06/06/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.that we are living longer but it is ultimately local authorities key

:00:00. > :00:08.jobs to provide the housing needs for their local residents. We must

:00:09. > :00:16.move on. Urgent question Sir William Cash. Will be Home Secretary explain

:00:17. > :00:21.how she would addressed her continued failure to remove 13,000

:00:22. > :00:25.foreign national offenders are remaining in UK's prisons and

:00:26. > :00:29.communities and specifically the removal of EU prisoners who make up

:00:30. > :00:38.as much as 42% of all foreign national offenders in prison back to

:00:39. > :00:42.their EU countries of origin? In the first instance, he should stick to

:00:43. > :00:53.the terms of the question. The grin on his face means he knows he has

:00:54. > :01:05.gone a bit beyond the boundary. He certainly should not be locked up!

:01:06. > :01:11.The Home Secretary. Mr Speaker, since 2010, the Government has

:01:12. > :01:18.removed over 30,000 foreign national offenders including 5692 in the year

:01:19. > :01:22.2015-2016, the highest number since records began. The number of

:01:23. > :01:32.removals to other EU countries has more than tripled from 1019 in

:01:33. > :01:35.2010-2011 to over 3000. We aim to deport all foreign national

:01:36. > :01:41.offenders at the earliest opportunity, however the

:01:42. > :01:53.documentation barriers can frustrate immediate deportation. Over 6500 of

:01:54. > :01:58.the F and Os are still serving a custodial sentence. The Ministry of

:01:59. > :02:02.Justice has been working to remove EU prisoners and the framework

:02:03. > :02:07.decision which is a compulsory means of prisoner transfer that allows us

:02:08. > :02:12.to send foreign criminals back to their home countries to serve their

:02:13. > :02:19.sentences. The record number of deportations achieved has been due

:02:20. > :02:24.to changes made by the Government. We have introduced to deport first

:02:25. > :02:27.appeal later power which means offenders may only appeal against

:02:28. > :02:31.deportation from their home country unless they will face a real risk of

:02:32. > :02:37.serious irreversible harm there. More than 3000 foreign national

:02:38. > :02:40.offenders have been removed since this came into force and many more

:02:41. > :02:44.are going through the system. The police now routinely carry out

:02:45. > :02:47.checks for overseas criminal convictions on foreign nationals

:02:48. > :02:52.arrested and referred them for deportation. In 2015, the UK made

:02:53. > :03:01.over 100,000 requests for EU criminal record checks, an increase

:03:02. > :03:05.of 1000% compared with 2010 and in December, the European Council

:03:06. > :03:08.agreed conviction data relating to terrorists should be shared

:03:09. > :03:14.systematically. We must never give up trying to improve our ability to

:03:15. > :03:19.deal with foreign national offenders. We have legislated to GPS

:03:20. > :03:24.tag foreign national offenders and we are legislating to establish

:03:25. > :03:31.nationality as early as possible to avoid delays. Before 2010, there was

:03:32. > :03:40.no plan for deporting national offenders. The rights were given a

:03:41. > :03:44.greater weight than the public care. This Government has put in place a

:03:45. > :03:49.strategy for removing foreign national offenders which has

:03:50. > :03:55.increased removals, protecting the public and saving the taxpayer

:03:56. > :04:00.money. Does the Home Secretary agreed that given that today the 6th

:04:01. > :04:04.of June is the anniversary of the Normandy landings that those who

:04:05. > :04:08.fought and died there did not do so to enable convicted EU rapists,

:04:09. > :04:15.paedophiles and drug dealers who are now here in prison to be protected

:04:16. > :04:19.under the new European human rights laws, including the European Charter

:04:20. > :04:22.and the European Court and that they should be deported and the home

:04:23. > :04:29.affairs committee were clearly right to indicate and I quote, that the

:04:30. > :04:33.public will question the circumstances of the UK remaining in

:04:34. > :04:37.the EU. Why has the Government failed to bring in our own bill of

:04:38. > :04:41.rights and remove ourselves from the EU Charter and does this not make a

:04:42. > :04:46.mockery of the Queen'sspeech that the Government is continuing to

:04:47. > :04:52.uphold the sovereignty of Parliament in the privacy of the House of

:04:53. > :04:56.Commons? I recognise that my honourable friend has his own

:04:57. > :05:02.personal reasons for remembering very much the impact of the D-Day

:05:03. > :05:07.landings and it is true that those who gave their lives on the beaches

:05:08. > :05:13.of Normandy did so to protect our freedoms. This Government as I have

:05:14. > :05:17.indicated have put in place a number of measures and we continue to work

:05:18. > :05:21.to do more to ensure they can protect the public from those

:05:22. > :05:24.serious criminals, rapists and others who may choose to come here

:05:25. > :05:30.from whichever country of the world they choose to come here too. He

:05:31. > :05:39.refers to the bill of rights, it is the Government's intention to bring

:05:40. > :05:44.forward a bill of rights. I can assure him that the action the

:05:45. > :05:51.Government has taken in rebalancing the interests of the public and the

:05:52. > :05:54.interests of FNOs shows we take seriously ensuring the human rights

:05:55. > :06:03.of the British public are recognised when we are dealing with these

:06:04. > :06:06.issues. Whilst I congratulate the honourable member on securing this

:06:07. > :06:11.question, I hope he won't be offended when I say I did not agree

:06:12. > :06:15.with every word of his opportunistic election broadcast on behalf of the

:06:16. > :06:20.leave campaign. Is it not plainly the case that this is not an EU

:06:21. > :06:24.question but a question of the competence or lack of it of his

:06:25. > :06:29.government and his Home Secretary? As last week's report makes clear,

:06:30. > :06:33.while there has been progress on the deportation of foreign national

:06:34. > :06:38.offenders, it has been too slow. Does the Home Secretary agreed with

:06:39. > :06:42.what the Prime Minister told the committee in May when he said that

:06:43. > :06:49.she and the Home Office should have done better on this issue? This is

:06:50. > :06:51.not the first time she has been warned about these failings. The

:06:52. > :06:59.National Audit Office found more than a third of failed removals were

:07:00. > :07:03.in the Home Office's control and now we learn the problem is getting

:07:04. > :07:09.worse. The select committee said it was concerned that there are nearly

:07:10. > :07:15.6000 FNOs living in the community. Can the Home Secretary explain why

:07:16. > :07:20.this figure is so high, how many are still subject to active deportation

:07:21. > :07:23.proceedings, what is she doing to bring it down? She needs to get a

:07:24. > :07:28.grip on this issue but will she agree with me that it's must each

:07:29. > :07:32.year to do that whilst remaining part of the European Union and that

:07:33. > :07:38.the thing would make it harder to deport people? Is it not the case

:07:39. > :07:45.that the transfer agreement provides a framework to speed up the process

:07:46. > :07:49.and is it not also true that access to the Schengen information system

:07:50. > :07:53.and the European criminal records system help us stop criminals

:07:54. > :07:59.arriving here and the European arrest warrant means they can be

:08:00. > :08:03.brought to justice. Wouldn't give it is people be better off listening to

:08:04. > :08:09.the police who said our membership of the EU helps us fight crime

:08:10. > :08:15.rather than the scaremongering of the leave campaign? I have to say

:08:16. > :08:19.that his earlier remarks don't sit very well with the facts are

:08:20. > :08:22.presented to the Commons which is that last year, we deported a record

:08:23. > :08:29.number of foreign national offenders. Should the Government be

:08:30. > :08:32.doing more? Of course, you should always be doing more and looking to

:08:33. > :08:38.ensure we can improve our ability to do that. He talks about the numbers

:08:39. > :08:42.of people in the community, of course it is also the case that

:08:43. > :08:48.because of the number of criminal record checks we are now taking with

:08:49. > :08:52.other countries, we are getting a higher level of identification of

:08:53. > :08:57.FNOs which is increasing the number that are available for us to deal

:08:58. > :09:02.with and for all of them, we make every effort to deport them. On the

:09:03. > :09:09.last point, I agree that actually it is easier for us to deal with these

:09:10. > :09:15.issues as a member of the EU. He mentioned a number of tools

:09:16. > :09:20.available to us. The figure I quoted, he has talked about that

:09:21. > :09:21.Chris which means there is available information at the border which

:09:22. > :09:36.would otherwise not be available. Who when I was the Home Secretary's

:09:37. > :09:40.Justice Secretary, it was my job to get this EU wide agreement that

:09:41. > :09:47.prisoners could be compulsorily returned to their own country whilst

:09:48. > :09:53.serving prison sentences, and progress stems from the

:09:54. > :09:56.bureaucracies from every Government from Europe, but I congratulate her

:09:57. > :10:02.on the progress being made here. Would she point out to the member

:10:03. > :10:05.for Stafford that if we were not members of the European Union, we

:10:06. > :10:10.would go back to a system where we would have no ability to deport

:10:11. > :10:14.anybody to the country of their origin, unless we could persuade the

:10:15. > :10:21.Government of that country to accept them? I thank my right honourable

:10:22. > :10:25.friend, and can I also thank him for the work that he did an allusion to

:10:26. > :10:29.the prison transfer framework decision, which was an important

:10:30. > :10:34.step forward. And I think it crucially relates to the latter part

:10:35. > :10:37.of his comments are questioned, which is of course that is what the

:10:38. > :10:46.prisoner transfer framework decision does is it enables us to deport

:10:47. > :10:50.people, will slowly -- compulsorily to serve their sentence elsewhere,

:10:51. > :10:54.whilst other frameworks were in place were about voluntary transfer.

:10:55. > :10:57.This gives us far greater scope in order to be able to remove people

:10:58. > :11:01.from the United Kingdom, and is another reason why it is important

:11:02. > :11:09.to remain part of the European Union. Removing foreign national

:11:10. > :11:12.offenders is important and brightly attracts public interest, but it

:11:13. > :11:18.does require sensible and measured debate. As the report pointed out

:11:19. > :11:22.last week, the Government has been making some progress on this issue.

:11:23. > :11:26.Does the Home Secretary agree with me that being in the European Union

:11:27. > :11:33.gives us access to criminal record sharing and prison transfer

:11:34. > :11:37.agreements, as the Right Honourable member for Rushcliffe has just said,

:11:38. > :11:42.and helps us better identify people with criminal records and allow us

:11:43. > :11:46.to send back to their countries. Does she agree with me that there is

:11:47. > :11:50.really no evidence that leaving the European Union would help rather

:11:51. > :11:57.than hinder the removal of offenders. It's really a shame that

:11:58. > :12:09.some good work and powerful recommendations made by the home

:12:10. > :12:12.affairs committee has... I agree with the honourable and Leonard lady

:12:13. > :12:16.that being a member of the EU does give us access to certain tools and

:12:17. > :12:20.instruments that help us to share information that otherwise would not

:12:21. > :12:23.be available to ask, and in the sharing of criminal records, that is

:12:24. > :12:27.very important. There is more frustrated and I am working with

:12:28. > :12:31.others to ensure that we can enhance our ability to share that

:12:32. > :12:34.information, so we have more information available to us. On her

:12:35. > :12:40.latter point, I think that the Right Honourable chairman of the select

:12:41. > :12:49.committee really allows himself to be overshadowed. I congratulate the

:12:50. > :12:54.Home Secretary on the changes to UK law, and success on non-EU

:12:55. > :12:57.criminals. But isn't it the case that free movement and court

:12:58. > :12:59.decisions by the European authorities have made it much more

:13:00. > :13:06.difficult to tackle the problem of EU criminals? The important issue

:13:07. > :13:11.for us in being able to prevent people from entering the UK, should

:13:12. > :13:14.we consider that they are individuals who we do not wish to

:13:15. > :13:18.have in the country, or for deporting people, part of that is

:13:19. > :13:22.retaining our borders, which we do. It is important that we have at our

:13:23. > :13:27.border controls information available to us to make those

:13:28. > :13:31.decisions. That's why membership is an important part of the tools of

:13:32. > :13:34.the agreement that we have, to be able to deal with criminality. In

:13:35. > :13:39.the deal that was negotiated by my right honourable friend, the Prime

:13:40. > :13:44.Minister, in relation to our membership of the European Union, we

:13:45. > :13:46.have enhanced our ability to deport people with criminal records and

:13:47. > :13:50.prevent people coming here with criminal records. It will also be

:13:51. > :13:59.ensuring that certain decisions taken by the European Court of

:14:00. > :14:04.Justice will be overturned. The home affairs select committee has warned

:14:05. > :14:06.again and again successive governments, not just this

:14:07. > :14:10.Government, weight back to the last Labour Government, about the need to

:14:11. > :14:17.remove foreign national offenders. In fact, credited the Home

:14:18. > :14:20.Secretary. She has pursued people bloodlessly out of the country. In

:14:21. > :14:25.fact, I suppose you wasn't piloting the plane to take that man back to

:14:26. > :14:32.Jordan after that Sager. The fact remains that eight out of the ten

:14:33. > :14:38.countries represented in the top ten are either Commonwealth or EU

:14:39. > :14:43.countries, and there is no excuse for friendly countries and key

:14:44. > :14:47.allies not to take data systems -- they are citizens back to their

:14:48. > :14:52.countries when they have committed offences. 18 months ago we made a

:14:53. > :14:55.very simple suggestion that the passports of foreign national

:14:56. > :15:00.offenders should be taken away from them at the time of sentencing. That

:15:01. > :15:09.was 18 months ago. Has that now been implemented? I have to say that he

:15:10. > :15:13.and his committee had been consistent in raising this issue,

:15:14. > :15:16.and I'm sure he welcomes the fact that we are now removing record

:15:17. > :15:20.numbers of foreign national offenders. We are taking a number of

:15:21. > :15:27.steps in relation to the identity and identification of FNOs. In

:15:28. > :15:30.certainly most cases the passports will be taken away. Some

:15:31. > :15:34.individuals, they will have destroyed the documentation that

:15:35. > :15:37.they have, and this is one of the difficulties in returning people to

:15:38. > :15:41.countries where they have no documentation, where identifying

:15:42. > :15:46.them and getting the correct identity is one of the challenges

:15:47. > :15:52.that is faced by the recipient country, regardless of whereabouts

:15:53. > :15:57.in the world that country is. The Home Secretary will be aware of how

:15:58. > :16:00.difficult it is to deport a boring criminal to any country, and in some

:16:01. > :16:07.countries it is all but impossible. Does she agree with me personally

:16:08. > :16:10.that the EU prisoner transfer framework directive actually gives

:16:11. > :16:15.us a much better chance with those countries then we do with any other

:16:16. > :16:23.country, including Commonwealth countries, and that therefore, if

:16:24. > :16:26.the MP from Stone has his way in the referendum, it will make it more

:16:27. > :16:31.difficult to deport foreign prisoners from our constituencies,

:16:32. > :16:35.not more difficult. Our prisons will remain with the problems that we

:16:36. > :16:41.have. This would be, by any standards, a perverse outcome. I

:16:42. > :16:47.entirely agree. My right honourable friend has experience in looking at

:16:48. > :16:50.these issues in his time as the Immigration Minister. Membership of

:16:51. > :16:54.the European Union does give us access to information sharing,

:16:55. > :16:57.instruments we are able to use to increase our ability to deal with

:16:58. > :17:07.foreign national offenders, to deal with foreign criminals. The

:17:08. > :17:13.transport decision framework gives us the ability to you return people

:17:14. > :17:18.on a compulsory basis, rather than requiring the prisoner themselves to

:17:19. > :17:23.agree to that return. Does the Home Secretary recalled that when her

:17:24. > :17:25.right honourable friend comedy now Leader of the House of Commons,

:17:26. > :17:29.served as Secretary of State for Justice, she told the home affairs

:17:30. > :17:33.select committee, it's very obvious to me that it's in our national

:17:34. > :17:36.interest to be part of the EU prisoner transfer agreement. There

:17:37. > :17:42.she agree with that statement, as I do, and that she happened note if it

:17:43. > :17:49.is a view that her right honourable friend holds? I do agree, and as to

:17:50. > :18:01.the views of my right honourable friend, I suggest that he asks him

:18:02. > :18:07.himself. Having admitted that it is more difficult to control

:18:08. > :18:13.immigration while we are a member of the EU, isn't one of the reasons why

:18:14. > :18:17.we have 4000 citizens of the EU in our jails, if we deport these EU

:18:18. > :18:21.nationals and our EU partners don't choose to keep them in prison, they

:18:22. > :18:27.have the right to come straight back here because they are EU citizens?

:18:28. > :18:30.Secondly, these people now have access to the EU Charter of

:18:31. > :18:35.fundamental rights, which the Prime Minister said he wanted a complete

:18:36. > :18:42.opt out from, and he did not get in his renegotiation. I'm afraid, I

:18:43. > :18:47.think he has been misinformed about the impact of the deportation of the

:18:48. > :18:54.foreign national offenders, because it is not the case that an FNO would

:18:55. > :18:58.not be able to come back. The point of the deportation is that they are

:18:59. > :19:02.not able to return to the UK unless they apply to have that deportation

:19:03. > :19:05.revoked. Of course, it would be a decision of the Government as to

:19:06. > :19:14.whether or not there would be revoked. Some of my constituents who

:19:15. > :19:20.were born in this country, who are able to serve in the Armed Forces in

:19:21. > :19:26.this country -- unable, who don't even have passports here, find

:19:27. > :19:30.themselves subject to deportation because they are a member of the

:19:31. > :19:36.Republic of Ireland. Could the Home Secretary tell the house was reviews

:19:37. > :19:43.are in respect of citizens of the Irish Republic currently in British

:19:44. > :19:47.citizens. There was an agreement, a memorandum of understanding, which

:19:48. > :19:50.was signed between the last Labour Government and the Republic Islands

:19:51. > :19:57.Government, which means that we are not currently transferring business

:19:58. > :20:04.between Britain and Northern Ireland. That is the current

:20:05. > :20:11.situation, as I understand it. Can the Home Secretary confirmed, and I

:20:12. > :20:16.fear she cannot, that everybody entering... If she can, everyone

:20:17. > :20:20.would be delighted. Everyone entering this country from an EU

:20:21. > :20:23.destination has their passport checked, not just against possible

:20:24. > :20:30.terrorist links, but also whether they have a criminal record? I fear

:20:31. > :20:33.that these passports are not checked, and therefore, even if we

:20:34. > :20:39.can deport these people, they can, in reality, come straight back. I'm

:20:40. > :20:46.not sure the last time that he came into Heathrow or Gatwick, came

:20:47. > :20:51.through the juxtapose controls in Brussels or France, but he will have

:20:52. > :20:55.noticed that his passport was indeed checked coming through, as indeed by

:20:56. > :21:00.the passports are others who are not British citizens. It is also the

:21:01. > :21:03.case, as I have indicated in response to a number of queries,

:21:04. > :21:12.that we now have more information available at the border through

:21:13. > :21:18.being a member of sis to, which is one of the arrangements we chose in

:21:19. > :21:26.Government affairs, which we chose to rejoin, and which this parliament

:21:27. > :21:37.unanimously agreed to rejoin. Dizzy Secretary of State how thankful I am

:21:38. > :21:44.about how they have educated me about extraditing people accused of

:21:45. > :21:50.foul crimes against people in my constituency. She educated me about

:21:51. > :21:54.how difficult that is and how without the European Union, we would

:21:55. > :22:00.never have got these people back to face justice in this country. I am

:22:01. > :22:05.grateful to his reference to how complex of these cases can be. That

:22:06. > :22:10.is the point. Very often there are barriers, such as lack of

:22:11. > :22:15.documentation, and other issues, before we are able to make these

:22:16. > :22:24.deportations, but it is the case that within PE you, the prisoner

:22:25. > :22:32.transport framework, makes sure that we can deport these people. Would

:22:33. > :22:38.the Home Secretary agree with me that the problem that goes back to

:22:39. > :22:42.the early part of the century, when the Labour Government was facing

:22:43. > :22:52.this problem, is not one of law and the interpretation of legal in this

:22:53. > :22:58.-- instruments, it is down to barrack room lawyers who keep on

:22:59. > :23:03.following their own advice. I have to say, I would hesitate to come

:23:04. > :23:11.between my fend and any other lawyer in this trade brawl, or elsewhere.

:23:12. > :23:15.If we left the EU, the prisoner transfer agreement would no longer

:23:16. > :23:20.stand. How long does the Home Secretary think it would take to

:23:21. > :23:25.negotiate with each EU country a fresh agreement, in terms of

:23:26. > :23:29.returning EU prisoners? The answer is that nobody knows how long it

:23:30. > :23:36.would take to negotiate those bilateral arrangements. Under the

:23:37. > :23:42.arrangements of the treaty, article 50, two years are set aside for

:23:43. > :23:46.negotiations for a member state leaving the European Union, but that

:23:47. > :23:52.doesn't necessarily cover the bilateral arrangements that would

:23:53. > :23:55.need to take place. The answer is, it is very uncertain as to how long

:23:56. > :24:04.it would take to put any such arrangements in place. This is a

:24:05. > :24:07.shocking record to defend. 13,000 foreign national offenders, the size

:24:08. > :24:12.of a small town, wandering around our country. We have heard all of

:24:13. > :24:15.this before. It has been in front of the Public Accounts Committee

:24:16. > :24:23.before, and in 2012, the Home Secretary herself gave undertakings

:24:24. > :24:28.to improve the situation. If she wants to deal with the issue of

:24:29. > :24:32.foreign national prisoners upstream, she has to do with protecting the

:24:33. > :24:36.border, and on that basis, will she please explain why her department

:24:37. > :24:40.today is stonewalling legitimate freedom of information requests

:24:41. > :24:47.about migrant incursions on the coast, and why is that the case? Why

:24:48. > :24:51.isn't she giving that information to media and other outlets?

:24:52. > :25:01.I would say don't always believe everything you read in the papers in

:25:02. > :25:07.relation to the action taking place. He refers to the record, I think I

:25:08. > :25:12.should be clear with the House when my honourable friend says all of the

:25:13. > :25:17.13,000 are wandering the streets, they are not. A significant number

:25:18. > :25:23.are serving custardy or sentences. Some of them will be within our

:25:24. > :25:28.immigration detention estate, waiting for their deportation to

:25:29. > :25:33.take place. I say to my honourable friend, I am clear, as he is, that

:25:34. > :25:38.we need to do more that is why the Government has made a number of

:25:39. > :25:43.changes to make it easy for us to deport people and we will continue

:25:44. > :25:48.to put forward those changes we think will improve our ability to

:25:49. > :25:52.deport foreign national offenders. The Home Secretary mention the

:25:53. > :25:57.European arrest warrant. If we were to vote the leave the European

:25:58. > :26:01.Union, can she tell the House what would happen to the implementation

:26:02. > :26:06.of that arrest warrant and would it make it more difficult or easier to

:26:07. > :26:11.get prisoners or people who we want to put in prison in this country

:26:12. > :26:17.back from other countries having committed crimes here? I think

:26:18. > :26:22.European arrest warrant is are a useful tool. It's why I propose to

:26:23. > :26:27.this House and this House voted unanimously when we looked at the

:26:28. > :26:31.opt in, opt out decision that we should go back into the European

:26:32. > :26:36.arrest warrant. If we were not a member of the EU, we would have to

:26:37. > :26:40.negotiate alternative arrangements but that might not be possible for

:26:41. > :26:44.every country. There are some member states who will not allow the

:26:45. > :26:51.extradition of their nationals to countries other than those who are

:26:52. > :26:57.members of the EU. These figures were given to me by the Secretary of

:26:58. > :27:04.State herself in May. I had an answer that said we refused entry to

:27:05. > :27:08.20 times more non-EU applicants than EU applicants, so border controls

:27:09. > :27:13.are important. It shows there is a much higher bar for other countries

:27:14. > :27:19.not part of the EU. If border controls are so important, why do we

:27:20. > :27:23.only have six boats patrolling our waters. Surely we have to have

:27:24. > :27:31.stronger border control at all areas? Prisons in particular rather

:27:32. > :27:39.than boats. Perhaps a prison ship might deal with the answer. Of

:27:40. > :27:45.course our board border controls are important because we want to ensure

:27:46. > :27:52.we are able to identify those who should not be in the UK. As I

:27:53. > :27:56.indicated earlier as part of the negotiated deal that my right

:27:57. > :28:02.honourable friend the Prime Minister brought back from Brussels, it will

:28:03. > :28:09.be easier for us in future should we remain inside the EU to do both of

:28:10. > :28:14.these things, deport EU criminals and mature they do not reach the UK

:28:15. > :28:19.in the first place. My constituent Elsie lives with the actions of a

:28:20. > :28:24.foreign national offender each day following the tragic murder of her

:28:25. > :28:29.son Mark at the hands of a Polish national. Does she agree that the

:28:30. > :28:33.tawdry tabloid treatment of this serious subject does little to

:28:34. > :28:41.address the real problems of people like healthy and will she join me in

:28:42. > :28:46.requesting that hot or debate on this topic remain measured and

:28:47. > :28:52.respectful. Behind the figures that we may exchange across this House,

:28:53. > :28:58.people whose lives have been affected seriously by the impact of

:28:59. > :29:01.criminality. That of course occurs whatever the identity of those

:29:02. > :29:08.criminals but there are cases such as the one she has referred to and

:29:09. > :29:11.our hearts must go out to all the and the fact that day to day she is

:29:12. > :29:17.living with the impact of the actions of a foreign national

:29:18. > :29:20.offender. The number of foreign national offenders deported reflects

:29:21. > :29:27.the inefficient way my honourable friend has won her department. The

:29:28. > :29:31.difficult challenge is the sentence getting prisoners to return to their

:29:32. > :29:35.country to serve their sentence under the EU prisoner transfer

:29:36. > :29:41.framework decision, negotiated by my honourable friend. It is four years

:29:42. > :29:48.since we departed the Ministry of Justice. How many people have

:29:49. > :29:55.actually been deported to serve their sentence in other EU countries

:29:56. > :30:01.since then? I don't believe I have the exact figure to hand, which I

:30:02. > :30:06.will give my honourable friend. Of course what we are seeing is an

:30:07. > :30:10.increase of... Week you're seeing an increase in the number who have been

:30:11. > :30:14.deported under the prisoner transfer decision and the number we are

:30:15. > :30:23.seeing an increase as it is being put in place by other member states,

:30:24. > :30:28.Poland had a derogation until December 2016, so at the end of this

:30:29. > :30:32.year, Poland will becoming part of that prisoner transfer decision and

:30:33. > :30:37.there are two countries, the Republic of Ireland and Bulgaria who

:30:38. > :30:40.have yet to implement it. There is movement and there is an increasing

:30:41. > :30:47.the number who are being transferred that decision. The pride of my

:30:48. > :30:53.constituents in giving hospitality and assimilation for the last 150

:30:54. > :30:57.years to newcomers is under strain last year when a foreign national

:30:58. > :31:01.offender was deemed too dangerous to be located to his home in London and

:31:02. > :31:06.was placed in my constituency where he committed crimes for which he is

:31:07. > :31:13.serving a four year sentence. Would it not be better to make public

:31:14. > :31:19.acceptance of migrants far better if there was a fair, even distribution

:31:20. > :31:25.of asylum seekers, are the country is macro my constituency takes 500.

:31:26. > :31:28.How many are in her constituency and are there still none in the Prime

:31:29. > :31:36.Minister and Chancellor's constituency. I have answered that

:31:37. > :31:43.previously and he knows the figure. He has elided carefully from the

:31:44. > :31:52.issue of prisoners to the overall issue of dispersal for asylum

:31:53. > :31:57.seekers. It is the same as the last Scotland. The Home Secretary

:31:58. > :32:02.referred to GPS tags. What assessment has she made in the

:32:03. > :32:08.effectiveness of these in deporting national offenders? It is the reason

:32:09. > :32:13.of having legislated to have the tags is to identify where people are

:32:14. > :32:22.so it is then possible to deport them, it makes it easier for us to

:32:23. > :32:28.deport them. Does the Home Secretary recognise the Government's failure

:32:29. > :32:33.to do deport more EU murderers and rapists, particularly when housing

:32:34. > :32:39.EU conflicts and UK jails is costing the taxpayer some 150 million each

:32:40. > :32:44.year? What is being done to reduce this strain? I say to the honourable

:32:45. > :32:53.gentleman that the number of citizens who have been removed,

:32:54. > :33:04.deported has tripled since 2010-2011 to well over 3000, so we are making

:33:05. > :33:08.progress in that field. At the beginning of this year, a Dutch

:33:09. > :33:14.resident entered through Gatwick Airport very swiftly assaulted a

:33:15. > :33:18.member of staff at Gatwick Airport, went before the local magistrates,

:33:19. > :33:23.was released without any address onto the streets of Crawley and then

:33:24. > :33:28.several dayss later, Hammer attacked two female police officers. Will she

:33:29. > :33:34.reflect on the difference between the rhetoric about information

:33:35. > :33:40.sharing of criminal records and the reality as experienced by all too

:33:41. > :33:45.many of our constituents? I am aware of this case because my honourable

:33:46. > :33:48.friend came to see me to raise it and I can fully understand in the

:33:49. > :33:55.circumstances that he set out why he chose to do so and why he has raised

:33:56. > :33:58.it again today. He refers to the issue of criminal records exchange.

:33:59. > :34:04.The tools are there about the operational decisions will be made

:34:05. > :34:07.by those at any point in time. The police increase the number of

:34:08. > :34:11.criminal records checks they make but it is a decision for them as to

:34:12. > :34:20.whether and at what point they do that check. If I could ask the

:34:21. > :34:24.question that doesn't involve Europe, notwithstanding the Home

:34:25. > :34:30.Secretary's progress that she has alluded to, does she acknowledged

:34:31. > :34:34.the report shows it still takes 149 days to deport a foreign national

:34:35. > :34:40.offender and will she acknowledged that that delay is made worse by the

:34:41. > :34:46.appalling record of the contracted company who fell to show up to

:34:47. > :34:50.transport prisoners, resulting in further cost at further detention

:34:51. > :34:55.and the cost of missed flights and the tickets and what is she going to

:34:56. > :34:59.do about it? I can assure my honourable friend that we look at

:35:00. > :35:03.the contracts we have with those providing services to the

:35:04. > :35:07.Government. In relation to the cases where it is difficult to deport

:35:08. > :35:14.people or there is some problem, there can be a complex range of

:35:15. > :35:18.reasons why that is the case, but I can assure my honourable friend that

:35:19. > :35:21.where somebody is expected to be deported and is not, we make every

:35:22. > :35:27.effort to do so at the earliest opportunity. Boston in my

:35:28. > :35:31.constituency has seen more than its fair share of serious crimes

:35:32. > :35:36.committed by foreign nationals and people are rightly worried, but does

:35:37. > :35:39.the Home Secretary think either the process of negotiating 20 plus new

:35:40. > :35:46.bilateral agreements or the outcome could make those people safer? I am

:35:47. > :35:50.conscious because my honourable friend has raised the concerns of

:35:51. > :35:54.his constituents with me in relation to this issue and I think my answer

:35:55. > :35:59.to my honourable friend is I think being within the EU, being able to

:36:00. > :36:04.have the single prisoner transfer framework decision and the various

:36:05. > :36:10.other tools are what make us safer and the uncertainty, delay of having

:36:11. > :36:13.to negotiate bilateral arrangements of those sort and indeed nobody

:36:14. > :36:19.knows whether it will be possible to negotiate bilateral arrangements

:36:20. > :36:25.that are of equal benefit to the British public as those we are able

:36:26. > :36:31.to get as members of the EU. Despite the Home Secretary's tour, the

:36:32. > :36:35.figures are quite stop. Since 2002, the number of EU prisoners has

:36:36. > :36:43.troubles. The number of Polish prisoners has gone up to 983,

:36:44. > :36:49.Romanians gone up from 50 to 635 and over the last three years the major

:36:50. > :36:54.pollutant police alone have arrested over 100,000 EU nationals and

:36:55. > :36:58.charged over 30,000 with an offence, so quite clearly the Home Secretary

:36:59. > :37:04.is failing to stop EU criminals coming here and failing to deport

:37:05. > :37:10.them as well. The only conclusion is that free movement of people means

:37:11. > :37:16.free movement of people into the UK. I draw different conclusions. As he

:37:17. > :37:22.may not be surprised to hear. I think it is obviously important that

:37:23. > :37:26.we are able to look and deal with those who would be trying to cross

:37:27. > :37:30.our borders and have a record of criminality. What is important is

:37:31. > :37:36.having access to the information that enable us to make those

:37:37. > :37:47.decisions, that is why having access to systems to check criminal records

:37:48. > :37:52.is so important. The cost of foreign criminals coming into the UK is just

:37:53. > :37:59.one of the many strains which freed movement of people put on the

:38:00. > :38:02.British taxpayer. Does the Home Secretary agree with the National

:38:03. > :38:07.Audit Office that the best estimate of the costs of administering final

:38:08. > :38:15.National offenders is 850 million and could be as much as 1 billion?

:38:16. > :38:20.Of course there are costs involved with those people who come into the

:38:21. > :38:23.country and those people who are British citizens and commit crimes

:38:24. > :38:28.and the criminal justice system obviously undergoes costs in order

:38:29. > :38:35.to ensure those people are brought to justice and then given custodial

:38:36. > :38:40.sentences, but I would just caution because the statements and questions

:38:41. > :38:44.that have come have focused on foreign national offenders who are

:38:45. > :38:47.from other member states of the European Union. There are many

:38:48. > :38:51.foreign national offenders in the prisons and here in the UK who come

:38:52. > :38:56.from countries outside the European Union. We make every effort to

:38:57. > :39:01.attend those foreign national offenders, to deport those people as

:39:02. > :39:05.we do for those within the EU. As a former special constable with the

:39:06. > :39:08.police Parliamentary scheme, I was involved in arresting eastern

:39:09. > :39:13.Europeans on the streets of London for crimes that they were in the

:39:14. > :39:17.process of committing. I saw at first hand the importation of the

:39:18. > :39:22.wave of crime from Eastern Europe following the accession of those

:39:23. > :39:29.countries in 2004. Does the Home Secretary think the situation will

:39:30. > :39:32.get better or worse with the admission of Albania, Serbia,

:39:33. > :39:38.Montenegro, Turkey? And to make sure she does not mislead the House,

:39:39. > :39:43.given she has attended here today to answer the question on the removal

:39:44. > :39:49.of FNOs, does she expect us to believe she will not tell the House

:39:50. > :39:53.the number of prisoners transferred under this super-duper EU prisoner

:39:54. > :39:58.transfer agreement, she has attended here today with seven officials in

:39:59. > :40:03.the box. Her entire team, will she now disclose the number?

:40:04. > :40:10.Can I just point out to my honourable friend, he did great

:40:11. > :40:17.service as a special constable. And he refers to people to National

:40:18. > :40:23.offenders from particular countries who he was involved in arresting. If

:40:24. > :40:26.you look at the figures for the Metropolitan Police area, I think

:40:27. > :40:32.something about a third of the population of London are foreign

:40:33. > :40:36.national is, and about a third of the criminals they arrest are

:40:37. > :40:43.foreign national is, so I think I might drive a different lesson from

:40:44. > :40:47.that. But I think that is an important fact. I'm sorry if my fend

:40:48. > :40:55.is disappointed that I don't have the particular figure he was asking

:40:56. > :41:04.for in front of me. I have indicated that I will write to him with that

:41:05. > :41:18.figure. Small business industry and enterprise. I'd like to make a brief

:41:19. > :41:21.statement on BHS. The house will remember that on the 25th of April,

:41:22. > :41:29.I made a statement to the house after BHS had entered

:41:30. > :41:34.administration. BHS was tried to be celled with a view to try and retain

:41:35. > :41:41.as many jobs as possible is. I understand they had a number of

:41:42. > :41:46.talks, but they have now concluded that process. Although operas were

:41:47. > :41:51.received, none were sufficient and they have had to take the decision

:41:52. > :41:55.to wind the business down. This will be devastating news for BHS

:41:56. > :42:07.employees and their families. Our thoughts are with all of them. This

:42:08. > :42:13.is alongside the sad news of Austin Reed employees also. Questions are

:42:14. > :42:18.being raised about how BHS found itself in this situation. The

:42:19. > :42:22.pensions regulator and other bodies are looking into these matters. Any

:42:23. > :42:25.wrongdoing will be taken very seriously, and I will return to that

:42:26. > :42:29.later. Our focus now is to support all those affected and get people

:42:30. > :42:33.back into work as quickly as possible. Whilst we work the

:42:34. > :42:37.industry to as' plans already done the business, I can inform the house

:42:38. > :42:41.the job centre plus has already been in contact with the administrators

:42:42. > :42:48.and is preparing a range of support to assist staff. Job centre plus is

:42:49. > :42:53.preparing to advise staff of their options. Teams are centrally

:42:54. > :42:56.tracking vacancies in the retail sector and will make BHS branches

:42:57. > :43:07.are aware of any vacancies in their area. Job Centre plus are also going

:43:08. > :43:12.to help people. They can offer workers support, including help with

:43:13. > :43:15.job searches, including CV writing and interview skills, help to

:43:16. > :43:23.identify transferable skills and gaps in skills in the local Labour

:43:24. > :43:30.market. It will improve employability. Help to overcome

:43:31. > :43:41.barriers such as childcare costs, workloads and travel costs. The

:43:42. > :43:44.Department of work and has written to people trying to work out what

:43:45. > :43:51.they can offer to people with these issues. DWP will also be monitoring

:43:52. > :43:55.the issues of people on a continued basis and will offer help to any

:43:56. > :43:59.areas particularly badly affected. We will do everything in our power

:44:00. > :44:03.to support workers and their families through this difficult

:44:04. > :44:07.time, not just at BHS, but also those who have been made redundant

:44:08. > :44:11.by Austin Reed. Can I now turn to some of the wider issues. On the 3rd

:44:12. > :44:16.of May, the Business Secretary instructed the insolvency service to

:44:17. > :44:25.begin its investigation on the extent to how the leaders of BHS

:44:26. > :44:29.caused this detrimental effects. Whilst we cannot give a running

:44:30. > :44:35.commentary, I know that that work is well underway, and if any evidence

:44:36. > :44:39.is uncovered to indicate that any of the directors' conduct fell below

:44:40. > :44:48.what was expected, action will be taken. We may disqualify them from

:44:49. > :44:52.being a director per up to 15 years. If there is any indication of any

:44:53. > :44:57.criminal wrongdoing, we will make sure that the criminal body is

:44:58. > :45:01.informed. Members will also be aware of considerable concern about the

:45:02. > :45:15.BHS pension scheme. The BHS schemes are in a protected fund. This will

:45:16. > :45:20.see whether they have enough to pay at least PPF fund benefits. If it

:45:21. > :45:24.cannot, the scheme will transfer to the PPF and compensation will be

:45:25. > :45:28.paid. The PPF aims to resolve these issues as soon as the. PPF

:45:29. > :45:36.compensation is generally 100% of the pension at the date of the

:45:37. > :45:41.insolvency, and for everyone else, 90% of the accrued pension,

:45:42. > :45:45.subsequent to a maximum cap. There will also be an investigation into

:45:46. > :45:49.the BHS pension scheme, to determine whether it would be appropriate to

:45:50. > :45:56.look at their investigation powers. If they have deliberately tried to

:45:57. > :46:02.avoid their pension responsibilities, the regulator will

:46:03. > :46:06.intervene and seek answers from the employer. There is a clear process

:46:07. > :46:13.that should be followed and this can sometimes take a considerable amount

:46:14. > :46:19.of time. Deregulate will issue a report on the issues at the

:46:20. > :46:22.appropriate time. Retail is a vital sector for the United Kingdom

:46:23. > :46:28.economy and we are committed to it as a Government. That's why I am

:46:29. > :46:31.eating key retailers this Thursday with ministerial colleagues from

:46:32. > :46:39.other Government departments. Whilst the news of BHS' closure is a huge

:46:40. > :46:48.blow, the retail sector is resilient. Jobs are up by 83,000 in

:46:49. > :46:54.the sector and almost back up to pre-recession levels. High streets

:46:55. > :46:58.remain a important part of our local economy, injecting billions of

:46:59. > :47:02.pounds into our economy. A recent report by the Association of town

:47:03. > :47:06.centre managers found that town centres contribute nearly ?600

:47:07. > :47:11.billion to the economy each year. That's why we continue to support

:47:12. > :47:14.the British high street. We have reduced corporation tax, and in

:47:15. > :47:19.particular, I am so pleased that we have announced the biggest cut ever

:47:20. > :47:24.in business rates in England, worth ?6.7 billion over the next five

:47:25. > :47:29.years. Notably, benefiting small businesses. I know little of this

:47:30. > :47:34.will be a comfort to BHS workers, but I can assure them that this

:47:35. > :47:37.Government will do everything within its powers to get every affected

:47:38. > :47:50.worker back in a job as soon as possible. Can I thank the Minister

:47:51. > :47:53.for advanced for her statement. The whole house will be concern for the

:47:54. > :47:58.11,000 staff who are losing their jobs as a result of the liquidation

:47:59. > :48:03.of BHS, and the further 1000 at Austin Reed. These closures will

:48:04. > :48:06.also affect the supply chains, local economies as well. I wonder if the

:48:07. > :48:18.Minister can tell me whether the taxpayer will have two paper

:48:19. > :48:24.redundancy, as happened at, it -- Comet. Can she also tell me whether

:48:25. > :48:29.she envisages an investigation into the activities of Sir Phillip Green,

:48:30. > :48:32.and whether she thinks he will be asked to make up the pension

:48:33. > :48:41.shortfall, so that pensioners are not short-changed? She mentioned the

:48:42. > :48:45.analysis about the work done to support the high street. I agree

:48:46. > :48:49.that the high Street is a crucial part of the UK economy, but I'm

:48:50. > :48:53.afraid the evidence about the failure of BHS and Austin Reed is

:48:54. > :49:00.that the work done by the Government simply hasn't been enough. As Mary

:49:01. > :49:05.Portis has said, the Government so far has only said dilemma given

:49:06. > :49:10.token gestures to support the high Street. The allegations about what

:49:11. > :49:18.happened at BHS had been beyond belief. It pension surplus became a

:49:19. > :49:21.deficit of ?571 million. The business was sold to retail

:49:22. > :49:25.acquisitions, a firm whose head was a three-time bankrupt, with no

:49:26. > :49:29.apparent experience of turning around struggling retailers, and who

:49:30. > :49:33.appears to have taken significant sums out of the business while it

:49:34. > :49:37.was still trading. What investigation will her department

:49:38. > :49:42.carry out into why Sir Phillip Green sold the business when he did, and

:49:43. > :49:54.what juju legends he carried out about the buyer. The business was

:49:55. > :50:00.lacking in modernisation that might have allowed it to survive and

:50:01. > :50:04.thrive, as others have done. Sir Philip Green's former workers will

:50:05. > :50:09.consider redundancy and a reduced pension, whilst he awaits the

:50:10. > :50:13.delivery of a brand-new ?100 million yacht. The Minister mentioned

:50:14. > :50:21.possible investigation, so can she say under existing solvency law

:50:22. > :50:25.whether she thinks criminal investigation

:50:26. > :50:31.should happen. Does she think that these acquisition should be made

:50:32. > :50:37.illegal? What scrutiny does she think is needed in the period prior

:50:38. > :50:44.to insolvency in cases like BHS and Comet? Does she think as many people

:50:45. > :50:48.do, that Sir Phillip Green should be referred to the police for his

:50:49. > :50:51.actions while he owned BHS? It isn't just members of the side of the

:50:52. > :50:57.house who think Sir Phillip Green's actions are a disgrace. The phrase

:50:58. > :51:01.unacceptable capital of them is how one of her own backbenchers

:51:02. > :51:08.described it in the last time we debated the challenges and concerns

:51:09. > :51:17.around BHS. BHS, as with, it -- Comet before, is an extraction of

:51:18. > :51:23.wealth, ace bowl situation that favours the wealthy. They need to be

:51:24. > :51:28.an investigation into what happened at BHS and make sure that actions

:51:29. > :51:34.are taken against Sir Phillip Green, otherwise they will be complicit in

:51:35. > :51:35.allowing exploitation of a few owners at at the expense of

:51:36. > :51:47.pensioners. I'm not going to actually refer to

:51:48. > :51:51.any individual in any of this. The pensions regulator is conducting an

:51:52. > :51:55.investigation into the BHS pension scheme, quite properly so. There are

:51:56. > :52:00.a number of other investigations, and I have made it very clear that

:52:01. > :52:05.this minister and indeed everyone in Government, takes any of this sort

:52:06. > :52:10.of misconduct, if there is any misconduct, extremely seriously, and

:52:11. > :52:13.if these investigations find that there have been the sort of

:52:14. > :52:18.misconduct that should lead to a place inquiry, then so be it and let

:52:19. > :52:22.the full process take place. If anybody needs to be brought to any

:52:23. > :52:29.form of criminal justice, then that must be right. Mr Speaker, as you

:52:30. > :52:35.and others know, I am a one nation Conservative. I support capitalism,

:52:36. > :52:38.but not unfettered, not without compassion and caring, and that

:52:39. > :52:48.extends to anybody who should work for any business in our country. The

:52:49. > :52:52.Minister said, any wrongdoing will be dealt with. The problem is that

:52:53. > :52:56.much of this, I suspect, was legal, and that puts a moral responsibility

:52:57. > :53:03.on every Government over the last few decades it has allowed this sort

:53:04. > :53:10.of action to be legal. In taking out Philip Green and his company taking

:53:11. > :53:15.out over 500 million in dividends can be destroyed as little else but

:53:16. > :53:20.asset stripping. But the employees who are dependent on the pension

:53:21. > :53:24.scheme, they will lose 10%. There are many on these benches who think

:53:25. > :53:29.that the minimum bet is to happen is for Sir Phillip Green to pay back

:53:30. > :53:35.enough to save them from that. As I said, I'm not going to name any

:53:36. > :53:40.individual. As I say, there are a number of investigations taking

:53:41. > :53:43.place and being conducted. Before we rush to any form of judgment in this

:53:44. > :53:47.place or anywhere else, let's wait for those full investigation is to

:53:48. > :53:56.be concluded and then see if we need to take matters forward. I thank the

:53:57. > :53:58.Minister for her statement, and I particularly welcome her robust

:53:59. > :54:04.comments about pursuing any wrongdoers. That is entirely the

:54:05. > :54:08.right thing to do. If ever there was the unacceptable face of capitalism,

:54:09. > :54:16.it comes in the form of Sir Phillip Green. The BHS story in my

:54:17. > :54:22.constituency is one of 16 stories affected in Scotland, many in middle

:54:23. > :54:25.sized towns, where the loss of employment but create considerable

:54:26. > :54:31.problems. These employees have contributed a lifetime to BHS, to

:54:32. > :54:35.because of this Sir Phillip Green's because of this Sir Phillip Green's

:54:36. > :54:39.failure as a businessman, and his naked greed, which may have been

:54:40. > :54:43.legal, they are facing both redundancy and great anxiety about

:54:44. > :54:52.their pension, even if they are guaranteed the 90% of accrued

:54:53. > :55:02.pensions. Furthermore, to have for personal convenience sold BHS per ?1

:55:03. > :55:05.lead, as we have heard, to a man who has been declared bankrupt three

:55:06. > :55:12.times, as of last week, it is scandalous.

:55:13. > :55:19.Even now as the final Green has rejected the opinion of his

:55:20. > :55:25.advisers. This raises questions about the juju legends process. Many

:55:26. > :55:30.will be thinking Green is little better than a corporate crook. He

:55:31. > :55:38.cannot be allowed to sell off in his yacht, a luxury gin palace as one

:55:39. > :55:43.newspaper put it. The SNP stands with the communities, families and

:55:44. > :55:47.individuals affected by this dreadful situation. We believe there

:55:48. > :55:52.is fundamentally a need to readdress the regulation of the pensions

:55:53. > :55:57.industry to ensure the protection of workers. I end with three questions.

:55:58. > :56:00.First, in Scotland, the peace initiative will respond to assist

:56:01. > :56:07.all those made redundant. What are the plans of the UK Government to

:56:08. > :56:11.mirror the breadth of action undertaken by Pace? Second, what

:56:12. > :56:16.action does the UK Government contemplate to dress the ease with

:56:17. > :56:21.which unscrupulous chancers like Green find it easy to be nude

:56:22. > :56:25.businesses of their financial assets, and finally does the

:56:26. > :56:32.Minister understand why many employees will feel the pensions

:56:33. > :56:37.regulator should seek the entire 571 billion deficit from Green himself.

:56:38. > :56:44.Can I thank the honourable gentleman and say it is a long time since I

:56:45. > :56:50.have been to visit his constituency. Like many, wherever they might be in

:56:51. > :56:54.the UK, the role of BHS has been critical. Unfortunately, its

:56:55. > :57:00.fortunes have not been good for some time, perhaps that's the fault of

:57:01. > :57:06.all of us and I suspect I am guilty of that. The honourable gentleman

:57:07. > :57:13.makes a good point about greed, it doesn't matter who it is. It is

:57:14. > :57:20.certainly not acceptable, whatever your faith may be. He makes a number

:57:21. > :57:23.of points. We have to await the outcome of the investigations and if

:57:24. > :57:31.we need to take further action, we will not flinch in doing that. The

:57:32. > :57:35.question is at the heart of BHS are not ones obligated to you but one is

:57:36. > :57:41.about the judgments made by people in positions of authority and the

:57:42. > :57:47.ethics of the people entrusted with such responsibilities for those

:57:48. > :57:52.companies. The last few weeks, my friends will be aware that Sir

:57:53. > :57:57.Philip Green has taken substantial fire for his reputation. It is up to

:57:58. > :58:02.him how he wishes to respond, but is my honourable friend aware of the

:58:03. > :58:08.collateral damage which is being done to people's trust in business

:58:09. > :58:15.by the actions of people involved in BHS. I could not agree more. I thank

:58:16. > :58:20.him for his valuable contribution. The reason I am choosing my words

:58:21. > :58:26.today with some care is not because I do not have my own view is based

:58:27. > :58:30.on what I have read, but I think it is very important that we allow

:58:31. > :58:36.these investigations to take place before we rush to judgment, but it

:58:37. > :58:41.is fair and right to say that on the basis of what we have read in the

:58:42. > :58:46.papers, nobody could be in any way content with some of the allegations

:58:47. > :58:52.that have been made. They are very serious and he rightly makes the

:58:53. > :58:54.point that that rightly does indeed damage the reputation of all

:58:55. > :59:04.businesses and I cannot be right either. It is clear from the woeful

:59:05. > :59:09.evidence given to our enquiry that effective corporate governance in

:59:10. > :59:17.BHS was entirely absent, something which prompted the director-general

:59:18. > :59:20.of the Institute of to state that it represents a blight on the

:59:21. > :59:25.reputation of British business, adding, if the chairman of Arcadia

:59:26. > :59:28.is not looked at, it could set an appalling precedent for future

:59:29. > :59:36.selves or failing businesses. Has the Minister raised BHS with the

:59:37. > :59:41.financial reporting Council? Will the Government consider altering the

:59:42. > :59:48.remit is to ensure directors and their failings are brought under

:59:49. > :59:53.their jurisdiction? Could I pay tribute to the great work that the

:59:54. > :00:00.honour of four gentleman does and I know he has already conducted

:00:01. > :00:05.successfully and enquiry into the working practices of one business

:00:06. > :00:09.and he has successfully acquired the attendant at the select committee.

:00:10. > :00:13.These are important points and in relation to the specific questions

:00:14. > :00:18.he has asked, I will write to him because I need to make further

:00:19. > :00:23.enquiry about that. We need to wait to make sure we have full

:00:24. > :00:28.investigations, we know all the facts but he should be absolutely

:00:29. > :00:32.sure that we take these matters seriously and we will not have

:00:33. > :00:38.British businesses good name is matched by the wrong doings of

:00:39. > :00:46.others. Whilst managers and owners can and should be concerned and

:00:47. > :00:51.indeed answerable, does the Minister agree that there were serious legal

:00:52. > :00:54.complexities involved in dictating that owners must assess the

:00:55. > :01:06.viability and character of purchases or be responsible for purchases

:01:07. > :01:11.business conduct a post sale? A well-informed, his contribution is

:01:12. > :01:17.and he makes very good points. I am sorry to bang out on about this but

:01:18. > :01:21.it is important to say, investigations have properly been

:01:22. > :01:25.started, they will be conducted, there will be conclusions and if

:01:26. > :01:33.there are any allegations of wrongdoing, we will be found in our

:01:34. > :01:39.view that justice will be done. BHS and my constituency was a

:01:40. > :01:43.micro-store in the shopping centre and the staff who worked there are

:01:44. > :01:48.concerned about their future and the future of their pensions, but there

:01:49. > :01:52.are wider issues about the impact of closure on our high Street, so can

:01:53. > :01:58.the Minister tell us what she's going to do to address my

:01:59. > :02:02.constituents's concerns and hold to account previous owners or current

:02:03. > :02:09.owners and directors for any part they played in the downfall of BHS?

:02:10. > :02:14.Can I be very clear, I am more than happy to meet her. I know that my

:02:15. > :02:20.honourable friend the high streets Minister is also here and my

:02:21. > :02:24.colleague from DWP. That shows the level of absolute determination we

:02:25. > :02:28.all have to make sure that all those affected by this are found

:02:29. > :02:33.alternative work and again I reiterate, there is a full

:02:34. > :02:36.investigation expected to be properly conducted and if there is

:02:37. > :02:42.the need for further action, that will be done. Well the investigators

:02:43. > :02:45.must be allowed to get on, would have my honourable friend agreed

:02:46. > :02:56.there may be wider lessons to be drawn on the Corporal governance of

:02:57. > :03:00.large Private companies. Maybe large Private companies should look into

:03:01. > :03:05.their own governance arrangements and their own transparency around

:03:06. > :03:09.them. I completely agree. If reports are right, this is deeply concerning

:03:10. > :03:13.and there are many lessons that will have to be learned but we will wait

:03:14. > :03:17.to see the conclusions of these various enquiries and what further

:03:18. > :03:23.action needs to be taken, and we won't hesitate to do that. May I

:03:24. > :03:28.thank the Minister for her statement and use it to express the anger

:03:29. > :03:33.there is on all sides of the House at the threat to 11,000 jobs and

:03:34. > :03:39.20,000 pensions. But might I also ask heard that when she goes back to

:03:40. > :03:43.consider blowing the whistle on the break-up of this great empire. Is

:03:44. > :03:48.she satisfied that a company could be sold for a quid could now be

:03:49. > :03:53.broken up because someone could not meet a timetable for 100 million of

:03:54. > :03:56.working capital, and do she satisfied that the firm entrusted

:03:57. > :04:00.with the break-up would behave in the best interests of the whole at

:04:01. > :04:05.work rather than perhaps selling some of the assets off rather

:04:06. > :04:11.cheaply to known figures in the whole of this terrible, sorry saga?

:04:12. > :04:16.I have to say to the honourable gentleman that I do have faith in

:04:17. > :04:20.the workings of the administrators. They are under strict duties and I

:04:21. > :04:26.am going to very much say that I expect them to comply with those

:04:27. > :04:31.duties and also to pay tribute to the insolvency service and the good

:04:32. > :04:35.work they do, and how seriously they take these matters as indeed we all

:04:36. > :04:40.do. There are a number of questions the honourable gentleman asked. I am

:04:41. > :04:46.more than happy to write to him with any answers I can provide to all the

:04:47. > :04:52.matters he has raised. I would like to welcome the Minister's statement

:04:53. > :04:57.on BHS but it isn't only BHS that has the problem, there are supply

:04:58. > :05:03.chain industries who will also have a problem. Their run businesses

:05:04. > :05:08.wanting to buy this business but they cannot because it is shared and

:05:09. > :05:14.the things inside have gone elsewhere. They have not physically

:05:15. > :05:18.gone elsewhere but they have been put into another company. I would

:05:19. > :05:22.like to commend the Minister's Department for the rapid reaction

:05:23. > :05:27.they had on the day the company told people they would be redundant, but

:05:28. > :05:32.can she investigate what they are doing because I think there is some

:05:33. > :05:37.wrongdoing going there. Of course court holds very much is in that

:05:38. > :05:44.supply chain and as I mentioned, it is not just the workers, it is those

:05:45. > :05:49.individuals and their families, it is a dreadful moment when you lose

:05:50. > :06:02.their job but it goes right the way through the supply chain. I would

:06:03. > :06:11.like the... We are more than happy to talk to her and see how we can

:06:12. > :06:16.ensure the best thing is done. We must never forget that pensions are

:06:17. > :06:21.deferred wages from the people that have worked hard, hard working

:06:22. > :06:24.people throughout their lives. The pensions protection as fund was set

:06:25. > :06:30.up by a Labour government and does play a vital role, but will the

:06:31. > :06:36.Minister agree in sending a clear message that the pensions regulator

:06:37. > :06:42.has our full support in being as robust as possible to look at any

:06:43. > :06:47.loopholes and any scapegoats that they can make out of the current

:06:48. > :06:52.regulation and to make it much more firm are so people cannot get away

:06:53. > :06:56.with any wrong doing with wages? People when they reach retirement

:06:57. > :07:03.look forward to receiving the pension. They have paid into it so

:07:04. > :07:08.their money has been put in there and trust that when they do retire,

:07:09. > :07:12.they will expect a certain benefit to come back because they have paid

:07:13. > :07:18.into it. We all know that it is incredibly important. It is

:07:19. > :07:23.absolutely imperative that all employers make sure they do the

:07:24. > :07:27.right thing by those schemes, and I pay tribute to the Labour government

:07:28. > :07:31.that setup the PPF and while we are not content with the fact it will

:07:32. > :07:37.always deliver what people would have had if their schemes had been

:07:38. > :07:42.successful, it is an extremely good lifeboat for those pension schemes

:07:43. > :07:48.that unfortunately do fail, but there is an investigation, no doubt

:07:49. > :07:51.lessons to be learned. I welcome the investigations that are underway and

:07:52. > :07:57.I trust there will be regular updates to the House and employees,

:07:58. > :08:01.but I am pleased to hear there is further action taken for the high

:08:02. > :08:05.Street and I would encourage the Minister and hope she would ensure

:08:06. > :08:10.that the House that it will not just focus on retail but also commercial

:08:11. > :08:15.and leisure and residential activities to bring new life back to

:08:16. > :08:21.the high street in a more balanced way given the trends in online

:08:22. > :08:25.trading. I couldn't agree more. The high Street Minister is nodding away

:08:26. > :08:32.furiously, but he makes a good point about the fact the high street has

:08:33. > :08:37.to diversify stop I really would urge all members to look at a great

:08:38. > :08:43.report commissioned by the Labour Party, it's an outstanding look

:08:44. > :08:49.forward to the future of the high Street. It is packed full of ideas,

:08:50. > :08:53.some controversial, but full of sound advice that many on the high

:08:54. > :09:05.street could and should agree with and take in and put into action. My

:09:06. > :09:10.constituency will have won a 16 stores. I have concerns about the

:09:11. > :09:17.workers there and give potential void in the high Street. She said

:09:18. > :09:22.Job Centre plus would help identify skills gaps and vacancies, to look

:09:23. > :09:31.at filling these. Is she aware that my local job centre that do not as a

:09:32. > :09:36.matter of course monitor long-term vacancies and therefore identify

:09:37. > :09:40.skills gaps and does she agree that that should be a routine measure and

:09:41. > :09:45.that would help create opportunities and fill gaps in companies?

:09:46. > :09:50.I think this is the kind of conversation I shouldn't have with

:09:51. > :09:59.this honourable gentleman, because it is not in my expertise, but if he

:10:00. > :10:03.is right, it is very concerning. I will speak to him. The main concern

:10:04. > :10:08.today should be those today who find themselves without a job. I think it

:10:09. > :10:14.is becoming increasingly clear that Sir Phillip Green, aided by weak

:10:15. > :10:18.directors, wash their hands of this business because it was a doomed

:10:19. > :10:21.business with a doomed pension scheme. The principle in English law

:10:22. > :10:27.is very well established that a seller shouldn't have two bouts with

:10:28. > :10:32.a successor. But isn't it time that perhaps the Minister, aided by the

:10:33. > :10:38.enquiries from this House, revisited that in the instances where a seller

:10:39. > :10:42.has recklessly or knowingly sold their stake in a business to someone

:10:43. > :10:46.who is completely unsuited and unable to meet the creditor'

:10:47. > :10:51.demands? I really do thank my honourable friend for that very

:10:52. > :10:56.important and incredibly profound point, and say that, yes, we are

:10:57. > :10:59.having the investigation at the conclusion of these, no doubt there

:11:00. > :11:03.will be many more questions. They may well be some sort of action, but

:11:04. > :11:07.I think you raise is an incredibly important point, which I have no

:11:08. > :11:10.doubt that at the end of these investigations, it will be

:11:11. > :11:21.considered very seriously by this House and Government. Wouldn't it

:11:22. > :11:24.have been useful to hear from the Minister how long the investigations

:11:25. > :11:29.will take to get to their conclusion? Can I refer back to my

:11:30. > :11:33.right honourable friend's question about when did you last meet with

:11:34. > :11:38.the administrators and what questions that she has about what

:11:39. > :11:46.could be saved and the number of stories that could be saved? In my

:11:47. > :11:51.constituency, the BHS Storer, they believed they were doing very well,

:11:52. > :11:55.the employees. What discussions is she having to try and keep jobs,

:11:56. > :12:01.rather than lose them and getting Jobcentre plus to help? I haven't

:12:02. > :12:06.had any discussions with the administration, but I don't believe

:12:07. > :12:11.that that would be the norm. I have confidence in them. I also have

:12:12. > :12:14.confidence in the insolvency service who do have regular contact with my

:12:15. > :12:19.department. If the honourable gentleman wants me to make further

:12:20. > :12:24.enquiry, I have no difficulty with that at all, and more than happy to

:12:25. > :12:30.do so. Especially English and to the jobs for BHS workers in his

:12:31. > :12:35.constituency, and indeed in anybody else's constituency. That's not a

:12:36. > :12:40.difficulty. Just as it is right that the circumstances that brought BHS

:12:41. > :12:43.to this point I probably looked into and have been extensively raised

:12:44. > :12:48.today, it is very important that everything possible is being done to

:12:49. > :12:52.help those employees affected by this devastating news. Can my right

:12:53. > :12:58.honourable friend reassure me that Jobcentre Plus's rapid response will

:12:59. > :13:02.have all its support from the Government to do everything they can

:13:03. > :13:12.for the affected employees? And very grateful that my friend, the member

:13:13. > :13:15.for Swindon south... North. Within the DWP, here's the relevant

:13:16. > :13:19.minister. He has heard that has been said and I am certainly told and

:13:20. > :13:23.showed that all beef support that is available through the rapid

:13:24. > :13:28.response, if there are any difficulties, we will take that very

:13:29. > :13:34.seriously. It is very important that people are giving good support, so

:13:35. > :13:37.we get them back into work. Insolvency service enquiries have

:13:38. > :13:41.always been restricted, but the minister told this House on the 25th

:13:42. > :13:44.of April that this inquiry would be open and transparent. Perhaps you

:13:45. > :13:47.could tell us what the Government is doing differently with this inquiry

:13:48. > :13:53.to make sure that information is as open and transparent as possible,

:13:54. > :14:00.especially for a those across the country. The Government has quite

:14:01. > :14:03.clearly looked at the reports that have been widespread, about the

:14:04. > :14:07.goings-on that has led to this fortunate situation. We take those

:14:08. > :14:11.allegations extremely seriously, which is why we have said to the

:14:12. > :14:17.relevant organisations that there must be able inquiry. We expect

:14:18. > :14:21.those enquiries to be concluded as quickly as possible, but they must

:14:22. > :14:25.be thorough and after that we will take any such action that is needed

:14:26. > :14:30.to make sure, as I say, that if there is wrongdoing, people are

:14:31. > :14:40.brought to justice. The staff at Jobcentre Plus provide a service in

:14:41. > :14:44.getting people back into their jobs. Can the Minister added the house on

:14:45. > :14:48.what they service can do with BHS staff. Would she agree with me that

:14:49. > :14:52.the retail sector, into which hopefully these people can be found

:14:53. > :14:56.alternative jobs, will be far healthier over the next five years,

:14:57. > :15:02.as a result of the business rates cut announced in the Budget? I don't

:15:03. > :15:08.really want to go back through my statement, but I did identify in

:15:09. > :15:14.some detail the sort of assistance that people will be given, whether

:15:15. > :15:17.its helpless CV writing, whether its access to retraining, specifically

:15:18. > :15:23.DWP, which I think is a very good and idea, contacting other retailers

:15:24. > :15:28.to see what jobs will be available locally. They can apply to those

:15:29. > :15:31.jobs, and, yes, I do believe that our cuts to business rate for small

:15:32. > :15:35.businesses was an outstanding achievement of the Chancellor in the

:15:36. > :15:38.last budget, and I am confident we will see as a result of that, real

:15:39. > :15:45.assistance for small businesses notably on the high Street. The

:15:46. > :15:48.first concern of all of us across this House or those who have lost

:15:49. > :15:52.jobs and pensions, and there are many questions that they and we

:15:53. > :15:58.still want to hear answers to, but looking forward, will be Minister

:15:59. > :16:02.assure the house that they will look at the lessons of this from the

:16:03. > :16:07.failures of this and Austin Reed, and will she consider relaunching a

:16:08. > :16:10.strategy working with businesses, so we don't end up high trees which are

:16:11. > :16:15.all payday lenders and betting shops? We started a great tool for

:16:16. > :16:24.in the last Government looking at the future of the high Street, and

:16:25. > :16:30.we went to people like Mary Portas and others, to see how we could

:16:31. > :16:32.help. I think, local Government itself, and I'm sure the honourable

:16:33. > :16:37.gentleman will be aware, can actually play a hugely important

:16:38. > :16:41.part in ensuring that the high street is developing the right way,

:16:42. > :16:44.which is one of the reasons we have changed the planning rules, for

:16:45. > :16:49.example, and they can thrive and grow. Often, it does rely on local

:16:50. > :16:52.people in their area thinking out of the box and being quite radical in

:16:53. > :16:56.the way they think about the future of the high Street. And I think

:16:57. > :17:02.there was another question, but I can't remember. In any event, the

:17:03. > :17:08.usual rules will apply, I will write to him if there is anything I have

:17:09. > :17:11.forgotten. I do find it very difficult to understand that the

:17:12. > :17:18.Minister, given that there are 11,000 direct jobs and many, many

:17:19. > :17:29.other indirect supply chain jobs at risk here, hasn't had a meeting with

:17:30. > :17:42.the administrator. Given that the store in my constituency tell me

:17:43. > :17:46.that they are profitable parts of the BHS business. I think there is a

:17:47. > :17:49.discussion that the Minister has to have with the administrator about

:17:50. > :17:59.what parts of their business can actually be saved in another guise,

:18:00. > :18:05.or as part of BHS be invented. The fact that she has not had any time

:18:06. > :18:12.to meet the administrator, I think is shocking and a travesty unders

:18:13. > :18:15.11,000 jobs. Just when I think it is going so well, the honourable

:18:16. > :18:20.gentleman always disappoints. I didn't say that I didn't have the

:18:21. > :18:25.time. The honourable gentleman wants to talk about the 11,000 people,

:18:26. > :18:31.let's do that and not score party political points. Of course, we only

:18:32. > :18:36.found the situation whereby the administrators couldn't find a buyer

:18:37. > :18:41.in the last few days, so we don't have Government interfering in that

:18:42. > :18:51.process. Now we are aware we are. If the honourable gentleman shouts from

:18:52. > :18:55.his sedentary position to meet them, I have just said that I don't have a

:18:56. > :18:58.problem in contacting the administrators if that will have any

:18:59. > :19:04.benefit at all, but I think we have to put a sense of proportion into

:19:05. > :19:12.this. This unfortunate news has only just been announced. This really is

:19:13. > :19:18.not good enough. It's not good enough that the Minister hasn't met

:19:19. > :19:24.the administrator to talk to the people. Is not good enough that

:19:25. > :19:32.11,000 people face uncertainty whilst millionaires get money for

:19:33. > :19:41.yachts. The people in my constituency will not have justice

:19:42. > :19:50.until there is someone to answer to this. Will the Minister support me

:19:51. > :19:53.and having that report? The number of points there, I can make it

:19:54. > :20:01.absolutely clear. The Government is not legally entitled to intervene

:20:02. > :20:09.and direct the administrator. The administrator has two act absolutely

:20:10. > :20:12.independently, and we have already, quite unusually, announced a number

:20:13. > :20:16.of investigations into these matters. We await to see the outcome

:20:17. > :20:20.of these investigations before we rush to judgment. And as I have said

:20:21. > :20:32.repeatedly, if there is further action that is to be taken, we would

:20:33. > :20:35.hesitate to do that. There is now some 30 honourable member is being

:20:36. > :20:40.investigated by 18 different police forces across England, and some very

:20:41. > :20:44.serious allegations that the representation of the People's act

:20:45. > :20:48.may have been contravened the declaration of candid expenditure.

:20:49. > :20:52.Can you make a ruling, Mr Speaker, on what may weigh not the raising

:20:53. > :21:00.this House in reference to these allegations? Any successful

:21:01. > :21:03.prosecution may result in serious consequences for the honourable

:21:04. > :21:10.member involved, and even the question of last year's general

:21:11. > :21:21.election results. The matter is not subdued as the. I think it is

:21:22. > :21:29.prudent and wise to leave the investigating authorities to conduct

:21:30. > :21:35.their investigations, and not to seek to do so ourselves in this

:21:36. > :21:48.chamber. With an imagined expertise and authority. Lastly, I would just

:21:49. > :21:52.say, I think it is best to avoid the hypothetical and deal with these

:21:53. > :22:00.matters as and when, but only as and when, they arise. We will leave it

:22:01. > :22:03.there. I'm sure on a different and unrelated matter, the honourable

:22:04. > :22:11.gentleman is nodding solemnly and sagely. I seek your advice for the

:22:12. > :22:17.second time in a matter of months, a ministerial visit has been organised

:22:18. > :22:23.to Headingley in my constituency. On this occasion, I had to drag it out

:22:24. > :22:27.the office of the Secretary of State for Department of community and

:22:28. > :22:31.local Government, to ask what the visit was for. I was delighted he

:22:32. > :22:35.was doing it, but can you make it clear to ministers that we welcome

:22:36. > :22:38.ministerial visits and they should have the courtesy to tell us what

:22:39. > :22:46.they are doing and where they are going. First of all, I think it is

:22:47. > :22:51.best if ministers who are going to visit colleagues' constituencies are

:22:52. > :22:54.explicit and candid about these matters, subject only to security

:22:55. > :23:00.considerations. It's much better to tell colleagues what it is about,

:23:01. > :23:07.then to deprive them of that information. Secondly, I must say

:23:08. > :23:10.that in the respect of the secretary of communities and local Government,

:23:11. > :23:14.who visited my own constituency recently, I have always found him

:23:15. > :23:22.the very embodiment of courtesy. That has been my experience of him.

:23:23. > :23:27.He seems to be courteous to most people. If there has been elapsed, I

:23:28. > :23:32.regret that. Thirdly, I just say it is not worth the hassle with the

:23:33. > :23:36.honourable gentleman, so he is a very persistent terrier. My advice

:23:37. > :23:41.to anybody who is going to wander into his constituency on anything

:23:42. > :23:47.that might be considered official business, tell him in advance. My

:23:48. > :23:52.point of order relates to the nondisclosure of government-held

:23:53. > :24:00.information to the house. During the response to the urgent question on

:24:01. > :24:05.the deportation of foreign and EU prisoners, at 4:05pm, my honourable

:24:06. > :24:10.friend Aspley secretary if she could tell the house how EU prisoners had

:24:11. > :24:14.been transferred compulsorily from this country to their country of

:24:15. > :24:21.origin under the terms of the EU prisoner transfer agreement, which

:24:22. > :24:24.the Home Secretary parried away. The Home Secretary said that she didn't

:24:25. > :24:30.have that information readily available. I repeated the question

:24:31. > :24:33.ten minutes later. The prisons minister was sitting on the bench,

:24:34. > :24:38.there were seven officials in the box and other Home Office ministers

:24:39. > :24:41.on the front bench. I find it inconceivable that the Home

:24:42. > :24:47.Secretary wasn't a prize with that information and withheld from the

:24:48. > :24:50.house. What be done to make sure this information is released to the

:24:51. > :24:58.house before the house rises later today?

:24:59. > :25:07.I have to say, I didn't quite hear the tale end of his question but I'm

:25:08. > :25:10.sure he would not suggest a minister would deliberately refused to give

:25:11. > :25:16.information that she had at the time. As to what was known to the

:25:17. > :25:23.Minister or what was available to the Minister or what was proffered,

:25:24. > :25:27.I don't know. If a minister has not given a correct answer, it is

:25:28. > :25:33.incumbent upon that minister to correct it as quickly as possible.

:25:34. > :25:37.If the honourable gentleman is dissatisfied, he has the resources

:25:38. > :25:43.of the table office is open to him to table a question, including to

:25:44. > :25:47.table a question for a named day and if he is dissatisfied with the

:25:48. > :25:53.answer or doesn't receive a substantive answer, there is an

:25:54. > :25:57.arsenal of Parliamentary weapons available to him, especially if he

:25:58. > :26:03.judges the matter to be urgent and so I will leave the honourable

:26:04. > :26:14.gentleman to his own devices. If there are no further points of

:26:15. > :26:24.order, we come now to the programme motion and I believe it's the

:26:25. > :26:32.Minister of State for security. Minister John Hayes. I'm immensely

:26:33. > :26:36.grateful to you, Mr Speaker, in moving this programme motion. I

:26:37. > :26:40.don't want to delay the House on Julie because there are important

:26:41. > :26:45.matters to debate in this legislation. It has been the habit

:26:46. > :26:52.of the Government in respect of this legislation to engage the most

:26:53. > :26:59.careful... To engage... I have already excited my honourable friend

:27:00. > :27:04.and I continue to do so. I think irritated might be. But the

:27:05. > :27:11.honourable gentleman has never let that put him off in the past. And

:27:12. > :27:16.we'll certainly not do so for the next two days, Mr Speaker. The

:27:17. > :27:22.programme motion is a relatively straightforward matter. I say that

:27:23. > :27:26.because it has been the habit of the Government as I was about to say, in

:27:27. > :27:32.respect of this particular legislation to both listen and to

:27:33. > :27:37.learn and during the course of the next two days, I hope to be able to

:27:38. > :27:42.show that we have done both. The scrutiny has been considerable. This

:27:43. > :27:49.draft a bill, the one that preceded the legislation, we are now

:27:50. > :27:53.considering at its report stage, were scrutinised closely by three

:27:54. > :28:00.committees of this House, including a special joint committee chaired

:28:01. > :28:07.and supported by members of the Lords and Commons who gave it

:28:08. > :28:12.considerable attention. That committee produced a report with a

:28:13. > :28:21.series of recommendations and indeed we then had a committee stage which

:28:22. > :28:26.is engaged in debate about those recommendations. It has been a

:28:27. > :28:31.thorough process up to now. On that basis I moved the programme motion.

:28:32. > :28:38.The question is the investigatory Powers Bill Powers Bill as on the

:28:39. > :28:46.order paper. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

:28:47. > :28:50."no". I think the ayes have it. Order of the clock will now proceed

:28:51. > :29:00.to give the orders of the day. The bill to be considered. Splendid. We

:29:01. > :29:03.begin with government new clause five with which it will be

:29:04. > :29:10.convenient to consider the other amendments and new courses listed on

:29:11. > :29:17.the selection paper. The minister now has a second opportunity to

:29:18. > :29:21.practice his oratory. And as you know, Mr Speaker, practice makes

:29:22. > :29:28.perfect and we have two days to perfect all we do and say. We open

:29:29. > :29:32.the debate on this bill considering a group of amendments which would

:29:33. > :29:38.address a matter which lies at its very heart. Throughout the lengthy

:29:39. > :29:43.consideration both in its draft form and final form, the issue of privacy

:29:44. > :29:48.and the balance between security and private interest has been frequently

:29:49. > :29:55.considered, discussed and debated. The balance which lies at the heart

:29:56. > :30:03.of our considerations and this proposed legislation seems to me to

:30:04. > :30:08.be critical to the acceptance which we need to engender of a bill which

:30:09. > :30:14.I believe is in the national interest. Balance is the word that

:30:15. > :30:20.was used by the Honourable member for the City of Chester during the

:30:21. > :30:23.course of the committee scrutiny of this bill. He talked about the

:30:24. > :30:29.balance between national interest and personal interest. The defence

:30:30. > :30:36.of personal privity and the underpinning of the common good. In

:30:37. > :30:40.those terms, communal well-being and individual fulfilment are from the

:30:41. > :30:48.inseparable. And national interest can only be defined as people's

:30:49. > :30:51.interest. The issues of privacy and oversight are central to our

:30:52. > :30:57.considerations and the Government is determined to ensure that the bill

:30:58. > :31:06.reflects the concentration on those two matters. We are clear that in

:31:07. > :31:14.considering and passing this bill we must do more, we must do more in

:31:15. > :31:19.respect of checks and balances, safeguards and oversights and that

:31:20. > :31:25.is what we have tried to do, indeed in the provisions that we are

:31:26. > :31:29.considering now. It is important to understand that proves he is the

:31:30. > :31:35.core of the bill. The protection of private interest and the public is

:31:36. > :31:39.at the heart of all we seek to do. The honourable member tabled a new

:31:40. > :31:44.clause to strike the balance. In sympathy with my view that privacy

:31:45. > :31:50.is woven into the bill throughout its provision. I have concluded that

:31:51. > :32:00.he was right to emphasise the need to make that palpably clear on the

:32:01. > :32:06.face of the legislation. To seek to if you like reinforce the

:32:07. > :32:14.determination that I have described to protect private interest. It

:32:15. > :32:18.seemed to me he was also right to suggest that that should be an

:32:19. > :32:26.overarching aspect of the Bill, to explicitly at the outset of this

:32:27. > :32:33.legislation make clear that privacy matters in the way that I have

:32:34. > :32:40.described. He suggested in committee and indeed he has tabled an

:32:41. > :32:45.amendment to consider today also but he suggested in committee that we

:32:46. > :32:49.add on the face of the Bill just such an overarching emphasis on the

:32:50. > :32:55.defence of private interest. By under the powers available, the Bill

:32:56. > :33:01.provides a successive governments have, and appropriate degree of

:33:02. > :33:04.oversight of those powers. Furthermore, should a change of all

:33:05. > :33:12.the resolution, the first time and in highly significant, even

:33:13. > :33:18.ground-breaking terms, we have again struck an important balance between

:33:19. > :33:26.the role of the executive and the role of the judiciary. That answers

:33:27. > :33:32.the call of both those who made the case here earlier that it was

:33:33. > :33:37.politicians that should decide because they are accountable to the

:33:38. > :33:41.people, and on the other hand, those who thought that that alone was not

:33:42. > :33:46.sufficient, that it was also important for lawyers to play their

:33:47. > :33:50.part in ensuring that decisions were made in respect of warranting were

:33:51. > :33:57.reasonable, necessary and proportionate. The core principle

:33:58. > :34:01.and necessity of proportionality applies to all such powers and is

:34:02. > :34:06.underpinned by the changes we seek to bring in the Bill. In essence,

:34:07. > :34:09.these provisions collect the collective consideration of the

:34:10. > :34:18.three independent reviews I mentioned briefly. The report and

:34:19. > :34:22.the draft bill published last year called for the inclusion of the Bill

:34:23. > :34:29.dealing with privacy protections and that was echoed during the committee

:34:30. > :34:33.stage. The Government has been cleared throughout the passage of

:34:34. > :34:36.this bill that it would listen to recommendations that would improve

:34:37. > :34:41.this important piece of legislation and it is just what we have done

:34:42. > :34:44.here. I bring before the House a number of amendments demonstrating

:34:45. > :34:52.that willingness to listen and that desire to strike the right balance.

:34:53. > :35:00.Number 34 new rates to clause ten -- relates. There are a small number of

:35:01. > :35:04.exceptions to this restriction and the purpose of this is to ensure

:35:05. > :35:08.those exemptions are limited. This amendment makes clear the use of

:35:09. > :35:16.regulatory powers to apply data is limited to those which are exercise

:35:17. > :35:22.ball in connection with telecommunications or personal

:35:23. > :35:26.regulations. Amendment 35 says the oversight provided by the

:35:27. > :35:31.Commissioner for all efforts made by the prison governors to prevent the

:35:32. > :35:36.use of illegal mobile phones in cost Gill institutions. This is something

:35:37. > :35:42.that the interception Communications commission has previously called for

:35:43. > :35:50.and so is pleased to amend the bill to take account of his advice. It

:35:51. > :36:00.will ensure the investigatory Powers Commissioner will address the

:36:01. > :36:06.oversight in electrical locations. I said we would go and give it further

:36:07. > :36:10.consideration. We have done so and come to the conclusion that the

:36:11. > :36:15.other tree made them was the right one. Although this talk would only

:36:16. > :36:21.apply to limited circumstances and has never been used, I accept that

:36:22. > :36:26.in cases where persons to have the power to seek the address of the

:36:27. > :36:31.courts. Clause five is the previously clause I made reference

:36:32. > :36:39.to. New clause five puts privacy at the very heart of the legislation in

:36:40. > :36:42.precisely the overarching way which those who scrutinised the Bill prior

:36:43. > :36:48.to committee and those who considered in committee recommended.

:36:49. > :36:52.It responds therefore both to recommendations from the

:36:53. > :36:56.intelligence and Security committee of Parliament and to extensive

:36:57. > :37:01.debate since. The protection of privacy is woven throughout the

:37:02. > :37:06.Bill, but we recognise the merit in setting it out at the very start.

:37:07. > :37:14.This bill and its consideration has been characterised and I don't want

:37:15. > :37:18.to indulge in hyperbole. It has been characterised by an unusual degree

:37:19. > :37:21.of corporation across the House to get it right. All legislation

:37:22. > :37:30.benefits from that kind of considered scrutiny and cooperation,

:37:31. > :37:35.and legislation which is in the national interest, which this

:37:36. > :37:44.certainly is, is far better for that kind of approach. It's exactly the

:37:45. > :37:51.approach the Government has adopted. The new clause was inspired by the

:37:52. > :37:56.IOC. Would he agree he is being ever so slightly modest in relation to

:37:57. > :37:59.new clause five which is primarily aimed at protecting personal

:38:00. > :38:03.privacy, but clearly he has been listening since one of the concerns

:38:04. > :38:09.has been expressed from industry that interference and hacking may

:38:10. > :38:13.cause a failure of confidence in businesses around IT in this

:38:14. > :38:21.country, and clearly new clause five, paragraph to be will go some

:38:22. > :38:24.way to protect the interest of those companies and businesses since it

:38:25. > :38:28.states explicitly that public authorities must have regard to the

:38:29. > :38:33.public interest in these matters, which would include the viability of

:38:34. > :38:39.those undertakings. There have been concerns of the kinds he mentioned,

:38:40. > :38:44.expressed. We will be coming as we go on to debate further detail in

:38:45. > :38:50.the Bill, to Internet communication record that the capability

:38:51. > :38:56.organisations to meet the requirements of the bill must be met

:38:57. > :39:02.and must be met in a way which is not either excessively expensive and

:39:03. > :39:06.impossible to implement or has the unintended consequences that he

:39:07. > :39:10.described. It is partly in response to those over chores that has

:39:11. > :39:15.stimulated the changes we have made to the Bill which we are now

:39:16. > :39:20.considering, so it was partly about what the opposition said in

:39:21. > :39:25.committee, partly about what the three reports said in respect of

:39:26. > :39:29.privacy and the consequences he described, and partly about the

:39:30. > :39:34.extensive discussions we have had with the sector on how these things

:39:35. > :39:38.could best be implemented. Effective implementation of some of these

:39:39. > :39:43.provisions is critical to their success and had the paid less

:39:44. > :39:47.attention to that, he would be the first to criticise cars because he

:39:48. > :39:51.has been a diligent member of this House and was a member of the joint

:39:52. > :39:58.committee that I described that looked at this bill in some detail.

:39:59. > :40:05.If I am understating the changes, perhaps that is a reflection of my

:40:06. > :40:12.style. I wish to avoid hyperbole and I am grateful for employing -- him

:40:13. > :40:19.drawing attention of the amendment the gunmen have tabled.

:40:20. > :40:33.The new clause was inspired by the IAS see and is a member of on the

:40:34. > :40:35.table by the honourable member. Warrants and other organisations

:40:36. > :40:43.should not be granted when information can be achieved by less

:40:44. > :40:49.intrusive means. Secretaries of State and judicial commissioners

:40:50. > :40:56.must have regard to privacy, and it makes clear that criminal offences

:40:57. > :41:03.that apply to misuse of powers under the Bill are sufficient to put

:41:04. > :41:15.beyond doubt that, should anyone miss use these powers, then severe

:41:16. > :41:23.penalties would apply. There can be no flexibility. I realise the Bill

:41:24. > :41:28.is complex, but can I ask that before this matter is concluded in

:41:29. > :41:32.both stages, can he write to me setting out what each of the

:41:33. > :41:38.penalties are for each of the misconduct is, which are identified

:41:39. > :41:43.in the Bill. The point I will make to him in due course is that it

:41:44. > :41:47.remains extremely complex to follow, and in some cases, the penalties

:41:48. > :41:53.appear to be little more than a rap over the knuckles. I know that the

:41:54. > :41:57.honourable gentleman has made the point about incomprehensible to

:41:58. > :42:02.previously. When we debated the draft version of this Bill, one of

:42:03. > :42:07.the points he made was the need for new legislation was in part made by

:42:08. > :42:12.the fact that it should be more compounds above, easier to navigate,

:42:13. > :42:23.and more understandable to a wider number of people. He is right. It

:42:24. > :42:28.was hard to determine exactly what power is there are and how the abuse

:42:29. > :42:31.of those powers will be hard to deal with, so I happily concede the point

:42:32. > :42:36.that he has made. It is important that all members of this House,

:42:37. > :42:40.particularly he and his committee, I fully aware of the kind of penalties

:42:41. > :42:44.that might apply. I have described them as severe and I have made the

:42:45. > :42:49.point that wrongdoing cannot be tolerated. The least I can do on

:42:50. > :42:54.that basis, is agree with him that it would be very helpful to set out

:42:55. > :42:59.those penalties in exactly the way he has described. We will do so

:43:00. > :43:02.before the Bill obviously complete its passage through Parliament,

:43:03. > :43:19.because I think it would be only right to do that. The purpose of the

:43:20. > :43:23.clauses that we have tabled our a to reflect the consideration of his

:43:24. > :43:31.committee, to reflect the character and content of the debate that took

:43:32. > :43:37.place when the Bill was in during scrutiny during its committee stage.

:43:38. > :43:48.It seemed to me that as we came to consider courtesy to an increasing

:43:49. > :43:53.degree, it became clear that as well as the implicit emphasis on private

:43:54. > :43:56.interests, which runs through the Bill, there was a compelling case

:43:57. > :44:04.for explicit commitment to privacy, in the form of a new clause. To that

:44:05. > :44:13.end, I think it is right to say that both the minor parties, in this case

:44:14. > :44:18.the Scottish National Party on the committee... He shakes his head, but

:44:19. > :44:21.given that the SNP had only two members on the committee, I can

:44:22. > :44:28.describe them as the major contributor. I was about to say, he

:44:29. > :44:31.made an important contribution to the committee, because they tested

:44:32. > :44:39.the Government, held last to account and made a number of useful and

:44:40. > :44:44.thought through proposals. The opposition, Her Majesty's

:44:45. > :44:52.opposition, by the way, I say to the honourable gentleman, equally added

:44:53. > :44:56.immense value to the consideration by making this proposal, amongst

:44:57. > :45:04.others, which in my judgment were absolutely clear, to improve

:45:05. > :45:12.legislation, rather than delete it in any way. It is in that spirit

:45:13. > :45:16.that I happily remove the amendments that stand in this group. In order

:45:17. > :45:24.to allow as many colleagues as possible to contribute to this

:45:25. > :45:30.debate, I will end there. Except I will say, when bills come before the

:45:31. > :45:37.house, when they are considered as second reading, debated at Reading

:45:38. > :45:41.and report, different circumstances apply and different shadow ministers

:45:42. > :45:46.and ministers approach the matter in their own style. But I take the view

:45:47. > :45:53.that, while circumstances are beyond human control, our conduct is in our

:45:54. > :46:03.own power, to quote Benjamin Disraeli, and consideration of this

:46:04. > :46:08.Bill should be as measured, as reasonable and as moderate as it can

:46:09. > :46:18.be. On that basis, I happily remove the amendment. In relation to pretty

:46:19. > :46:26.say. We begin with Government new clause five. Thank you, Madam Deputy

:46:27. > :46:30.Speaker. Can I just start by thanking all the members who had

:46:31. > :46:34.been involved in the scrutiny of this Bill so far, both at the early

:46:35. > :46:40.stages in the Bill committee. I would like to pay tribute to be

:46:41. > :46:51.members of the committee on all sides. That of course includes the

:46:52. > :46:58.SNP, who worked hard and on this. IP -- I've paid tribute to the reader

:46:59. > :47:03.of the SNP for that. It is important perhaps if I just set out Labour's

:47:04. > :47:10.position before moving to deeper visit clause itself. I start with

:47:11. > :47:15.this. Safety and security matter. The current threat level for

:47:16. > :47:19.terrorism is severe. That means that an attack is highly likely. We all

:47:20. > :47:24.remember and are deeply conscious of the attacks in Paris and in Brussels

:47:25. > :47:28.in the not too distant past, and other attacks. It is not just

:47:29. > :47:32.terrorism that is dealt with in this Bill, it is other serious crime,

:47:33. > :47:37.including the dress from people traffickers, including those who

:47:38. > :47:40.traffic children, those who indulge in sexual abuse and of course

:47:41. > :47:43.stalking and harassment. The starting position has to be that

:47:44. > :47:51.security and intelligence services must have the powers available to

:47:52. > :47:57.them to deal with these threats. But human rights matter also, and I

:47:58. > :48:03.include within that the right to privacy, the right to be left alone

:48:04. > :48:06.on the right to have private data protected, with security and

:48:07. > :48:12.integrity, and the right to redress when things go wrong. They are

:48:13. > :48:21.important rights and, in one sense, I think I have seen things from at

:48:22. > :48:25.least two important perspectives, having been a human rights advocate

:48:26. > :48:38.for many years, taking many cases against the law enforcement

:48:39. > :48:45.agencies, and then being -- working with other bodies. Safety and

:48:46. > :48:52.security and human rights are not mutually exclusive. They are not

:48:53. > :48:56.either or and we can have both. We can have both. Labour has supported

:48:57. > :49:01.the principle of this new Bill, but it is also why we are focused

:49:02. > :49:06.intensely for the necessity of the powers in the Bill, and the

:49:07. > :49:10.safeguards. We have supported the principle of the new legislation,

:49:11. > :49:15.not only because the IP powers need updating in a fast changing world,

:49:16. > :49:19.but equally importantly because after Snowdon, it is important that

:49:20. > :49:25.the powers that are being exercised are about. It is important that they

:49:26. > :49:28.are based on a statute and it is important that everyone understands

:49:29. > :49:31.the safeguards around them. In that respect, there are two very

:49:32. > :49:35.important reasons why we need new legislation. But some of the

:49:36. > :49:41.proposed powers are very wide. If one looks at the bulk powers, they

:49:42. > :49:45.are very wide indeed. And that is why Labour's first and consistent

:49:46. > :49:50.demand of the Government has been for an independent review of the

:49:51. > :49:56.operational case for those bulk powers. The Government did publish a

:49:57. > :49:59.short operational case alongside the Bill, but that we judged as

:50:00. > :50:05.inadequate and we have been pressing for a full independent review since.

:50:06. > :50:09.I'm pleased to say that in a letter on the 23rd of May, the Home

:50:10. > :50:12.Secretary accepted the case for an independent review of the

:50:13. > :50:20.operational powers. That is a significant step. It is a welcome

:50:21. > :50:23.step and it is the right step, but I want to just strike the right to

:50:24. > :50:29.hear, because Labour has made very significant demands during the

:50:30. > :50:34.course of this Bill committee. We have sought to do so constructively

:50:35. > :50:37.and we have seen very significant movement and concessions from the

:50:38. > :50:42.Government, I gain constructively. These are important moves, in the

:50:43. > :50:48.right direction, that will improve the Bill, that have been achieved

:50:49. > :50:52.through that dialogue. Having gone that far, it is important now to

:50:53. > :50:57.focus on the task of the review and the terms. Do have a review is one

:50:58. > :51:09.thing, to have the right terms is equally important. Sorry? I

:51:10. > :51:19.appreciate of course all that my front bench has done and is trying

:51:20. > :51:24.to do to minimise the harm, as I see it, to privacy and Civil Liberties.

:51:25. > :51:31.But when he said that Labour accept the principle, can I say that some

:51:32. > :51:40.of us, certainly myself, do not accept the principle, and consider

:51:41. > :51:46.it unnecessary bulk powers. We will certainly build flag against it at

:51:47. > :51:53.every opportunity. -- vote against it. The bulk powers are available

:51:54. > :51:59.and being exercised at the moment under the existing arrangements, by

:52:00. > :52:05.and large. What this Bill does is put them onto a statutory footing

:52:06. > :52:10.with proper safeguards. Not to do so would leave the situation as it is

:52:11. > :52:15.now, which is unsatisfactory, because they are not clear and the

:52:16. > :52:20.safeguards are not in place. That is an important reason why, in

:52:21. > :52:23.principle, we support this legislation. From my own

:52:24. > :52:28.perspective, having worked with the security and intelligent services,

:52:29. > :52:34.and we'll time, I also appreciate why some of these powers are needed

:52:35. > :52:40.and how they are used. We must never forget that that is an important

:52:41. > :52:44.consideration. Act to the review, we know that David Anderson QC will

:52:45. > :52:51.conduct the review and we have great faith in him, as do most members of

:52:52. > :52:56.this House. What is important is that the task he is performing is

:52:57. > :53:01.clear, and we have argued that he should look not at the utility of

:53:02. > :53:08.the bulk powers, but add their necessity. He should be able to

:53:09. > :53:11.choose a suitably qualified security cleared panel, himself, to help him

:53:12. > :53:16.with that task, that he must have access to all material necessary to

:53:17. > :53:18.carry out the review effectively, including the material made

:53:19. > :53:25.available to the intelligence and Security committee. And he must have

:53:26. > :53:30.time to carry out his review. We envisage that he will be reporting

:53:31. > :53:34.in time for the Lord's committee stage consideration are part six and

:53:35. > :53:40.seven, and that should be in about three months' time. I am pleased to

:53:41. > :53:44.say that because those terms of reference are considerably important

:53:45. > :53:48.to Labour, I have discussed it with the minister and we have exchanged

:53:49. > :53:55.letters today setting out those important terms or framework for the

:53:56. > :54:00.review, namely that it is a necessity that properly cleared

:54:01. > :54:05.panel members that David Anderson chooses, access to all material, and

:54:06. > :54:12.that is very important as to how the review is conducted. I think the

:54:13. > :54:16.whole house is glad to hear that has been a constructive engagement on

:54:17. > :54:20.this matter. But can he ensure that those letters are put in the library

:54:21. > :54:23.today so that the rest of the house is aware of what is going on,

:54:24. > :54:37.because that is is fundamental to this. I take that point and will do

:54:38. > :54:41.that. I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman. I am more than happy on

:54:42. > :54:44.the basis that the honourable gentleman has asked, to make my

:54:45. > :54:48.letter to the honourable gentleman available to the house available

:54:49. > :54:57.immediately, and I'm sure he will do the same. It is important in this

:54:58. > :55:02.review that it is conducted during the period that this legislation is

:55:03. > :55:06.being considered, a review after would not be sufficient. I will give

:55:07. > :55:15.that further commitment on the floor of the house now.

:55:16. > :55:23.I am grateful for both interventions, I was about the say I

:55:24. > :55:28.would public mesh litter, I will make mine available so all members

:55:29. > :55:32.can see the exchange, what I asked for in my letterance the response I

:55:33. > :55:35.got from the minister and if we do that straightaway we will have it

:55:36. > :55:41.for the rest of this debate and tomorrow when we come back to bulk

:55:42. > :55:46.powered. Turning briefly to other demands we made of Government. We

:55:47. > :55:50.have asked for an overarching privacy clause, I will come back to

:55:51. > :55:57.that, as the minister said new clause five is a new privacy clause,

:55:58. > :56:00.we have drafted and laid an amendment, a new clause 21 and I

:56:01. > :56:03.will consider in a moment the differences between two two clause,

:56:04. > :56:11.we also made it clear that there needed to be on the face of the

:56:12. > :56:15.bill, a provision that made it clear that legitimate trade union

:56:16. > :56:19.activities are not a sufficient reason for powers under the bill to

:56:20. > :56:23.be exercised. This is a long-standing concern of the

:56:24. > :56:26.opposition and the SNP. We have tabled an amendment and we have been

:56:27. > :56:32.having constructive discussion, that will come up later in the debate,

:56:33. > :56:35.but, that was the third of the issues we have been constructively

:56:36. > :56:39.engaged on. The fourth was that there should be a higher threshold

:56:40. > :56:45.for access to internet connection. Yes.

:56:46. > :56:49.I am grateful to him for giving way. Certainly as somebody who has

:56:50. > :56:53.severed on the committee with him welcomes the approach the front

:56:54. > :56:57.bench is taking. Could I remind him that the concern to ensure that the

:56:58. > :57:01.legal entity and the rights of trade unions and trade unionists, was one

:57:02. > :57:05.which was shared across the floor at committee, not just by the Labour

:57:06. > :57:09.Party, and by the SNP, but it was something that was echoed by the

:57:10. > :57:15.minister when he responded to the debate about many of us in committee

:57:16. > :57:19.as well. I am grateful for that intervention, I say it was being

:57:20. > :57:22.pressed for. But I accept that in the bill committee, and outside the

:57:23. > :57:25.bill committee, there has been a constructive engagement by the

:57:26. > :57:31.Government on this, the minister was very quick in the bill committee, to

:57:32. > :57:35.indicate a willingness to look at this issue, and discussions have

:57:36. > :57:38.been ongoing. It is very important that there is this clarity that

:57:39. > :57:42.legitimate trade union activities are protect theed. The clause we

:57:43. > :57:45.have laid is now a broader clause than the one we were considering in

:57:46. > :57:49.the bill committee because it goes to national security, as well as the

:57:50. > :57:54.economic wellbeing and therefore covers trade union activities in

:57:55. > :57:58.this country, in the British Isles not just the acts outside the

:57:59. > :58:02.British Isles which would be the case if it was economic wellbeing.

:58:03. > :58:07.This this has been a constructive engagelet which has pushed the bill

:58:08. > :58:10.forward. As I say a moment ago, we have made significant demands. I

:58:11. > :58:13.don't hide that, but the Government has moved in response to those

:58:14. > :58:21.demands, significantly, as well. I am not doing this as a list of sort

:58:22. > :58:25.of victories or scalps or concessions or U-turns, they were

:58:26. > :58:29.significant. We made the demands and stuck by them and the Government has

:58:30. > :58:33.responded if to them in the right spirit. There are others we will

:58:34. > :58:47.come to in the course of this debate P I am not a member of a Select

:58:48. > :58:51.Committee, I am waiting to hear if he is satisfied by the clause, which

:58:52. > :58:56.he appears to be. The drafting of legislation that we have now, is

:58:57. > :59:00.always somewhat obscure, but does he think this is satisfactory? It does

:59:01. > :59:05.say that the public authority should have regard to phrase used is any

:59:06. > :59:08.other aspects of the public interest, in the protection of

:59:09. > :59:12.privacy. Would he not have preferred some reference, just to the right of

:59:13. > :59:18.the citizen of the United Kingdom, to privacy? And does hety there is

:59:19. > :59:26.any difference or am I making a minor drafting point? I am grateful

:59:27. > :59:31.for that. If the House is content I am going to deal with this in

:59:32. > :59:35.detail, because I have laid an alternative new clause, new clause

:59:36. > :59:38.21. It precisely to tighten up the reference to human rights and to

:59:39. > :59:43.public law, but it may be easier if I take that in a few minutes when I

:59:44. > :59:49.get to that particular provision. Just dealing with the other issues

:59:50. > :59:54.that have been of concern to Labour, we have been asking for a revised

:59:55. > :59:59.test for judicial commissioners, because at the moment, on the face

:00:00. > :00:04.of the bill, the test is reviewed by reference to judicial review

:00:05. > :00:09.principles and the concern is that the judicial review exercise is a

:00:10. > :00:12.flexible test which at one end has close scrutiny, where the judges

:00:13. > :00:17.look at the substance as well as process of the decision, but at the

:00:18. > :00:21.other end, has light touch review, where the judges are looking more at

:00:22. > :00:27.process, we have argued that the review should be towards the upper

:00:28. > :00:32.end, the strict scrutiny, and I am pleased that the Government has this

:00:33. > :00:37.morning laid a hand-written amendment setting out a test for the

:00:38. > :00:42.judicial commissioners, which makes it clear that the review will be

:00:43. > :00:46.upper end stricter review, the closest scrutiny we have been argue

:00:47. > :00:50.fog for and by reference back to the privacy clause and I will try and

:00:51. > :00:53.make good that link when it get to it in due course. This is a

:00:54. > :01:01.constructive move by the Government to meet my concern that review must

:01:02. > :01:07.be real and meaningful review, not long arm, so this is a significant

:01:08. > :01:10.manuscript change. I am grateful for giving way again, he has drawn

:01:11. > :01:14.attention to the amendment the Government tabled this morning. It

:01:15. > :01:20.did so as he described to deal with the point raced in committee and by

:01:21. > :01:23.others, that the judicial review test might be interpreted in

:01:24. > :01:28.different ways by different commissioner, this is a tighter

:01:29. > :01:31.definition of their role, strengthens the double lock and is

:01:32. > :01:35.very much in response to the critique from his side of the House,

:01:36. > :01:42.and our, that this new process needs to be as well defined as possible.

:01:43. > :01:47.Well I am grateful for that intervention, that is what we were

:01:48. > :01:52.pressing for. There are differences, have been differences of approach to

:01:53. > :01:55.the test for judicial commissioners, on the one hand, colleagues

:01:56. > :01:59.throughout the House have made a powerful argument that the judicial

:02:00. > :02:07.commissioners should retake the decision, on the other hand, others

:02:08. > :02:13.have argued it should be review. This strikes a third route, which is

:02:14. > :02:21.to apply a review test, but to confine it to the stricter end of

:02:22. > :02:25.the judicial review principle, and that, as members of the House know,

:02:26. > :02:31.I have been lawyer for many years and done many public law case, as

:02:32. > :02:35.others have done in the House and the difference between strict

:02:36. > :02:40.scrutiny and long arm judicial review is very real and makes a

:02:41. > :02:47.material difference, and that is why the manuscript amendment is high her

:02:48. > :02:53.significant. -- highly. Grateful. It has been a pleasure with, working

:02:54. > :02:57.with him on this ill B he, like me, as a lawyer, will have advised

:02:58. > :03:01.clients feebly on judicial review, he will no doubt agree it looks to

:03:02. > :03:06.the reasons given for a decision there is no duty on the Secretary of

:03:07. > :03:10.State to give reasons for her decision whether to grant a warrant.

:03:11. > :03:15.How can there be judicial review where there are no reasons given? I

:03:16. > :03:20.am grateful. She has raised that in bill committee. It is an important

:03:21. > :03:25.point, normally when decisions are subject to judicial review there are

:03:26. > :03:29.reasons for the decision, is what is envisaged is that the decision etc

:03:30. > :03:31.plus material looked at by the Secretary of State will be put

:03:32. > :03:35.before the judicial commissioner. There won't be reasons and that

:03:36. > :03:42.makes the task more difficult. What is important, I think, about the

:03:43. > :03:46.test that has now been set out in the manuscript amendment, is that

:03:47. > :03:50.the judicial commissioner must ensure that the duties under the

:03:51. > :03:54.privacy clause are complied with, and that means that he or she will

:03:55. > :04:00.have to look at that underlying material. It may well be be a point

:04:01. > :04:04.to say if there are reasons it will be an easiest task but I don't think

:04:05. > :04:08.it can be performed without reasons and the Commissioner may say we need

:04:09. > :04:17.further help on particular issue, I will give way. He made in passing, a

:04:18. > :04:22.sayient point, the Commissioner will receive the same information that

:04:23. > :04:27.the Secretary of State receives, in reviewing what has happened. And the

:04:28. > :04:30.review will not merely be review of process, there was a fear at some

:04:31. > :04:34.point this might be a review of process, so the reviewer would say,

:04:35. > :04:39.yes, the Secretary of State has gone through the right steps, rather than

:04:40. > :04:43.looking at the arguments that she had considered not just the process.

:04:44. > :04:49.So I think those are the two points I make in relation to what the hob

:04:50. > :04:53.are able lady said and my honourable friend said. I may be giving away

:04:54. > :04:56.straightaway and I am happy to do so. I than the right honourable

:04:57. > :05:01.gentleman, one of the reasons behind this concern, there were two reason,

:05:02. > :05:05.one was that the this house should seek certainty in the law, rather

:05:06. > :05:09.than any notion it would alter, depending on which judge does it. I

:05:10. > :05:14.mean my right honourable friend is one of those who wants to see

:05:15. > :05:20.certainty in the law and less law making by judge, but the second

:05:21. > :05:23.reason is this, that the Home Secretary does 2,500 of these

:05:24. > :05:28.warrants roughly in round numbers a year. Ten a day. The ability to do

:05:29. > :05:32.them is dependent to a large extent on the data presented and the time

:05:33. > :05:36.available. And the reason those of us who wanted to check that, to have

:05:37. > :05:41.a reasons based judgment was a feeling that an hour a day or two on

:05:42. > :05:44.a given warrant was simply not enough, and that, I don't know at

:05:45. > :05:52.this point whether this meets that requirement or not. That is the test

:05:53. > :05:57.that is is in my mind. I. Great. The certainty point is really important

:05:58. > :06:02.It is a point Lord Judge made when he spoke to the bill committee. When

:06:03. > :06:06.I asked about the reference to judicial review principles he was

:06:07. > :06:12.concerned it wasn't clear enough for the judges. Now, with the new text

:06:13. > :06:18.in this manuscript, amendment, it is crystal clear to the judges they

:06:19. > :06:24.review the decision, according to principles but they must consider

:06:25. > :06:29.the matters referred to in sub section one, with sufficient, with a

:06:30. > :06:32.sufficient degree of care as to ensure that the judicial

:06:33. > :06:37.commissioner complies with the duties imposed by the section, so

:06:38. > :06:42.the test for the judges is crystal clear, look at necessity, look at

:06:43. > :06:46.proportionality, review the Home Secretary's decision with sufficient

:06:47. > :06:50.degree of care, to make sure that the judicial commissioner complies

:06:51. > :06:56.with the duties imposed by the general provision in relation to

:06:57. > :06:59.privacy, so that deals with the certainty point. So far as the

:07:00. > :07:04.reasons are concerned. I can't improve much on the answer I gave

:07:05. > :07:08.before. What is envisaged, I think, is there will be a number of

:07:09. > :07:11.judicial commissioners whose task will be to undertake this review, so

:07:12. > :07:14.they won't have the other constraints necessarily that the

:07:15. > :07:17.Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have. They take such time

:07:18. > :07:21.as they need to look at the material, obviously a lot of this

:07:22. > :07:24.will happen in real time, so there will be a time constraint in that

:07:25. > :07:30.sense. They will look at the material end apply this test. And as

:07:31. > :07:33.I say, they are not doing it alongside the other duties a

:07:34. > :07:37.Secretary of State would be, would have to carry out during the course

:07:38. > :07:43.of a day. So, because I have shared the concern expressed on this, but I

:07:44. > :07:48.am clear in my own mind that close scrutiny on judicial review

:07:49. > :07:52.principles is markedly different to unreasonable. Makes a real

:07:53. > :07:57.difference in real cases and so long as there is access to the material

:07:58. > :08:01.and clarity that the privacy provisions must be come played with,

:08:02. > :08:03.which means there are mandatory factors that the judicial

:08:04. > :08:09.commissioner must take into account, that makes a material difference,

:08:10. > :08:12.that is why I should indicate we are supporting this amendment, or will

:08:13. > :08:17.be supporting it later on today. I will give way. I am grateful to the

:08:18. > :08:20.honourable and learned gentleman, we debated this closely in committee.

:08:21. > :08:25.Can I thank him for the way in which he has approached this. With regard

:08:26. > :08:28.to the clarity position, it is now the position, is it not, that beyond

:08:29. > :08:32.any doubt this test will not depend on the personality of the

:08:33. > :08:37.Commissioner, it will depend on the facts before them. They have a very

:08:38. > :08:40.clear basis on which to make their judgment, looking at the particular

:08:41. > :08:44.degree and seriousness of the case and then balancing in the right of

:08:45. > :08:50.privacy, with all the qualifications that both he and I and others know

:08:51. > :08:56.exist in Article 8. I am grateful for that, and just to

:08:57. > :09:02.illustrate the point on why I have, we have been satisfied by this.

:09:03. > :09:05.Under the general privacy clause and I have a tighter version of clause

:09:06. > :09:09.21, for this purpose it doesn't matter, one of the general duties is

:09:10. > :09:14.to have regard to whether what is sought to be achieved by the

:09:15. > :09:17.warrant, authorisation or notice could be achieved by other mean, so

:09:18. > :09:21.under this test, a judicial commissioner will have access the

:09:22. > :09:25.material, obviously know the decision of the Secretary of State,

:09:26. > :09:30.and will have to ask himself or herself that question. That is a

:09:31. > :09:33.long way from simply asking the question whether a decision is so

:09:34. > :09:39.unreasonable that no reasonable Secretary of State could have taken

:09:40. > :09:44.it, and that is why I think this amendment does ring-fence or make

:09:45. > :09:45.clear that it's close scrutiny review rather than long arm review

:09:46. > :09:57.that is dealt with here. I just want to deal with the other

:09:58. > :10:01.two issues on which Labour Party demands. The first is better

:10:02. > :10:04.protection for sensitive professions, which is coming up

:10:05. > :10:09.under a different group of amendment and there are amendments on all

:10:10. > :10:15.sides of the house including from the Government, not moved in

:10:16. > :10:19.relation to journalists and the protection -- who have moved in

:10:20. > :10:26.relation to journalists but not illegal privileged. Finally, on a

:10:27. > :10:29.Labour's demands. We demand that a higher threshold for retaining

:10:30. > :10:36.health records and put down in amendments which is now largely

:10:37. > :10:41.reflected in the new clause 14 and there has been constructive dialogue

:10:42. > :10:46.on that important issue. A number of members were concerned about health

:10:47. > :10:52.and mental health records being made available via the ball powers. Let

:10:53. > :11:00.me briefly deal with the privacy clause. -- Baulch powers. There are

:11:01. > :11:05.two versions of the privacy clause before the house today. The first is

:11:06. > :11:12.new clause five which the Government laid. The second is new clause 21

:11:13. > :11:20.which Labour has put forward. The essential difference between the two

:11:21. > :11:29.clauses is this, whereas the Government's privacy clause simply

:11:30. > :11:36.says the public authority in carrying out their duties must have

:11:37. > :11:40.regard to other matters as they apply any particular context, such

:11:41. > :11:47.as the human Right act. Our amendments, new clause 21, makes

:11:48. > :11:51.clear the Human Rights Act and the requirements of public law of

:11:52. > :11:54.general application in all decisions and it requires the public

:11:55. > :12:00.authority, the judicial commissioners, to give requirements

:12:01. > :12:06.of the Human Rights Act. It might be stating the obvious but this bill

:12:07. > :12:10.has on its face, a statement from the Home Secretary saying it

:12:11. > :12:15.complies with the Human Rights Act section 19 and therefore it must be

:12:16. > :12:19.right. It must be right the duty is to give effect to the Human Rights

:12:20. > :12:23.Act and not simply to have regard to it. That is the only material

:12:24. > :12:29.difference between the two clauses and I do ask members to support new

:12:30. > :12:33.clause 21 rather than number five because it makes clear those acts

:12:34. > :12:42.and powers and duties are important and apply. I will give way first. I

:12:43. > :12:50.note the comment about the difference between the two clauses.

:12:51. > :12:55.The Government is not blind us to the argument he makes about ensuring

:12:56. > :13:02.the connection to human right is a secure one. Clearly the bill

:13:03. > :13:08.continues to enjoy scrutiny over the coming weeks and months. He needs to

:13:09. > :13:15.know in the way he describes earlier, we are always happy to

:13:16. > :13:20.listen and learn and I hope that tonight we can just establish an

:13:21. > :13:25.overarching privacy clause is essential and continue to have a

:13:26. > :13:34.discussion about some of the finer details. I am grateful for that

:13:35. > :13:38.indication. I shall take other interventions. Section six of the

:13:39. > :13:43.Human Rights Act requires public authorities do not regard to the

:13:44. > :13:46.human Right act in any event and I wonder what advantage the honourable

:13:47. > :13:54.member thinks placing the Human Rights Act in the face of the bill

:13:55. > :13:56.will have? I am grateful for the intervention because it brings us

:13:57. > :14:01.back to the point of the privacy clause, something we debated in the

:14:02. > :14:07.Bill committee and elsewhere. I think it is important for three

:14:08. > :14:09.reasons. The first is it is a statement of principle about the

:14:10. > :14:15.important interests and duties of the run through the act and it is

:14:16. > :14:19.important to have that statement of principle. Avoid inconsistency and

:14:20. > :14:24.the reminds decision-makers of the importance of taking privacy and

:14:25. > :14:29.integrity of data into account the human rates in all cases. It is a

:14:30. > :14:34.matter of principle. I order my three reasons and exit

:14:35. > :14:38.interventions. The second important reason is because of practical

:14:39. > :14:42.considerations. I worked with the police on Northern Ireland five

:14:43. > :14:46.years in relation to their compliance with the Human Rights Act

:14:47. > :14:49.and actually having structures and decision making written into

:14:50. > :14:53.everything they do to help them reach better decisions and ensure

:14:54. > :14:57.that is the same for other public authorities. Never underestimate the

:14:58. > :15:00.practical application if clause like that has in real-time or people

:15:01. > :15:08.trying to do their job and public authorities. The thought is it --

:15:09. > :15:11.the third is it gives teeth to the test the traditional commission was

:15:12. > :15:18.applied because now that you link between the privacy clause and the

:15:19. > :15:25.they apply. I will give way. I forgot in which order I am giving

:15:26. > :15:31.way. I thank them for his patience. Frankly, I favour his version. He

:15:32. > :15:37.was talking about the protection of trade unionists and of course he is

:15:38. > :15:41.right, historically there have been some what one may call foolish

:15:42. > :15:48.interferences and trade union action by the agencies 20 years ago and so

:15:49. > :15:52.on. Today one of the problems is its appearance in what might be thought

:15:53. > :15:59.of as legitimate demonstrations, environmental groups and so on which

:16:00. > :16:02.have become public scandals. How can be generalised map and it seems to

:16:03. > :16:07.me this clause is the right way to protect the rights of legitimate

:16:08. > :16:13.democratic activity from improper intervention. It is the historic

:16:14. > :16:19.trade union cases cause concern but this is also intended as a future

:16:20. > :16:22.proofing exercise to ensure whatever human right is an issue there is a

:16:23. > :16:27.provision that requires decision-makers to take into account

:16:28. > :16:35.the human rights convention involved. I will of course give way.

:16:36. > :16:40.He will have seen the intelligence and security committee tables a very

:16:41. > :16:44.short clause saying that act sets out the extent to which certain

:16:45. > :16:47.investigatory Powers may be used to interfere with the privacy of an

:16:48. > :16:52.individual and felt that particularly linked to either the

:16:53. > :16:55.honourable gentleman's Amendment or the Government's Amendment and sent

:16:56. > :17:02.out a clear general statement about the states requirements to protect

:17:03. > :17:07.privacy and I just wondered if he had a view on that because it seems

:17:08. > :17:10.to me it added something without in any way undermining the ability they

:17:11. > :17:18.wrap it in the build to do was necessarily interferences that it

:17:19. > :17:29.might require. I think the first of those is amendment 14 and what that

:17:30. > :17:34.makes clear is these investigatory Powers to affect an individual's

:17:35. > :17:40.privacy. We must be clear that the right to privacy is very important.

:17:41. > :17:45.It is fundamental but not absolute and what this bill does is to give

:17:46. > :17:51.the stately power to interfere with privacy, that is what it is about.

:17:52. > :17:56.The question then becomes, is there a case for the interference in the

:17:57. > :18:00.first place and if there is it that particular interference necessary

:18:01. > :18:03.and proportionate? It is for the Minister to respond to the

:18:04. > :18:06.particular amendment but it is the duty of all of us to remind

:18:07. > :18:11.ourselves that is about interference with privacy and that is why the

:18:12. > :18:16.safeguards are so important. Let me deal, I was just developing a point

:18:17. > :18:21.and then one more point and I shall vanish. The third reason the

:18:22. > :18:25.overarching privacy clause is important is it is now linked to the

:18:26. > :18:31.test for judicial review. It has real application every day when one

:18:32. > :18:38.of the warrant is applied for. Let me down certain finally to a few

:18:39. > :18:41.words on the appointment of judicial commissioners. This is an issue

:18:42. > :18:49.cropped up the number of times but at the moment in clause 194 it is

:18:50. > :18:53.for the Prime Minister to appoint the investigatory Powers

:18:54. > :18:56.Commissioner and such other judicial commissioners as he considers

:18:57. > :18:59.necessary for carrying out functions of the judicial commissioners.

:19:00. > :19:05.Before doing that he must consult the Lord chief justice of England

:19:06. > :19:13.and Wales, Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Chief Justice of

:19:14. > :19:17.Scotland's. What amendment we have tables seeks to achieve is a Prime

:19:18. > :19:22.Minister acts on the recommendation of the Lord chief justice of England

:19:23. > :19:29.and Wales in relation to judicial commissioners appointed in England

:19:30. > :19:32.and Wales and like for the Board President -- Lord President and

:19:33. > :19:38.Scotland and Chief Justice in Scotland. Traditional commission was

:19:39. > :19:41.appointed probables already well experienced either serving or

:19:42. > :19:47.retired and therefore they have obviously passed the qualifications

:19:48. > :19:52.to be judges appropriately skilled and qualified to carry out these

:19:53. > :19:56.decisions. The exercise in appointing a judicial commission is,

:19:57. > :19:59.in truth, an exercise in deploying from the pool of available judges

:20:00. > :20:05.those that will set us judicial commissioners. That is an important

:20:06. > :20:08.consideration and our amendment is booked out on the basis it is not

:20:09. > :20:14.appropriate for the Prime Minister to decide that sort of deployment.

:20:15. > :20:18.He does not actually have the skills nor experience nor should it be a

:20:19. > :20:22.political appointment. It is rich done by the Lord Chief Justice of

:20:23. > :20:28.England and Wales and our amendment would ensure the Lord Chief Justice

:20:29. > :20:31.in England and Wales, Board President in Scotland and Lord chief

:20:32. > :20:35.and northern Ireland make a recommendation that binds the Prime

:20:36. > :20:39.the Prime Minister but this is the the Prime Minister but this is the

:20:40. > :20:42.right way to carry out the sort of appointment for this important

:20:43. > :20:49.judicial role, rather than the version in bill currently.

:20:50. > :20:57.I am grateful to my honourable friend. I am struggling to

:20:58. > :21:02.understand why, if the recommendation should be a judicial

:21:03. > :21:05.one, and as I think I understood him say, the Prime Minister would not

:21:06. > :21:11.have the ability to overturn that then what would be deployed

:21:12. > :21:18.involving the Prime Minister all? -- what would be the point? The answer

:21:19. > :21:24.is twofold. Firstly I should say if it is on the recommendation of the

:21:25. > :21:28.Lord chief etc it would not be up to the Prime Minister to follow that.

:21:29. > :21:33.At the moment under clause 194 at the Lord chief in England and Wales

:21:34. > :21:38.was consulted and made his or her views clear I think it would be

:21:39. > :21:45.highly unlikely any Prime Minister Woods act in a way contrary to that

:21:46. > :21:50.advice from the most senior judge -- would act in a contrary way to that

:21:51. > :21:56.advice. There is the accountability question of making the appointment

:21:57. > :22:03.and also the point that the Lord chief as pointed out that he or she

:22:04. > :22:07.are not in the business of making judicial appointments as such and

:22:08. > :22:11.therefore are reluctant to have that power. The Minister made from that

:22:12. > :22:17.because he has been having those discussions, not me. The Lord chief

:22:18. > :22:23.and others are happy to help with the deployment exercise but not in

:22:24. > :22:28.the business of appointing judges. The point is this, the Prime

:22:29. > :22:32.Minister is properly responsible for the protection of national security

:22:33. > :22:36.and as he said, when the judge give evidence to the joint committee he

:22:37. > :22:42.made exactly the point the honourable gentleman has made. Just

:22:43. > :22:44.to affirm the other arguments he advanced, the Prime Minister would

:22:45. > :22:50.of course seek advice on these matters in the way he describes and

:22:51. > :22:55.I share his view that it is highly unlikely the Prime Minister would

:22:56. > :22:59.take a contrary decision. I am grateful for that indication

:23:00. > :23:04.and I have taken longer than anticipated. There are important

:23:05. > :23:09.points made in the interventions. The house will be pleased to know I

:23:10. > :23:17.have finished at least on those amendments. Thank you. Dominic

:23:18. > :23:22.Grieve. It is a pleasure to take part in

:23:23. > :23:25.this debate and this will be noted that the intelligence and securing

:23:26. > :23:28.the... Security committee tabled a number of amendments for the house's

:23:29. > :23:34.consideration in relation to this part of the bill. I wanted briefly

:23:35. > :23:39.run through those for the house and explain the committee's collective

:23:40. > :23:44.position. I start by commenting on the debate we have just been having

:23:45. > :23:50.in respect of privacy. It seems to me it is absolutely central to the

:23:51. > :23:55.duty of this house that we should ensure the principle of the right to

:23:56. > :23:59.privacy against the state is maintained except if there is a good

:24:00. > :24:06.and sufficient reason why it should not happen. In that context it is

:24:07. > :24:12.extremely important that the bill should be clear about the rights to

:24:13. > :24:15.privacy. I very much welcome the new clause five and indeed the

:24:16. > :24:21.difference between clause five and the amendments tabled by the

:24:22. > :24:28.honourable gentleman, if in reality very slender indeed, as he himself,

:24:29. > :24:33.I see, nods and technologies. That said, sometimes words do matter --

:24:34. > :24:38.nods and knowledges. The clear a statement can be the better and I

:24:39. > :24:45.hope my right friends on the Treasury bench will take that into

:24:46. > :24:49.account. We had suggested before that legislation was introduced that

:24:50. > :24:53.privacy protection should form the backbone of the legislation. I vowed

:24:54. > :24:57.that the exceptional powers of inclusion should then be built. We

:24:58. > :25:01.rather than regret that was not present when the bill was first

:25:02. > :25:06.introduced but we have now made a great deal of progress.

:25:07. > :25:14.It was that that context we tabled amendment 14 which as I raise a

:25:15. > :25:20.moment in my intervention makes clear that this is the extent to

:25:21. > :25:23.which it sets out, this bill sets out the extent to which

:25:24. > :25:30.investigatory powers maybe used to interfere with privacy. It is

:25:31. > :25:33.complementary and compatible with either the Government's amend or

:25:34. > :25:36.that of the honourable gentleman. I hope that the Government will

:25:37. > :25:39.consider whether such a statement on the face of the bill, along with the

:25:40. > :25:45.other changes which may take place, might not be of value, in providing

:25:46. > :25:50.public reassurance as to the what the House intends, and the powers we

:25:51. > :25:56.intend to give to Government and the agencies as a result. Can I then

:25:57. > :26:01.turn to new clause four. Which I put four ward at this stage as a probing

:26:02. > :26:04.amendment but which I hope the Government will take carefully into

:26:05. > :26:10.consideration. I intervened a short time ago on the

:26:11. > :26:14.minister, because I wanted to highlight the extent to which

:26:15. > :26:20.penalties for misuse of the powers which we are providing under this

:26:21. > :26:26.legislation remain entirely scattered within the legislation

:26:27. > :26:31.itself, or indeed in some cases have to be found elsewhere. Here are

:26:32. > :26:35.powers that we are providing, which capable of reviling the most

:26:36. > :26:39.sensible and detailed information about a person's private life and so

:26:40. > :26:45.their misuse, if it were to occur, must be a very serious matter. I for

:26:46. > :26:48.my own role as chairman of the intelligence security committee have

:26:49. > :26:52.great confidence in the ethical standards of the agencies but that

:26:53. > :26:57.is not say that season an issue we can disregard, and nor do I think it

:26:58. > :27:03.is adequate to simply say that in many cases if it is of a seenial

:27:04. > :27:05.character it should be matter of dismissal, even though that would be

:27:06. > :27:09.a substantial sanction for the individual concerned. I think

:27:10. > :27:13.Parliament is entitled to accept that the powers will not be misused

:27:14. > :27:19.and that there is adequate punishment if it is. And in those

:27:20. > :27:26.circumstances it is worth bearing in mind that some of the misuses might

:27:27. > :27:29.fall within the computer misusable, but in many cases the offences are

:27:30. > :27:35.not comprehensive, they are not clear, and in some cases, they

:27:36. > :27:39.appear peer to be inadequate. Punishable only under the Data

:27:40. > :27:42.Protection Act or under the common law offence of misconduct in public

:27:43. > :27:46.office, which as many of those who are lawyers in this House will no

:27:47. > :27:50.know is an offence which is hard to prosecute and in any event appears

:27:51. > :27:55.to be inadequate to meet much of the mischief to which it is aimed.

:27:56. > :28:00.So I would therefore, be grateful and I reeat my question to the

:28:01. > :28:05.minister, if as quickly as possible, he could provide through his

:28:06. > :28:09.officials a run down of all the offences which could be committed

:28:10. > :28:12.under the misuse under this bill, so the House could have a clear

:28:13. > :28:15.understanding of what is covered by what offence, which appears in the

:28:16. > :28:19.bill, and which in fact is only covered by misconduct in public

:28:20. > :28:27.office, or the Data Protection Act. Give way to the minister. That is a

:28:28. > :28:32.good additional point. He first called I think, perfectly properly

:28:33. > :28:38.and sensibly, he is making a second point which seems to be telling,

:28:39. > :28:41.which is to ask how this bill relates to other legislation,

:28:42. > :28:46.existing legislation, which deals with these all related matter, it

:28:47. > :28:50.seems to be a further note to the House during the message of the

:28:51. > :28:55.legislation, dealing with precisely that second point, and I commit to

:28:56. > :28:59.that an addition, I will draw the House's attention and he will do to

:29:00. > :29:03.the first part of the bill that deals with offences but I accept

:29:04. > :29:07.that doesn't answer the question. Can I help the minister a Tendai

:29:08. > :29:11.Biti. He has asked for time at the end, in which to come over a lot of

:29:12. > :29:16.points but what we are bothered about is we are going to eat into

:29:17. > :29:21.that time because there were so many speaker, if we could be quick it

:29:22. > :29:25.would help. I am grateful to the minister for his response on that

:29:26. > :29:29.and I look forward to such a review. In it could take place before the

:29:30. > :29:32.passage of the bill. It is important the House should have this in mind

:29:33. > :29:41.if it wants to take difference steps in relation to this. Can I then turn

:29:42. > :29:48.to new clause two, and with it amendment 18, which are an important

:29:49. > :29:52.component of the concerns of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

:29:53. > :29:56.The bill contains some very welcome reforms to the Commissioners who

:29:57. > :30:02.currently responsible for the audit of authorisation and warrants that

:30:03. > :30:08.govern the intrusive powers I am sure all will agree the new judicial

:30:09. > :30:13.commissioner will be critical for... Are being used appropriately.

:30:14. > :30:18.However, what he is currently missing, is a power to refer cases

:30:19. > :30:25.to the Commissioners by the Intelligence and Security Committee.

:30:26. > :30:27.The ISC considering issues and policy, including operations of

:30:28. > :30:32.significant national interest, but that is quite a different role the

:30:33. > :30:38.Commissioners who audit specific authorisation and warrants. But, the

:30:39. > :30:42.committee does see our roles at complementary and at times our own

:30:43. > :30:49.work will throw up concerns about issues which we ourselves are not in

:30:50. > :30:53.a position to investigate. So, it is appropriate that matters arising

:30:54. > :30:56.from a strategic or high level inquiry conducted on behalf of

:30:57. > :31:00.Parliament ought, I suggest, to be to be capable of being referred to

:31:01. > :31:06.the Commissioner for more detailed audit. But up-to-date, the informal

:31:07. > :31:11.process, I have to tell the House, has not been working well. I have

:31:12. > :31:14.mentioned previously, that the ISC discovered that interception of

:31:15. > :31:20.communications commissioner didn't know how many selection rules GCHQ

:31:21. > :31:23.applied to its bulk intercept material. In such circumstances, the

:31:24. > :31:28.ISC should be able to refer that matter to the Commissioner, to

:31:29. > :31:32.ensure that he does investigate the selection rules and provides

:31:33. > :31:36.thorough oversight. And just to provide a further example, the ISC

:31:37. > :31:42.identified in its report on the killing of Fusilier league regular

:31:43. > :31:47.by, a number of concerns in relation to the involvement of the

:31:48. > :31:55.intelligence services prior to the events in respect of particularly

:31:56. > :31:58.one of the killer. -- Lee Rigby. However, despite numerous

:31:59. > :32:02.invitations to discuss the matter, the Prime Minister referred the

:32:03. > :32:05.matter to the Commissioner, but despite numerous reputations to the

:32:06. > :32:11.Commissioner, for an opportunity for the committee to raise its concerns

:32:12. > :32:15.directly with the Commissioner, that opportunity has nerve been taken up,

:32:16. > :32:22.and nor indeed has there been any response of any kind, to the

:32:23. > :32:25.committee, to the committee's reputation, I want to emphasise the

:32:26. > :32:27.Commissioner is independent, -- representation. There is no

:32:28. > :32:33.suggestion on the part of the committee we should be telling the

:32:34. > :32:35.Commissioner what to do, but if in fact informal channels of

:32:36. > :32:40.communication don't seem to be working very well. It seems to us

:32:41. > :32:45.that the greater cooperation that is required to make this and every

:32:46. > :32:48.other aspect of our scrutiny in the Commissioner's scrutiny work better,

:32:49. > :32:53.it would be very helpful if there were to be a clear mechanism by

:32:54. > :32:56.which the Commissioner could receive a reference, and be required to

:32:57. > :33:02.acknowledge it. And for that reason, that is why we have tabled new

:33:03. > :33:06.clause 2. It has been suggested to us, that this might be in some way

:33:07. > :33:09.improper because the Commissioner has a judicial function. But I have

:33:10. > :33:13.to say although the Commissioner is a person who has to have held

:33:14. > :33:17.judicial office, being a commissioner is not a judicial

:33:18. > :33:23.function, and I, the life of me cannot see why therefore this

:33:24. > :33:26.requirement cannot be placed on him. I give way to my right honourable

:33:27. > :33:30.friend. Grateful. I have listened carefully to what he said about

:33:31. > :33:35.amendment 18 which the Government is prepared to accept. With regard to

:33:36. > :33:40.the first part of the amendment to which he speak, the new clause two,

:33:41. > :33:44.the Government is prepared in principle to accept referral,

:33:45. > :33:48.however, I would like to address in greater detail in my closing remark,

:33:49. > :33:51.the concerns I have about reporting, but I am sure he will listen

:33:52. > :33:57.carefully to what I have to say in due course.

:33:58. > :33:59.Well, I will listen very, I will listen kerb carefully to what my

:34:00. > :34:03.right honourable friend has to say and on that basis I should make

:34:04. > :34:07.clear I place this before the House as a probing amendment, if he can

:34:08. > :34:12.provide me with reassurance we will leave it there. In the way we have

:34:13. > :34:16.worded this, we did not intend to put any constraint on the

:34:17. > :34:19.Commissioner whatsoever, about the conclusions he came to, indeed I

:34:20. > :34:24.could see the Commissioner writing back saying I have taken the

:34:25. > :34:28.preliminary look but I disagree and I don't think this worthy of my

:34:29. > :34:31.investigating it. That is, I suppose the lowest level of response that

:34:32. > :34:36.the committee would be hoping to get from the Commissioner. And on that

:34:37. > :34:39.basis I fine it difficult to see that is putting some improper

:34:40. > :34:44.pressure on the Commissioner to provide a response. I am grateful to

:34:45. > :34:48.what he said about amendment 18, and gratefully accept it. This does mean

:34:49. > :34:51.we can go to the Prime Minister and ask him in certain circumstances to

:34:52. > :34:54.give a direction, if I may just say to my right honourable friend, the

:34:55. > :34:58.fact that the Prime Minister is able to give a direction to the

:34:59. > :35:02.Commissioner to carry out an investigation, it seems to me to

:35:03. > :35:07.emphasise that our mere request to him that he might consider and

:35:08. > :35:10.acknowledge to us a request to investigate something, can hardly be

:35:11. > :35:14.improper if the leading member of the check tiff is in a position to

:35:15. > :35:20.do. -- executive. Can I turn, being as brief as I can, because I am

:35:21. > :35:28.conscious of others wishing to speak, to the oversight of

:35:29. > :35:34.safeguards relating to bulk powers, contained in amendment 8 the bill.

:35:35. > :35:43.MrDeputy Speaker, the position in respect of this is that when we

:35:44. > :35:47.reported top draft bill, we recommended that bulk equipment be

:35:48. > :35:53.removed entirely. We said not been provided with sufficiently

:35:54. > :35:56.compelling evidence as to why the agencies require equipment

:35:57. > :36:01.interference warrants given how broadly warrants could be drawn

:36:02. > :36:04.quickly. In sons to that recommendation, the Government most

:36:05. > :36:08.helpfully provided the committee with further very extensive and

:36:09. > :36:13.classified evidence which we scrutinised in great detail.

:36:14. > :36:18.After carefully considering that, we concluded that there were

:36:19. > :36:24.circumstances one example is target discovery, which would require a

:36:25. > :36:30.bulk equipment interference warrant and count be covered by another

:36:31. > :36:36.warrant. But central to our willingness to accept that change,

:36:37. > :36:41.is the need for underlying safeguards, policies procedures and

:36:42. > :36:44.access controls being in place. The committee in the last Parliament

:36:45. > :36:48.examined at great lent the underlying safeguards in place for

:36:49. > :36:53.interception in its inquiry on privacy and security, and it was

:36:54. > :36:57.these that convinced the committee that interception was properly

:36:58. > :37:03.controlled. The same principle we are told is going to apply to

:37:04. > :37:08.equipment interference, we sought assurances from the Government the

:37:09. > :37:13.same safeguards policies, procedures and access controls that apply to

:37:14. > :37:19.THAT that will also be applied to interference, we have received those

:37:20. > :37:22.assurances. Nevertheless, given how critical the underlying safeguards

:37:23. > :37:27.are, we regard it as essential that the bill places an obligation on the

:37:28. > :37:30.Commissioner to in reviewing matters under the bill have particular

:37:31. > :37:35.regard for the privacy safeguards, the reason this must be clearly

:37:36. > :37:40.stated on the face of the bill is that the committee discovered in its

:37:41. > :37:43.previous inquiry the current interception of communications

:37:44. > :37:50.commissioner did not know the detail. It can't just be taken for

:37:51. > :37:57.granted, there must be a specific obligation in statute. I am grateful

:37:58. > :38:00.to him. I wonder whether if the new clause in erelation to privacy is

:38:01. > :38:04.accepted, where by the public authority must have regard to

:38:05. > :38:10.whether the what is sought to be achieved by the warrant could be

:38:11. > :38:13.reasonably achieved by less intrusive mean, that affects this

:38:14. > :38:18.point, because obviously they will have to take onboard the least

:38:19. > :38:22.intruetive method possible. -- intrusive. I think my right

:38:23. > :38:27.honourable friend makes a good point. Equally I have a certain

:38:28. > :38:32.underlying confidence the amendment we are seeking may commend itself to

:38:33. > :38:35.the government benches and on that basis, I don't intend to labour the

:38:36. > :38:42.point any further. I felt it was important to set it out because it

:38:43. > :38:46.marked a significant shift in the committee's approach to this

:38:47. > :38:50.legislation. I wanted the House to understand why that change had come

:38:51. > :38:55.about when we had had the extra classified briefings which we were

:38:56. > :38:59.given, and why, therefore, we come to the conclusion we had, that we

:39:00. > :39:02.should accept this principle, but that the safeguards are essential. I

:39:03. > :39:07.gave way to my right honourable friend. I am grateful. I haven't

:39:08. > :39:12.read the individual amendments, I am flying blind somewhat here, but

:39:13. > :39:15.there is no doubt thaw this power is the most intrusive power in the

:39:16. > :39:19.Government's armoury, one of the problems has been as he pointed out

:39:20. > :39:24.the example he gave, that the sheer volume of work that goes on means

:39:25. > :39:30.that the scrutiny and oversight can sometimes slip, and does his

:39:31. > :39:37.amendment require the investigation of every single bulk intervention or

:39:38. > :39:41.not? What the amendment requires is that the Commissioner must in

:39:42. > :39:45.particular keep under review the operation of safeguards to protect

:39:46. > :39:51.privacy, so it is crystal clear, as a result of this in our view, that I

:39:52. > :39:56.see the minister about to intervene on me, that this will meet the need

:39:57. > :40:01.that we have, and as I say, the committee has been satisfied in the

:40:02. > :40:05.case of interception that the rules that are in place are adequate to

:40:06. > :40:10.provide those safeguards. So as long as we are applying to equipment

:40:11. > :40:15.interference, identical standards, so far as the committee is concerned

:40:16. > :40:17.of the intelligence security committee we think it can be made to

:40:18. > :40:30.operate properly. If he will be a because of the

:40:31. > :40:35.arguments made by others about the powers we have agreed to this

:40:36. > :40:42.further independent review. That the review will look at the

:40:43. > :40:47.range of powers and will apply its assessments and necessity across

:40:48. > :40:50.that range. I want to give him a additional assurance.

:40:51. > :40:56.Clearly the more targeted a power can be the better. That was one of

:40:57. > :41:00.the reasons why we were considering this. We expressed a concern about

:41:01. > :41:05.whether in fact in the case of equipment and surveillance the bulk

:41:06. > :41:12.power was required but the Government did make and classified

:41:13. > :41:19.evidence, a compelling case by relying on the thematic powers or

:41:20. > :41:23.targeted powers whilst likely to be insufficient and unsatisfactory and

:41:24. > :41:26.we acknowledge that in having changed our position. That makes it

:41:27. > :41:32.all the more important the safeguards are properly in place.

:41:33. > :41:36.With that, those were the key amendments to this group about which

:41:37. > :41:38.I wanted to bring before the house and can I simply reiterates my

:41:39. > :41:43.earlier comments that the Government has really cooperated and moved very

:41:44. > :41:48.much in relation to this legislation and to respond positively, as I will

:41:49. > :41:58.illustrate as we come on further amendments.

:41:59. > :42:05.I am unashamedly moving a lot of amendments to this bill including

:42:06. > :42:09.part it and the SNP will also be supporting amendments launched by

:42:10. > :42:15.others. I would like to pay tribute to the honourable and learned member

:42:16. > :42:19.for St Pancras where I work very closely with on the Bill committee.

:42:20. > :42:22.Although there are some areas of divergence between Labour and the

:42:23. > :42:26.SNP on the spill it was a pleasure to work closely with them and I hope

:42:27. > :42:34.in future there will be other occasions where we can work together

:42:35. > :42:39.in a harmonious fashion. On part one, I recognised the Government has

:42:40. > :42:43.made some significant concessions. I welcome the Government's attempt in

:42:44. > :42:48.new clause five to introduce an overarching privacy requirement.

:42:49. > :42:51.Their belated conversion to the central recommendation of the

:42:52. > :42:55.intelligence and security committee is a tribute to the arguments for

:42:56. > :43:02.opposition members in committee. I must say, I do prefer the Labour

:43:03. > :43:06.Party's amendments because it says regard must be had to the human

:43:07. > :43:10.Right act and I think for reasons other honourable members have

:43:11. > :43:15.covered, that is important. However, it is encouraging to see that in the

:43:16. > :43:18.Government's all amendments, they make reference to the Human Rights

:43:19. > :43:24.Act and it makes me hope they have retreated further than we might have

:43:25. > :43:28.hoped from the plans to repeal the act if they are introducing

:43:29. > :43:31.reference to its importance in this amendment. That might be one little

:43:32. > :43:38.bit of good news out of this exercise. I am also very happy to

:43:39. > :43:41.welcome the Government with new clause six and I thank the Minister

:43:42. > :43:48.for acknowledging that reflect an amendment put forward by myself and

:43:49. > :43:51.my honourable friend for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. It is a

:43:52. > :43:56.reasonably historic occasion to accept an amendment put forward by

:43:57. > :43:59.the SNP. I would like to mark it. I do wish they would look up more of

:44:00. > :44:06.my amendments but I fear that they won't. We are pleased the Government

:44:07. > :44:08.sought to respond to a number of concerns raised in the committee but

:44:09. > :44:14.I want to be clear that the Government will have to go a lot

:44:15. > :44:18.further for the SNP to contemplate giving this bill our support. As I

:44:19. > :44:21.said in my speech at the second reading that are aspects of the bill

:44:22. > :44:26.we would like to be able to support because they're necessary for law

:44:27. > :44:30.enforcement and reflect some power was already in force in Scotland and

:44:31. > :44:35.we also think it is a good idea to consolidate powers and have a

:44:36. > :44:40.moderately comprehensible. We remain concerned about the legality of some

:44:41. > :44:45.of the powers still in this bell and the fact the very significantly

:44:46. > :44:49.exceed what was authorised in other western democracies. For example,

:44:50. > :44:54.the retention of internet connection records and also we continue to have

:44:55. > :44:59.concerns about the bulk power is enabled by part six and seven. We

:45:00. > :45:03.are pleased to see the Government have conceded there should be a

:45:04. > :45:07.properly independent review of the bulk powers which was argued for by

:45:08. > :45:14.both Labour and the SNP on the committee. We have yet to see

:45:15. > :45:21.confirmation of the remit of that review and we wish to associate

:45:22. > :45:24.ourselves with what was said by the honourable member for St Pancras

:45:25. > :45:29.that this review must look at whether bulk powers are necessary,

:45:30. > :45:32.not if they are beneficial unnecessary but -- not whether they

:45:33. > :45:36.are useful but whether they unnecessary. We look forward to the

:45:37. > :45:40.correspondence between the Government and the Labour Party to

:45:41. > :45:46.see what is being proposed. My friends back in the member for

:45:47. > :45:52.Paisley and Renfrewshire North will address the, the member for Glasgow

:45:53. > :46:01.North will address the issue of bulk powers in more detail tomorrow.

:46:02. > :46:05.Mr Speaker, I lead for the SNP in the committee and be tabled numinous

:46:06. > :46:10.amendments to try and achieve the principle of suspicion base

:46:11. > :46:17.surveillance tool on throughout the bill and warrants being focused and

:46:18. > :46:21.specific. Also there should be robust and meaningful oversight.

:46:22. > :46:25.Nearly all the amendments we tabled happy opposed or ignored by the

:46:26. > :46:31.Government. That is why we cannot give the Bill our support at this

:46:32. > :46:35.stage. At the second reading, the right honourable member for

:46:36. > :46:39.Rushcliffe sought to mock me for making what he described as a

:46:40. > :46:42.combative and partisan speech in support of abstention and he

:46:43. > :46:46.expressed a degree of confidence in the shared consensus across that

:46:47. > :46:50.house about the principles we should be adopting. I am very much afraid

:46:51. > :46:53.that the experience of the Bill committee is showing his confidence

:46:54. > :47:00.and that shared consensus to be misplaced. The amendments the

:47:01. > :47:02.Government tabled for debate at a very partial response to the

:47:03. > :47:07.legitimate concerns we put forward in the committee. The Government

:47:08. > :47:11.should pay more than lip service to the importance of privacy and more

:47:12. > :47:18.than lip service to the principles of necessity and proportionality.

:47:19. > :47:22.I agree very much with what she's saying. Can I suggest there is one

:47:23. > :47:27.means by which the Government could demonstrate good faith here. In

:47:28. > :47:33.order to get to a vote on new clause 21, the Government will first have

:47:34. > :47:35.two votes down new clause five. If the Government is serious about

:47:36. > :47:41.listening to the house could they not withdraw their new clause five

:47:42. > :47:46.and allow us to have the vote on new clause 21?

:47:47. > :47:51.That is excellent suggestion and the Government should it carefully. I

:47:52. > :47:55.also mentioned in my speech at second reading the UN special

:47:56. > :48:00.reporter had expressed concern about provisions of this bill and in

:48:01. > :48:06.particular about the bulk powers and that is why it remains the position

:48:07. > :48:10.of the SNP but until such time as a case has been made for the necessity

:48:11. > :48:16.of bulk powers they should be removed from this bill. The purpose

:48:17. > :48:19.of the numinous amendments we are tabled, and an ignore apology for

:48:20. > :48:24.two people at numerous amendments because this is a very important

:48:25. > :48:29.bell, their purpose is to bring this bill into line with international

:48:30. > :48:33.human right norms and make it properly lawful. There is a risk

:48:34. > :48:39.that if this bill is passed in its current form it will be the subject

:48:40. > :48:43.of challenge. Many of the thread running through it with relation to

:48:44. > :48:48.the retention of data and bulk powers are already been the subject

:48:49. > :48:51.of successful challenges we are whipping outcome of those

:48:52. > :48:58.challenges. We must be capable of passing into law by was already

:48:59. > :49:07.questioned, in the galaxy of by the court in Strasbourg and Luxembourg.

:49:08. > :49:11.-- the legality of has been questioned by the court. If our

:49:12. > :49:14.amendments are not accepted and I know they will not be because we are

:49:15. > :49:19.already running out of time and simply have not had enough time to

:49:20. > :49:23.look at this bell. We have two days for the report stage but we have got

:49:24. > :49:28.very short periods of time to speak about these important part of the

:49:29. > :49:31.bill. I am on the makings of introductory remarks now and I will

:49:32. > :49:36.have to curtail what I say about part eight in the interest of other

:49:37. > :49:39.members getting the right to speak. Likewise, that will happen as big a

:49:40. > :49:47.3-part of the programme. I will give away. -- as we go through.

:49:48. > :49:51.I share her concern that maybe there is not enough time to consider this

:49:52. > :49:55.as thoroughly as we would like to do what I am a bit confused that if

:49:56. > :50:01.that is the case why did she not oppose the programme motion?

:50:02. > :50:06.Because I knew it was a pointless exercise and it would have eaten

:50:07. > :50:13.into the time we already have. It was a practical decision. I will

:50:14. > :50:19.give way. If I might say so, the committee

:50:20. > :50:24.stage finished a day early, white bitchy debate the bill for another

:50:25. > :50:28.day in committee? The committee will see I got more

:50:29. > :50:32.than my fair share of contributions and so I don't have any problem with

:50:33. > :50:38.that. I issue is the other members, people behind me and members there

:50:39. > :50:43.and sitting opposite will not get a chance to speak and we are not going

:50:44. > :50:48.to get the chance to vote on more of a handful of amendments. It is

:50:49. > :50:52.frankly ridiculous. Given the degree of concern expressed about this bill

:50:53. > :50:56.it is ridiculous but on the floor of the house we were only get to vote

:50:57. > :51:01.on maybe eight or nine amendments of what the next few days, out of the

:51:02. > :51:07.hundreds of tabled amendments. It is not with religious life and I am not

:51:08. > :51:14.ashamed to say that. We must look -- it is no way to legislate. I want to

:51:15. > :51:20.address some of the key amendments put forward by the SNP on part eight

:51:21. > :51:26.of the bill. The first one our amendments 465 and 46 to clause one

:51:27. > :51:30.94. Part eight of the bill deals with oversight and the Government

:51:31. > :51:34.said an earlier stage it wanted to create a world leading oversight

:51:35. > :51:41.body. It has failed to do that. What we are seeking to in our amendments

:51:42. > :51:43.is say, rather than have just an investigatory Powers Commissioner

:51:44. > :51:50.and judicial commissioners, there should a separate body known as the

:51:51. > :51:54.investigatory Powers commission. This is what was recommended by the

:51:55. > :52:01.Royal United services Institute in its review, the joint committee and

:52:02. > :52:06.David Anderson's investigatory Powers review. David Anderson QC

:52:07. > :52:09.said I should be a new independent surveillance intelligence

:52:10. > :52:13.commission. It is not a matter of what we call it, it is a matter of

:52:14. > :52:17.what it actually does in separating out the judicial and audit functions

:52:18. > :52:23.and then the other honourable members Lords amendment in relation

:52:24. > :52:28.to this. In the unlikely event we get the chance to vote on this the

:52:29. > :52:35.SNP will support them. In a written and oral evidence to the Bill

:52:36. > :52:38.committee we heard from the head of the interception of Communications

:52:39. > :52:42.Commissioner's opposite and she reminded us the judicial

:52:43. > :52:45.commissioners will only deal with around 2% of the applications

:52:46. > :52:50.falling within the limits of the oversight body and the remaining 90%

:52:51. > :52:56.will only be subject to post factor oversight. It is vital because vital

:52:57. > :53:02.oversight is independent and robust. If you create a separate commission

:53:03. > :53:05.as recommended by the bodies I mention that would help form a

:53:06. > :53:10.distinction between the approval and the post factor though that element

:53:11. > :53:16.and for the idea judicial commissioners might be marking their

:53:17. > :53:21.own homework. That is what Labour amendment 14662 do and we will

:53:22. > :53:29.support that. -- Labour amendment one 46. She spoke to a number of top

:53:30. > :53:32.oversight counterparts and the expressed surprise at the UK was

:53:33. > :53:40.going down the roads are putting what the approval and that elements

:53:41. > :53:44.into the same body. That is a crucial amendment, it might regard

:53:45. > :53:50.and I will push it if I possibly can. I would like to turn to the

:53:51. > :53:56.SNP's amendment 467 and 469 which deal with the appointment of the

:53:57. > :54:02.judicial commissioners. I listen to what the member for St Pancras said

:54:03. > :54:08.in his speech and I'm afraid the SNP don't fully think the Labour

:54:09. > :54:12.amendment goes far enough. Much has been made by the Government of the

:54:13. > :54:15.main safeguard being the role of judicial commissioners and the

:54:16. > :54:21.double lock and it is therefore vital we get the appointment process

:54:22. > :54:24.rights. I would suggest that like the Justices of the Supreme Court

:54:25. > :54:28.they should come from the jurisdictions and judicial pool

:54:29. > :54:31.across the UK, not just the English bench and the public must be

:54:32. > :54:34.confident they are selected on merit rather than because they can be

:54:35. > :54:42.trusted by Government to be conservative in the decision-making.

:54:43. > :54:46.What the SNP amendment propose is that as well as consulting with the

:54:47. > :54:50.Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and Lord President in

:54:51. > :54:54.Scotland, the amendment should be subject to recommendations made by

:54:55. > :54:57.the independent judicial appointment board in Scotland and the

:54:58. > :54:58.independent judicial appointments commission in England and Wales and

:54:59. > :55:08.Northern Ireland. A crucial principle there should be

:55:09. > :55:12.independent appointment of judge, I accept the judicial commissioner

:55:13. > :55:16.will come from a pool that has been through that independent process,

:55:17. > :55:20.but the point is, that if they are simply selected by the Prime

:55:21. > :55:23.Minister, on the recommendation of the chief justice or the Lord

:55:24. > :55:26.President, there could be a suspicion that they have been ter,

:55:27. > :55:29.on the recommendation of the chief justice or the Lord President, there

:55:30. > :55:32.could be a suspicion that they have been selected because they are "A

:55:33. > :55:34.safe pair of hands" or somebody who won't rock the boat rather than

:55:35. > :55:38.being the right person for the. The way to have proper independent

:55:39. > :55:47.appoint. Of persons is to put I through the independent board. The

:55:48. > :55:51.judicial commissioners is a big flaw in the Government's proposals today.

:55:52. > :55:54.In this idea that somehow the Prime Minister could simply just agree

:55:55. > :55:57.with what the, what has been suggested by the judicial

:55:58. > :56:02.commissioner, something that is concerning because he can disagree

:56:03. > :56:08.with what has been proposed. I am concerned about that. I do, yes. I

:56:09. > :56:12.think if the judicial commissioners have been selected by an independent

:56:13. > :56:15.board, the judicial appointment board in Scotland and in England and

:56:16. > :56:18.Wales and Northern Ireland, is not made up just of lawyer, there are

:56:19. > :56:23.lay people on it, and people from other walks of life. That is to give

:56:24. > :56:26.the public confidence in the independent appointment process of

:56:27. > :56:29.the judiciary and it very important that the public, that is our

:56:30. > :56:34.constituencies, who have concerns about how far the powers in this

:56:35. > :56:39.bill are going, have confidence this that the judicial commissioners who

:56:40. > :56:44.will be performing the, the oversight functions and enforcing

:56:45. > :56:47.the safeguards on this bill, that they are appointed independently

:56:48. > :56:54.rather than the right chap for the job being chosen and I choose my

:56:55. > :57:00.words advicedly. I am conscious of not eating up too

:57:01. > :57:04.much time, those are two crucial amendments I would like to put to a

:57:05. > :57:09.vote on part eight. There are others which others will be able to speak

:57:10. > :57:13.about such as post notification following surveillance and

:57:14. > :57:19.notification of errors but ill like to turn briefly to amendment 482

:57:20. > :57:23.which is designed to put it beyond doubt that disclosures are protected

:57:24. > :57:26.and a whistle-blower is protected from criminal prosecution. That

:57:27. > :57:38.particular amendment reflects a concern that we have that provisions

:57:39. > :57:41.in the bill may an advertly risk discouraging individuals from

:57:42. > :57:46.approaching the investigatory powers commissioner with concerns or --,

:57:47. > :57:51.and throughout the bill committee process we attempted to amend into

:57:52. > :57:53.the bill a public interest defence for whistle-blower, regrettably the

:57:54. > :57:57.Government weren't prepared to accept it but I was happy when I

:57:58. > :58:00.proposed an amendment similar to this to part eight, the

:58:01. > :58:04.Solicitor-General said he recognised the sentiment behind it and was of a

:58:05. > :58:08.mind to give them further consideration, I urge the government

:58:09. > :58:10.now, to make a gesture by supporting this amendment, which if I get the

:58:11. > :58:26.chance to I may push tow a vote. I thought you had finished. I am

:58:27. > :58:31.grateful to the honourable lady, she is right in her recollection, and I

:58:32. > :58:36.am giving it anxious consideration, but I would point her to clause 203

:58:37. > :58:39.which is the information gateway, which I think does underpin the

:58:40. > :58:45.important principles she outlines about the rights of whistle-blowers,

:58:46. > :58:50.I hope that is of some assistance. I was give weigh, I merely -- I am

:58:51. > :58:55.nearly finished irhear what he is saying but we took into account

:58:56. > :58:58.clause to 3 in framing in and remain of the view it needs to be put

:58:59. > :59:02.beyond doubt that whistle-blowers will be protected from criminal

:59:03. > :59:05.prosecution and that there will be a public interest defence. I will

:59:06. > :59:09.mention that again in relation to other parts of the bill. Time

:59:10. > :59:16.prevents me from talking about the fact that the right of appeal from

:59:17. > :59:19.the investigatory powers tribunal is regrettably tailed but I don't think

:59:20. > :59:26.we are going to get to ta today. What I want to say in conclusion is

:59:27. > :59:29.that this bill seeks to put on a sat trifooting extensive powers and it

:59:30. > :59:32.is vital there is proper oversight in the way they are exercised. As

:59:33. > :59:39.part eight stands it is mealy mouthed. I doesn't even implement

:59:40. > :59:45.the central recommendation of the joint bill committee and David

:59:46. > :59:47.Anderson there should be a separate commission, so without the

:59:48. > :59:51.amendments proposed by the SNP on key recommendation about oversight,

:59:52. > :59:59.we cannot support the bill in its current form.

:00:00. > :00:05.Thank you. I am pleased to take part in this debate, though obviously I

:00:06. > :00:09.will only speak briefly because I know that many right honourable and

:00:10. > :00:14.members opposite wish to take part in the debate. I think what we are

:00:15. > :00:19.debating in this group of amount amendments is crucial because we are

:00:20. > :00:24.dealing with the investigatory power and the role of technology in

:00:25. > :00:30.policing the modern age, which forms part of this grouping. Though I

:00:31. > :00:35.represent a constituency in Essex which sometimes seems a world away

:00:36. > :00:40.from Westminster, I can tell you, that my constituent and I worry

:00:41. > :00:43.about the same thing. How we protect our countries visible and invisible

:00:44. > :00:48.border, how we keep our local community safe. How we spot young

:00:49. > :00:52.people at risk of abuse, or of going off the rails, so we can do

:00:53. > :00:58.something about it, before it is too late. And I certainly want to ensure

:00:59. > :01:05.that our liberties are fully understood and protected. That is

:01:06. > :01:11.why I welcome the fact that in the committee upstairs, which I took

:01:12. > :01:16.part in, towards the latter end of the committee's stage, I was very

:01:17. > :01:20.pleased to see that the Government and my honourable friend the Home

:01:21. > :01:26.Secretary, the solicitorty general and the minister for security were

:01:27. > :01:30.prepared to listen to arguments given particularly from the

:01:31. > :01:36.honourable member for Holborn and St Pancras which sought to strengthen

:01:37. > :01:42.the protections which come promising the aims of the legislation, it was

:01:43. > :01:47.refreshing in many ways not to have the normal Punch and Judy politics,

:01:48. > :01:50.where by everything that the opposition proposed must be wrong,

:01:51. > :01:55.because the Government hadn't thought of it first. I think that

:01:56. > :02:01.that give-and-take which has shown with new Government new clause five,

:02:02. > :02:08.Government new clause six and some of the amendments particularly

:02:09. > :02:14.amendments 33-38, and 45-48, are important in meeting concerns that

:02:15. > :02:20.protect civil liberties without compromising the main aims of the

:02:21. > :02:25.bill. And I believe that these amendments have been tabled to make

:02:26. > :02:29.clear that warrants or other authorisations should not be granted

:02:30. > :02:34.where information could be reasonably obtained by less

:02:35. > :02:40.intrusive means. But more than anything, I believe that we need and

:02:41. > :02:46.have to ensure the liberty of my constituencies, to live quietly and

:02:47. > :02:49.peacefully. Free from attack, -- constituent, which is the most

:02:50. > :02:53.fundamental liberty of all and protected from those who wish them

:02:54. > :02:58.harmful today such people live everywhere and they have the powers

:02:59. > :03:02.through the internet and modern communications technique, to be

:03:03. > :03:08.everywhere, plotting, planning, and executing their evil deeds. That is

:03:09. > :03:13.why I was pleased to see in this bill, the supporting provisions that

:03:14. > :03:18.this group of amendments address in ensuring that we have those

:03:19. > :03:25.protection, for my constituents and others, but also have a sympathetic

:03:26. > :03:30.and reasonable approach to protecting people's civil liberties.

:03:31. > :03:34.The bill goes further than ever before in terms of transparency,

:03:35. > :03:38.making clear the most sensitive powers available, to the security

:03:39. > :03:44.intelligence agencies, and the strict safeguards that apply to them

:03:45. > :03:51.E the controls round bulk powers and the double lock protection, which

:03:52. > :03:54.requires sign off for action, by not just the Home Secretary, but

:03:55. > :03:58.independent commissioners are, to my mind, extremely important in winning

:03:59. > :04:03.public confidence in the measures being proposed. That, I though, will

:04:04. > :04:07.be discussed in greater detail, when those committee provisions come

:04:08. > :04:13.before us later in the proceedings on this report stage. But to those

:04:14. > :04:18.who worry about interpretion power, I ask them to remember these simple

:04:19. > :04:28.facts which relate to technical capability. Since 2010, the majority

:04:29. > :04:32.of MI5's top priority British counter-terrorism investigations,

:04:33. > :04:37.have used intercepted material, in some form to identify, understand or

:04:38. > :04:45.to disrupt plots seeking to arm Britain and its citizens. In 2013,

:04:46. > :04:49.this was estimated to be between 15-20% of the total intelligence

:04:50. > :04:56.picture, in couldn'ter terrorism investigations. Investigations. Data

:04:57. > :05:02.obtained with I the National Crime Agency suggested that in 2013/14

:05:03. > :05:11.interception played a critical role in investigations that resulted in

:05:12. > :05:17.over 2200 arrest, over 750 kilograms of her win and 2000 kilograms of

:05:18. > :05:24.cocaine being seized. -- heroine. Over 140 firearms seized and over

:05:25. > :05:28.?20 million seized. I believe that the power to intercept

:05:29. > :05:32.communications, from potentially very dangerous people has helped

:05:33. > :05:37.keep my constituents and the constituents of others in this House

:05:38. > :05:44.much more safe and much more secure in their homes, in their jobs, and

:05:45. > :05:50.on the streets they walk every day, but I also recognise the calls from

:05:51. > :05:55.some that we must be careful not to risk the fundamental liberties of

:05:56. > :06:01.our democracy as we do battle with these potential terrorists. The

:06:02. > :06:06.Government has been clear mindful of the Wilson Doctrine and has brought

:06:07. > :06:11.forward amendments which I welcome, that place a require, that the Prime

:06:12. > :06:17.Minister must approve, rather than simply just be consultanted on, all

:06:18. > :06:21.equipment interference warrants relating to Parliamentarians, but we

:06:22. > :06:26.must ensure that the powers that we give to police, and our security

:06:27. > :06:31.agencies, while they are sufficiently transparent, are also

:06:32. > :06:37.fit for purpose. Those terrorists and other threats to my

:06:38. > :06:39.constituencis' safety are constantly evolveling and adapting techniques

:06:40. > :06:45.to trump the safety system. They don't want to get caught. They want

:06:46. > :06:52.to catch us out. And that is why, we must be prepared to adopt or rules

:06:53. > :06:57.to keep pace with technology. Decannot use an analogue approach to

:06:58. > :07:04.tackling criminals, in a digital age. Such an attitude just is not

:07:05. > :07:11.safe. And I am not prepared to go back to my constituents in

:07:12. > :07:16.chemistsed for and explain to them in all the towns, that I was not

:07:17. > :07:23.prepared to support measures designed to make them all more

:07:24. > :07:27.secure. So I support the proposals the Home Secretary has outlined, to

:07:28. > :07:34.strengthen judicial commissioners oversight, and to give commissioners

:07:35. > :07:37.a role authorising national security notices and technical capability

:07:38. > :07:45.notices but we must not lose sight of the essence of why we need these

:07:46. > :07:49.proposals. We need them to help our police and security agencies, to

:07:50. > :07:53.better identify the internet activity of potential threats and

:07:54. > :07:59.victim of crime themselves, so they can do their jobs, more quickly an

:08:00. > :08:03.more effectively. For those people outside Westminster, who think think

:08:04. > :08:07.is about stopping people being rude on Twitter, or cleaning up the

:08:08. > :08:14.Facebook jungle, they are wrong. This is about protecting those

:08:15. > :08:18.rights, the rights to be irrelevant or the right to disgrierks the right

:08:19. > :08:25.to sever the net without being at risk to those who would do them or

:08:26. > :08:28.us harmful the Government I think has acted properly, by being

:08:29. > :08:35.prepared to listen and think again, to a degree I have to say, I have

:08:36. > :08:40.not found often in the past. It is considered carefully and we should

:08:41. > :08:45.be careful, not to assume that our police and security agencies do not

:08:46. > :08:51.need these power, as amended with the new safeguards that have been

:08:52. > :08:53.promised today. And for those reasons I will be supporting my

:08:54. > :09:02.right honourable friend in the division lobby tonight.

:09:03. > :09:08.Reference was made earlier in our consideration to an exchange of

:09:09. > :09:11.correspondence I enjoyed with the honourable learned gentleman for

:09:12. > :09:15.Holborn, I wanted you and the House to know that correspondence is

:09:16. > :09:20.available in the vote office for the information or members. It is a good

:09:21. > :09:25.point of clarification. Thank you MrDeputy Speaker. I rise to support,

:09:26. > :09:31.to speak in support of the amendment 146, which is tabled in my name and

:09:32. > :09:35.the name of honourable members on the joint committee on human rights.

:09:36. > :09:40.What we did is conducted legislative scrutiny of this bit of legislation

:09:41. > :09:47.and we published our report on the 2nd June. A unanimous report and

:09:48. > :09:51.like everybody, who spoke in this debate, and everybody in they right

:09:52. > :09:56.mind obviously we took the view that we wanted to make sure that the

:09:57. > :10:01.Government have on behalf of the Government, there are the powers in

:10:02. > :10:06.the security forces and the services to ensure they can have the right

:10:07. > :10:12.intercept powers to keep us safe but as at the same tile we must respect

:10:13. > :10:18.privacy and not invade it and abuse powers in that respect.

:10:19. > :10:23.To thank the members of the committee work unless a legislative

:10:24. > :10:26.scrutiny and the legal adviser of the committee and the committee

:10:27. > :10:31.staff and those who gave evidence because I hope to catch your eye in

:10:32. > :10:35.the next group of amendments, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will speak briefly

:10:36. > :10:41.on amendment 146 and it rather echoes the points made via the

:10:42. > :10:46.honourable member on behalf of the SNP. It is about the question of the

:10:47. > :10:50.role of the judicial commissioners. In essence, they are doing two

:10:51. > :10:59.things. They are both approving warrants issued is by the powers

:11:00. > :11:03.that have the role of issuing warrants so they have to approve

:11:04. > :11:09.those warrants and that is a very important role. If they don't

:11:10. > :11:13.approved and warrants it must be stopped there and they are a very

:11:14. > :11:19.important part of the process. That was set out in clause 20 one. They

:11:20. > :11:29.also have an oversight and reporting function and that is set out in

:11:30. > :11:35.clause 100 94. The have to review and oversee the authorisation of

:11:36. > :11:39.these warrants, report to the Prime Minister and that report must be

:11:40. > :11:45.published in Parliament. It is a problem if you actually have the

:11:46. > :11:49.same person both carrying out the approval of a warrant and overseeing

:11:50. > :11:55.the approval of the warrants and the point about all of these things in

:11:56. > :12:00.the bill is to get them right. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary for

:12:01. > :12:07.her determination to understand and respond to the concerns and I hope

:12:08. > :12:12.she will respond to this concern. I am not sure it necessarily has to be

:12:13. > :12:17.two separate organisations, as the SNP amendment seeks to put forward,

:12:18. > :12:23.but I am sure there must be some separation of function. That can't

:12:24. > :12:31.be oversight if they are overseeing themselves. I will give way.

:12:32. > :12:37.The joint committee debated this in some detail and we are right at the

:12:38. > :12:39.conclusion that it is better for judicial commissioners to have

:12:40. > :12:50.experience of both sides of the fence. Also taking into account, as

:12:51. > :12:55.they do in the criminal bar, and conscious Mr Deputy Speaker, the

:12:56. > :12:59.second point is attracting the calibre of judges applying to the

:13:00. > :13:06.auditors, I think is optimistic and that was the view of the committee.

:13:07. > :13:10.It might be useful to have experience of both factions but not

:13:11. > :13:13.at the same time and not using the same team of staff. It is a

:13:14. > :13:17.relatively modest but important proposal we are putting forward.

:13:18. > :13:21.Saying they can be doing both at the same time and the same team of

:13:22. > :13:26.people supporting them can be doing both functions, I'm sure the

:13:27. > :13:32.honourable lady will see it could be clarified so there is some sort of

:13:33. > :13:34.Chinese wall between the two. We are not suggesting it necessarily must

:13:35. > :13:43.be done by a separate organisation. I give away.

:13:44. > :13:47.I am going to a group of hurt to this extent. Does her point of

:13:48. > :13:51.boiled down to this, it is a basic principle of Scots Law and English

:13:52. > :13:55.law no one should be a judge in their own cause and at the same

:13:56. > :13:58.people are overlooking, one person granting a warrant and putting a

:13:59. > :14:04.different hat on and overlooking their own function as to whether

:14:05. > :14:06.they granted that properly, there is not the proper transparency

:14:07. > :14:10.oversight that there should be for public confidence.

:14:11. > :14:15.That is precisely my point and the joint committee on human rights and

:14:16. > :14:21.the independent reviewer have been very helpful to the Government and

:14:22. > :14:27.bent over backwards by saying it does not necessarily be the separate

:14:28. > :14:34.organisation. And very least there ought to be a Chinese walls. I put

:14:35. > :14:39.this forward and hope to receive a response from the Government,

:14:40. > :14:45.certainly in time for it to go to the Lords and looked at again. They

:14:46. > :14:48.are members in the law is looking at their spot in the meantime the

:14:49. > :14:57.Government's responsibility if the table amendment is to put a

:14:58. > :15:03.memorandum with those amendments and they are not done that. So can you

:15:04. > :15:12.please do that and don't table shed loads of amendment and not produce

:15:13. > :15:16.the ECHR memorandum. Privacy is the right to be left

:15:17. > :15:22.alone. It was once proclaimed to be the most comprehensive of rights and

:15:23. > :15:25.the right most of values by civilised men. This is why people

:15:26. > :15:31.are busy provisions in the bill are important. There are already many

:15:32. > :15:38.interweave into the bill. To give three examples, targeted

:15:39. > :15:43.interception can only take place in the interests of national security,

:15:44. > :15:50.serious crime and economic well-being of the UK. It can only

:15:51. > :15:54.take place with judicial authorisation and communications

:15:55. > :15:59.data, that is the data of the who, where, when, obtained from service

:16:00. > :16:04.providers, must be justified on the basis of a necessary and

:16:05. > :16:09.proportionate test. These clauses all in show any interference with

:16:10. > :16:14.privacy are kept to a minimum. -- these clauses all ensure. I am

:16:15. > :16:17.pleased to have served on the whole committee and on that committee the

:16:18. > :16:23.issue of privacy was raised with some force by the member for St

:16:24. > :16:30.Pancras and I am pleased to see that as a result of his point and the pot

:16:31. > :16:34.of others, an overarching clause and privacy by way of the build to

:16:35. > :16:39.further protect the privacy of individuals. As the honourable

:16:40. > :16:43.member for Chelmsford said new clause five therefore provides a

:16:44. > :16:47.public authority must have regard for whether the action could be

:16:48. > :16:52.reasonably achieved by a less intrusive means and it also provides

:16:53. > :16:57.a new requirement for the consideration of the public interest

:16:58. > :17:01.in the protection of privacy. New clause six provides for overarching

:17:02. > :17:08.several liability, adding to the extensive criminal penalties already

:17:09. > :17:11.in the bill. These safeguards strike the right

:17:12. > :17:19.balance between privacy and scrutiny. As the Honourable and

:17:20. > :17:23.learned member for St Pancras said safety, security and privacy are not

:17:24. > :17:29.either or. The same violence have been recognised in Europe where the

:17:30. > :17:34.ECHR provided by article eight, not only the respect for private and

:17:35. > :17:41.family life, but that interference by public authority is legitimate in

:17:42. > :17:45.some circumstances. In fact, in those very circumstances which are

:17:46. > :17:50.outlined in this bill. This includes the interests of national security,

:17:51. > :17:54.public safety or the economic well-being of the country. And for

:17:55. > :17:59.the prevention of crime and disorder. The same balance has been

:18:00. > :18:05.recognised by the UN, where the UN High Commissioner for human rights

:18:06. > :18:09.stated in 2014, where there is a legitimate aim and appropriate

:18:10. > :18:14.safeguards in place, a state might be allowed to engage in quite

:18:15. > :18:18.intrusive surveillance, if it is both necessary and proportionate.

:18:19. > :18:28.And it is a balanced and recognised by the public. A poll in 2014 stated

:18:29. > :18:33.that 71% of respondents prioritise reducing the threat posed by

:18:34. > :18:40.terrorists, even if this eroded the right of people to privacy. This

:18:41. > :18:44.bill seeks to ensure the balance is right. And in enacting this bill we

:18:45. > :18:55.ought to remember that the interference of privacy is often too

:18:56. > :19:04.much until it is too little. It is a pleasure to follow the

:19:05. > :19:07.honourable lady. She used the opportunity very well to highlight

:19:08. > :19:16.some of the big principles and how they are already contains in other

:19:17. > :19:26.documents by the UN or the ECHR and it is useful we are reminded of

:19:27. > :19:32.that. I rise as a member of the intelligence and security committee

:19:33. > :19:39.to support the amendments and new clauses in the name of the Right

:19:40. > :19:45.honourable gentleman. Myself and other members of our committee... I

:19:46. > :19:49.won't read them all out because I think you covered them fairly

:19:50. > :19:55.comprehensively. I do want to make a number of points about a couple of

:19:56. > :20:01.the amendments or new clauses that we have put down. Before I do so, I

:20:02. > :20:06.want to refer back to the report that the intelligence and security

:20:07. > :20:10.committee produced in the last parliament on the basis of taking

:20:11. > :20:19.evidence about the provisions in draft as it was, my right honourable

:20:20. > :20:22.friend, the member for Slough, both sat on that committee. There are two

:20:23. > :20:28.things I want to highlight from that. The first was and the right

:20:29. > :20:37.honourable member there to cover this issue, was that the overriding

:20:38. > :20:40.principle of privacy which is what the honourable lady was talking

:20:41. > :20:44.about, needed to be made clearer in the bill and set out on the face of

:20:45. > :20:55.the bill in as unambiguous terms as possible. The second issues you

:20:56. > :21:03.raised was about penalties. It does not conform to what we were

:21:04. > :21:06.concerned about. Our concern was the legislation was not consolidated

:21:07. > :21:12.into one piece of legislation and I will cover that more fully in a

:21:13. > :21:18.moment. The third thing, if I don't take too much time over the previous

:21:19. > :21:23.two, I have a concern about the whole debate about the judicial

:21:24. > :21:29.involvement in oversight and I hope to say a brief word on that. First

:21:30. > :21:36.of all, I do welcome, I should seek new clause five. I think it does --

:21:37. > :21:40.as you say clause five. It goes some of the weekly meeting all of the

:21:41. > :21:48.concerns expressed by our committee and other committees of the house

:21:49. > :21:56.but public that these issues. -- that haven't looked at these issues.

:21:57. > :22:04.-- that have looked at these issues. I am not going to make it hard and

:22:05. > :22:08.fast principle out of it but we do say with amendment 14 at to make

:22:09. > :22:13.privacy at the forefront of the legislation. If the Minister has

:22:14. > :22:19.found another way of doing that that would satisfy me I would be very

:22:20. > :22:23.pleased. At the moment, having read the bill carefully, I don't see

:22:24. > :22:33.there is sufficient safeguards in there to make it clear that is the

:22:34. > :22:39.case. The honourable member referred to a new clause four and

:22:40. > :22:44.particularly was exercised in the of penalties. I want to come at this

:22:45. > :22:49.issue from a slightly different direction. The bill itself relies on

:22:50. > :22:58.existing legislation, namely the Data Protection Act 1998 is which,

:22:59. > :23:01.by memory serves me, I was the minister responsible for at the time

:23:02. > :23:07.and no apologies though. I think it's is quite well. That might be

:23:08. > :23:15.other legislation I would apologise for what I won't say what it is.

:23:16. > :23:24.There is the act in 2006, the computer misuse act 1990,, more is

:23:25. > :23:34.the right honourable member said, and finally misuse of public office.

:23:35. > :23:38.The reason it is important we have more information about the penalties

:23:39. > :23:43.if that with such a sprawling collection of legislation being

:23:44. > :23:49.involved, existing legislation, it needs to be clear that if you break

:23:50. > :23:53.any of the provisions of any of those pieces of legislation there

:23:54. > :24:01.must be clear and unambiguous penalties. I think the minister will

:24:02. > :24:09.address this shortly. Then I turned to new clause two. This is in the

:24:10. > :24:15.name of the right honourable gentleman for Beaconsfield myself

:24:16. > :24:29.and other members. The honourable gentleman made the point but nobody

:24:30. > :24:35.seems to have taken, particularly member for South West Edinburgh,

:24:36. > :24:39.that the function of the Commissioner and necessarily, or

:24:40. > :24:46.even in any sense, judicial functions. I could envisage, I'm not

:24:47. > :24:52.going to argue this case filly at the moment, but I could envisage

:24:53. > :24:58.constructing a system where it was more like, more administrative. It

:24:59. > :25:02.is not an administrative process and so the skills you would be to

:25:03. > :25:06.operate it don't necessarily need to be judicial.

:25:07. > :25:16.My right honourable friend the member for Camberwell and Peckham

:25:17. > :25:22.and the honourable lady for South West Edinburgh, all began on the

:25:23. > :25:27.assumption, I think, that this has to be a judicial function. I don't

:25:28. > :25:34.disagree with much of what my right honourable friend for Camberwell and

:25:35. > :25:41.Peckham had to say, and I have known her for over 30 year, I have found

:25:42. > :25:47.it unwise to disagree with her. I think she predicates her whole

:25:48. > :25:51.argument on the idea that it must be a judicial function. If it is a

:25:52. > :25:57.judicial matter, then it will be resolved by other means. And I think

:25:58. > :26:04.there is a problem, I am not going to press this too far, with using a

:26:05. > :26:07.judicial position to carry out oversight, because the difficulty

:26:08. > :26:14.and I hesitate to say this because I think everybody, with the possibly

:26:15. > :26:16.exception of the honourable member, right honourable member for

:26:17. > :26:22.Chelmsford, everybody else who has spoken is a lawyer so far, having

:26:23. > :26:25.said that, there is, I think, in my experience having served on the

:26:26. > :26:31.Intelligence and Security Committee for the last ten years, there is a

:26:32. > :26:36.sense and this is not a specific criticism of the Commissioner

:26:37. > :26:41.himself, but there is a sense in which a long and distinguished legal

:26:42. > :26:47.career has certain consequence, which one of which they are not used

:26:48. > :26:50.to having to explain themselves, and judges judge, they give their

:26:51. > :26:57.verdict, but without any explanation. I think there is a

:26:58. > :27:03.serious problem that commissioners, if they are previous members of the

:27:04. > :27:08.screw dishry, are reluctant to explain that the -- judiciary, the

:27:09. > :27:12.issues that have been raised with him, and those of connoisseur,

:27:13. > :27:17.because that is not the habit they have evolved over a lifetime's

:27:18. > :27:21.experience in the judiciary. I haven't mentioned lawyers irk guess

:27:22. > :27:24.I have to give way to one. I am no lawyer but having sat at the table

:27:25. > :27:27.of a judge for many, many year, I can tell you that judges are very

:27:28. > :27:34.used to explaining their judgments, and intin if one only reads the

:27:35. > :27:38.judgments you will find an explanation so detailed it will

:27:39. > :27:41.torture the mind. I am not afraid to hear that commissioners will be

:27:42. > :27:46.ready to give explanation. I have to say to the honourable gentleman,

:27:47. > :27:52.that is not my experience p and the right honourable gentleman, the

:27:53. > :27:58.member for Beaconsfield gave a specific example of where not only

:27:59. > :28:03.are they unwilling to explain themselves, they are unWilling to

:28:04. > :28:09.engage with the committee. That is why I support, new clause two, which

:28:10. > :28:15.gives the intelligence and security the ability to be able to refer a

:28:16. > :28:21.matter to the Commissioner, so that the Commissioner will at least have

:28:22. > :28:27.a nudge in the right direction, in terms of issues that are, or

:28:28. > :28:33.concerns that need to be looked at. So, I think on the whole we are

:28:34. > :28:38.getting, I don't share the honourable and learned lady from

:28:39. > :28:44.Edinburgh, south-west Edinburgh's complete pessimism. I think the bill

:28:45. > :28:48.has moved on an incredible -- incredibly long distance since the

:28:49. > :28:52.original draft bill a anded there is is some way to go. We might hear

:28:53. > :28:58.some further concessions here today and during the course of tomorrow.

:28:59. > :29:03.But I would be grateful if those four issues I have raised can have

:29:04. > :29:09.some, can be addressed by the minister when he does come to reply

:29:10. > :29:13.to the debate. I will keep my remarks short as I

:29:14. > :29:22.appreciate you want me to be short. I would like to speak to new clause

:29:23. > :29:26.16, and the amendments. But I will group them. I do welcome new clause

:29:27. > :29:34.five because I think it puts privacy at the heart of the bill. Although I

:29:35. > :29:39.found the draft bill some kind of Orwellian nightmare, I do believe

:29:40. > :29:44.that this bill is getting us some way to be something I would be able

:29:45. > :29:50.to support. It is horrible we live in a society where as a cross-party

:29:51. > :29:55.organisation this House, we will have to legalise mass sur Janes of

:29:56. > :29:59.every man woman and child that has an electronic device, that is is the

:30:00. > :30:02.society we live in and we have to trade what keep us free from

:30:03. > :30:06.terrorism and what keep us free in terms of privacy. I appreciate the

:30:07. > :30:12.Government's efforts the in trying to put privacy at the heart of the

:30:13. > :30:15.bill. What I would like to do is look at possibly introducing

:30:16. > :30:20.notification of surveillance, against innocent people to the bill,

:30:21. > :30:24.so in in particular group I have tabled 63 amendments because I know

:30:25. > :30:29.there will be reviews before the upper House, at that level I know

:30:30. > :30:33.the Government has been conciliatory and providing concessions all the

:30:34. > :30:38.way through. Like both of the ministers on the front bench, I

:30:39. > :30:42.consider them friend, I have spoke about this bill with them and tried

:30:43. > :30:46.to be constructive in my disagreements with them. My

:30:47. > :30:50.amendments are probing, they are there to try and tease out more

:30:51. > :30:55.information. In terms of introducing notification of surveillance, the

:30:56. > :30:58.bill in my view does fail to provide a valuable system of notification

:30:59. > :31:05.for people who have been wrongly surveyed. The current drafting of

:31:06. > :31:11.the bill only covers error reporting and I understand that is the dispute

:31:12. > :31:16.between new claws five and 21 on privacy and what is in the public

:31:17. > :31:19.interest. I think public interest and serious error are concepts which

:31:20. > :31:22.are difficult to define, and lead to this problem round the judicial

:31:23. > :31:28.commissioner and others having to decide what they are and whether or

:31:29. > :31:31.not they will be varying degree, and I also like laws that state clearly

:31:32. > :31:36.what you want them to be on the face of the bill, so that you don't have

:31:37. > :31:41.that mission creep, so to speak going forward. I think adding

:31:42. > :31:45.notification to the bill would go so way to ensure privacy is fur

:31:46. > :31:50.enhanced as the backbone of the bill. Countries that permit

:31:51. > :31:56.notification of surveillance include, America, Canada, New

:31:57. > :31:58.Zealand, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Ireland,

:31:59. > :32:02.Switzerland, Slovenia, Montenegro and Hungary, so this is not

:32:03. > :32:04.something that is going to be particularly specific to the United

:32:05. > :32:10.Kingdom. This is not something where we will be leading the way this is

:32:11. > :32:15.somewhere we would be trying to catch up to our partner, each of

:32:16. > :32:18.those countries offers a different threshold, but from my point of view

:32:19. > :32:23.I don't think there is any possibility of notification in the

:32:24. > :32:29.bill at the moment, so I know it has been conciliatory. I will happily

:32:30. > :32:37.sit down if they accept my new clause 14? No? I will keep trying.

:32:38. > :32:45.He will have noted that the changes that we brought in the bill do mean

:32:46. > :32:48.that if a seriouser roar has been identified, by the Commissioner,

:32:49. > :32:53.that the individual concerned will be notified. This is a significant

:32:54. > :32:57.and new provisionings which goes somewhere towards satisfying his

:32:58. > :33:05.deveer, perhaps he can meet me half way. . I will meet him half way, I

:33:06. > :33:10.won't call a vote on out. But I would like to get my own way, I

:33:11. > :33:14.appreciate say it. Compromise and both have been good at compromising.

:33:15. > :33:22.In terms of error reporting and notification. It is worth noting the

:33:23. > :33:27.views of the joint committee, I will not read them verbatim as they

:33:28. > :33:33.wouldn't like that, I would like to pull a few highlights out the first

:33:34. > :33:37.the Commission must enform a person about serious error when the

:33:38. > :33:42.tribunal agrees the error is serious, that is in the public

:33:43. > :33:45.interest, why would it be in the public interest to inform that error

:33:46. > :33:51.would be serious? I can't imagine that would be the case, they would

:33:52. > :33:58.they have be informed. They felt the approach to error reporting was a

:33:59. > :34:03.matter of profound concern. The interception believes the clause was

:34:04. > :34:08.weaker than the current power, the requirement was criticised for

:34:09. > :34:12.setting a high bar and the test was criticised for being poorly defined

:34:13. > :34:17.by The Law Society Scotland, privacy international, the intrerion of

:34:18. > :34:22.communication officer and Amnesty International... It may be the

:34:23. > :34:26.honourable gentleman, innancing the question, negates the need for me to

:34:27. > :34:30.speak. I will be grateful to him. I looked carefully at clause 16 and

:34:31. > :34:35.new clause one and I cannot see on the face of new clause 16 any

:34:36. > :34:38.reference to error. Am I missing the word error, because this seems to be

:34:39. > :34:44.a general clause, of notification to anyone who is subject to a warrant,

:34:45. > :34:49.is that correct? I certain willry don't take any credit for being good

:34:50. > :34:56.at drafuling new clauses so new clause 16 may not mention error, I

:34:57. > :35:02.think it is in 190-195. Those deal with error, lumping both together.

:35:03. > :35:05.In a question of trust David an thor son QC recommended the Commissioner

:35:06. > :35:10.be given the power to report errors to individuals. And I appreciate the

:35:11. > :35:14.minister is coming some way in terms of moving towards me in that area,

:35:15. > :35:17.which I appreciate. I think I would like to finally finish with saying

:35:18. > :35:24.that you know, the joint committee made two recommendation, the first

:35:25. > :35:28.was that the referring to the tribunal wasn't necessarily it was

:35:29. > :35:33.cumbersome and created a break on this notification area, and the

:35:34. > :35:36.second was that error reporting threshold, should be refew viewed so

:35:37. > :35:44.it was more specific and more deTyne fined.

:35:45. > :35:50.I beg to Mo new clause one standing in my name, and supported by members

:35:51. > :35:55.of the SNP. The honourable member for Stevenage will see this is

:35:56. > :36:01.remarkably similar to a new clause that he has just moved, although he

:36:02. > :36:05.says his is a probing amendment, I would regard mine as being something

:36:06. > :36:09.more but I shall wait to hear what the minister has to say from the

:36:10. > :36:16.despatch box when he replies to the debate. I would like to pretaste my

:36:17. > :36:21.remarks by indicating a few points of more general concern. I agree

:36:22. > :36:25.with the honourable lady from Edinburgh South West when she says

:36:26. > :36:29.that the conduct of these proceedings today are highly

:36:30. > :36:32.unsatisfactory. The time that has been allowed is clearly insufficient

:36:33. > :36:37.and the Government does themselves really no favours in that regard,

:36:38. > :36:42.because frankly all they do by insisting on conducting proceedings

:36:43. > :36:46.in this way is to give a bone to those at the other end of this house

:36:47. > :36:52.in the other place when they come to look at it and it justified there, a

:36:53. > :36:56.greater degree of scrutiny, which inevitably this bill is going to

:36:57. > :37:02.feed and the place where scrutiny of a bill of this sort, which has

:37:03. > :37:07.already been referred toss a constitutional bill, which

:37:08. > :37:11.countenances the most egregious interference of individual liberty

:37:12. > :37:15.by the state. It ought to be done by this chamber, the elected chamber.

:37:16. > :37:24.The fact that the Government is still at this stage, after a draft

:37:25. > :37:31.bill, after the reports by David Anderson QC and I still am taking

:37:32. > :37:34.onboard amendments indicates a certain unsatisfactory attitude on

:37:35. > :37:40.their part. I think it indicates they are not yet putting privacy at

:37:41. > :37:46.the heart of the bill, that they are coming kicking and screaming to that

:37:47. > :37:54.position. And I would say for example, in relation to new clause

:37:55. > :37:57.five and 21, that really, it is unsatisfactory that the best

:37:58. > :38:02.provision should be that which is brought forward by the honourable

:38:03. > :38:06.and learned member who speaks for the opposition here, but we won't

:38:07. > :38:10.get to that, unless we first vote down one which is inferior which is

:38:11. > :38:15.adequate, certainly, I think it is an improvement but it St not as good

:38:16. > :38:20.as the one brought forward by the official opposition, and again, I

:38:21. > :38:24.would reiterate the point I made to the honourable lady earlier on, that

:38:25. > :38:29.the Government will still have the opportunity, if they were minded to

:38:30. > :38:34.do so, to invest on their version in the other place at a later stage but

:38:35. > :38:39.the House should be empowered to express a view on new clause 21

:38:40. > :38:46.which currentry for reasons of procedure it is not going to be able

:38:47. > :38:53.to do. The thinking behind new clause one is essentially that

:38:54. > :38:58.sunlight is the best disinfectant. It must surely strike at the very

:38:59. > :39:04.question of privacy being at the heart of this bill, whether or not

:39:05. > :39:09.the Government will accept the approach that we have tabled and

:39:10. > :39:14.that the honourable member from Steve nap has brought forward.

:39:15. > :39:22.Essentially as things stand, it is a question, it is, a question of

:39:23. > :39:25.happenstance, it is a question of perhaps a whistle-blower, or a some

:39:26. > :39:30.public interest litigation being brought forward. Whether or not an

:39:31. > :39:37.individual finds out that they have been the subject of intrusion under

:39:38. > :39:42.the powers of this bill. And really, if the Government is sincere and

:39:43. > :39:47.prepared to be meaningful in bring foger ward protections to our

:39:48. > :39:53.liberties and our individual rights, then there should be no objection at

:39:54. > :39:59.all to process, which with all the necessary safeguards, which are

:40:00. > :40:03.outlined in the course of new clause one, then, there really should be no

:40:04. > :40:07.objection to those who have been the subject of surveillance, being

:40:08. > :40:09.notified of that, at the conclusion of the period in which that has

:40:10. > :40:20.actually happened. This is not lawful, this insight

:40:21. > :40:24.happens then a number of jurisdictions and has already been

:40:25. > :40:32.the subject of judicial approval and instruction from the European Court

:40:33. > :40:40.of Human Rights in two cases. One in Germany 1978 and in 2007 -- 2006.

:40:41. > :40:45.The Home Secretary said times with the number and the same point has

:40:46. > :40:50.been made by ministers that what we want to have at the end of this

:40:51. > :40:55.process is a world leading piece of legislation. I very much hope that

:40:56. > :41:02.is possible. It is not what we currently have, we have a bill that

:41:03. > :41:06.lags far behind several jurisdictions in the protection of

:41:07. > :41:11.the individual's writes. It has, some weight with predictions of

:41:12. > :41:20.privacy but is still a great deal distance to go. -- has come some

:41:21. > :41:23.way. We test the Government and the statements of general application in

:41:24. > :41:28.relation to meaningful protections which I bring forward with new

:41:29. > :41:34.clause one and I wait to hear what the Minister has to say with

:41:35. > :41:38.interest. I understand you would like members

:41:39. > :41:42.to be brief now and as I can declare an interest in not being a lawyer or

:41:43. > :41:48.taking part in the Bill committee I shall do that. I don't speak on the

:41:49. > :41:53.second reading in particular about an aspect not yet came out the

:41:54. > :41:58.discussion today. I have spoken frequently on the issue of economic

:41:59. > :42:03.cybercrime and this is an aspect of this bill that is greatly enhanced

:42:04. > :42:06.in terms of the ability to attack that might what the Government has

:42:07. > :42:12.brought forward in some of its new amendments today. I also wanted to

:42:13. > :42:17.briefly mention that as a Member of Parliament constituents write to us

:42:18. > :42:22.and my honourable friend for Cambridge mention the number of

:42:23. > :42:26.issues raised about privacy. The ability to ensure proper oversight,

:42:27. > :42:30.safeguards and transparency if the Government were to interfere in the

:42:31. > :42:35.right to privacy. I don't need to rehearse her arguments. Can I say to

:42:36. > :42:38.the Government and my right honourable friend that by

:42:39. > :42:42.introducing new clause five it may or may not be as perfect as lawyers

:42:43. > :42:49.around the room you like but for the public it goes a long way to

:42:50. > :42:52.satisfying. I wanted to bring up two aspects of new clause five. Is the

:42:53. > :43:00.first point from where our constituents are interested is an

:43:01. > :43:05.two A and four CE. This whole point about the onus to look at less

:43:06. > :43:11.intrusive means and proportionality and that being an obligation and

:43:12. > :43:15.notwithstanding my honourable Bernard friends comment about the

:43:16. > :43:19.need to understand exactly what the penalties for misuse are. --

:43:20. > :43:26.honourable and where it. These two subsections go a long way to putting

:43:27. > :43:30.in place of protection. To look at the point about economic cybercrime,

:43:31. > :43:34.we often talk about huge economic cybercrime concerns of attacking

:43:35. > :43:42.banks or whatever what can I refer the house to new clause five to be

:43:43. > :43:47.and four B. Best is the point about maintaining public interest in

:43:48. > :43:54.maintaining in serious crimes and also maintaining the integrity of

:43:55. > :43:59.services and the reality is there is a huge amount of low level

:44:00. > :44:04.cybercrime that goes on which would then move into more serious economic

:44:05. > :44:10.cybercrime and the reality is by putting this on the face of the bill

:44:11. > :44:16.we are making a statement of intent and the need to protect and maintain

:44:17. > :44:19.the integrity of the telecommunications service which I

:44:20. > :44:28.take to mean in its wider sense of the words, when so much e-commerce

:44:29. > :44:34.is being transacted currently, is hugely important. Therefore,

:44:35. > :44:38.whatever else may be, and those of us who are not lawyers are not

:44:39. > :44:42.entirely sure of the difference between new clause 21 and your

:44:43. > :44:46.clause five actually is, but I'm looking forward to my friend

:44:47. > :44:49.explaining that to me in a moment. Those of us who are not lawyers

:44:50. > :44:54.would say well done to the Government because I think to be as

:44:55. > :45:03.for Pete not only protect the amount of e-commerce that was an and second

:45:04. > :45:07.of the onus to have an integrity and ensure the integrity is maintained

:45:08. > :45:11.in those services, particularly telecoms, will take away some of the

:45:12. > :45:17.criticism out of their amongst the public about the slipper's Charter.

:45:18. > :45:22.Can I say to the Government the key point of that subsection to be and

:45:23. > :45:27.four B are very important and I am pleased to see them on the face of

:45:28. > :45:32.the bill. It is a great pleasure to speak on

:45:33. > :45:37.this report stage, particularly as sitting on the Treasury bench we

:45:38. > :45:41.have the errors of waltzing ham and forgotten sitting in judgment over a

:45:42. > :45:51.bill that will shake our civil liberties. In their date -- today

:45:52. > :45:55.the same techniques used by his forefathers are still used today but

:45:56. > :45:59.they have been updated. It is no longer calls on paper smuggled out

:46:00. > :46:05.and brandy bottles, it is the question of codes is heading a

:46:06. > :46:12.computer messages, apps and other forms of communication. -- hidden in

:46:13. > :46:16.computer messages. It is essential we find ourselves in this position

:46:17. > :46:21.now putting into statutory law because for the first time we are

:46:22. > :46:25.putting onto the face of the bill what we actually mean. For years we

:46:26. > :46:32.have operated with a stake that is in effect used interpretations of

:46:33. > :46:37.legal practice rather than setting out and debating properly what it

:46:38. > :46:40.should do and that is why I welcome, particularly joint approach to this.

:46:41. > :46:45.The honourable member for Holborn and St Pancras has been instrumental

:46:46. > :46:51.in bringing a cooperative moves into that house and I am very grateful to

:46:52. > :46:55.him for doing so. -- cooperative moods. What this bill is also doing

:46:56. > :47:00.is balancing Prevacid because as my honourable friend for Cambridge

:47:01. > :47:05.pointed out privacy is a fundamental right and one we have enjoyed for

:47:06. > :47:09.many years. That privacy is only valid or worth anything if we can

:47:10. > :47:13.live in safety and that safety is not just the obvious risk of

:47:14. > :47:18.terrorism but the risk of child abuse, drug smuggling and any other

:47:19. > :47:23.form of violence against the people of this country. I am grateful again

:47:24. > :47:28.this Government has balanced that privacy with those threats. I am

:47:29. > :47:32.going to be it there because there are many more amendments to come and

:47:33. > :47:38.I could address some of you in detail but perhaps I will be asked

:47:39. > :47:42.to call to speak again. I had the privilege of sitting above

:47:43. > :47:45.the joint committee and Bill committee for this bill so I feel as

:47:46. > :47:50.though I have lived with this bill for many months and I will be happy

:47:51. > :47:57.to see it passed into law. This bill is vital in the modern age and it is

:47:58. > :48:02.above party politics. This is about doing the right thing for our

:48:03. > :48:09.country and for our constituents. Both the joint committee and build

:48:10. > :48:13.quality scrutinised -- Bill committee scrutinised intensely.

:48:14. > :48:16.There were something like 1000 proposed amendments reconsidered and

:48:17. > :48:22.I are happy to say we managed to find some areas of agreement.

:48:23. > :48:27.Namely, a bill setting out the investigatory powers of the security

:48:28. > :48:33.services and law enforcement is necessary and a bill updating the

:48:34. > :48:37.scrutiny and transparency of those powers and those who use them is

:48:38. > :48:42.necessarily as well. It is to the credit of everyone on both sides of

:48:43. > :48:48.the house who are able to support the principle of this bill. I

:48:49. > :48:54.welcome, as others have, in particular new clause five and also

:48:55. > :48:59.Government 30 amendment which puts all related criminal of printed on

:49:00. > :49:07.the face of the bill. That is making transparency and the misuse of power

:49:08. > :49:11.is absolutely obvious. I want to get to propose new clauses which have

:49:12. > :49:20.not enjoyed the scrutiny as the bill. -- two new clauses. I will

:49:21. > :49:24.endeavour to change that. The first new clause is new clause one or as

:49:25. > :49:31.someone remarked to me, the notifying criminals clause. Because

:49:32. > :49:37.it highlights grave concerns about the impact, our impact, and fighting

:49:38. > :49:41.crime and terror. I am consciously member for Orkney and Shetland is

:49:42. > :49:46.not in his place but this new clause, for anyone who has not read

:49:47. > :49:51.it, requires the police and security services to notify anyone within 30

:49:52. > :49:59.days of a warrant anything that date had been investigated. There is no

:50:00. > :50:01.requirement that an error has occurred just the fact you have

:50:02. > :50:08.been, your data has been investigated.

:50:09. > :50:14.On the part of three months is my friend back over 50% of requests for

:50:15. > :50:19.communications data in child abuse investigations -- 58%, is more than

:50:20. > :50:27.eight months old. It shows the time the sensitivity of

:50:28. > :50:31.many of the investigations. We know from sessions and both of the

:50:32. > :50:37.committees that 100% of counter terrorism cases involve

:50:38. > :50:41.communication data evidence and 90% of serious organised crime cases so

:50:42. > :50:45.we are talking about a very serious cases indeed. My concern about new

:50:46. > :50:50.clause one is it does not in any way removed the risk of high level

:50:51. > :50:56.criminals and terrorists suspects will be told they have been

:50:57. > :51:01.investigated by law enforcement. By their very nature they are more

:51:02. > :51:06.likely to be the subject warrants because of their criminality so

:51:07. > :51:09.we're basically handing these investigations to the criminals on a

:51:10. > :51:18.plate. The level of encryption available