theories about this being

:46:43. > :46:46.a snooper's charter. A second reading of the bill is when you

:46:47. > :46:50.agree or disagree with the principle of the bill. He has said he agrees

:46:51. > :46:56.with the principle and there are many behind him, or in the Labour

:46:57. > :47:00.Party, who agree with that. Surely the opportunity today is to vote for

:47:01. > :47:04.the principal Bill at second reading and then scrutinise it upstairs. The

:47:05. > :47:10.right thing would be to support the government tonight. I will let him

:47:11. > :47:14.form his own view on the right parliamentary tactics but I will be

:47:15. > :47:17.deciding that position and I say to him that I don't think I will be

:47:18. > :47:24.serving the public simply to give the government a blank check this

:47:25. > :47:31.evening. It is my job, wait a second, my job to hold them to

:47:32. > :47:36.account, to protect the public as best I can through this bill, and I

:47:37. > :47:44.am approaching the job of Her Majesty's opposition with the utmost

:47:45. > :47:49.responsibility. Alongside bereaved families there have been cases of

:47:50. > :47:53.journalists claiming material was inappropriately seized from them,

:47:54. > :48:00.most recently in connection with the Plebgate affair. Last year a senior

:48:01. > :48:04.police officer turned whistle-blower came to an event in Parliament and

:48:05. > :48:08.said that he and a colleague had been involved in supplying

:48:09. > :48:13.information that led to the blacklisting of construction

:48:14. > :48:16.workers. For those who claim that these fears are exaggerated, I would

:48:17. > :48:24.refer them to the biggest unresolved case of this kind, the 1972 National

:48:25. > :48:30.building workers' strike and the convictions of 24 pickets known as

:48:31. > :48:33.the Shrewsbury 24. It is widely believed that their prosecution was

:48:34. > :48:38.politically orchestrated with the help of the police and the security

:48:39. > :48:42.services. I will give way to somebody, my honourable friend who

:48:43. > :48:48.knows a great deal and has been a champion of those fighting for

:48:49. > :48:52.justice. I thank him and he mentions the Shrewsbury pickets, a stark

:48:53. > :48:58.example of the misuse and abuse of state power, so therefore does he

:48:59. > :49:01.agree that it is essential that there are the strongest possible

:49:02. > :49:07.safeguards within the bill that would specifically make sure that

:49:08. > :49:12.such historic injustices can never happen again, such as the

:49:13. > :49:20.politically motivated incarceration of pickets in 1972? He puts it very

:49:21. > :49:24.well and that is why fears about legislation of this kind, indeed on

:49:25. > :49:28.these benches, because we know the truth of what happened, even though

:49:29. > :49:33.it is not widely known by the public, because we have seen

:49:34. > :49:37.documents in relation to it. I have here a memo from the security

:49:38. > :49:46.services to a senior Foreign Office official. It is headed, secret, and

:49:47. > :49:50.it talks about the preparation of a TV programme that went out about the

:49:51. > :49:54.trial of the Shrewsbury pickets. At the top it says, we had a discreet

:49:55. > :50:00.but considerable hand in this programme. That is from the security

:50:01. > :50:05.services, so why wouldn't people on these benches fear the handing of

:50:06. > :50:11.more power to the police and security services without there

:50:12. > :50:14.being adequate safeguards? I am grateful. Before the honourable

:50:15. > :50:23.member for wreaking intervenes, everything is being done perfectly

:50:24. > :50:27.right but I advise the House that 48 backbenchers wish to contribute.

:50:28. > :50:35.Those who have the floor or seek the floor might wish to take account of

:50:36. > :50:39.that. I will be brief, but the Shadow Home Secretary is right to

:50:40. > :50:46.point out where abuses have taken place but does he also recognise

:50:47. > :50:50.that in this bill is a new offence of misusing communications data,

:50:51. > :50:54.something he should welcome? I am going to come onto that very point,

:50:55. > :51:00.but these are not historical matters because the convictions still stand

:51:01. > :51:03.today. What I would say to him, and I pay tribute to his government,

:51:04. > :51:08.because they have a good record on this, but we need to go further in

:51:09. > :51:14.giving the full truth about some of the darkest chapters in our past so

:51:15. > :51:17.we can learn from them and build the right safeguards into this

:51:18. > :51:21.legislation. This bill will have failed unless it entirely rules out

:51:22. > :51:25.the possibility that abuses of the kind I have mentioned could ever

:51:26. > :51:30.happen again and that is the clear test I am setting for this bill but

:51:31. > :51:36.also why I welcome the principle of it. It leaves behind the murky world

:51:37. > :51:42.of policing in the 1970s, 80s and 90s and creates the possibility of

:51:43. > :51:48.having an open framework that includes much improved safeguards

:51:49. > :51:51.for ordinary people. We are far from that goal yet. It is clear that the

:51:52. > :51:56.Home Secretary has been listening and has responded to the reports of

:51:57. > :52:00.the three parliamentary committees but of the 122 recommendations in

:52:01. > :52:06.the three reports the government has reflect dead less than half of them

:52:07. > :52:10.in this revised bill. I say to the Home Secretary she will need to be

:52:11. > :52:14.prepared to listen more and make further significant changes to the

:52:15. > :52:20.bill if she is to achieve her goal of getting it onto the statute book

:52:21. > :52:24.by December. Today I take the House through six specific concerns. The

:52:25. > :52:28.first is on privacy. As I said at the beginning, people have a right

:52:29. > :52:33.to want to maximise their personal privacy. Given the worries people

:52:34. > :52:38.have about the misuse of data, the intelligence and to committee was

:52:39. > :52:42.surely right to put privacy concerns at the heart of this bill.

:52:43. > :52:47.Presumption of Agassi would provide the basis from which exceptional

:52:48. > :52:56.powers are drawn. -- the presumption of privacy. It would ensure clarity

:52:57. > :53:01.that any intrusions into it would require exceptional justification.

:53:02. > :53:05.The Home Secretary said that privacy was hard-wired into the bill. I find

:53:06. > :53:11.it hard to accept that statement from the changes that have been

:53:12. > :53:14.made. I see them as more cosmetic changes and they have not directly

:53:15. > :53:20.answered the concerns of the committee. I asked the government to

:53:21. > :53:25.reflect further and include much stronger, overwrite Ching privacy

:53:26. > :53:30.requirement as requested by the Intelligence and Security Committee.

:53:31. > :53:34.Also on privacy, we do not yet believe the government has gone far

:53:35. > :53:38.enough to protect the role of sensitive professions. The committee

:53:39. > :53:43.noted that the safeguards for some professions must be provided right

:53:44. > :53:47.across the bill Mamat what investigative repower is being used.

:53:48. > :53:53.It is hard to see how that is being achieved at the moment. On MPs and

:53:54. > :53:56.other elected representatives, there is a question as to why the bill

:53:57. > :54:02.stops short of requiring the Prime Minister to rip -- to approve a

:54:03. > :54:08.warrant and only be consulted upon one. It could be -- strengthened

:54:09. > :54:11.there. On legal privilege, the Law Society have said they previewed --

:54:12. > :54:14.please do see the government has abolished legal and professional or

:54:15. > :54:16.village they say it should be on the face of the bill, not just in the

:54:17. > :54:35.codes. -- professional privilege. Relations between Members of

:54:36. > :54:42.Parliament and whistle-blower out -- whistle-blowers, mammals of

:54:43. > :54:48.Parliament and each other, they should all be protected. -- Members

:54:49. > :54:51.of Parliament. It does need to be strengthened in respect of Prime

:54:52. > :54:56.Minister real approval but also in the way he describes, to give

:54:57. > :55:01.people, our constituents, that extra trust that if they come to speak to

:55:02. > :55:03.us in our surgery they will be speaking to us and nobody else. I

:55:04. > :55:17.give way. Matters of acute public concern,

:55:18. > :55:24.whistle-blowers, does he think that one member of the government should

:55:25. > :55:31.authorise that, and it should be revealed to the Prime Minister,

:55:32. > :55:38.effectively his own court? It is at least arguable, some of scrutiny? I

:55:39. > :55:45.think the Home Secretary indicated, there would be, because the decision

:55:46. > :55:50.of the Home Secretary would also be applicable to the double lock. My

:55:51. > :55:58.point, why should the Prime Minister only be consulted as part of that

:55:59. > :56:05.process? It seems to me, a role for the Prime Minister to be approving.

:56:06. > :56:11.Also, I question about journalists, and the National union believes it

:56:12. > :56:19.has been weakening, clause 66 out the revelation of the process, with

:56:20. > :56:33.regards to sources, and given the degree of trust that people need,

:56:34. > :56:41.given that importance to democracy, to win the trust and support and

:56:42. > :56:45.also the use of communications data, and internet connection records, to

:56:46. > :56:51.intercept the equivalent interviewed inside the other. It is a real

:56:52. > :57:02.concern, that the thresholds are either too, low, or too vague. The

:57:03. > :57:09.Home Secretary, has previously described ICRs, as the phone bill,

:57:10. > :57:14.that is the detection and prevention of any crime. But the joint

:57:15. > :57:19.committee noted that is not a helpful description, ICRs will

:57:20. > :57:26.reveal much more than an itemised telephone bill, revealing places

:57:27. > :57:31.that people have visited. So the question, is it acceptable for this

:57:32. > :57:39.level of personal information to be accessed, in relation to any crime,

:57:40. > :57:52.anti-social behaviour, and motoring offences. I do not think so. And I

:57:53. > :57:55.think a higher hurdle is needed. This is a critical question that the

:57:56. > :58:01.government have to respond for. People believe that if ICRs become

:58:02. > :58:12.sufficient, then it could be the potential for this to be must used.

:58:13. > :58:21.They have two set stricter tests, for prevention of seedy as crimes,

:58:22. > :58:24.missing people. That should be the case, and the other end of the

:58:25. > :58:31.skill, the justification for using the most intrusive powers, national

:58:32. > :58:34.security or economic well-being. I understand the need for operational

:58:35. > :58:41.flexibility, but a long-standing concern that those tests are too

:58:42. > :58:47.broad. Our feeling that national security has been used, to cover a

:58:48. > :58:56.multitude of sins. And official papers, from that building work

:58:57. > :59:05.straight, in 1972, still papers with field. How could that be justified?

:59:06. > :59:11.Clearly, a point that is being brought up about proportionality.

:59:12. > :59:21.Slightly odd. The bill itself mentions proportionality. It seems

:59:22. > :59:36.odd. It is actually in the bill. I do not believe that it is. National

:59:37. > :59:41.security, very broad term. It is not defined. Activities carried out in

:59:42. > :59:46.the past, under the banner of national security. He would struggle

:59:47. > :59:52.to justify as such. The problem with the economic well-being test, a

:59:53. > :00:02.potentially opens up a much wider range of activities, it must only be

:00:03. > :00:09.relevant, to national security. Just relevant, to national security. It

:00:10. > :00:15.begs the question. What extra questions is the government want to

:00:16. > :00:19.cover? It mentions a cyber attack, on London, surely that would be

:00:20. > :00:24.covered anyway by National security. I put suggestions to the Home

:00:25. > :00:32.Secretary. She accepts the joint committee invitation to define

:00:33. > :00:40.national security, more explicitly, and secondly, if she were to do

:00:41. > :00:45.that, the economic well-being test could be dropped altogether. That

:00:46. > :00:52.means, now targeting of law-abiding trade unionist Ivory have seen in

:00:53. > :01:10.the past. And ICRs themselves. The content, and the use. Suggesting,

:01:11. > :01:20.that a judicial commissioner would, permit a politically motivated and

:01:21. > :01:23.on trade union? I would gladly share papers I have of historic

:01:24. > :01:34.injustices. Those convictions still stand. I also said earlier...

:01:35. > :01:38.Revelations, that information supplied, to blacklist people in the

:01:39. > :01:49.construction industry, came from the police and the security services. I

:01:50. > :01:54.welcome the move. To codify all of this in law. But we do not want to

:01:55. > :01:59.leave anything in doubt. Why should the most intrusive warrants, the

:02:00. > :02:04.used on the taste of economic well-being? What does that mean? It

:02:05. > :02:13.is national security alone that should intrude. I have been

:02:14. > :02:18.listening carefully to my response, can I just push them, on the point

:02:19. > :02:22.that was raised. I think this is very important. We are inserting the

:02:23. > :02:29.judicial authorisation, of warrants, I did not think that any member of

:02:30. > :02:32.this house should question their independence, it seems that the

:02:33. > :02:44.right honourable gentleman is doing that. Good he is not doing that? Not

:02:45. > :02:53.in any way. It is wrong to imply that I was. I am talking about the

:02:54. > :02:56.grooms, one which her bill gives the police and security services, the

:02:57. > :03:06.ability to put forward applications for once. If members would listen, I

:03:07. > :03:10.am saying, those grounds should be as tightly defined as possible. I do

:03:11. > :03:15.not think it helps, as she is proposing they can be brought

:03:16. > :03:19.forward on proposals of genital economic well-being, because in the

:03:20. > :03:26.past her party has taken a different opinion on that from a loss. It

:03:27. > :03:33.opens away the range of potential cases, subject to the most intrusive

:03:34. > :03:43.warrants. Fair and well made. I question to him, why did this not

:03:44. > :03:47.occur to him on the 4th of November? He stood and said, having listened

:03:48. > :03:51.carefully to the Home Secretary, I believe she has responded to

:03:52. > :03:56.legitimate concerns, and got the balance correct. What has changed?

:03:57. > :04:03.Has he been listening? I began by saying the very same thing. But I

:04:04. > :04:12.think they are entitled, am I not, to raise some specific concerns,

:04:13. > :04:16.with wording in the bill. And economic well-being. I believe that

:04:17. > :04:21.could potentially come under that banner. I am telling the party

:04:22. > :04:30.opposite, if they want my help, we need to get that definition correct.

:04:31. > :04:34.Reassure the public. Is it not so, that millions of trade unionist 's

:04:35. > :04:45.and many of my constituents, genuinely concerned about the

:04:46. > :04:50.stretch of these powers, trying to bring those safeguards for work, it

:04:51. > :05:04.is important that you scrutinise, so people have confidence in this? Puts

:05:05. > :05:08.it very well. Trade unions and other campaigners have been subject to

:05:09. > :05:14.inappropriate use of investigatory powers. If the party officer does

:05:15. > :05:25.not understand that, they need to get the full truth. Have a different

:05:26. > :05:31.feeling about legislation, they would probably find that they could

:05:32. > :05:37.reassure people, and bring about a higher degree, of public support. I

:05:38. > :05:49.am going to make progress. I was talking about ICRs. It is the worst

:05:50. > :05:54.domains, visited, but not URLs. Not internet browsing history, just the

:05:55. > :05:59.front door, but not where people went inside. That will provide

:06:00. > :06:06.reassurance to people who think something more extensive. But the

:06:07. > :06:09.definition remains extremely vague. I do not say anything to prevent

:06:10. > :06:14.ICRs becoming more intrusive, as technology evolves. The code of

:06:15. > :06:20.practice gives an illustration of what will be included, but does not

:06:21. > :06:26.build confidence. Mr Speaker, I think it would help if the

:06:27. > :06:34.government laid down I restricted definition, what could be included,

:06:35. > :06:39.on the ICRs, on the face of this. Specifically, domains but not URLs.

:06:40. > :06:47.The confusion is unhelpful, and it needs to be cleared up. It also sets

:06:48. > :06:54.out far too wide a range of public bodies, able to access. It seems

:06:55. > :07:01.that the net is far too wide. The Food Standards Agency, and the

:07:02. > :07:08.Gambling Commission, to access somebody's record? Suspicion of

:07:09. > :07:12.serious criminality, for the food chain, and the betting syndicate,

:07:13. > :07:17.that would be better revealed to the police. We all want to see a much

:07:18. > :07:28.reduced lost, until this part of the bill becomes acceptable. Bulk

:07:29. > :07:38.powers. On this point of the ICRs, not only the keys that they are

:07:39. > :07:43.poorly defined, but even in terms of a narrow approach, the government is

:07:44. > :07:50.still proposing the retention of every website, visited by every

:07:51. > :07:56.citizen, stored for 12 months. That principle is a very extensive power

:07:57. > :07:59.given to the government. I would agree with the right honourable

:08:00. > :08:02.gentleman. And if that was to be published, I think it would review

:08:03. > :08:08.more about somebody, than an itemised telephone bill. That is

:08:09. > :08:13.what the Home Secretary began by saying, that the same, it would

:08:14. > :08:16.review what about somebody. To give indication, I would say that it is

:08:17. > :08:20.not necessarily the one that information, it is to raise the

:08:21. > :08:26.threshold, through which those records can be accessed. To make it

:08:27. > :08:33.a test of serious crime, rather than any. I do not think that is

:08:34. > :08:38.acceptable, to have information available for low-level offences. I

:08:39. > :08:46.hope he would support me on that. It is also a fact that criminals,

:08:47. > :08:54.terrorists, operating would use of righty of means, to cover the

:08:55. > :09:00.tracks. I accept the argument me, that bulk form can be the only way

:09:01. > :09:06.to identify those who pose a risk to the public. But some of it takes

:09:07. > :09:10.investigatory work to new territory. Large quantities of new information,

:09:11. > :09:15.from ordinary people, it prevents privacy concerns, and wants to need

:09:16. > :09:21.fathers to be as targeted as possible. The case for these was

:09:22. > :09:25.published, alongside the government, but it has failed to convince

:09:26. > :09:32.everybody. And it is for the government still to convince people

:09:33. > :09:40.that these powers are needed. I am sorry to backtrack. I have just

:09:41. > :09:43.looked up the provision, in relation to economic well-being. It is

:09:44. > :09:53.qualified. It not only reveals to the economic well-being, tied to the

:09:54. > :09:56.interests of national security, relevant and economic well-being of

:09:57. > :10:02.the United Kingdom, so as those are also relevant to the interests of

:10:03. > :10:10.national security. National security element. And it is also qualified,

:10:11. > :10:13.subsection five, referring to it only being implemented, when it is

:10:14. > :10:17.considered necessary for the process of gathering evidence, using legal

:10:18. > :10:24.proceedings in relation to information relating to axe, outside

:10:25. > :10:30.the British Islands. It is a limited situation, and as a barrister, who

:10:31. > :10:37.has presented a number of cases before judges, I think judges are

:10:38. > :10:38.today looking at legislation, to consider these principles, perfectly

:10:39. > :10:48.adequate. I thank her for the Lord tutorial

:10:49. > :10:53.and I would say that maybe it is a point more for committee then second

:10:54. > :11:00.reading. However, I did referred to the point she had made. The economic

:11:01. > :11:07.well-being test is relevant to national security, it doesn't say

:11:08. > :11:11.directly linked. Pupils face but I am sure I speak for everybody on

:11:12. > :11:18.these benches when I say there is no room for ambiguity. -- she pulls a

:11:19. > :11:23.face. They need to be absolutely clear about what they mean because

:11:24. > :11:26.we have seen trade unionists targeted in the past on similar

:11:27. > :11:33.justifications and we on these benches are not going to allow it to

:11:34. > :11:37.happen in the future. He is looking to ask the Home Secretary to draft a

:11:38. > :11:41.law that will include every provision, every change in

:11:42. > :11:46.technology, in crime, in threat, over the next 50 or a hundred years.

:11:47. > :11:52.The Home Secretary can't do that, which is why she has put in a system

:11:53. > :12:04.of oversight, of proportionality and judicial checks and balances to give

:12:05. > :12:07.the flexibility necessary for our nation to have security in a

:12:08. > :12:13.changing world. I disagree. I am making a legitimate point that I

:12:14. > :12:18.feel strongly about. I believe serious crime and national security

:12:19. > :12:22.should be the strictly limited grounds on which the most intrusive

:12:23. > :12:27.warrants are applied for and I would hope, in the spirit I have applied

:12:28. > :12:31.today, he will approach it in a similar spirit and take away the

:12:32. > :12:37.concern I have raised and understand why people here feel so strongly

:12:38. > :12:41.about it. To pick up on the point made by the honourable and landed

:12:42. > :12:45.Lady opposite, she talked about barristers presenting cases to

:12:46. > :12:52.judges. Will the honourable member agree that under the double lock

:12:53. > :13:07.section of this bill there will we know James Sayer and no proposer, it

:13:08. > :13:10.will just be a... No gainsayer. There were very important concerns

:13:11. > :13:16.raised about scope, oversight and indeed the more generic class

:13:17. > :13:19.warrants. I don't believe they have been adequately answered. One of the

:13:20. > :13:23.recommendations of the Joint Committee was that the government

:13:24. > :13:28.should establish an independent review of all of the Balcombe powers

:13:29. > :13:32.set out in the bill. Given the complexity of this, I think the

:13:33. > :13:38.House would then fit from such a review so I specifically ask of the

:13:39. > :13:41.Home Secretary that she does commission an independent review to

:13:42. > :13:48.conclude in time for report and third reading on bulk powers. Our

:13:49. > :13:53.fifth concern is judicial oversight. This was one of our earliest demands

:13:54. > :13:56.on the bill. The government has given significant ground and the

:13:57. > :14:02.bill is stronger as a result. We believe it could yet be stronger.

:14:03. > :14:05.Currently the bill says that when deciding to approve a warrant a

:14:06. > :14:10.commissioner should apply the same runcible is as would be applied by a

:14:11. > :14:16.court on application for a judicial review. -- same principle. I have

:14:17. > :14:23.said that this could mean a narrower test rather than -- which does not

:14:24. > :14:28.look at the actual merits of an application. I was listening

:14:29. > :14:33.carefully to her earlier and I thought I heard her provide

:14:34. > :14:36.reassurance that a much broader consideration could be brought by a

:14:37. > :14:41.judicial commission and I hope that is the case. If it is, why not

:14:42. > :14:46.delete the judicial review clause from the bill to make it absolutely

:14:47. > :14:50.clear that this is not just a double lock, this is an equal lock, where

:14:51. > :14:56.the judicial commissioner has the same ability to look at the entire

:14:57. > :15:01.merits of the case? Our sixth and final concern is about misuse of the

:15:02. > :15:05.powers. I accept the concerns of the Police Federation that they need to

:15:06. > :15:08.be safeguards for the collection of data in a lawful manner but I agree

:15:09. > :15:15.with them that it needs to be clearer about the deliberate misuse

:15:16. > :15:20.of powers, relating both to the obtaining of data and any use to

:15:21. > :15:24.which it is subsequently put. Both should be a criminal offence and

:15:25. > :15:29.that would provide an extra safeguard for the public. I have set

:15:30. > :15:34.out six substantive issues that must in my view be addressed. Given the

:15:35. > :15:36.seriousness of these concerns, people have questioned why we are

:15:37. > :15:42.not voting with the government tonight. We not voting with or

:15:43. > :15:49.against. The answer is, we need new legislation but this ill is not yet

:15:50. > :15:52.good enough and that is why we have set the tests that we have. Simply

:15:53. > :16:00.to block this legislation would in my view be responsible, it would

:16:01. > :16:04.leave the police and security services in limbo and make their job

:16:05. > :16:08.harder. We must give them the tools they need to do the job but if we

:16:09. > :16:13.don't put new legislation on the statute book I believe we will leave

:16:14. > :16:17.the public exposed to greater risk because they won't have the

:16:18. > :16:21.safeguards in this bill. Let me be clear, there is no blank check here

:16:22. > :16:25.for the government, we will not be voting for the bill because it is

:16:26. > :16:30.some way from being good enough and if the government fails to respond

:16:31. > :16:34.adequately to our concerns then I give notice that we will withdraw

:16:35. > :16:40.our support for the timetabling of this bill. The public interest lies

:16:41. > :16:44.in getting this right and not sacrificing quality to meet the

:16:45. > :16:50.deadline. The time has come for this House to lay politics aside and find

:16:51. > :16:55.that point of balance between privacy and security in the digital

:16:56. > :17:00.age that can command broad public support. We on these benches have

:17:01. > :17:05.worked hard to uncover the truth about some of the dark chapters in

:17:06. > :17:10.our past, precisely so we can learn from them and make this country

:17:11. > :17:14.fairer for those coming after us. I want to build that helps the

:17:15. > :17:17.authorities do their job but protects ordinary people from

:17:18. > :17:22.intrusion and abuse from those in power. I want Britain to be a

:17:23. > :17:27.country that gives people privacy and collective security. Our shared

:17:28. > :17:31.goal should be a bill that enhances security and democracy and with

:17:32. > :17:37.goodwill on both sides I believe that is in our grasp. In light of

:17:38. > :17:42.the extensive interest in this debate we shall need to begin with a

:17:43. > :17:47.limit on backbench speeches of eight minutes. I give notice that almost

:17:48. > :17:53.inevitably that limit will have to fall. I begin by calling the chair

:17:54. > :17:59.of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Member for

:18:00. > :18:03.Beaconsfield, Mr Dominic Grieve. I am grateful for the opportunity to

:18:04. > :18:06.participate in the debate and I want to summarise the views of the

:18:07. > :18:12.Intelligence and Security Committee in relation to the legislation. We

:18:13. > :18:16.published two reports on the matter and in addition, since we published

:18:17. > :18:19.the second, the government and the agencies have provided us with

:18:20. > :18:24.further evidence so I want to update the House. The present committee and

:18:25. > :18:28.its predecessor are satisfied the government is justified in coming to

:18:29. > :18:34.Parliament to seek in broad terms the powers the bill contains. None

:18:35. > :18:38.of the categories of powers in the bill, including the principle of

:18:39. > :18:45.having powers of bulk collection of data, which have given rise to so

:18:46. > :18:49.much controversy, are either unnecessary or disproportionate to

:18:50. > :18:55.what we need to protect ourselves. I go back to my intervention, that it

:18:56. > :18:59.seems to me that certain individuals in this debate are labouring under a

:19:00. > :19:03.false understanding of what the legislation is really about. We also

:19:04. > :19:07.welcome the fact that the government has sorted this bill to provide much

:19:08. > :19:15.greater transparency than previously. It is worth repeating

:19:16. > :19:20.that Ripper was often income principle. The basic problem we face

:19:21. > :19:24.is that by its nature the secret work of the agencies can't be

:19:25. > :19:28.revealed in its detail without damaging or endangering their

:19:29. > :19:35.capabilities. This requires a short is that the powers they have at a

:19:36. > :19:47.contrast as far as any potential misuse is concerned. -- they have is

:19:48. > :19:55.taken on trust. It is noteworthy that except in a few exceptions all

:19:56. > :19:58.of these bodies have consistently given the investigatory powers given

:19:59. > :20:10.by the agencies are clean bill of health. In my own role, I can say

:20:11. > :20:13.that the agencies operate to high ethical standards, scrupulous in

:20:14. > :20:20.confining their powers to legitimate purposes. I think it is very well

:20:21. > :20:24.put into their DNA, as the previous head of GCHQ said, if he asked his

:20:25. > :20:29.staff to do something unethical they would simply refuse. But that

:20:30. > :20:34.environment produces its own problem. For those of us in the

:20:35. > :20:38.bubble, our experience of the nature of the agencies' role makes us

:20:39. > :20:48.complacent about the legitimate concerns of those outside it. Our

:20:49. > :20:57.knowledge of our Power never having been used should not stop us from

:20:58. > :21:01.controlling its potential abilities. It is important that we should

:21:02. > :21:08.provide safeguards against such slippage. The recommendations we

:21:09. > :21:13.made were intended to improve the legislation by trying to provide

:21:14. > :21:17.that greater clarity, transparency and increase safeguards where we

:21:18. > :21:23.thought possible. We are pleased that the government responded to

:21:24. > :21:26.nine of our 22 recommendations, including three key ones. We

:21:27. > :21:33.particularly welcome the provisions on safeguards to legal and

:21:34. > :21:37.professional privilege but I suspect the matter can be looked at further

:21:38. > :21:42.as the bill goes through committee. A number of our recommendations were

:21:43. > :21:48.not excepted. We were disappointed that the bill doesn't include a

:21:49. > :21:52.clear statement on overwriting privacy legislation. We except the

:21:53. > :21:58.bill have safeguards we think they are piecemeal, so we think it is a

:21:59. > :22:01.missed opportunity of providing that public assurance, even if the

:22:02. > :22:07.practical nature of it wouldn't make a great deal of difference. The same

:22:08. > :22:12.point applies to putting all of the powers and operations in one place.

:22:13. > :22:16.The government has chosen to leave some powers elsewhere, we believe it

:22:17. > :22:20.would have been helpful to put them all in this bill. There were three

:22:21. > :22:26.significant issues. The first was our concerned that the procedures

:22:27. > :22:27.for the examination of communications data were

:22:28. > :22:32.inconsistent in respect of safeguards for the UK. There are

:22:33. > :22:37.different routes brought obtaining such material and generally speaking

:22:38. > :22:44.law enforcement agencies will accept it by a particular request to a

:22:45. > :22:50.communication service provider. They can also be obtained by a GCHQ

:22:51. > :22:53.interception capability as a by-product and in those

:22:54. > :22:57.circumstances, although there are many safeguards about examining

:22:58. > :23:02.content, there are not the same safeguards introspective the data on

:23:03. > :23:06.its own. We thought that was inconsistent and might be changed.

:23:07. > :23:08.The government has responded he had had -- help believe that it is

:23:09. > :23:17.concerned it would make the burden to owners -- to onerous on

:23:18. > :23:20.ministers. We think that matter can be addressed and we hope it can be

:23:21. > :23:27.looked at again in the course of the passage of the bill. I give way.

:23:28. > :23:30.Does he think by increasing the independence of judicial oversight

:23:31. > :23:37.so the judges are much more clearly able to refuse a warrant, and that

:23:38. > :23:42.might also -- increased public acceptance of these measures? This

:23:43. > :23:46.is an area that doesn't currently have warranty, it has a specific

:23:47. > :23:50.authorisation, and that is what we were looking for but we will listen

:23:51. > :23:56.closely to what the government says about the problems that might pose.

:23:57. > :24:04.The second issue concerns the way the capability is -- used, not in

:24:05. > :24:08.the need for it. In particular we were not provided with evidence that

:24:09. > :24:12.explained the need for this power as opposed to a targeted thematic

:24:13. > :24:19.power. Following publication of our report we have friends -- then

:24:20. > :24:24.received evidence from the agencies as to why they need warrants to

:24:25. > :24:29.remain in the bill. They have made a persuasive case on this. More

:24:30. > :24:32.importantly, the committee has been provided with reassurance that

:24:33. > :24:36.information obtained by these means will be treated in exactly the same

:24:37. > :24:42.way with exactly the same controls as with data acquired under

:24:43. > :24:45.interception warrants. The committee therefore is broadly content that

:24:46. > :24:50.there is a valid case for this power to remain in the bill. Just as with

:24:51. > :24:55.intercept warrants, we would wish to see the safeguards and warrants

:24:56. > :24:59.operated with detail and we hope to do that in the near future. Thirdly

:25:00. > :25:03.we expressed concern about the process for authorising and

:25:04. > :25:08.obtaining bulk of personal data sets. It is undoubted -- undoubtedly

:25:09. > :25:13.necessary that the agencies have the ability to obtain these because they

:25:14. > :25:17.can be vital in identifying subjects of interest, but they largely

:25:18. > :25:20.contain private information on large numbers of people of no relevant or

:25:21. > :25:22.legitimate interest in identifying subjects of interest, but they

:25:23. > :25:24.largely contain private information on large numbers of people of no

:25:25. > :25:30.relevant or legitimate interest to the agencies at all.

:25:31. > :25:36.There is a concern and I have had many e-mails on this subject at the

:25:37. > :25:41.net is being drawn to widely in respect of agencies like the Food

:25:42. > :25:43.Standards Agency and the gambling commission and others that this

:25:44. > :25:50.information could be misused and that is the kind of perception that

:25:51. > :25:53.out there people do care about. I understand the honourable ladies

:25:54. > :25:57.concern and that could be looked at. I have to say from what we saw the

:25:58. > :26:01.agencies who do have access to this, we do not think Thatcher problem

:26:02. > :26:05.should arise but it is a matter that the Home Secretary will wish to

:26:06. > :26:10.respond to include course. Intrusive nurse needs to be considered as part

:26:11. > :26:16.of the authorisation process and this was why we recommended it would

:26:17. > :26:18.be done far better if class -based authorisations were removed from the

:26:19. > :26:24.Bill and the requirement made that Mrs should authorise the retention

:26:25. > :26:29.of each dataset. The government came back and suggested that should be

:26:30. > :26:34.too onerous for ministers to do but we would suggest it could be met to

:26:35. > :26:37.increasing the role of commissioners in renewing these orders and

:26:38. > :26:43.amending the duration of the laws right stations which could be longer

:26:44. > :26:50.than they are present -- authorisations. The point we were

:26:51. > :26:54.driving at is it is right that ministers were constantly cited as

:26:55. > :26:57.to what datasets were being obtained and we had an anxiety that in the

:26:58. > :27:02.form of authorisation we have at present that might not always

:27:03. > :27:05.happen. The committee is also raised a number of more minor concerns.

:27:06. > :27:11.They are all set out in our report. They can be returned to a report of

:27:12. > :27:15.the cannot be resolved in committee. I apologised that the time available

:27:16. > :27:18.I can go through them all year. Some of them we are very pleased about.

:27:19. > :27:22.Very pleased that decree with urgent warrants now being approved within

:27:23. > :27:36.three days rather than the five days originally approved. The same can be

:27:37. > :27:40.said of clause 134. There were however two more matters of concern.

:27:41. > :27:43.We were troubled that we have not yet seen the actual list of

:27:44. > :27:48.operational purposes which must underpin any draft or quadrant. It

:27:49. > :27:54.goes to the very heart of this legislation. We have seen examples

:27:55. > :28:01.which appear in Tywi Valley that we hope and expect the full list to be

:28:02. > :28:06.supplied was before the Bill has completed its journey. The committee

:28:07. > :28:09.should be able to refer any concern it has on the use of our

:28:10. > :28:13.investigatory power to the investigatory Powers Tribunal on

:28:14. > :28:16.behalf of Parliament. That would help to provide reassurance that

:28:17. > :28:21.there was a mechanism though and just buy the complaint to do this.

:28:22. > :28:24.Mr Speaker, the bills argue capable of further improvement but the

:28:25. > :28:28.garment has listened, I will certainly be supporting the garment

:28:29. > :28:30.on second reading. It is undoubtedly needed on the grounds of

:28:31. > :28:35.national-security. It is well-intentioned but I said -- trust

:28:36. > :28:38.that we should also be able to insure it fulfils the equally

:28:39. > :28:44.important role of being an upholder of our freedom and liberty. Before I

:28:45. > :28:47.begin on behalf of the Scottish National party I would like to

:28:48. > :28:50.associate myself with the comments of the Home Secretary and the Shadow

:28:51. > :28:54.Home Secretary regarding the death of the prison officer in Northern

:28:55. > :28:58.Ireland and to extend the heartfelt condolences and sympathies of my

:28:59. > :29:05.party to his family, colleagues and friends. The Scottish National party

:29:06. > :29:10.joins with MPs from all parties in this house who have grave concerns

:29:11. > :29:15.about many aspects of this bill. We do not doubt that the law needs a

:29:16. > :29:19.thorough overhaul and we welcome the attempts to consolidate a number of

:29:20. > :29:23.statutes in order to have a modern and comp offensive law. We also

:29:24. > :29:26.recognise that security services and the police require adequate powers

:29:27. > :29:32.to fight terrorism and serious crime. However such powers must

:29:33. > :29:36.always be shown to be necessary, proportionate and in accordance with

:29:37. > :29:41.the law. In particular, such powers must not impinge unduly on the right

:29:42. > :29:46.to privacy or the security of private data and we feel that many

:29:47. > :29:51.of the powers in this bill do not at this stage pass those tests. For

:29:52. > :29:56.that reason in its current form the Scottish National party cannot give

:29:57. > :30:02.Hezbollah. Or. We intended to join forces with others in this house to

:30:03. > :30:05.have this bill as extensively amended as possible. Today we shall

:30:06. > :30:09.be abstaining but if the bill is not amended to our satisfaction we

:30:10. > :30:15.reserve the right to vote against it at a later stage. The bill is a

:30:16. > :30:18.rushed job in my opinion coming on the back of a draft bill which did

:30:19. > :30:24.not go far enough to protect certain liberties and lacked clarity. In

:30:25. > :30:25.very recent weeks three Parliamentary committees have

:30:26. > :30:29.expressed significant misgivings about many aspects of the draft Bill

:30:30. > :30:33.and made very extensive recommendations for its revise all.

:30:34. > :30:39.The Bill was published barely true winks after the ink was dry on the

:30:40. > :30:43.last report. We believe there has been insufficient time for the

:30:44. > :30:46.garment go back to the drawing board and rewrite the draft bill to deal

:30:47. > :30:51.adequately with the concerns expressed by those three

:30:52. > :30:53.Parliamentary committees. We were very concerned like other members in

:30:54. > :30:59.this house to read last week that the United Nations special report on

:31:00. > :31:03.the right to privacy concluded that other proposals in this bill fail

:31:04. > :31:06.the benchmarks set in recent judgments of the European Court of

:31:07. > :31:11.Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. Members opposite me

:31:12. > :31:13.scoff but I invite them to read his report carefully, it contains a

:31:14. > :31:16.careful excavation of recent case law and should not lightly

:31:17. > :31:21.dismissed. The benchmarks of these recent cases provide surveillance

:31:22. > :31:24.should be targeted and it should be targeted by means of warrants which

:31:25. > :31:31.are focused on specific and raise reasonable suspicion yet under this

:31:32. > :31:34.bill targeted interception warrants may apply to groups of persons or

:31:35. > :31:39.more than one organisation or more than one premises. These bulk

:31:40. > :31:44.interception warrants lack specification and there is no

:31:45. > :31:47.requirement for reasonable suspicion, thus giving licence was

:31:48. > :31:53.backlit if surveillance. The Shadow Home Secretary should questioned

:31:54. > :31:59.whether we should be using the term mass surveillance but I wonder

:32:00. > :32:01.whether the accurate term should be suspicion with surveillance and that

:32:02. > :32:07.is a concern for civil liberties. Another aspect of the Bill is that

:32:08. > :32:10.in relation to the National Security Council, an actual threat to

:32:11. > :32:14.national security is not required and that concerns. The powers in the

:32:15. > :32:18.Bill to retain Internet connection records and the bulk powers go

:32:19. > :32:24.beyond what is currently offer right in other Western democracies and

:32:25. > :32:28.thus could set a dangerous president and a bad example internationally.

:32:29. > :32:31.The only other Western democracy which has authorised the retention

:32:32. > :32:35.of materials similar to Internet connection records is Denmark and

:32:36. > :32:41.they have subsequently abandoned their experiment having found it did

:32:42. > :32:43.not yield significant benefits for enforcement. I see the Home

:32:44. > :32:47.Secretary looking at me and I'm sure the she will argue there are

:32:48. > :32:50.differences between her proposed scheme and the Denmark scheme. But

:32:51. > :32:53.the devil is in the Peter Lambert listening we will need to look very

:32:54. > :33:01.carefully in committee. The United States of America are rolling back

:33:02. > :33:05.from data collection having found it to be in some cases unconstitutional

:33:06. > :33:09.and of questionable value in fighting terrorism. So it is for

:33:10. > :33:14.this government to justify weight alone requires to go such further

:33:15. > :33:23.than the government in Western democracies. I do not believe such

:33:24. > :33:29.operational cases that have been produced, they are more anecdotal

:33:30. > :33:35.and hypothetical in nature. I give way to the honourable lady. If the

:33:36. > :33:41.honourable lady thinks that it is important to look at international

:33:42. > :33:44.comparisons, would she agree with me that the judicial authorisation

:33:45. > :33:48.procedure that the honourable Secretary of State is proposing goes

:33:49. > :33:55.further than other examples in Europe for example in Germany and

:33:56. > :33:58.the Netherlands and in France? We need to compare apples with apples

:33:59. > :34:02.and oranges with oranges. A more correct comparison is with

:34:03. > :34:07.jurisdictions such as Canada and America which are more similar in

:34:08. > :34:14.system to ours. I'll come back to that one I get to the issue of

:34:15. > :34:18.authorisation. Everyone in this house I am sure once to get the

:34:19. > :34:22.balance right between protecting civil liberties and giving the

:34:23. > :34:24.security services and the police the necessary and proportionate powers

:34:25. > :34:28.to fight serious crime and terrorism. However we believe in the

:34:29. > :34:31.SNP at present that the government 's attempt has not got a balance

:34:32. > :34:35.right. And we are looking forward to working with other parliamentarians

:34:36. > :34:39.to try and get that important balance right. But we are worried

:34:40. > :34:46.that the government is not giving suspicion -- sufficient right for

:34:47. > :34:49.the Bill. The Bill is enormous. The 14 Home Office documents concerning

:34:50. > :34:54.the Bill which were released to the parliament on the 1st of March

:34:55. > :34:57.extend to 1182 pages. That is almost trebled the amount of material

:34:58. > :35:00.released to the draft bill last November. And there is a suspicion

:35:01. > :35:05.that the amount of material being policed in large tranches coupled to

:35:06. > :35:08.relatively short timescales within which to consider and amend

:35:09. > :35:12.proposals is an indication that the government does not really want the

:35:13. > :35:16.Parliamentary scrutiny of this and we're determined to do our best to

:35:17. > :35:21.make sure that there is sufficient Parliamentary scrutiny. Yes, I will

:35:22. > :35:24.give way. Can I be absolutely clear about this? I have been in this

:35:25. > :35:29.house long enough to see bills go through the house where codes of

:35:30. > :35:32.practice should sit alongside the bill. And parliamentarians have

:35:33. > :35:35.complained when government has failed to bring codes of practice to

:35:36. > :35:38.the house at the very first age of the debate. This government has

:35:39. > :35:43.brought those codes of practice to the house before secondary grading,

:35:44. > :35:47.more than several days before secondary gain, precisely so that

:35:48. > :35:49.members of this house have an opportunity to see them and consider

:35:50. > :35:56.them alongside consideration for Bill. But the Home Secretary missed

:35:57. > :36:00.and stands my complaint. It is not the fact that the material has been

:36:01. > :36:03.produced, it is the fact that the material has been produced with a

:36:04. > :36:07.timescale following thereon that is not sufficient for us to scrutinise

:36:08. > :36:11.it properly. That is my complaint. I am going to make something

:36:12. > :36:16.absolutely crystal clear before I go any further. And it is this. The

:36:17. > :36:23.Scottish National party will not be morally blackmailed or bullied by

:36:24. > :36:26.members of sit into blind support for a bill of dubious legality in

:36:27. > :36:31.some respects and which seeks powers which go beyond other Western

:36:32. > :36:35.democracies. We are not going to tolerate any suggestion that by

:36:36. > :36:40.seeking proper scrutiny of the Bill and full justification for the

:36:41. > :36:44.far-reaching powers, we are being soft on terrorism and serious crime.

:36:45. > :36:48.And I would associate myself with the other main opposition party in

:36:49. > :36:52.that respect. And I would also like to give you an example of why you

:36:53. > :36:55.can be assured that the SNP is not soft on terrorism more serious

:36:56. > :36:58.crime. We have been in government in Scotland for nine years and we have

:36:59. > :37:02.shown ourselves to be a responsible government. Whilst issues of

:37:03. > :37:06.national security are reserved, we have always cooperated closely with

:37:07. > :37:11.the UK Government for example when Glasgow Airport was attacked by

:37:12. > :37:14.terrorists in 2007. Our record in fighting crime in Scotland is second

:37:15. > :37:19.to none. The Scottish Government has got recorded crime down to 41 year

:37:20. > :37:23.low and we are committed to aggressive justice policy. We will

:37:24. > :37:29.not stand accused of being soft on serious crime or terrorism because

:37:30. > :37:33.it is simply not a fair statement. We confidently expect to be devising

:37:34. > :37:36.a security policy of an independent Scotland and it will be a response

:37:37. > :37:40.was guilty policy which will seek to work closely with near neighbours on

:37:41. > :37:43.this Eli -- these islands but will also look to international models

:37:44. > :37:49.from international democracies and strive to have a policy which takes

:37:50. > :37:53.proper recognises of international human rights laws and the rule of

:37:54. > :37:57.law. That is all we are about in our opposition and scrutiny of this

:37:58. > :38:01.bill. And the concerns which we share about the concerns are not

:38:02. > :38:04.just our concerns, they are shared by the party sitting round the and

:38:05. > :38:10.many of the members opposite. They are shared by many of the members of

:38:11. > :38:12.three Parliamentary midis, they are shared by NGOs, the technical

:38:13. > :38:17.sector, eminent legal commentators, over 200 senior lawyers sign that

:38:18. > :38:23.letter in the Guardian today. They are shared by can indication service

:38:24. > :38:27.providers and they are shared by the UN special report Iran privacy.

:38:28. > :38:32.Somebody shouts confidently from the others Oliver Howes at the 200

:38:33. > :38:47.lawyers + the letter in the Guardian are wrong. I suspect he had a look

:38:48. > :38:51.at the list of names but sign that. Just the clarifications over the

:38:52. > :38:59.honourable lady does not be seen to be speaking for my own party, would

:39:00. > :39:02.she accept that the balances which the Secretary of State has outlined

:39:03. > :39:05.in the bill today by a large are supported by people in Northern

:39:06. > :39:11.Ireland simply because we have gone through the experience of terrorism

:39:12. > :39:17.and know how important these kind of safeguards are for the general

:39:18. > :39:18.public? I would always listen very carefully to what the honourable

:39:19. > :39:31.gentleman is saying. apologise if I included him in a

:39:32. > :39:36.sweeping statement but I do not agree that the judgment have got the

:39:37. > :39:41.balance right. The point I'm seeking to make it is the job of responsible

:39:42. > :39:47.opposition to oppose responsibly and to scrutinise but also to article

:39:48. > :39:49.eight and inform public concerns and the public are concerned about this

:39:50. > :39:55.and there is greater published origin but this bill than perhaps

:39:56. > :39:58.there was last time round and I noticed that a survey of the public

:39:59. > :40:02.commission by open exchange found that only 12% of the public believe

:40:03. > :40:06.that the Home Secretary has adequately explain the impact of the

:40:07. > :40:08.Bill to the UK public and present a balanced arguing for its

:40:09. > :40:12.introduction. I suspect that is possibly a little bit unfair pinning

:40:13. > :40:15.it all on the Home Secretary because it is the responsible job all of us

:40:16. > :40:16.in this house to inform our constituents about this bill and

:40:17. > :40:29.where it is going. I will make some progress for some

:40:30. > :40:37.time being if you don't mind. I mentioned the letter to the

:40:38. > :40:41.Guardian. I am conscious that the right honourable gentleman the

:40:42. > :40:46.Attorney General has made his position clear but I respectfully

:40:47. > :40:49.disagree with him. The letter to the Guardian from the lawyers focused

:40:50. > :40:56.initially on the problem of bulk intercept. Even the interception of

:40:57. > :41:02.Communications office, the independent watchdog, has said that

:41:03. > :41:06.bulk intercept provides, I quote, generalised initial intercept. That

:41:07. > :41:10.is the issue here, it is the generality that the lawyers are

:41:11. > :41:20.worried about, the lack of focus and specificity. I am grateful. I take

:41:21. > :41:26.the letter seriously because I regard it as a serious matter. If

:41:27. > :41:30.indeed what was happening was what was set out in the first objection

:41:31. > :41:35.by those writing it it would be a very serious matter in Bede, namely

:41:36. > :41:40.that this House was sanctioning a system by which there was

:41:41. > :41:43.generalised access to electronic communications in bulk. -- serious

:41:44. > :41:50.matter in Bede. That is not actually what goes on and if one looks at the

:41:51. > :41:54.bill clearly it is clear that that shouldn't be able to go on and we

:41:55. > :42:00.would prevent it from happening if there were any possible risk of it.

:42:01. > :42:04.We have been around this issue on many occasions and this is why, I

:42:05. > :42:08.think, there is a difficulty of communication and understanding of

:42:09. > :42:15.something that is fundamental to the way the agencies go about this work.

:42:16. > :42:20.I can only reiterate that I and many others, including over 200 lawyers

:42:21. > :42:26.who signed this letter, disagreed with him on this point. One of the

:42:27. > :42:32.things that this issue illustrates is the importance of having very

:42:33. > :42:36.focused language in bills dealing with such major matters of

:42:37. > :42:40.constitutional importance, rather than having vague language that is

:42:41. > :42:47.not properly understood and can at a later date be twisted by those it

:42:48. > :42:55.suits to expand powers. That has happened in the past. I think we

:42:56. > :43:00.should not dismiss too lightly the importance of the notion of the rule

:43:01. > :43:04.of law overarching this bill. If the government really wants this

:43:05. > :43:08.legislation to be world leading then it can't have legislation that

:43:09. > :43:14.potentially violates international standards. As things stand the UK is

:43:15. > :43:20.still bound by the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. There

:43:21. > :43:24.are no proposals to withdraw from the fundamental human rights. We

:43:25. > :43:27.await the proposals by the repeal of the Human Rights Act but the

:43:28. > :43:37.government have been moving to reassure us that we will not be with

:43:38. > :43:41.drawing from the court of Europe. Many people believe, many

:43:42. > :43:45.distinguished lawyers, that if the bill is not significantly amended

:43:46. > :43:52.then all of the UK will be on a collision course with those European

:43:53. > :43:57.courts. An unamended bill could result in expensive litigation. It

:43:58. > :44:02.could require Parliament to revise the law again in the future and this

:44:03. > :44:08.should not be, provided we make sure that the law meets international

:44:09. > :44:16.standards. I hear members asking, which parts? I will come to that.

:44:17. > :44:22.Make intervention, don't be so rude. I would suggest that honourable

:44:23. > :44:27.members opposite read the report that has come from the United

:44:28. > :44:32.Nations report on privacy and consider the law here. They may

:44:33. > :44:37.prefer to follow in the footsteps of Russia, which last December allowed

:44:38. > :44:41.a law allowing its Constitutional court to decide whether to comply

:44:42. > :44:48.with international courts but I would suggest Russia is not the best

:44:49. > :44:53.role model for the UK. I want to challenge the premise that the more

:44:54. > :44:57.privacy we sacrifice the more security we gain. This is not backed

:44:58. > :45:03.up by the evidence. Some of the committees in this House have heard

:45:04. > :45:06.evidence that swamping analysts with data can perhaps impede

:45:07. > :45:11.investigation, because they are unable to find the needles in the

:45:12. > :45:15.haystack of information. What we should be doing is looking at how to

:45:16. > :45:24.increase security in an intelligent way and not blanket security Britain

:45:25. > :45:31.men. The Home Office -- security retaining. The Home Office added one

:45:32. > :45:36.word to the start of the bill as pertains to privacy but they have

:45:37. > :45:41.not added any details or principles about overwriting principles of

:45:42. > :45:45.privacy and I think their response to the Intelligence and Security

:45:46. > :45:50.Committee seems somewhat cynical. I indicated that there are number of

:45:51. > :45:54.aspects of the bilby SNP are concerned about. Time doesn't permit

:45:55. > :45:59.to tackle all of them but there are four in particular and I endeavour

:46:00. > :46:07.to keep my comments to a minimum bearing in mind I speak for the

:46:08. > :46:10.third party in the House. The legal thresholds for surveillance, the

:46:11. > :46:13.authorisation process, which the Shadow Home Secretary has talked

:46:14. > :46:21.about, and the provision for collection of internet communication

:46:22. > :46:24.records, and bulk powers. The legal thresholds for surveillance,

:46:25. > :46:31.essentially what the government wants to do is really just wait for

:46:32. > :46:37.Ripper's grounds, and we maintain they are unnecessarily broad and

:46:38. > :46:41.vague. That is not just the concern of the SNP. The Joint Committee that

:46:42. > :46:46.looked at this draft bill recommended that the bill should

:46:47. > :46:51.include definitions of national security and economic well-being.

:46:52. > :46:53.That has not been done. The Intelligence and Security Committee

:46:54. > :46:59.recommended that economic well-being should be subsumed within a national

:47:00. > :47:01.security definition and they said it is unnecessarily confusing and

:47:02. > :47:08.complicated. These recommendations have been dismissed and the court

:47:09. > :47:14.powers remain undefined and in my opinion dangerously flexible. On the

:47:15. > :47:18.point of authorisation of warrants, we welcome the move towards greater

:47:19. > :47:22.judicial involvement and we acknowledge that the government has

:47:23. > :47:28.moved quite a long way towards the double lock but we would like to see

:47:29. > :47:35.an equal lock, like the Shadow Home Secretary. Judicial review is not

:47:36. > :47:40.the same as judicial authorisation. It provides the illusion of judicial

:47:41. > :47:46.overview. I want to give concrete examples of that. The caselaw of the

:47:47. > :47:50.United Kingdom Supreme Court shows that in civil proceedings which

:47:51. > :47:55.don't relate to deprivation of liberty a less intense standard of

:47:56. > :48:00.judicial is applied, more reasonable last than strictness city, and that

:48:01. > :48:07.is why many fear this is what will happen if the bill is passed on

:48:08. > :48:15.amending for -- unamended. -- reasonableness. Will she accept that

:48:16. > :48:20.she is simply wrong on this point? The evidence to the Joint Committee,

:48:21. > :48:27.of which I was a member come from Sir Stanley Banton, senior judicial

:48:28. > :48:31.commissioner, and Lord Judge, senior surveillance Commissioner, were

:48:32. > :48:40.clear that this had no place in this context. The wording is important,

:48:41. > :48:47.involving necessity and proportionality. I think she is

:48:48. > :48:52.cherry picking her way through the evidence that was heard. There was

:48:53. > :48:57.evidence contrary to the position she has stated. There is debate

:48:58. > :49:02.about this point, I accept, but the side of the debate I take is that

:49:03. > :49:08.the review on traditional -- judicial review principles don't go

:49:09. > :49:13.far enough. Why not have one stage judicial authorisation? It is the

:49:14. > :49:20.norm in comparative jurisdictions, like as the states, Canada. Judicial

:49:21. > :49:28.overview would encourage cooperation from US technology firms. I also

:49:29. > :49:37.think there is a practical point. A 2-stage progress. Practically there

:49:38. > :49:40.is a huge volume of surveillance warrants and it looks like there

:49:41. > :49:44.will be an awful lot more as a result of this ill and it is

:49:45. > :49:48.unsuitable for a small number of Cabinet ministers to deal with that.

:49:49. > :49:53.I want to deal with something else that I think is a false premise that

:49:54. > :49:57.is often put forward to justify ministerial involvement in the

:49:58. > :50:01.issuance of warrants. Some people seek to argue that ministers are

:50:02. > :50:03.democratically accountable, politically accountable for

:50:04. > :50:08.surveillance warrants to this House, but I think that is misconceived.

:50:09. > :50:11.Ministers are not really democratically accountable for their

:50:12. > :50:15.role in issuing warrants because firstly the disclosure of the

:50:16. > :50:23.existent of a warrant is criminalised and would remain so

:50:24. > :50:26.under this bill. All of us no that requests for information concerning

:50:27. > :50:30.such matters in this House are routinely carried with claims about

:50:31. > :50:33.national security. I don't accept that ministers are practically,

:50:34. > :50:37.politically or democratically accountable to this House in regard

:50:38. > :50:41.to the issuance of warrants. Coming back to the jurisprudence of the

:50:42. > :50:47.Strasberg court, it has been made clear that it is important to have

:50:48. > :50:57.effective supervision by an independent judiciary and we want

:50:58. > :51:00.the double lock standard. Moving to Internet connection records, we

:51:01. > :51:03.agree with many others that the case the collecting these Internet

:51:04. > :51:08.connection records, including its claimed benefit from law

:51:09. > :51:13.enforcement, is flawed. It is not just my say-so. There are many

:51:14. > :51:15.concerns across the industry am a people who understand the

:51:16. > :51:24.technicalities far better than I do have explained the problems. The

:51:25. > :51:29.telephone and the Internet is not like the telephone system. The

:51:30. > :51:38.Internet connection can't be compared to a telephone bill. The

:51:39. > :51:42.phone system consists of a set of records and if we are collecting

:51:43. > :51:48.records of the phone system we can see that A called B and at what time

:51:49. > :51:52.and the gyration of the call. The Internet is more like a mailbox that

:51:53. > :52:03.Kalex packet of information and takes them from a to B. -- collects

:52:04. > :52:10.packets. If you go onto the Facebook messenger service, it won't show who

:52:11. > :52:16.you communicated with because that relates to a higher or lower level

:52:17. > :52:20.of packets. It won't show the when, where and who that the government

:52:21. > :52:25.say they want and they already get from phone records. What Internet

:52:26. > :52:30.records will show is a detailed record of all of our Internet

:52:31. > :52:35.connections for every person in the UK, a 12 month log of websites

:52:36. > :52:40.visited, communication software used, system updates downloaded,

:52:41. > :52:49.desktop widgets, every mobile app used and many other devices, baby

:52:50. > :52:54.monitors, game consoles. That is quite fantastically intrusive and as

:52:55. > :53:00.one of the honourable members for the Labour Party made the point

:53:01. > :53:05.earlier, many public authorities will have access to these records,

:53:06. > :53:10.including HMRC and the DWP and can access them without a warrant. Do

:53:11. > :53:13.you really want to go that far? There are no other comparable

:53:14. > :53:23.countries that have gone as far. David Andersson QC noted that such

:53:24. > :53:28.procedures or obligations are not considered politically conceivable

:53:29. > :53:36.in Germany, Canada or the USA so he said caution is in order. That deals

:53:37. > :53:44.with Internet connection records. Coming to bulk powers. I have made

:53:45. > :53:47.the point that even the interception of communication Commissioner 's

:53:48. > :53:53.office says that bulk provides at the outset generalised intercept. We

:53:54. > :54:00.only became aware of these interception programmes when they

:54:01. > :54:03.were exposed by Edward Snowden. Whatever you think of those

:54:04. > :54:08.exposures, at that time we became aware of them. This House has never

:54:09. > :54:12.before debated on all voted on bulk powers so we are being asked to do

:54:13. > :54:20.something very novel and challenging and we have to do it properly. The

:54:21. > :54:25.power to intercept in bulk in the past was inferred from a vaguely

:54:26. > :54:32.worded paper and that illustrates the danger of vaguely worded

:54:33. > :54:39.legislation. Targeting bulk warrants in the telecommunications system,

:54:40. > :54:44.our entire population, it is a radical departure from the common

:54:45. > :54:47.law and human rights law but this is the approach that will be taken. In

:54:48. > :54:51.many respects it is the most worrying part of the bill and the

:54:52. > :54:58.part of the build that the UN said it was most concerned about. It is

:54:59. > :55:03.very respectful of the tradition of the UK and makes some very good

:55:04. > :55:06.point. It says it would appear that the serious and possibly unintended

:55:07. > :55:10.consequences of legitimising bulk interception are not being fully

:55:11. > :55:15.appreciated by the UK Government. Airing in mind the huge influence

:55:16. > :55:22.that the UK legislation still has in over 25% of the UN member states as

:55:23. > :55:27.well as the UK's proud tradition as a democracy, one of the founders of

:55:28. > :55:31.human rights bodies such as the Council of Europe. The reporter

:55:32. > :55:36.encourages the UK Government to take this golden opportunity to set a

:55:37. > :55:39.good example and step act from taking disproportionate measures

:55:40. > :55:44.which may have negative ramifications far beyond the shores

:55:45. > :55:47.of the UK. It invites the UK Government to show greater

:55:48. > :55:52.commitment to protecting the fundamental rights to privacy that

:55:53. > :55:57.its own citizens and others and desist from setting a bad example by

:55:58. > :56:03.imposing measures, particularly bulk interception and bulk packing, which

:56:04. > :56:07.failed the standards of several Parliamentary committees and run

:56:08. > :56:10.counter to the most recent judgments of the European Court of Justice and

:56:11. > :56:32.of human rights and undermine the spirit of the right to privacy.

:56:33. > :56:49.So, to conclude, Mr Speaker,... To conclude... I think she has made a

:56:50. > :56:52.very good speech this afternoon and I think we should be working a

:56:53. > :56:56.little harder on that side of the house to reach out and build

:56:57. > :57:01.consensus but can I just invite her before she finishes to say whether

:57:02. > :57:03.she will be supporting our call in committee to make Internet

:57:04. > :57:08.connection records only accessible through I'll warrant based on

:57:09. > :57:14.serious crime not any crime to give protection and also for a clear

:57:15. > :57:17.definition of national-security question those are both issues which

:57:18. > :57:21.we will work together with the Labour Party on. They have already

:57:22. > :57:25.indicated that we intend to amend the bill extensively in committee.

:57:26. > :57:33.We are very concerned about Internet connection records. We will look

:57:34. > :57:37.seriously at proposals put forward by the parties and work together on

:57:38. > :57:42.that and what I was gone to say in conclusion, Mr Speaker, was that the

:57:43. > :57:46.SNP is in favour of targeted surveillance and we welcome the

:57:47. > :57:49.double lock on the judicial authorisation and an improvement but

:57:50. > :57:54.we do not think it goes far enough. Our concern is quite clearly that

:57:55. > :57:57.many of the powers sought in this bill are of dubious legality and go

:57:58. > :58:03.further than other Western democracies without sufficient

:58:04. > :58:06.justification and it is fraught that reason in its current form we cannot

:58:07. > :58:11.give the bill are current support. We will work with others to amend

:58:12. > :58:14.the bill is extensively. Today we shall abstain but if the bill is not

:58:15. > :58:23.amended to our satisfaction we reserve the right to vote it down at

:58:24. > :58:27.a later stage. Mr Speaker, I think that is one of the most, Dave and

:58:28. > :58:34.partisan speeches I have heard from a member of this house supporting an

:58:35. > :58:40.abstention on the second reading of the bill for a very long time. And I

:58:41. > :58:43.would urge the honourable lady and her Scottish National colleagues to

:58:44. > :58:47.calm down a bit and accept that everybody is agreeing this is a

:58:48. > :58:54.huge, hence if Bill. Its terms are quite often obscure. It is -- it

:58:55. > :58:59.needs to have issues further addressed on committee and at later

:59:00. > :59:04.stages. I think it is quite useful in this house to accept despite her

:59:05. > :59:08.excellent speech, I have nothing against party time politics on the

:59:09. > :59:14.right occasions, that there is an almost universal consensus in this

:59:15. > :59:17.house at the moment and I am glad to say, about the principles that we

:59:18. > :59:22.ought to be adopting and as I think the standards of liberal democracy

:59:23. > :59:25.in this country are not too bad at the moment, we need a piece of

:59:26. > :59:34.legislation which enshrines for the future in case eventually... The

:59:35. > :59:39.principles are that we do wish to give the strong as possible support

:59:40. > :59:45.to our intelligence policing authorities, to defend the national

:59:46. > :59:50.interest and to defend our citizens from very real dangers in the modern

:59:51. > :59:53.world and we must not left behind and I want our intelligence services

:59:54. > :59:58.and the police services when they are dealing with terrorists, when

:59:59. > :00:05.they are dealing with serious organised crime, drug trafficking,

:00:06. > :00:10.human trafficking, and so on, child abuse, as people have said, I want

:00:11. > :00:13.them to be as tough as anybody else's intelligence police services.

:00:14. > :00:19.I want them to be as effective as they possibly can be and are

:00:20. > :00:26.successful in avoiding risk, that is absolutely essential. Spies,

:00:27. > :00:29.intelligence services, have had to do slightly odd things ever since

:00:30. > :00:36.they first emerged on the scene, ever since they started steaming

:00:37. > :00:40.open envelopes and started making interceptions of telephone calls.

:00:41. > :00:45.But we must not be left behind by technology and we must not let

:00:46. > :00:49.behind by modern society and the spies have got to act the same way

:00:50. > :00:53.towards the Internet anyway they would act in towards envelopes in

:00:54. > :00:57.the post for the last 200 years. I hope we are all agreed on that. I

:00:58. > :01:01.hope we also accept that it does pose a dilemma for a liberal

:01:02. > :01:08.democracy like our own because we have got a do this as well and as

:01:09. > :01:11.toughly as anybody on the world at the highest ethical standards at the

:01:12. > :01:15.same time not come from rising our underlying values the reason we want

:01:16. > :01:20.are pleased to be so effective is we have we hope we hired -- the highest

:01:21. > :01:23.standards of human rights, the highest regard for the rule of law,

:01:24. > :01:29.democratic accountability and the thing we have maybe neglected most

:01:30. > :01:34.in modern times, privacy, privacy of the individual. And we have recent

:01:35. > :01:40.example is not in this area but of the abuse of the sea by the press

:01:41. > :01:44.and others which we are only too well aware and our citizens expect

:01:45. > :01:48.that there previously should only be intruded on any right cases. The

:01:49. > :01:50.real heart of the test is to get the balance right which we all talk

:01:51. > :01:56.about getting the balance right is the proportionality of very

:01:57. > :02:04.intrusive powers which should only ever be used when the serious

:02:05. > :02:17.national interest is threatened. Our security is at stake. And that... I

:02:18. > :02:21.am sorry but if you have a matter of national-security and an acute

:02:22. > :02:26.national crisis and the Home Secretary feels it is necessary to

:02:27. > :02:33.authorise some snooping for want of a better word if you like, I am

:02:34. > :02:39.sorry to use that word, the Home Secretary said earlier don't worry

:02:40. > :02:45.the judge will authorise a door review it. And the Prime Minister

:02:46. > :02:49.will consider it also. As... Judges are very resource of it either they

:02:50. > :02:52.do not understand acute critical sensitivities. Should not somebody

:02:53. > :02:56.like Speaker have some sort of oversight protect these very

:02:57. > :03:02.valuable communications? I do not think I am persuaded. Do not totally

:03:03. > :03:06.reject my honourable friend 's case actually because I was about to go

:03:07. > :03:10.on and say we must realise are dangers in a democratic society via

:03:11. > :03:12.our constantly vigilant about some future administration none that I

:03:13. > :03:18.have ever experienced in opposition or in government actually abusing

:03:19. > :03:21.this. There are Western democracies I think some things have happened in

:03:22. > :03:27.America at times which would not approve of year where political

:03:28. > :03:29.opponents, political rivals, have actually found the intelligence

:03:30. > :03:36.services and other sources are being used against them. My honourable

:03:37. > :03:42.friend recklessly suggested France. That would not surprise me. And the

:03:43. > :03:46.modern politics, the tent and to do that is actually quite strong. The

:03:47. > :03:51.other reason for actually insisting at this legislation is as tight as

:03:52. > :03:55.we can make it is because it is all too easy to get accustomed to these

:03:56. > :03:58.things. I have been Home Secretary and you are overwhelmed with

:03:59. > :04:04.applications for warrants. The middle of the night doing a red box

:04:05. > :04:08.and contrary to popular belief, I was conscientious about my red

:04:09. > :04:11.boxes. You have got a very short time in which to make decisions

:04:12. > :04:15.about things. There are vast number is of them. I used to make a point

:04:16. > :04:19.of actually challenging one just to find out some more detail that

:04:20. > :04:25.anybody was giving me in what came through. The volume is massive

:04:26. > :04:31.compared with that I experience. That shows there is a danger in the

:04:32. > :04:34.intervening 20 years the world has changed, so profoundly, so that I

:04:35. > :04:42.suspect she has a vastly more of these cases to consider than I had.

:04:43. > :04:44.I suspect some of them are much more difficult difficult matters of

:04:45. > :04:47.judgment by most of the ones that I've faced and I found some even in

:04:48. > :04:51.those days when we were less concerned about these concerns I

:04:52. > :04:55.suspect that there were some pretty surprise in applications being made

:04:56. > :04:58.if you actually went into what it was about. It is too easy even for

:04:59. > :05:08.the best people in the intelligence services and I... I am sorry. It is

:05:09. > :05:13.too easy for those in the intelligence service to get used to

:05:14. > :05:17.this kind of power. It is too tempting to want to use them against

:05:18. > :05:22.people who are causing trouble by making complaints or making leaks

:05:23. > :05:29.and there have been examples of that and therefore that is what this bill

:05:30. > :05:33.is about. Having said that, what my right honourable friend has brought

:05:34. > :05:36.forward as a bill that makes the biggest advance forward that I can

:05:37. > :05:42.remember for a generation of introducing this principle of

:05:43. > :05:47.judicial involvement and judicial oversight for which I have the

:05:48. > :05:53.highest possible respect and it is a quite dramatic change. We have also

:05:54. > :05:56.strengthened the intelligence and Security committee 's powers and I

:05:57. > :06:00.hope my right honourable friend will make the fullest use of those. But

:06:01. > :06:05.Freddie is always faced with the problem it cannot have a debating

:06:06. > :06:11.public, most of what is ever had done in private. We do need to get

:06:12. > :06:15.this bill right and most of the points are not the big wide partisan

:06:16. > :06:20.points but I was talking about a moment ago. They are actually in the

:06:21. > :06:22.detail, the devil is in the detail and actually there are some quite

:06:23. > :06:28.important points where we should still be questioning. There is a

:06:29. > :06:31.vast amount of activity under the general title of economic

:06:32. > :06:39.well-being, I have known some very odd things happening under that

:06:40. > :06:44.head, national security can easily get conflated with the policy of the

:06:45. > :06:47.government of the day and I do not know quite how you get the

:06:48. > :06:52.definition right but it is no good just dismissing that point. Most of

:06:53. > :06:57.my points are committee points. Several have been raised already. I

:06:58. > :06:59.did not know that the judge had given his opinion to the select

:07:00. > :07:04.committee that the Wednesbury test of reasonable lasso not provoke it.

:07:05. > :07:12.He has an old opponent of mine in love courts I am an up-to-date and

:07:13. > :07:18.extinct lawyer and he is a very distinguished and very recent riot.

:07:19. > :07:22.As a movie if the judge things the Home Secretary is not following the

:07:23. > :07:26.legal principles, but it is question is a judgment and abortion ideas are

:07:27. > :07:33.most important of all to worry much most. But it is the one I feel more

:07:34. > :07:39.strongly about. It was raised by the Shadow Home Secretary today. I am

:07:40. > :07:42.worried by part three of the bill. The whole debate is conducted on the

:07:43. > :07:48.basis we should all live fearful in our beds, this is dealing with

:07:49. > :07:52.terrorism, this is dealing with child abusers, this is dealing with

:07:53. > :07:57.human traffickers, actually vast numbers of people are getting

:07:58. > :08:03.powers, part three all kinds of curious public bodies, every local

:08:04. > :08:07.authority, county and district, where one official can get the

:08:08. > :08:09.approval of one magistrate and access to huge amounts of

:08:10. > :08:14.information. There is too much already. I'd doubt the wisdom of

:08:15. > :08:16.that. I think we shall find other points that should be corrected the

:08:17. > :08:22.process of this bill through this house. I associate myself with the

:08:23. > :08:26.remarks of the Home Secretary earlier and others of heartfelt

:08:27. > :08:29.condolences to the family and friends of the prison officer who

:08:30. > :08:33.tragically lost his life in Northern Ireland. Mr Speaker, I will start

:08:34. > :08:37.with the positive. Of course, I acknowledge and my colleagues

:08:38. > :08:40.acknowledge this bill rubs and is progress in some very important

:08:41. > :08:46.respects. It is far more competence of an area the previous piece of

:08:47. > :08:49.legislation. Uncovers power is an avowed. It contains improvements in

:08:50. > :08:54.accountability and it is said compared to its previous best jazz

:08:55. > :08:58.predecessor eases -- easier to understand. However as the Home

:08:59. > :09:03.Secretary who has just departed will know, she and I disgusted yesterday.

:09:04. > :09:05.I am not a supporter of this bill, not for technical reasons but for

:09:06. > :09:11.reasons principle which I will come to. We feel her department has not

:09:12. > :09:13.responded in full to the criticism of the three Parliamentary

:09:14. > :09:17.committees and it is therefore not yet in a fit state. There are many

:09:18. > :09:23.problems that I would like to highlight to in particular. First as

:09:24. > :09:27.the former Attorney General said, intelligence and security committee

:09:28. > :09:32.was heavily critical of the way in which privacy protections were at

:09:33. > :09:37.Titley -- article eight in the draft Bill. In responding to to the IFC 's

:09:38. > :09:42.request for a new section dedicated holy to privacy the government has

:09:43. > :09:48.in effect done little more than change one word in a title. They

:09:49. > :09:50.have demonstrated precisely the point that the committee made one

:09:51. > :09:56.needed describe the privacy protections in the bill as an

:09:57. > :09:59.add-on. I share the committees concerns. The powers authorised by

:10:00. > :10:04.this bill are formidable and capable of misuse. In the absence of a

:10:05. > :10:09.written causation it is only the subjective tests of necessity and

:10:10. > :10:15.proportionality that stand in the way that misuse. Bill should be far,

:10:16. > :10:19.far more exquisite than it currently is that these powers are the

:10:20. > :10:20.exception from standing principles of prisoners see and must never

:10:21. > :10:30.become the norm. The Home Office appears to be

:10:31. > :10:35.institutionally insensitive to the importance which should be attached

:10:36. > :10:40.to privacy. A department that cared about privacy would offer more than

:10:41. > :10:43.a one word response to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

:10:44. > :10:48.It would not have quietly shelved the privacy and Civil Liberties

:10:49. > :10:56.board which this House voted to establish just last year. It would

:10:57. > :11:00.have examined more proportionate alternatives to storing every click

:11:01. > :11:04.on every device of every citizen instead of leaping to the most

:11:05. > :11:11.intrusive solution available. I will give way. What would he say about

:11:12. > :11:20.the privacy of a victim of child abuse who was unable to find the

:11:21. > :11:26.perpetrator of a crime because of the restrictions he wants to put on

:11:27. > :11:30.this Bill? The greatest tools to go after such perpetrators are to match

:11:31. > :11:35.the devices they use through IP addresses to them. That is why we

:11:36. > :11:41.passed legislation which has been challenged in court by members of

:11:42. > :11:46.this House and why in my view there are much more effective ways of

:11:47. > :11:52.achieving that objective than this great dragnet approach being ad --

:11:53. > :12:01.advocated in this bill. Internet connection records, these are my

:12:02. > :12:09.principal concern. We have been here so many times before, 2008, 2009,

:12:10. > :12:14.2012. I can't think of another proposal in Whitehall that has been

:12:15. > :12:19.so consistently champion, not by the police and intelligence services,

:12:20. > :12:23.whose expertise I admire as anybody else, but by the Home Office,

:12:24. > :12:28.despite failing to convince successive governments. That is not

:12:29. > :12:37.wave -- the way that policy should be made. The Home Office said that

:12:38. > :12:42.ICRs are significantly different from memos. The only difference I

:12:43. > :12:45.can see is some restrictions on the purposes for which data can be

:12:46. > :12:51.accessed, although I know some of them have been relaxed in clause 54

:12:52. > :12:55.of this draft. In terms of collection and retention the scheme

:12:56. > :13:00.is the same. The name might be different but the scheme is the

:13:01. > :13:04.same, service providers will be required to keep records of every

:13:05. > :13:08.communication that takes place on their networks and potentially every

:13:09. > :13:13.click where there is an exchange of data between your device and a

:13:14. > :13:18.remote server. It is the Groveland of the days of steaming open

:13:19. > :13:24.letters, somebody keeping the front of every envelope in the country in

:13:25. > :13:30.some great warehouse being stored for 12 months. -- it is the

:13:31. > :13:34.equivalent of the days. The implication is that the government

:13:35. > :13:40.believes as a matter of principle that every innocent act of

:13:41. > :13:44.communication online must leave a trace the future possible

:13:45. > :13:50.interrogation by the state. No other country in the world feels the need

:13:51. > :13:55.to do this apart from Russia. Denmark tried something similar but

:13:56. > :14:00.abandoned it because the authorities were drowned in useless data, as

:14:01. > :14:06.they would have drowned in useless envelopes many years ago. Australia

:14:07. > :14:13.considered it but the police said it was disproportionate. Many European

:14:14. > :14:16.countries have gone the other way, ruling pushing data retention powers

:14:17. > :14:24.following the ruling of the European Court of Justice. -- relinquishing

:14:25. > :14:30.data retention. The Home Office has produced a so-called case for

:14:31. > :14:34.tracking Internet records but I would request that students of

:14:35. > :14:39.politics and government would do well to study it. It is a model in

:14:40. > :14:43.retrofitting evidence to a predetermined policy. Naturally it

:14:44. > :14:48.sets out how this data could be useful to the police and

:14:49. > :14:54.intelligence agencies. What it doesn't do and should is start from

:14:55. > :14:56.the operation room, where lack of data is obstructing criminal

:14:57. > :15:00.investigations, and explore different options for meeting that

:15:01. > :15:06.need while balancing security and privacy. It is simply false to claim

:15:07. > :15:10.that the dragnet approach is the only way to provide the government

:15:11. > :15:16.with better tools to go after criminals, go after terrorists

:15:17. > :15:20.online. We could incentivise companies to move to the new

:15:21. > :15:25.industry standard for IP addresses at a much faster rate. It might

:15:26. > :15:29.sound technical but it is important because it would at a stroke go a

:15:30. > :15:39.long way to solving the key problem of how to tie IP addresses to

:15:40. > :15:44.suspects. During my time in government I saw little sign that

:15:45. > :15:49.the Home Office had devoted any serious consideration to

:15:50. > :15:54.alternatives to ICRs. This is because it isn't a case of evidence

:15:55. > :15:59.-based policy, it is a case of policy -based evidence. On top of

:16:00. > :16:03.this we still don't know how it would work or be defined, the

:16:04. > :16:07.Internet Service Providers Association have stated in their

:16:08. > :16:11.briefing for this debate, in its attempts to future proof the bill

:16:12. > :16:17.The Home Office has opted to define many of the key areas in such a way

:16:18. > :16:20.that our members still find it difficult to understand what the

:16:21. > :16:26.vocations will be for them. The costs of ICRs are still unclear. The

:16:27. > :16:31.government estimate is just over ?170 million over ten years. The

:16:32. > :16:35.same Internet service providers Association said the figure is not

:16:36. > :16:39.one they recognise and BT say the cost will be significantly higher.

:16:40. > :16:45.Internet connection records are at the heart of the bill, not just a

:16:46. > :16:49.technicality but they are the principal heart of what information

:16:50. > :16:54.is stored from all of us for long periods by the government in our

:16:55. > :16:58.name. This dragnet approach will put us out of step with the

:16:59. > :17:01.international community. There are practical problems with the proposal

:17:02. > :17:06.and the terms used are still unclear. I would urge members on all

:17:07. > :17:10.sides of the House to properly scrutinised this far reaching and

:17:11. > :17:14.poorly evidenced proposal and withhold Parliamentary consent for

:17:15. > :17:21.such a sweeping power until the questions I and others have raised

:17:22. > :17:26.are properly addressed. Any bill that fundamentally affects B Aleix

:17:27. > :17:44.and ship between the citizen and the state is bound to be controversial.

:17:45. > :17:52.-- affect the relationship. Although Article eight interferes with the

:17:53. > :17:55.rights to be protected by it, Parliament has a particular duty to

:17:56. > :18:04.examine -- examine closely legislation of this sort which is

:18:05. > :18:11.the -- to make sure that the Lord and -- the agencies are not asking

:18:12. > :18:13.for too much. We hear the words necessity and proportionality

:18:14. > :18:19.frequently in this bill and that is not an accident. Much of what was

:18:20. > :18:24.said today will have been said in previous debates and that

:18:25. > :18:29.legislation will be incorporated into this bill. We have had to adapt

:18:30. > :18:38.bills to cope with the ability of those who wish to do us harm more

:18:39. > :18:45.quickly and effectively and to avoid being able to intervene -- into fear

:18:46. > :18:50.with the citizen. As far ago as the 14th century Parliament outlawed

:18:51. > :18:53.eavesdropping but in recent years the intrusion into the private lives

:18:54. > :19:02.of others by the use of illegal listening devices, the human airport

:19:03. > :19:07.electronic devices, has been a topic for debate. -- the human ear or

:19:08. > :19:14.electronic devices. Nobody doubts that the agencies need to intercept

:19:15. > :19:19.crime and terrorism. The threat to our country and its interests is as

:19:20. > :19:29.serious as it has been since the Second World War and the capacity of

:19:30. > :19:36.the criminal underworld or national enemies to traffic in people or do

:19:37. > :19:47.other things has been hugely increased. So much of what we have

:19:48. > :19:50.to content with now is unseen, unheard, instantaneous and

:19:51. > :19:54.undetectable. It gets more and more difficult to stay ahead of criminal

:19:55. > :19:59.gangs and terrorists who have access to sophisticated systems that can be

:20:00. > :20:07.today -- operated from an iPhone anywhere in the world. Does he agree

:20:08. > :20:13.that to help the police and security services transfer what they do in

:20:14. > :20:17.the physical world to the digital world they need help and we are

:20:18. > :20:26.asking them to do that with one hand tied behind their back. I do agree.

:20:27. > :20:30.I wholeheartedly support the aims and policy behind the bill. What is

:20:31. > :20:35.proposed in terms of enabling the state to intercept communications or

:20:36. > :20:38.interfere with equipment in a way that without this legislation would

:20:39. > :20:41.be unlawful is sensible. The requirement for the Secretary of

:20:42. > :20:49.State to issue warrants that have to be approved by the judiciary with

:20:50. > :20:53.regard to the collection and retention of communications data are

:20:54. > :21:00.rightly in the bill. The ability to acquire bulk data is necessary, the

:21:01. > :21:07.checks and balances referred to in schedule four are right, scheduled

:21:08. > :21:11.-- subject to further consideration. All of this and more are justified

:21:12. > :21:17.and defensible in the interest of protecting us from harm but there is

:21:18. > :21:22.no room for complacency that what is set out in the bill is the perfect

:21:23. > :21:26.answer to a difficult set of problems, most obviously defined as

:21:27. > :21:29.the border between public protection and excessive state power. In my

:21:30. > :21:34.time as a law officer from time to time I had to deal with the security

:21:35. > :21:40.services and law enforcement agencies and without being accused

:21:41. > :21:44.by hope of Anju naivete my experience was that they were

:21:45. > :21:47.scrupulous to a bay the will of Parliament and the law. From the top

:21:48. > :21:52.down there was a genuine desire to do not only what was right and seek

:21:53. > :21:55.clarification where the law was capable of being misconstrued so

:21:56. > :22:01.that they did not stray across the line between what was possible and

:22:02. > :22:04.what was lawful. I am sure that those entrusted with the work

:22:05. > :22:07.described by this will will conduct themselves within the law and that

:22:08. > :22:13.if errors are made it will not be from want of trying to keep on the

:22:14. > :22:17.right side of the law. The number of intercepts warranted every year by

:22:18. > :22:20.Secretary of State may not be many compared to the billions of e-mails

:22:21. > :22:30.sent, mobile calls or Internet searches every year. Secretaries of

:22:31. > :22:35.State will collectively issue fewer than 5000 every year but if the law

:22:36. > :22:40.is to be obeyed everyone must be considered by the Secretary of State

:22:41. > :22:49.or a Scottish minister. Every application will have to be given

:22:50. > :23:01.for a warrant for intercepting the time it needs. The current holders

:23:02. > :23:06.of these offices are hard-working minister is capable of reading the

:23:07. > :23:09.closely argued brief late at night after a long day of working in their

:23:10. > :23:14.departments either in Parliament or travelling here or overseas but even

:23:15. > :23:18.if I have overestimated the number of applications they will receive I

:23:19. > :23:23.am reasonably sure they will be considering several every day, much

:23:24. > :23:30.reinforced by what my honourable friend had to say a moment or go --

:23:31. > :23:34.or so ago. Some applications will be more straightforward than others but

:23:35. > :23:39.I don't expect that even the easier cases it will be a case of skim

:23:40. > :23:43.reading the application and initialling it. Each application

:23:44. > :23:47.must be fully argued on its own facts and considered personally --

:23:48. > :23:55.personally by the Secretary of State. I hope the tale will be gone

:23:56. > :23:59.into about why the warrant is necessary, not least is it will have

:24:00. > :24:03.to be carefully reviewed by ay judicial commissioner. This is even

:24:04. > :24:08.more true in urgent cases where it follows the issuing of a warrant or

:24:09. > :24:12.involves legal privilege under clause 20 five. My concerns about

:24:13. > :24:18.the practicalities of this are added to when one considers the point

:24:19. > :24:23.raised by my honourable friend, because they are likely to be

:24:24. > :24:27.numbered in the hundreds of files every year and they are to be

:24:28. > :24:31.authorised by what to my eyes look like a middle ranking police

:24:32. > :24:41.officers and other officials. As one can see from schedule four, these

:24:42. > :24:47.are inspectors and superintendence and others of that rank. Some of

:24:48. > :24:51.them would be part timers. I need to be sure that the necessity or

:24:52. > :24:54.expedience of every case will not outweigh the need for formality and

:24:55. > :24:59.proper scrutiny of every application. If we are to have

:25:00. > :25:02.complete confidence in the vetting system, I urge the Minister on the

:25:03. > :25:08.front bench and the rest of the government to think very carefully

:25:09. > :25:14.about these aspects of this process. Finally, clause 222 requires the

:25:15. > :25:19.Secretary of State to rip -- prepare a report after five and half years

:25:20. > :25:23.of the passing of the act. On any view, that is too long. I suggest it

:25:24. > :25:28.should be done after two years and if the government refuses to reduce

:25:29. > :25:33.that I hope the Member for Beckham feels and the ISC as well as Mr

:25:34. > :25:35.David Anderson, the independent reviewer, will produce -- who

:25:36. > :25:38.produced an invaluable report last summer kill --, will want to do so

:25:39. > :25:49.themselves. There's often a comment made about

:25:50. > :25:53.how long political events go one because not everybody has said

:25:54. > :26:00.everything that been said. I want to speak of a member of the science and

:26:01. > :26:04.technology select committee, Parliament's geek squad, and raise a

:26:05. > :26:09.third set of concerns about this set of legislation. Members have talked

:26:10. > :26:15.about questions of proportionality and concerns about the balance

:26:16. > :26:17.between security and liberty. The challenges of extra generous

:26:18. > :26:22.directional legislation and whether we in a global world can make

:26:23. > :26:26.national laws that make sense. I want to add concerns about the

:26:27. > :26:31.technical aspects of this legislation and whether it will

:26:32. > :26:36.work. Whether this is legislation for digital natives comfortable with

:26:37. > :26:40.the world or whether it has been defined by digital refugees who run

:26:41. > :26:46.away from the reality of modern technical advances. All of us have

:26:47. > :26:51.had the experience of trying to explain to a person under the age of

:26:52. > :26:55.20 we were not able to Google our homework when we were at school.

:26:56. > :27:01.Many may have jumpers older than the internet. It has fundamentally

:27:02. > :27:05.changed our lives. A third of divorcees contain references to

:27:06. > :27:14.Facebook which only came into our lives in 2007 but has transformed

:27:15. > :27:18.that most personal of relationship. When we think about legislation that

:27:19. > :27:23.takes account of these modern technologies it must be legislation

:27:24. > :27:26.that understands those technologies and the consequences of the changes

:27:27. > :27:30.in the law we are talking about making. When we are the committee

:27:31. > :27:36.looked at the question of surveillance and internet connection

:27:37. > :27:43.records concerns arose. Particularly the idea of a dragon it could be

:27:44. > :27:48.brought together to bring together internet connection records for

:27:49. > :27:53.everything go member of the population for 12 months and what

:27:54. > :27:58.that might entail. There is a fundamental challenge between the

:27:59. > :28:02.idea it is possible to separate out somebody's contact online from their

:28:03. > :28:07.content. It is a definition many companies have raised a concern with

:28:08. > :28:13.and this legislation has not completely grappled with it. The

:28:14. > :28:17.legislation makes a distinction between IP addresses and people

:28:18. > :28:21.knowing who you have contacted and what it called anything else that

:28:22. > :28:26.might reasonably be expected to give the meaning of the communication. A

:28:27. > :28:30.definition that makes sense when we talk about phone records but that

:28:31. > :28:34.has to talk about the world to come not the one before. If I send a

:28:35. > :28:39.message through Outlook you do not have to know the content to know it

:28:40. > :28:45.is a message to request a meeting with somebody. When we talk about a

:28:46. > :28:55.website someone has visited, that talks about content, for example if

:28:56. > :29:01.it was an alcohol website it brings contents definition. We need to

:29:02. > :29:05.challenge these definitions so we need a much tighter definition of

:29:06. > :29:10.what it means to have an internet connection record and what will be

:29:11. > :29:14.held on aggregate. It is something that all three committees have

:29:15. > :29:20.called for. It is not something we are stealing from the government

:29:21. > :29:24.about understanding that in this modern world the distinction between

:29:25. > :29:28.content and contact is not a viable one. It needs to be much tighter in

:29:29. > :29:33.this legislation because if not the question about who can access that

:29:34. > :29:41.information leads into can access the meaning of those content

:29:42. > :29:45.combinations. Those labourers questions will only become more

:29:46. > :29:50.stark. I can see a few digital refugees querying what the internet

:29:51. > :29:54.of things and, it is the growing number of physical things connected

:29:55. > :29:59.online. I was given a coffee maker that I can set of using my mobile

:30:00. > :30:06.phone. It is wonderful to be able to sit in bed and order several cups of

:30:07. > :30:12.coffee. We have air bikes in cars online, burglar alarms online,

:30:13. > :30:22.people may sit there and electricity online, forms of contact that are

:30:23. > :30:26.accessible through digital media. All of that form of contact is

:30:27. > :30:30.potentially information that could be created in an internet

:30:31. > :30:35.communication record, information that could potentially be very

:30:36. > :30:42.useful in an investigation. If you looked at somebody's electricity

:30:43. > :30:47.use... Isn't the point with the internet connection record you are

:30:48. > :30:52.looking for a past history for a future crime? Is it not relevant if

:30:53. > :30:57.you're investigating a child abuser or terrorist to see their past

:30:58. > :31:03.records and if they have accessed sites with relevant material, which

:31:04. > :31:06.you would be able to see from the contact information? I am not sure

:31:07. > :31:12.of the point he is making because nobody is suggesting you would not

:31:13. > :31:16.want to access this information but to separate out contact from content

:31:17. > :31:22.is much more difficult than the Home Secretary is suggesting so we need

:31:23. > :31:25.much more honesty about the powers they are proposing that our police

:31:26. > :31:30.and investigatory authorities may have. If you can get information

:31:31. > :31:36.about my electricity meter, if you want to look at the contact between

:31:37. > :31:40.me and my electricity meter, if I was doing it a lot you might wonder

:31:41. > :31:44.what I was doing in my home that requires a lot of heat, drug

:31:45. > :31:49.enforcement agencies may look at that. That brings with it content

:31:50. > :31:56.about what you are doing. It does not mean we do not need methods for

:31:57. > :31:59.accessing that. What is missing is an honesty about the technical

:32:00. > :32:09.complications that will come with that. We need to be able to address

:32:10. > :32:13.this. Perhaps I can reassure her the Home Secretary emphasised that we

:32:14. > :32:17.continue to have discussion with the providers for the reason she has

:32:18. > :32:23.described. It is essential that what we oblige them to do they can do.

:32:24. > :32:28.The member for Sheffield Hallam gave the game away and said that the bid

:32:29. > :32:31.tiddly overtime security services and the police have requested the

:32:32. > :32:38.ability to do this work and the simple reason is they need to in the

:32:39. > :32:42.interests of protecting us all. I am grateful to him for acknowledging

:32:43. > :32:47.that the idea that one can always separate out contact from content

:32:48. > :32:52.data is not viable so we need a much more honest debate about who will be

:32:53. > :32:55.able to access that information and under what circumstances and that is

:32:56. > :33:00.something I hope to see in the committee stage because the fact we

:33:01. > :33:04.cannot justify to our constituents that their content data may be

:33:05. > :33:12.accessed however inadvertently is something we have to address. The

:33:13. > :33:17.question about honesty about encryption, concerns about the bill

:33:18. > :33:22.and how it might affect encryption, that many of the technology

:33:23. > :33:25.companies are very concerned about. The bill talks about giving the

:33:26. > :33:29.Secretary of State the power to serve technical capability of

:33:30. > :33:33.disease and being able to require companies to remove their electronic

:33:34. > :33:37.protection but the clarity about what that means that what protection

:33:38. > :33:41.there is in terms of encryption technology themselves and what that

:33:42. > :33:47.might mean for other consumers of services is not clear that as a

:33:48. > :33:55.concern for many. We know encryption is a vital part of security for

:33:56. > :33:59.services. Ashley Madison, talk talk, hospitals did not have security

:34:00. > :34:02.measures in place. We are talking about whether and not the government

:34:03. > :34:08.is going to require those companies to in those bags or opportunities

:34:09. > :34:12.for accessing information. We have to see stronger scrutiny of what

:34:13. > :34:17.that encryption process means because of we are looking at

:34:18. > :34:21.removing some of those encryption requirements that creates a security

:34:22. > :34:27.risk and we have to be honest with the public that that is the choice

:34:28. > :34:33.this government is making. Security of data. This government in 2009

:34:34. > :34:36.dropped about turning back the surveillance state but in this

:34:37. > :34:43.legislation they are privatising the databases they said they did not

:34:44. > :34:47.want seeing developed. It is not clear about the security of this

:34:48. > :34:53.data. We know that having to hold everybody's internet records for a

:34:54. > :34:58.year will be honeypots to hackers unless security processes are in

:34:59. > :35:02.place. The fact the government has not clarified who will pay for the

:35:03. > :35:09.security, what a reasonable cost is, how disputes will be, leaves open a

:35:10. > :35:13.gap that not only hackers but consumers will be interested in as

:35:14. > :35:17.well. The government has to be clear about how would make sure it

:35:18. > :35:20.protects consumers from having information hacked as a result of

:35:21. > :35:25.requiring these companies to gather this data. Similar concerns about

:35:26. > :35:31.bulk interference and the encouragement data. There are

:35:32. > :35:36.questions about the proportionality of this legislation. Questions about

:35:37. > :35:42.the judicial extent of this legislation and overseas. Concerns

:35:43. > :35:45.about the technology. We have to be able to answer questions on all

:35:46. > :35:50.three of these to be satisfied this is appropriate for the 21st-century.

:35:51. > :35:59.I hope to see amendments that will address these issues within

:36:00. > :36:05.committee. I know that many members share this view. To felt act on any

:36:06. > :36:10.one of these compromises the other three because if we do not work with

:36:11. > :36:14.our overseas partners and get the technology right we could create

:36:15. > :36:19.more problems in the future. I hope that the ministers will listen to

:36:20. > :36:22.those concerns and recognise the spirit of what they said about

:36:23. > :36:35.holding back the surveillance state but I hope they will be digital

:36:36. > :36:42.natives and not digital refugees. Interesting comments. The Home

:36:43. > :36:47.Secretary and the shadow secretary both quite correctly begun by paying

:36:48. > :36:55.tribute to the prison officer from Northern Ireland who died today

:36:56. > :37:00.after a play attack on March four. -- currently. The European

:37:01. > :37:05.convention on human rights, the right to life, everyone's right to

:37:06. > :37:09.live show be protected by law, I respect the difficulties ministers

:37:10. > :37:14.have had drafting this bill and bringing together the conflicts of

:37:15. > :37:17.liberty and security and I understand there are calls to

:37:18. > :37:23.improve scrutiny associated with greater powers. However we must take

:37:24. > :37:25.care to avoid damaging the effectiveness of operational

:37:26. > :37:30.decision making that protects our citizens. Effective operations

:37:31. > :37:36.require agility in the face of ruthless opponents. After a decision

:37:37. > :37:42.has been made I am in favour of a more rigorous and rapid review

:37:43. > :37:47.process. I regarded signing warrants as a key responsibility when I took

:37:48. > :37:52.over as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Sadly there were

:37:53. > :37:57.elements that would not accept the settlement and were determined to

:37:58. > :38:00.pursue their aims by terrorism. We are equipped agencies at

:38:01. > :38:06.considerable public expense and I was aware are security services

:38:07. > :38:11.could only operate if decisions were made from the top facing a

:38:12. > :38:16.deterioration in the security situation. I was always to be

:38:17. > :38:21.disturbed at any time if an urgent decision was required. The vast

:38:22. > :38:26.majority of warrants were signed in regular slots built into my diary. I

:38:27. > :38:33.was occasionally walk up and asked to make a decision. The proposal to

:38:34. > :38:37.have a dual Lock involving endorsement by a commissioner will

:38:38. > :38:42.bring an element of delay to effective operational decisions. Our

:38:43. > :38:50.calls for more scrutiny of these vital decisions I understand but

:38:51. > :38:55.only a democratically elected Secretary of State should make such

:38:56. > :39:04.decisions. During my time I had real respect... Would he agree that the

:39:05. > :39:08.definition of urgent needs to be one for the minister and not for the

:39:09. > :39:11.judge and therefore they should be no possibility for latent

:39:12. > :39:17.application of judicial review reviewing what is or what is not

:39:18. > :39:21.urgent? Yes, I endorse the whole decision should be in the hands of

:39:22. > :39:25.the democratically elected member of state responsible here and by all

:39:26. > :39:32.means have the most rigorous review after words by a learned judge. I am

:39:33. > :39:41.listening and I did similar things as a minister. Isn't it the case

:39:42. > :39:49.that politicians' minds will always turn to what will happen if I do not

:39:50. > :39:53.sign this? Isn't that judicial check a helpful double lock on that so

:39:54. > :39:57.that the politician does not feel worried that sell your to agree

:39:58. > :40:07.might lead to public embarrassment in the future? No.

:40:08. > :40:12.The politician's responsibility is to report to this House and the

:40:13. > :40:15.politician should be responsible for these very difficult decisions.