07/06/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.subscription to it, it will run for a maximum of half an hour. The limit

:00:00. > :00:12.for frontbenchers and the backbencher involved you need to be

:00:13. > :00:17.observed. -- do need. Ask the Minister to make a statement on NHS

:00:18. > :00:27.commissioning in relation to HIV preexposure prophylaxis. Thank you,

:00:28. > :00:32.Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this. HIV,

:00:33. > :00:37.as a house is, can be a devastating illness. We know that preexposure

:00:38. > :00:42.prophylaxis can make a difference to both those at risk of contracting

:00:43. > :00:46.HIV and those who already HIV positive. It is crucial that we have

:00:47. > :00:52.a full understanding of all the issues surrounding it, and as with

:00:53. > :00:56.any new intervention, it must be researched in relation to clinical

:00:57. > :01:04.and cost effectiveness. We have asked NIC to conduct a review of

:01:05. > :01:07.true of ardour for it for HIV in high-risk groups. This indicates the

:01:08. > :01:12.next step forward and will inform any subsequent steps will

:01:13. > :01:17.commissioning. It will look at effectiveness, safety, patient

:01:18. > :01:21.factors and resource implications. The summary will run alongside a

:01:22. > :01:24.pilot scheme in which we are investing up to ?2 million. Public

:01:25. > :01:30.Health England is currently identifying the most affected places

:01:31. > :01:37.the pilot to take place. It's also important that temper macros not yet

:01:38. > :01:47.licensed in the UK. As well as the pilot scheme -- PREP is not yet

:01:48. > :01:51.licensed. It is only one of a range of activities to tackle HIV, which

:01:52. > :01:59.is a covenant priority. It is also important to stress that the

:02:00. > :02:12.challenge of some high-risk STI 's remains. Our 2-point formally and

:02:13. > :02:14.pounds national -- ?2.4 million. The UK has world-class treatment

:02:15. > :02:22.services. The UK is already ahead in reaching two of the UN aids roles of

:02:23. > :02:27.90% diagnosed infection, 90% diagnosed on treatment, and 90%

:02:28. > :02:33.viral suppression by 2020. In 2014, 17% of those living with HIV had

:02:34. > :02:37.undiagnosed infection. But 91% of those diagnosed were on treatment,

:02:38. > :02:42.of whom 95% were virally suppressed. We are determined to continue to

:02:43. > :02:46.make real progress to meet these goals, and are considering carefully

:02:47. > :02:53.the role that PREP can play in helping us get there. I thank the

:02:54. > :02:59.Minister for that reply. This is a subject that we don't debate enough.

:03:00. > :03:06.I'm grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for giving us the opportunity. 17 people

:03:07. > :03:11.are diagnosed with HIV every day. It each year, there are thousands of

:03:12. > :03:15.new infections. In the UK, there are more people living with HIV than

:03:16. > :03:20.ever before. We know that PREP has the potential to be a game changer.

:03:21. > :03:27.It has proven to be effective in stopping HIV transmission in almost

:03:28. > :03:32.every single case. And yet, as result of this latest decision, this

:03:33. > :03:36.life changing drug will remain inaccessible to people at risk of

:03:37. > :03:40.HIV. Does the Minister share my concern about both the president

:03:41. > :03:46.this sets for other preventative costs being shunted onto local

:03:47. > :03:51.government by NHS England, and also can she explain why preexposure

:03:52. > :03:55.prophylaxis is being dealt with differently to the correct

:03:56. > :04:00.commissioning model, to PEEP, postexposure prophylaxis.

:04:01. > :04:06.Specifically, I want to ask the Minister three questions. Does she

:04:07. > :04:11.accept that under section 78, the mechanism by which the Secretary of

:04:12. > :04:18.State can delegate power, the Health Secretary can give NHS England of

:04:19. > :04:26.the power to commission treble. If show Bencic Spain why she hasn't

:04:27. > :04:30.done this. If the government is, can she say how much additional funding

:04:31. > :04:34.issue make available to councils? Can we assume that there will be no

:04:35. > :04:44.further cuts to cut public health grounds, or is this just a case of

:04:45. > :04:48.passing both responsibility August -- and the financial book. A joint

:04:49. > :04:54.letter has been written to the public health minister requesting an

:04:55. > :04:56.urgent meeting. Will she agree to meet with these stakeholders

:04:57. > :05:05.deceiver way forward can be found without the need for costly

:05:06. > :05:09.protracted legal action. It has been described as the beginning of the

:05:10. > :05:13.end of the HIV epidemic. It's time for this ministers to show some

:05:14. > :05:23.leadership, use the powers that she has and think again. Some of the

:05:24. > :05:34.Shadow Minister's questions are simply ahead of the moment, as it

:05:35. > :05:37.were. As I said, clearly in my statement, NHS England has made its

:05:38. > :05:41.position clear in how it feels in terms of it being the Commissioner

:05:42. > :05:45.based on a legal argument which they have published. No decision has been

:05:46. > :05:49.made about who the Commissioner is. Clearly a decision, we need to reach

:05:50. > :05:52.a decision, we have been discussing that earlier today. There are a

:05:53. > :05:57.number of stages we have to go through. The drug is not even

:05:58. > :06:02.licensed for the use of PREP in the UK, for use as PREP. We have set out

:06:03. > :06:07.a series of stages that we are going to go through that will inform a

:06:08. > :06:11.final decision. The questions he posed, we're not in a position to

:06:12. > :06:17.make that judgment. There is more we need to know about clinical and cost

:06:18. > :06:26.effectiveness, about the pilot. It isn't the case, there has been an

:06:27. > :06:29.important study, but that was looking at clinical effectiveness.

:06:30. > :06:32.There is a wider piece of work to be done, of which the pilot programme

:06:33. > :06:40.we have announced is part. To understand where PREP fits in in

:06:41. > :06:45.terms of clinical and cost effective list and how it fits into the HIV

:06:46. > :06:48.prevention landscape broadly. Alongside other HIV interventions

:06:49. > :06:53.that are commissioned. There is work to do, but we're not standing still,

:06:54. > :06:57.we have announced the important pilot, committed many to it. We have

:06:58. > :07:07.asked for an evidence review, and all of this will go into

:07:08. > :07:11.consideration. First of all, could I say I agree with what the Shadow

:07:12. > :07:15.Minister has said apart from one point. Which is asking my honourable

:07:16. > :07:21.friend the Minister to show leadership. I can say as the

:07:22. > :07:25.chairman on the all-party group and campaigned on many male sexual

:07:26. > :07:31.health issues, that this minister has been supportive in addressing

:07:32. > :07:34.many of the issues facing not just men's sexual health, but

:07:35. > :07:43.particularly gay men's sexual health. I

:07:44. > :07:49.I have lost too many friends over these two aids not to challenge this

:07:50. > :07:55.decision. HIV infection rates in this country are on the increase.

:07:56. > :08:01.Existing strategies are not working. And to suggest that we simply do the

:08:02. > :08:04.same, going forward, is not acceptable. I have a minister in the

:08:05. > :08:08.back row meeting of the Minister on 13th of June, will she except to

:08:09. > :08:16.widen that to the other stakeholders? I think my honourable

:08:17. > :08:20.friend for his kind words. This is an issue I take extremely seriously

:08:21. > :08:27.and he's right to say we face a challenge when it to HIV rates and

:08:28. > :08:32.particularly, as I said, STI rates, particularly in high risk

:08:33. > :08:37.communities, and I stress again that it will no doubt have an important

:08:38. > :08:41.part to play, it's not a silver bullet when it comes to sexual

:08:42. > :08:43.infections, it is important to understand that. We have to continue

:08:44. > :08:49.to look at a whole range of measures. I have recently met the

:08:50. > :08:53.chief executive of the Terrence Higgins trust, we did touch on this,

:08:54. > :08:57.I have a meeting coming up, I didn't respond to the question about the

:08:58. > :09:02.meeting of stakeholder groups, and of course I will meet all the key

:09:03. > :09:05.stakeholder groups, I have had informal discussions already on this

:09:06. > :09:13.but of course I am open to having those discussions. Stakeholders were

:09:14. > :09:16.involved in the discussions with NHS England, which is made its position

:09:17. > :09:21.clear and there is a matter to go before the court on which I won't

:09:22. > :09:25.comment further. And yes I except we need to do more and of course we all

:09:26. > :09:32.share the concerns about rising HIV infection rates, particularly among

:09:33. > :09:37.the community, I too have lost friends to the AIDS epidemic, as he

:09:38. > :09:41.refers, and I take this extremely seriously as an issue but we do have

:09:42. > :09:48.two follow a sensible process and that is what the government is

:09:49. > :09:54.doing. I think anyone in this house is glad to see the results of the

:09:55. > :09:58.study and the 85% reduction in new infections. I think there is more to

:09:59. > :10:06.understand in that we didn't see was a good response in heterosexual

:10:07. > :10:12.women, while we have over 40,000 HIV sufferers in the UK who are men who

:10:13. > :10:16.have sex with men, we have 60,000 Iraq heterosexual or bisexual,

:10:17. > :10:22.predominantly of African origin. We need to be thinking of them my main

:10:23. > :10:28.complaint is not going through a process of looking at the nickel

:10:29. > :10:32.evidence and making a decision. Why was the company not encouraged to

:10:33. > :10:37.get through that earlier and go to NICE? I don't understand why we're

:10:38. > :10:41.only going to NICE now, because that's the answer we need. I have to

:10:42. > :10:48.say I think iteratively poured and it to have made the decision on,

:10:49. > :10:52.it's not our job, it's your job, that's the most insulting bit to the

:10:53. > :10:56.community. It's important as in Scotland, our Cabinet Secretary has

:10:57. > :11:02.asked them to go through DNA, which they applied for and then SMC. They

:11:03. > :11:08.are on the right path now that's where we should have gone first.

:11:09. > :11:13.It's doubly worth clarifying that we asked NICE to take an evidence

:11:14. > :11:16.review, not a technology assessment and issues about what drugs are

:11:17. > :11:22.licensed for is an issue for drugs companies to take. So the issue

:11:23. > :11:25.about whether the drug is licensed is not, the government doesn't

:11:26. > :11:31.initiate that process, the drug company must. It's probably worth a

:11:32. > :11:37.house noting that my understanding that when a drug is licensed for a

:11:38. > :11:40.new purpose, the company could apply to the patents to be extended to

:11:41. > :11:45.cover this news but again, that would be something the drug company

:11:46. > :11:50.would do. On her first point, I agree that we do need to consider

:11:51. > :11:53.the impact on women in the circumstances she describes and of

:11:54. > :11:58.course that's one of the oddments for looking and carefully planning

:11:59. > :12:05.this pilot programme and picking those factors into account -- one of

:12:06. > :12:10.the arguments. The programme is correct but the French covenanters

:12:11. > :12:16.already improved the drug and also understand the urgency of this since

:12:17. > :12:21.the UK study funded by the MRC, the results are unequivocal and we need

:12:22. > :12:25.to get this going now. Though she reflect upon the fact that the study

:12:26. > :12:30.showed no difference in the incidence of other sexually

:12:31. > :12:36.transmitted diseases so the message has to go out that a condom is

:12:37. > :12:44.absolutely essential. His latter point is quite right in terms of the

:12:45. > :12:47.impact, whether commissioned and by whoever, we would still have this

:12:48. > :12:53.significant challenge in the way he described around STIs and

:12:54. > :12:57.drug-resistant gonorrhoea, it's a problem we are increasingly aware

:12:58. > :13:02.of. There are international comparisons we can look at, the

:13:03. > :13:05.picture across the world, I have looked in some detail at this, is

:13:06. > :13:12.that many countries are in broadly the same position as the UK. Try to

:13:13. > :13:16.understand more about how, leaving aside the issue of clinical

:13:17. > :13:22.effectiveness, how we look at how prep can be used as part of an HIV

:13:23. > :13:26.prevention programme, in broad effectiveness and compare to other

:13:27. > :13:32.available interventions. He is right, there is work to do and we

:13:33. > :13:34.are not resting easy on this, we're moving forward and we want to work

:13:35. > :13:40.and have these pilots working through and planning them, doing

:13:41. > :13:46.that work now. Winter she expect this damaging buckpassing between

:13:47. > :13:51.NHS England and local authorities, one of the disastrous results of the

:13:52. > :13:54.2013 health and social care act, to be resolved, and partially agree it

:13:55. > :13:57.would be far more appropriate for NHS England to be the Commissioner

:13:58. > :14:02.of something like prep than local government, and will she be

:14:03. > :14:05.cognisant of the danger that we are going back to the bad old days where

:14:06. > :14:11.certain groups are being stigmatised, stigma is disastrous

:14:12. > :14:15.with a public health policy, it'll result in an explosion of sexual

:14:16. > :14:19.disease in this country if we don't always bear in mind the danger of

:14:20. > :14:24.decisions by NHS England, also on hep C and drug treatment for that,

:14:25. > :14:31.we'll have a disastrous impact on public health. The NHS in good

:14:32. > :14:34.position is based on a legal argument and as it's likely to go

:14:35. > :14:38.before the courts, it's not appropriate for me to comment

:14:39. > :14:43.further. There was little discussion at Select Committee this morning

:14:44. > :14:49.which some members were St Paul. In terms of working out how and where

:14:50. > :14:54.it commissioned, clearly we do need to identify the Commissioner, I

:14:55. > :14:56.don't accept his challenge around the issue around fragmentation, if

:14:57. > :15:03.you look around the world, a whole series of front health systems, they

:15:04. > :15:07.are all broadly going through the same process of understanding where

:15:08. > :15:13.preps its -- different health systems. There are different options

:15:14. > :15:17.but we need to go through this work. On his latter point on stigma, he is

:15:18. > :15:22.right to identify that is a significant concern but I don't

:15:23. > :15:30.except, he knows my personal attitude just tackling stigma, we

:15:31. > :15:35.couldn't have made it clear that rising HIV rates, looking at the

:15:36. > :15:44.challenges of things like can sex, oral front of mind and something we

:15:45. > :15:48.have given time and thought of. I think my constituents would be

:15:49. > :15:53.excited by the prospect that prep offers but would be disturbed that

:15:54. > :15:57.every country around the world seems to be going through the same

:15:58. > :16:03.process, duplicating and replicating and holding up potentially what

:16:04. > :16:07.could be a very exciting development to combat the spread of HIV across

:16:08. > :16:11.Africa, and many countries suffering from this far worse than we are,

:16:12. > :16:15.they would be horrified by the thought of this process, getting

:16:16. > :16:22.bogged down in a court, when this treatment, where it is available,

:16:23. > :16:30.could do very real good. He is right to recognise that this has

:16:31. > :16:36.potential, and is being used in some places internationally. The point I

:16:37. > :16:38.was making is that there isn't a simple, one size fits all, solution,

:16:39. > :16:44.different countries have different challenges. The level of HIV

:16:45. > :16:48.prevalence in the services available to manage their problems, and manage

:16:49. > :16:53.testing, are different in different countries, and performs a different

:16:54. > :16:58.landscape into which prep might set about to give an example from

:16:59. > :17:01.Africa, it was licensed last year and will be available for sex

:17:02. > :17:05.workers in selected sites because HIV prevalence among female sex

:17:06. > :17:10.workers is estimated to be just under 60% in South Africa. So there

:17:11. > :17:12.are different contexts in which it is being taken forward and that is

:17:13. > :17:31.just one of them. Will the Minister agree with me that

:17:32. > :17:41.in the context of such a stretched budgets, the impression that local

:17:42. > :17:44.authorities should fund PrEP, and an edge as England is the National

:17:45. > :17:49.commission of PrEP and that is her position? I have been very clear

:17:50. > :17:54.about the position of NHS England, and equally, I have said that no

:17:55. > :18:01.decision has yet been made about commissioning. I don't except her

:18:02. > :18:06.challenge around spending on public health, we have committed ?16

:18:07. > :18:11.billion over the next five years on the public health Grant, over ?1

:18:12. > :18:15.billion this year alone, ?300 million on vaccines that we by the

:18:16. > :18:20.Department of Health has systemwide leadership through things like

:18:21. > :18:23.sugary drinks levy, and the forthcoming childhood of Bay City

:18:24. > :18:31.strategy, this is a red core upgrade intervention which was talked about.

:18:32. > :18:35.-- childhood obesity. I would like to thank the Minister for her work

:18:36. > :18:40.engaging with the LG BT community, which I know are quite concerned

:18:41. > :18:44.about the last week's statement by NHS England. Given the disappointing

:18:45. > :18:48.outcome of the PrEP review by NHS England and the worst of all

:18:49. > :18:51.scenarios, a legal challenge, for the most committed finding a way

:18:52. > :18:58.around the NHS England decision while a new trial is underway? Dishy

:18:59. > :19:02.agree that the exhibitor Bennison could provide a perfect but from two

:19:03. > :19:09.by pastors constricting system we have been talking about? I will

:19:10. > :19:13.reflect on the latter point with my honourable friend the Minister for

:19:14. > :19:19.life sciences, sat alongside me. I have made clear the position in

:19:20. > :19:22.terms of the NHS position on commissioning and part of the

:19:23. > :19:27.measures I had announced today, the NICE evidence review, the trial we

:19:28. > :19:30.are going to plan for, will be moving forward with later in the

:19:31. > :19:34.year, that is all part of understanding how we get to the

:19:35. > :19:38.right decision, it's not something I'm going to make a snap decision on

:19:39. > :19:46.now but we have set out a process by which we can get to that point. As

:19:47. > :19:50.first chair of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, I share a lot of

:19:51. > :19:52.the concerns and a lot of people in the LG BT community will share

:19:53. > :19:58.concerns about the current situation but I was disappointed that she

:19:59. > :20:02.appeared to cast some doubt on the efficacy of PrEP, there are major

:20:03. > :20:06.studies, 30,000 people are using it in the US and there is clear

:20:07. > :20:11.evidence as to its efficacy, so give some hope the people out there that

:20:12. > :20:15.this isn't a political, cost 's decision, will she use her section

:20:16. > :20:23.78 powers and take the right vision on these matters? We haven't made a

:20:24. > :20:27.decision on commissioning yet, let me be very clear, I completely

:20:28. > :20:31.understand and accept the point about clinical effectiveness. The

:20:32. > :20:36.point I was making was that there are wider considerations in terms of

:20:37. > :20:41.how the commission something in the context of a whole series of HIV

:20:42. > :20:44.prevention services. That's slightly different from clinical

:20:45. > :20:49.effectiveness which the study showed good results on. So it's not a case

:20:50. > :20:51.I'm saying it is not clinically effective, we just have to

:20:52. > :20:55.understand more about how it sits in the context of everything else we do

:20:56. > :20:59.and also about the cost effectiveness, the modelling work

:21:00. > :21:02.that was undertaken indicated that PrEP can be cost-effective for some

:21:03. > :21:08.high-risk groups but the period over which that cost effectiveness pays

:21:09. > :21:13.back, needs to be more broadly understood. I don't doubt the

:21:14. > :21:17.Minister's coming into this issue but she has to understand how this

:21:18. > :21:21.looks to the outside world. -- commitment to this issue. This

:21:22. > :21:25.government broadly decision to ban poppers but it looks as though they

:21:26. > :21:29.have their head in the sand over PrEP, they get it in Israel, Kenya,

:21:30. > :21:37.Canada, France, why are we so behind? I think the first point was

:21:38. > :21:44.a bit of a red herring because I understand that has been resolved

:21:45. > :21:50.but I don't except his criticism, -- accept his criticism. One of the

:21:51. > :21:53.things that is disappointing is that members are forgetting that the UK

:21:54. > :21:59.has a world leading position on HIV treatment, on many, in all the

:22:00. > :22:05.lawyers are laid out. Our movement towards the goals as laid out to my

:22:06. > :22:10.response to the urgent question, are very significant Soto said the UK is

:22:11. > :22:14.somehow not a leader in this area of HIV treatment is not right. But

:22:15. > :22:16.clearly we have acknowledged that PrEP has a role to play, we need to

:22:17. > :22:26.understand more about what that is. Could do Minister clarify that she

:22:27. > :22:30.is putting aside the clinical significance of this, I find it

:22:31. > :22:35.quite confusing that you can put this clinical significance to one

:22:36. > :22:39.side. Would you agree that HIV prevention in the UK has been a

:22:40. > :22:44.leader for decades, but the process is now in threat because of her

:22:45. > :22:48.decision, and which now think again? Not for the first time can I just

:22:49. > :22:52.clarify that no decision has been made about the commissioning of

:22:53. > :22:57.PrEP, so I'm not quite sure why he would say that. I have been very

:22:58. > :23:00.clear about the clinical effectiveness. What I'm saying is,

:23:01. > :23:04.there is more work to be done to understand the wider cost

:23:05. > :23:12.effectiveness in the context of commissioning of HIV prevention more

:23:13. > :23:21.broadly. My constituency. He was in the Borough of Southwark. What is

:23:22. > :23:25.the government making of the impact of this policy change my

:23:26. > :23:30.constituents, but also on the long-term indications from NHS of

:23:31. > :23:34.PrEP not being available? There isn't a policy change. I've laid out

:23:35. > :23:38.the position. I think it's important understand that even in the

:23:39. > :23:43.modelling work that's being done, PrEP is not a silver bullet. It has

:23:44. > :23:47.an important part to play going forward, but I think it is important

:23:48. > :23:51.understand that it isn't a server bullet in terms of HIV prevention

:23:52. > :23:58.and also doesn't go to some of the broader issues that entered in my

:23:59. > :24:05.statement. -- silver bullet. This is another example in the over

:24:06. > :24:10.bureaucratic review system for approving drugs in this country. Can

:24:11. > :24:16.I draw her attention to the fact that NHS England promised ?2 million

:24:17. > :24:20.to allow 500 people to do this? Does she understand the dismay that they

:24:21. > :24:24.are now passing the buck and saying it's down to local authorities, who

:24:25. > :24:29.it all know are incredibly cash strapped? NHS is seeking clarity

:24:30. > :24:35.through the courts for their own position. No decision has been made

:24:36. > :24:40.about who might be the final commission for PrEP, so it's not

:24:41. > :24:44.quite right what he said. The ?2 million has been committed to the

:24:45. > :24:51.pilot is important, and it will help to form our understanding of this

:24:52. > :24:57.important intervention. Michael decisions he has an extraordinary

:24:58. > :25:00.high incidence of HIV and AIDS, and some of it being undiagnosed. Our

:25:01. > :25:05.local authority is the smallest unitary authority in the country,

:25:06. > :25:09.has faced 50% of central government cuts. It has no prospect of being

:25:10. > :25:14.able to fund a challenge of this size. Does the Minister understand

:25:15. > :25:17.that this delay in sorting out who's going to pay for PrEP will lead to

:25:18. > :25:27.the deaths of hundreds of people in Britain? Mr Speaker, PrEP as I have

:25:28. > :25:32.mentioned already, is not actually yet licensed for use in this

:25:33. > :25:36.country. We have set out a process by which we can understand far more

:25:37. > :25:43.about how PrEP might fit into the landscape. She mentions and

:25:44. > :25:50.Detective -- and Detective -- undetected HIV. The world's first

:25:51. > :25:56.home testing service, last year the major HIV innovation fund which has

:25:57. > :26:01.really come up with some extremely new and cutting edge ideas about how

:26:02. > :26:05.to improve HIV detection and diagnosis. I fully accept that it's

:26:06. > :26:16.a major challenge in her area, but actually PrEP is only one part of a

:26:17. > :26:20.wider programme of work. I think the whips are pleased to see the arrival

:26:21. > :26:26.of the right Honourable member. He is never knowingly been keen to be

:26:27. > :26:33.hurried on anything. Could the Minister clarify the timescale

:26:34. > :26:38.around the decision, evidenced reviews and trials can take months

:26:39. > :26:42.and years. Clearly, in relation to what others because have said,

:26:43. > :26:46.people haven't got months and years. In terms of decision, what is the

:26:47. > :26:51.process, what are the timescale is that we can be reassured about or

:26:52. > :26:57.not? The evidence review we have called for would expect to get in

:26:58. > :27:04.the autumn. Planning is already underway, working on plans for the

:27:05. > :27:08.pilot programme which would be over two year period. We would hope to be

:27:09. > :27:13.getting that underweight wets the end of this year. Both of those

:27:14. > :27:18.pieces of work are under way. -- underway towards the end of this

:27:19. > :27:24.year. We want to make sure that it will be something we get back in the

:27:25. > :27:27.relatively short-term. Can I just say to the Minister that I am

:27:28. > :27:32.flabbergasted that she has come before the house today to say that

:27:33. > :27:35.the legislation which her government introduced around the reorganisation

:27:36. > :27:43.of the NHS is so incompetent that NHS England are now having to go to

:27:44. > :27:46.court to work out who is actually entitled to commission these

:27:47. > :27:49.services. How much public money is going to be spent on the legal case

:27:50. > :27:55.that is going forward on this? I'm not in a position to comment on

:27:56. > :27:58.that. I don't accept her central criticism. If she'd been present

:27:59. > :28:05.this morning at the health select committee, she would have heard an

:28:06. > :28:22.Arab evidence from myself and Duncan Selby. -- and hour of evidence.

:28:23. > :28:27.Order. Point of order. As you know, the SSI plant on Teesside close with

:28:28. > :28:32.the loss of 9000 jobs. Lord Heseltine could together with the

:28:33. > :28:37.Secretary of State along with the Northern Power has Minister are in

:28:38. > :28:43.my constituency launching the noble Lord's much awaited report in the

:28:44. > :28:48.response to that crisis. I received notification of that by e-mail at

:28:49. > :28:53.3pm yesterday, and a copy of the report itself at 620 this morning. I

:28:54. > :28:57.have contacted the Secretary of State, and I do accept that he is

:28:58. > :29:02.under the impression that I was properly contacted, but I can show

:29:03. > :29:05.the house that I was not. I have searched those e-mails, colleagues

:29:06. > :29:10.have received them, I have not. I'm asking for guidance if a report is

:29:11. > :29:14.going to be delivered in my constituency about my constituency,

:29:15. > :29:18.can we have some better direction to ministers about how they best

:29:19. > :29:22.communicate that activity to members of Parliament. Rather than allegedly

:29:23. > :29:29.or assuming, I should say, assuming that those e-mails are properly

:29:30. > :29:37.communicated? There is a firm convention. If a member is intending

:29:38. > :29:41.to visit the constituency of another member on official business, as

:29:42. > :29:47.opposed to purely private or personal business, the member whose

:29:48. > :29:55.constituency is being visited should be notified in advance. Nothing is

:29:56. > :30:00.routing down anywhere in, but the courtesy would be to notify a member

:30:01. > :30:09.in advance sufficiently that he or she could be present, or at least in

:30:10. > :30:13.the vicinity in his or her own constituency if it was so wished. It

:30:14. > :30:17.would rather depend on the circumstances of the event, but

:30:18. > :30:20.there should be proper notice. In the case of ministers, this

:30:21. > :30:28.requirement is actually stipulated in the ministerial code. If that has

:30:29. > :30:38.not been complied with in this case, that is Roberta Ball. The honourable

:30:39. > :30:43.gentleman has made his point -- that is regrettable. That'll be

:30:44. > :30:47.communicated again in the forceful terms in which didn't gentleman

:30:48. > :30:50.typically expresses himself to the Secretary of State. I hope it won't

:30:51. > :30:54.be necessary for this point constantly to be raised and then

:30:55. > :30:57.have to be underlined by me from the chair. It's really an elementary

:30:58. > :31:01.courtesy, and I think a lot of people listening to our proceedings

:31:02. > :31:07.will surely feel that colleagues can treat each other in a civil and

:31:08. > :31:11.grown-up way, as would happen in other institutions. Indeed, I note

:31:12. > :31:19.in the distance some agreement with the point that I have just made.

:31:20. > :31:22.Point of order. And going to disappoint you, because it's a

:31:23. > :31:25.follow on from that exact same point, although not regarding

:31:26. > :31:30.ministers. I discovered that the honourable members for well in grant

:31:31. > :31:35.Corby when my constituency last week, with the grassroots Out

:31:36. > :31:39.campaign, so not on business but part of campaigning. They failed to

:31:40. > :31:45.advise me in advance, and I wonder if you could just remind all members

:31:46. > :31:48.that it is the case that we, by convention, notified in advance. I

:31:49. > :31:52.may not have wished to be there alongside them, however. There are

:31:53. > :31:57.also some of the issues, because factually incorrect information was

:31:58. > :32:00.shared with my constituents. I fear that perhaps the member for

:32:01. > :32:04.Wellingborough would be horrified to hear that he misled my constituents

:32:05. > :32:13.in the same way that I'm horrified, and how could he correct that? About

:32:14. > :32:18.a ledge of factually incorrect information being submitted to her

:32:19. > :32:22.constituents. That is a matter of politics. Although I don't know the

:32:23. > :32:26.people of the constituency, I dare say they can bear with stoicism and

:32:27. > :32:30.fortitude proffering of views to them with which their locally

:32:31. > :32:39.elected member of Parliament may disagree. That isn't a matter for

:32:40. > :32:45.the chair. However, I don't think it is fishy, is a visit was undertaken

:32:46. > :32:51.not by ministers, but by members engaged in professional designers.

:32:52. > :32:58.The honourable lady should have been notified. I recognise that the

:32:59. > :33:01.members of the moment in the context of the EU referendum campaign,

:33:02. > :33:03.including doubtless the honourable gentleman the member for

:33:04. > :33:09.Wellingborough and the honourable member for Corby, who may well be

:33:10. > :33:13.visiting a great member of constituency in a concentrated

:33:14. > :33:17.period. Nevertheless, the convention is an aborted courtesy, and it

:33:18. > :33:29.should continue to apply. It is very difficult or time-consuming -- is a

:33:30. > :33:35.courtesy. I hope that members will now do so. The issue we have just

:33:36. > :33:40.discussed and the urgent issue regarding PrEP is one that I and

:33:41. > :33:44.many other members consider to be of huge national importance. Despite

:33:45. > :33:47.the fact of the drug, despite the numbers of people involved and the

:33:48. > :33:50.great national interest, Parliament hasn't actually substantially

:33:51. > :33:54.debated the issue aside from the urgent question that we have just

:33:55. > :33:58.had this morning. Mr Speaker, as a new member of the house, and I

:33:59. > :34:01.confess still trying to get my head around this place, although I

:34:02. > :34:08.suspect I never will, can I ask you if it would be in order to seek a

:34:09. > :34:15.standing order 24 to be on the issue of PrEP, and if it would be in order

:34:16. > :34:19.how one might go about that? It's certainly open to the honourable

:34:20. > :34:22.gentleman to seek such a debate. There's nothing improper about it,

:34:23. > :34:26.but know that the honourable gentleman wouldn't seek advance

:34:27. > :34:30.agreement from me in respect of an application which has not yet been

:34:31. > :34:35.made, and whose terms therefore cannot be known to me. And upon

:34:36. > :34:40.which it would wholly unreasonable to expect me to adjudicate. Apart

:34:41. > :34:46.from that, his port was all right. -- his point was all right. What I

:34:47. > :34:51.would say also is that the issue as the minister mentioned perfectly

:34:52. > :34:54.properly, is a devolved matter. It can therefore be considered

:34:55. > :35:01.elsewhere as well. Perfectly proper for it to be considered here. There

:35:02. > :35:05.is a range of opportunities were to be considered. The mechanism he

:35:06. > :35:09.mentions is a possible approach. There are also backbench business

:35:10. > :35:15.committee debates, adjournment debates and debates in the name of

:35:16. > :35:18.the relevant opposition party. I'm sure the honourable gentleman is an

:35:19. > :35:22.very good terms with the powers that be in his own party, and if they

:35:23. > :35:26.judge it a sufficient priority, they might choose to nominated as a

:35:27. > :35:30.subject for such a debate. Knowing the Mr as I do, she would very

:35:31. > :35:36.courteously come along if it was her responsibility to do so to listen to

:35:37. > :35:41.the honourable member. -- knowing the Minister. And to speak as

:35:42. > :35:46.appropriate. You may be interested as well that the all-party group is

:35:47. > :35:50.holding its own debate and enquiry on the very issues and discussion

:35:51. > :36:01.this afternoon and tomorrow, we would encourage all members to

:36:02. > :36:07.attend. What a helpful man he is, he is a purveyor of information. If

:36:08. > :36:22.that is the point of order, we will proceed. Presentation of Bill,

:36:23. > :36:28.secretary. He Wales Bill. Thank you. The clerk will now proceed to read

:36:29. > :36:34.the orders of the day. Investigatory Powers Bill to be further

:36:35. > :36:41.considered. Now, thank you. Order. We begin with amendment 390, with

:36:42. > :36:45.which it will be convenient to consider the new causes and

:36:46. > :36:55.amendments listed on the selection paper. No? The honourable and

:36:56. > :37:04.Leonard lady is not to declaim on this occasion. That was the name I

:37:05. > :37:08.had. -- learned lady. Part six of the bill regarding the bulk Powers

:37:09. > :37:12.is perhaps one of the most controversial sections within it.

:37:13. > :37:17.I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, I rise to move the amendments in the name of

:37:18. > :37:21.myself and my colleagues. The SNP is calling with part six and seven to

:37:22. > :37:25.be shelved until such time as an argument for their inclusion has

:37:26. > :37:29.been demonstrated by an independent review.

:37:30. > :37:35.We believe the powers and part six should be removed until a

:37:36. > :37:39.satisfactory case is made for these powers. The review ligament has

:37:40. > :37:50.agreed to is most welcome but the government must get it right. -- the

:37:51. > :37:58.government has agreed to. Yesterday we had sight of some detail of the

:37:59. > :38:01.review a letter from the Minister, were particularly pleased to note

:38:02. > :38:04.that one of the review team will be a barrister who has a great deal of

:38:05. > :38:08.experience working as a special advocate acting against the

:38:09. > :38:12.government in terrorism cases. That degree of balance is good and to be

:38:13. > :38:15.welcomed. But the review needs to be given the time to do a thorough job

:38:16. > :38:20.and we don't believe three months is necessarily going to be enough, and

:38:21. > :38:23.even if it were, it would be the first time we've been promised a

:38:24. > :38:30.date by which time a report will be published and then and then another.

:38:31. > :38:33.Her words reflect the spirit of this debate has been conducted rout. The.

:38:34. > :38:37.The reason the review is good to begin that it in the time frame she

:38:38. > :38:41.describes is because the government is clear that the review will take

:38:42. > :38:48.place while the bill is live, enjoying its passage through both

:38:49. > :38:52.Houses of Parliament. It would be inappropriate to review wanted was

:38:53. > :38:55.passed into law. My point is that the review should have happened

:38:56. > :38:59.before now and even if the review was conducted within three months,

:39:00. > :39:03.it would not be taking place here, the scrutiny, it will take place in

:39:04. > :39:07.the other place by them as the House of Lords who are not elected to

:39:08. > :39:11.represent people. They also confident the review will not have

:39:12. > :39:16.different findings to those carried out in different countries. In other

:39:17. > :39:24.words it is likely to find a bulk powders are not the not necessary. I

:39:25. > :39:34.understand the government arguing that new clause file Alli five will

:39:35. > :39:39.mean that other... Indeed it has been dubbed the privacy clause, how

:39:40. > :39:48.can we trust the government... I will give way. I'm grateful to the

:39:49. > :39:52.honourable lady, I said on the committee she mentioned there were

:39:53. > :39:58.other means other than Bill Powers, is she going to delineate those to

:39:59. > :40:02.the house? If he would care to exercise a little patience, he might

:40:03. > :40:12.get the answer to that, might not, mind you. No, he will! Where was I?

:40:13. > :40:15.So, regarding that other techniques, I understand the government is

:40:16. > :40:20.arguing this is a political but my concern is, how can we trust their

:40:21. > :40:23.commitment to privacy in this bill when the draft bill on the actual

:40:24. > :40:28.bill, the significant change dealing with the needs for privacy to be of

:40:29. > :40:33.primary importance in this bill entailed simply changing the name of

:40:34. > :40:36.part one from the general protection is the general privacy protections,

:40:37. > :40:45.not about works, it's about intent and action and changing one word

:40:46. > :40:49.pleases nobody. Is she aware that there is a sunset clause, save these

:40:50. > :40:54.powers are not available to be exercised, and if it is found these

:40:55. > :41:03.powers are necessary, they will be a gap in our security services's

:41:04. > :41:06.ability to combat terrorism? I will come onto onto that shortly because

:41:07. > :41:10.I do have something in here about this, but the fundamental point is

:41:11. > :41:12.this. Why should we as an as a parliament be expected to answer

:41:13. > :41:14.that shortly because I do have something in here about this, but

:41:15. > :41:17.the fundamental point is this. Why should we as an is a parliament be

:41:18. > :41:20.expected about through legislation that is to be reviewed? It seems to

:41:21. > :41:24.be an unprofessional way, to say the least, to do business. I would be

:41:25. > :41:29.uncomfortable crossing fingers and hoping for the best of old appeal to

:41:30. > :41:36.Labour colleagues to be more circumspect about trusting the

:41:37. > :41:40.government with their vote today. Let's look at the USA. In the United

:41:41. > :41:46.States, the revelations by Edward Snowden revealed the National

:41:47. > :41:49.Security agency was running a book telephone the record programme, they

:41:50. > :41:54.put up a strong case for maintaining the programme, they produced a

:41:55. > :41:58.document of 50 for counterterrorism events in which the bulk powders

:41:59. > :42:06.contributed to their success in countering the terrorism. -- bulk

:42:07. > :42:11.powers. But there reviewed all cases and determined that only 12 of the

:42:12. > :42:16.54 had any relevance to the use of bulk powers under section 215 of the

:42:17. > :42:21.USA Patriot act. One of those groups, the President's review group

:42:22. > :42:26.on intelligence review technologies, are well-respected and high-powered,

:42:27. > :42:32.set up under the auspices of President Obama, concluded as

:42:33. > :42:35.follows. Our review suggests that the information debited to

:42:36. > :42:39.terrorists and mitigation by the use of section 215 was not essential to

:42:40. > :42:45.preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely

:42:46. > :42:49.manner, using conventional section 215 orders. The other body, the

:42:50. > :42:55.privacy and civil liberties abroad, concluded similarly, they said they

:42:56. > :42:58.had "Not identified a single instance involving a threat to the

:42:59. > :43:03.United States in which a programme, ie the use of bulk powers, made a

:43:04. > :43:15.complete difference to the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation"

:43:16. > :43:22.. Or to the disruption of a terrorist attack. Whatever I think

:43:23. > :43:26.the outcome of this review might be, and none of us know because it's not

:43:27. > :43:29.happened yet, it is nonetheless a recognition that the government has

:43:30. > :43:34.failed to convince both this house and wider society as to the

:43:35. > :43:40.necessity of these powers. I will give way. Having regard to watch as

:43:41. > :43:46.ever but the American experience, does she agree that it's absolutely

:43:47. > :43:50.vital to review looked at the American experience, given that the

:43:51. > :43:56.playback of a one of our chief allies, and that she agree that the

:43:57. > :44:00.looked at the American experience? I think that with very helpful, if the

:44:01. > :44:06.opposition would do that and could secure that, because although not go

:44:07. > :44:09.to follow suit, we support the review, we're not saying, do as

:44:10. > :44:14.America does, we have to conduct our own review but given the level they

:44:15. > :44:20.have let into this, I think we need to have access... We have looked

:44:21. > :44:25.into. I've already given away and I'm conscious of letting other

:44:26. > :44:29.people get in. So the review is welcome, of course, not least

:44:30. > :44:35.because it is hoped that David Anderson QC will do as Liberty have

:44:36. > :44:39.called for and use this opportunity to challenge the evidence and

:44:40. > :44:44.produce a thorough, conferences and unbiased exoneration of the

:44:45. > :44:48.necessity of all bulk powers in the bill did a review call for a long

:44:49. > :44:54.ago by the aforementioned Liberty and the government could have and

:44:55. > :44:58.should have had it completed before asking us in this house to vote for

:44:59. > :45:02.it. When we are dealing with something as broad as these

:45:03. > :45:06.proposals for what is in effect bulk data harnessing from mainly innocent

:45:07. > :45:09.citizens, it is incumbent upon the government to prove that there is an

:45:10. > :45:13.operational case for these proposals, that these powers are

:45:14. > :45:17.necessary, and to ensure the safe powers in place are rigorous, the

:45:18. > :45:22.government has neither proven the operational case for these powers

:45:23. > :45:26.nor has it delivered safeguards and oversight of sufficient calibre to

:45:27. > :45:34.make these powers justifiable. I'm trying not to give way to often! I

:45:35. > :45:37.must grateful. As I intervened in second reading, I appreciate the

:45:38. > :45:42.powers are controversial but the one thing I am sure about is we do not

:45:43. > :45:48.conduct data harvesting in this country. It simply does not happen.

:45:49. > :45:53.The use of bulk powers is not for that purpose. It is for the purpose

:45:54. > :45:57.of being able to examine material but in fact, even though it may be

:45:58. > :46:02.done in bulk, it is being done in a way that does not out the

:46:03. > :46:09.generalised harvesting of data for their examination, it simply isn't.

:46:10. > :46:13.My answer to that is simply that if these laws allowed for bulk data

:46:14. > :46:16.harvesting, then it can still happen, we can't just sit there

:46:17. > :46:20.saying it will never happen. The SNP argument is not to do down our

:46:21. > :46:26.security services or anyone else working to keep our constituents

:46:27. > :46:30.safe, of course it isn't. We would fail as a parliament if we assert

:46:31. > :46:35.our power on behalf of their constituents and failed to place

:46:36. > :46:41.proper limitations on the scope the state to interfere in the lives of

:46:42. > :46:45.private citizens. I had given way too many times. The use an analogy,

:46:46. > :46:50.there are other people who want to speak, though. If it were to

:46:51. > :46:54.authorise the opening the opening, scanning and retention of all mail

:46:55. > :46:58.at a particular post of this in the hope we could one they go back once

:46:59. > :47:02.we have found a suspicion about a certain user of that post office,

:47:03. > :47:08.how constituents would rightly be marching upon this place demanding

:47:09. > :47:11.that we stop such an outrage. Does the government really think people

:47:12. > :47:14.using the Post Office would be content to believe all was well as

:47:15. > :47:20.long as these letters were stored in a big safe to which only the good

:47:21. > :47:24.guys had the key? Or they would only be read after warrant was required?

:47:25. > :47:29.I don't think so. People are not that daft. And strangely, they not

:47:30. > :47:33.that trusting. And yet the government is asking us to focus on

:47:34. > :47:36.the issue of access and examination and ignore the massive combine

:47:37. > :47:42.harvester in the room, the bulk data collection itself. The members

:47:43. > :47:48.opposite me will groan that we are all entitled to express our opinions

:47:49. > :47:53.on this hill, I would say. And we are entitled to have rigorous

:47:54. > :47:58.scrutiny of this legislation. On the government and the crew on terms,

:47:59. > :48:00.this abuse of public privacy is very limited use anyway, targeting powers

:48:01. > :48:04.are far more effective and could resolve many of the privacy

:48:05. > :48:08.concerns. If we have a justifiable case to access this information than

:48:09. > :48:12.we already know who we should be targeting in terms of data

:48:13. > :48:20.collection. Why are we wasting time and resources using bulk techniques

:48:21. > :48:26.when it comes to that collection? I think forgiving way. The honourable

:48:27. > :48:30.lady referred to known targets, but surely one of the advantages of bulk

:48:31. > :48:37.data gathering is to find those unknown people, who are out there,

:48:38. > :48:40.wishing to do us harm. I just don't have the honourable lady thinks

:48:41. > :48:45.we're going to do that, the evidence reviewed by the committee showed

:48:46. > :48:47.that the bulk powers are counter-productive because the sheer

:48:48. > :48:53.scale of the data makes it impossible to analyse it adequately.

:48:54. > :48:57.In fact, I believe the government used the limited capacity of the

:48:58. > :49:00.security services to analyse bulk quantities of data as some form of

:49:01. > :49:08.assurance, which was a little strange to say the least. I say this

:49:09. > :49:13.to be helpful, but I fear the debate has moved on and she hasn't. The

:49:14. > :49:20.truth of the matter is that the bulk powers she described work brought up

:49:21. > :49:26.in the meeting and they established that there was validity and

:49:27. > :49:32.necessity. She is arguing a general case on bulk rather than a case

:49:33. > :49:36.about safeguards. I think the mist of that advice and I will pass that

:49:37. > :49:40.advice onto all my constituents who have the same concerns -- I thank

:49:41. > :49:44.the Minister. And he was concerned I am expressing here today. As we

:49:45. > :49:47.know, this bill is supposed to be the basis for the sadistic makes for

:49:48. > :49:55.some time, we're not future proofing the bill if we say it is find to

:49:56. > :49:59.have this, because in 2016, we don't have a technical capability to

:50:00. > :50:01.analyse them. Some of the present-day practices are reliant

:50:02. > :50:07.upon 32-year-old laws, dating back to 1984. Of all years. If we get

:50:08. > :50:12.this wrong now, there is every possible as it will enshrine in law

:50:13. > :50:19.invasive practices that will only become feasible in the next 30

:50:20. > :50:23.years. Perhaps for the most worrying parts is something the government

:50:24. > :50:28.outlined as follows, bulk equipment interference is not targeted against

:50:29. > :50:32.particular persons, organisations or locations or against equipment being

:50:33. > :50:35.used for political activities, so it is an indiscriminate form of

:50:36. > :50:39.interference which the system is vulnerable, not just our own

:50:40. > :50:44.security services, using the power sparingly and hopefully

:50:45. > :50:47.proportionally but to those looking to use Abdel Fattah al-Sisi profit

:50:48. > :50:49.from broken security. If the front door of your house has been kicked

:50:50. > :50:55.in by the police, it does not prevent a criminal entering after

:50:56. > :50:59.their departure. Our concerns regarding the bulk powers are

:51:00. > :51:04.connected to many of our concerns regarding the use of bulk data. At

:51:05. > :51:06.the heart of the matter is the retention of intimate personal

:51:07. > :51:10.details regarding the tens of millions of ordinary citizens of

:51:11. > :51:16.this country who do not merit such information being held by the state.

:51:17. > :51:20.We welcome the review of the use of bulk powers and recognise that as

:51:21. > :51:25.part of the bill, it impacted by other sections and cannot stand in

:51:26. > :51:28.isolation. If assets are required by other mechanisms in the bill, how

:51:29. > :51:33.will they be dealt with and properly handled? As we stressed throughout,

:51:34. > :51:36.the bill should be an easier to understand the substation clarifying

:51:37. > :51:40.what is permitted and what is not, not providing a mechanism whereby we

:51:41. > :51:45.rubber-stamp practices that were never pretty debated. Again, the

:51:46. > :51:47.off-line analogy is instructive. If we were asked by the state to

:51:48. > :51:53.deposit and mothership forms for various organisations, political

:51:54. > :51:56.parties, campaign groups, golf clubs, direct debit details, health

:51:57. > :52:01.records and other such bulk information, into a big safe, on the

:52:02. > :52:05.understanding that only the security services would have access to it, we

:52:06. > :52:10.would rightly booked at such a proposal. Just because a system is

:52:11. > :52:14.being proposed online and without the consent of the individuals

:52:15. > :52:15.concerned, doesn't make it acceptable, in many ways it makes it

:52:16. > :52:23.much worse. I hope the Minister will address

:52:24. > :52:30.that comparison. There are also some very real dangers that the mass mint

:52:31. > :52:36.of bulk data sets could lead to citizens being investigated on

:52:37. > :52:40.stereotypes and miscarriages of justice. Some miscarriages of

:52:41. > :52:43.justice including that of the Birmingham six have been carried out

:52:44. > :52:47.on the assumptions that predicate the analysis of bulk data sets.

:52:48. > :52:53.People who take on the right boxes and yet just happened to be entirely

:52:54. > :52:55.innocent. It is not that the government are not aware of the

:52:56. > :53:01.problems they have created, the principles are targeting significant

:53:02. > :53:05.areas appear in various guises in the bill. The government must fully

:53:06. > :53:08.embrace both of these principles and apply them to the collection,

:53:09. > :53:13.storage and the analysis of data. If they fail to do that, so far they

:53:14. > :53:17.have, and they still cannot prove the operational assesses the these

:53:18. > :53:21.intrusions into the private lives of your everyday citizen and so far

:53:22. > :53:25.they have not proven that, then they should not expect the support of

:53:26. > :53:29.this house for those measures. It is not acceptable on it should not be

:53:30. > :53:33.acceptable for any government to ask for legislation that is about to be

:53:34. > :53:37.reviewed to be nodded through. Every year in this and the other place

:53:38. > :53:40.this house plays out in all its finally the historic role of

:53:41. > :53:44.parliament in limiting the powers of the executive. Let us remember that

:53:45. > :53:53.role when we vote on this unprecedented extension of powers we

:53:54. > :54:00.see in this bill. The question is that the amendment

:54:01. > :54:10.be made. Can I say to the Minister to respond or not at this stage?

:54:11. > :54:17.Thank you. It is a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate.

:54:18. > :54:23.I want for the moment to move the amendment standing with the name

:54:24. > :54:28.intelligence and Security committee. Mr Deputy Speaker I would not be

:54:29. > :54:32.doing justice to this debate on what is a matter of great and legitimate

:54:33. > :54:38.public interest and importance if I were not to seek briefly to respond

:54:39. > :54:46.to the perfectly reasonable fears expressed by the Honourable Lady for

:54:47. > :54:52.classical North West, I hope I got... Trustees, I apologise. It

:54:53. > :54:55.highlights the difficulty we have in this country certainly from Amazon:

:54:56. > :54:59.but I dare say from members of the public and certainly for the NGOs

:55:00. > :55:06.who are interested in civil liberties. -- certainly for members

:55:07. > :55:15.of this Parliament. We must reconcile agencies are doing

:55:16. > :55:18.with the powers with what those of us who have access to this

:55:19. > :55:22.information by virtue of work actually see happening in reality. I

:55:23. > :55:27.am not sure that this is a gap that is to reach. I can only do my best

:55:28. > :55:31.to explain to the house and the honourable lady how ICT system

:55:32. > :55:37.working. Of course I suppose in an ideal world it would always be

:55:38. > :55:41.better if we could use targeted interception. If you know what it is

:55:42. > :55:46.trying to intercept and you have reasonable grounds for doing it and

:55:47. > :55:52.it is necessary and proportionate to do so then clearly that is what you

:55:53. > :55:57.should be aiming to do. But the reality is that the use of the

:55:58. > :56:04.Internet today in respect of the transfer of information is of such

:56:05. > :56:11.an order that if there were not powers which in able the agencies to

:56:12. > :56:15.look to intercept a look and then to search it to find what they're

:56:16. > :56:18.looking for then it would in practice be very difficult for the

:56:19. > :56:25.agencies to defend our security was against espionage and particularly

:56:26. > :56:33.terrorism. That is the reality. And the point has been made repeatedly,

:56:34. > :56:35.including in public by agency heads, certainly not give his evidence in

:56:36. > :56:39.public to the intelligence and Security committee on the one in the

:56:40. > :56:45.health the public hearing, when he explained that the idea that there

:56:46. > :56:51.is bulk harvesting of data in order to carry out a detailed examination

:56:52. > :56:59.of it is in fact fanciful. That is not what is happening. What is

:57:00. > :57:05.happening is that there may be the retention of a bulk group of data in

:57:06. > :57:12.which in reality the vast majority of it, in fact wildly over 90% of it

:57:13. > :57:17.will never be looked at at all except insofar as it exists as the

:57:18. > :57:22.few digits on a screen. What ultimately the agencies will be

:57:23. > :57:25.interested in is the nugget or is he described it, the needle in the

:57:26. > :57:29.haystack that they are actually looking for. The idea that the

:57:30. > :57:34.privacy of an individual was going to be compromised if it's just so

:57:35. > :57:38.happens that the -- that the Internet traffic has been caught in

:57:39. > :57:44.that particular net is simply not real. That is the reality of what

:57:45. > :57:47.goes on and if I may say to the now already in to the house, I do not

:57:48. > :57:51.think it is very different from what was probably going on 100 years ago

:57:52. > :57:55.when somebody suspected that there might be a letter in a mailbag

:57:56. > :58:02.coming down from Glasgow to London which they could not necessarily

:58:03. > :58:06.identify with some of the markers and handwriting, and they took the

:58:07. > :58:09.entire mailbag, tipped it out as good to see if they could find the

:58:10. > :58:13.letter they were looking for and then put all the other letters back

:58:14. > :58:16.in the mailbag and send it on. The only realistic difference is at the

:58:17. > :58:19.moment you don't have to spot the mailbag because the mail can be

:58:20. > :58:25.transferred, you simply retain the data somewhere else. I appreciate

:58:26. > :58:30.that this is an area where people will legitimately be anxious that

:58:31. > :58:34.this could be capable of misuse. Of course it could be capable of

:58:35. > :58:39.misuse, the honourable lady is right on anyone in this house was to raise

:58:40. > :58:44.concerns about misuse, they are raising a perfectly legitimate

:58:45. > :58:47.point. The question, I will give way to the honourable Leonard lady in a

:58:48. > :58:52.moment, the question is what safeguards we can properly put in

:58:53. > :58:55.legislation and also to the framework we create any democratic

:58:56. > :59:01.and free society to try and ensure that this misuse will not and does

:59:02. > :59:05.not occur and the committee but I am a chairman is part of the process of

:59:06. > :59:10.trying to ensure that there is no such misuse. I give. I'm listening

:59:11. > :59:12.very carefully to what he says because they know he's very

:59:13. > :59:18.knowledgeable in this area but is he aware that during the committee, the

:59:19. > :59:24.Guardian published an internal newsletter from MI6 from September

:59:25. > :59:28.2011 but said that individuals within MI6 had been, quote, crossing

:59:29. > :59:32.the line with the database use, working at addresses in order to

:59:33. > :59:35.send birthday card, checking passport details to organise

:59:36. > :59:39.personal travel, checking details of family members for personal

:59:40. > :59:42.convenience and checking the details of colleagues to fill in service

:59:43. > :59:47.forms on their behalf. Is he aware that there is internal recognition

:59:48. > :59:51.of misuse of this data from the security services? I was aware of

:59:52. > :59:57.that, it has been public knowledge for some time. So far as I'm

:59:58. > :00:01.concerned as the chairman of the intelligence and Security committee

:00:02. > :00:05.we take that very seriously. I believe V8 insisted that very

:00:06. > :00:07.seriously as well and those who were involved in it were disciplined at

:00:08. > :00:12.the point was made that however innocent the activity might appear,

:00:13. > :00:18.looking up your friends address, it was not an acceptable thing to do.

:00:19. > :00:22.And I certainly agree and that was one of the reasons why when we

:00:23. > :00:25.debated yesterday I highlighted the issue of offences and was pleased to

:00:26. > :00:29.get the response from a honourable friends of the Treasury bench that

:00:30. > :00:35.they were taking the issue seriously because I do were a that some of the

:00:36. > :00:37.potential offences, the penalties attached to it appeared to be

:00:38. > :00:42.insufficient so I fully understand the point that the honourable

:00:43. > :00:45.Leonard lady is making. But I think we must be careful before we

:00:46. > :00:50.translate what appears to have happened in these cases into the

:00:51. > :00:53.belief that there is some systematic abuse of the datasets which might be

:00:54. > :01:00.held because that is what we were talking about. The datasets held by

:01:01. > :01:05.agencies. So the material in it is being misused or put to some Farias

:01:06. > :01:12.purpose which is not the just -- which is not legitimate for the

:01:13. > :01:17.purposes of the debate. I thank him for giving way. If it's not the case

:01:18. > :01:21.that there are many things in public life, a police computer, firearms,

:01:22. > :01:26.all kinds of things which have the potential for misuse but the

:01:27. > :01:29.potential for misuse is not a reason to eradicate them from public life

:01:30. > :01:39.but that is a reason to ensure that there is a robust framework, and the

:01:40. > :01:42.pointy maid, a proper system of penalties for those misuses rather

:01:43. > :01:47.than just scrapping the whole capability because of potentially --

:01:48. > :01:50.because of potential future missions. Because human society is

:01:51. > :01:55.not perfect I'm afraid that eradicating every instance of

:01:56. > :01:58.people, every instance of misconduct that might take place by people who

:01:59. > :02:02.are public servants is likely to be impossible. What we must make sure

:02:03. > :02:05.is that we have the proper safeguards in place and we have the

:02:06. > :02:10.proper ethics in place. And yes basically repeat what said before,

:02:11. > :02:13.my own experience is that the ethical standards of the agencies

:02:14. > :02:18.are very high. That is not to say that one hasn't got to be vigilant

:02:19. > :02:22.about maintaining it and it is not to say that there may not be

:02:23. > :02:25.instances in the past where standards may have slipped. But

:02:26. > :02:27.everything that I have seen and I think my fellow members of the

:02:28. > :02:31.intelligence and Security committee have seen have consulate provided us

:02:32. > :02:36.with you reassurance that those ethical standards are at the heart

:02:37. > :02:42.of what they do. I seem to recollect Sir Robin think that if he asked his

:02:43. > :02:47.staff that is something that was unethical then they would refuse to

:02:48. > :02:53.do it. They would refuse to do it if I made the request of them. I simply

:02:54. > :02:57.do that by way of framework. I do not want to take up too much of the

:02:58. > :03:02.house of time. I will turn to the amendments tabled. The first group

:03:03. > :03:06.is nine, ten and 11 and 12 and deals with an issue that goes right to the

:03:07. > :03:12.heart of bulk powers which is operational purposes. In the

:03:13. > :03:17.intelligence and Security committee's report on the draft Bill

:03:18. > :03:24.Weaver critical of what appeared to us to be the lack of transparency

:03:25. > :03:29.around operational purposes. Operational purposes are really of

:03:30. > :03:33.the utmost importance, because it is those picking up what the honourable

:03:34. > :03:38.lady has been saying, which actually provide the justification, Mr Deputy

:03:39. > :03:44.Speaker, for examining material which has been collected using these

:03:45. > :03:48.powers. If it falls outside a legitimate operational purpose you

:03:49. > :03:54.cannot examine it. We recommended that in some form and in a system

:03:55. > :03:58.with safeguarding national security, and those things are often difficult

:03:59. > :04:03.to reconcile, we also want as far as it is possible to have been list of

:04:04. > :04:05.those purposes published. We also recommended that the intelligence

:04:06. > :04:09.and Security committee should have a role on behalf of Parliament

:04:10. > :04:15.inscription arising if you'll classified list of operational

:04:16. > :04:18.purposes. We also are concerned as we investigated the matter further

:04:19. > :04:24.that we thought that in some cases the nature of the list of

:04:25. > :04:29.operational purposes lacked clarity, as did the procedures for managing

:04:30. > :04:32.it would remain largely, it seems to us, informal. In particular the way

:04:33. > :04:39.in which you at an operational purpose to the list. This can be

:04:40. > :04:43.done effectively by a senior officer within the organisation. The group

:04:44. > :04:48.of amendments we have tabled is intended to give effect to error to

:04:49. > :04:52.recommendations for greater scrutiny and transparency well at the same

:04:53. > :04:57.time trying to create the formal mechanism for the establishment,

:04:58. > :05:04.management and modification review of the list for operational

:05:05. > :05:08.purposes. I give way. On that very point, I anticipated the honourable

:05:09. > :05:15.gentleman with making this given his report, I have absolutely committed

:05:16. > :05:20.to commit -- to considering the matter in the way he described and I

:05:21. > :05:22.will go away with what he has said with the view to bringing further

:05:23. > :05:26.commitments to be built to satisfy him and his committee on the

:05:27. > :05:32.operational purposes. I'm very grateful to the Minister and I'll

:05:33. > :05:35.keep that in mind. I will just take the house through what it is that we

:05:36. > :05:41.propose they should understand. Firstly, in amendment nine, we have

:05:42. > :05:45.set out that the operational purposes specialise in the warrant

:05:46. > :05:48.must be specialise in a list maintained by the heads of the

:05:49. > :05:54.details and services as purposes that they consider our operational

:05:55. > :05:58.purposes where intercept -- register to data or information contained

:05:59. > :06:05.through bulk data warrants if your face. In amendment ten, and

:06:06. > :06:11.operational purpose may be specified in a list only with the approval of

:06:12. > :06:14.the Secretary of State. To the point we are making is that we think that

:06:15. > :06:20.when an operational purposes added to the list should go through the

:06:21. > :06:23.Secretary of State and signed off by them and my understanding of the

:06:24. > :06:29.Minister will be able to confirm that, is that the government doesn't

:06:30. > :06:32.see any significant problem with introducing such a system and I see

:06:33. > :06:36.the minister nodding so I'm very grateful to him. The Secretary of

:06:37. > :06:40.State must only give approval is satisfied that the operational

:06:41. > :06:44.purpose is specified in the greater level of detail and the descriptions

:06:45. > :06:48.contained in section 121 so that is to ensure that the Minister

:06:49. > :06:53.understands what it is that the agency is asking for, in adding an

:06:54. > :07:00.operational purpose to its list. I give way. I thank the member for

:07:01. > :07:04.giving way and going back to amendment nine and reducing the

:07:05. > :07:08.list, is the never confident that the list will not be too

:07:09. > :07:09.prescriptive and that those who want to find a way round that list will

:07:10. > :07:23.be able to find a way around it? The list is clearly going to be

:07:24. > :07:30.flexible, these lists have fixed ability and can be added to and

:07:31. > :07:35.subtracted from. The other day-to-day operational purpose for

:07:36. > :07:38.looking at bulk data. That is what should be there. Whereas at the

:07:39. > :07:42.moment I have seen it as something of an informal process but

:07:43. > :07:45.nevertheless, there is the suggestion it's not being followed

:07:46. > :07:50.properly, I think it needs to be formalised more, that's what these

:07:51. > :07:53.amendments are intended to do. We have also said that the list of

:07:54. > :07:58.operational purposes should be reviewed at least annually by the

:07:59. > :08:03.Prime Minister, that amendment 11. The one amendment which I think has

:08:04. > :08:07.caused greater difficulty to the government and I do understand

:08:08. > :08:11.difficulty, was our amendment 12, which was a request to the back

:08:12. > :08:14.requirements of the investigatory Powers Commissioner and the

:08:15. > :08:18.intelligence and Security committee should be kept informed of any

:08:19. > :08:25.changes to the list of operational purposes in a timely manner. I say

:08:26. > :08:33.that because I always stressed the point that we are not as a committee

:08:34. > :08:37.there to monitor the activities of the intelligence agencies in

:08:38. > :08:41.real-time. It's outside our remit to do that. The executive has to get on

:08:42. > :08:45.with its decision-making but we do have the power to look at virtually

:08:46. > :08:48.everything we want to, unless the Prime Minister denies us access

:08:49. > :08:53.which as far as I'm aware has never happened in the time I have been

:08:54. > :08:56.chairman, and we have the right to ask for the material and to be

:08:57. > :09:02.briefed on what has been going on in the past. The impression I have had

:09:03. > :09:06.is that the government would see no great objection to letting us see

:09:07. > :09:10.how I list has been reviewed on an annual basis, but we took the view

:09:11. > :09:16.that actually, timely is a bit more frequent than that. We think, I want

:09:17. > :09:19.to make the position quite clear to the Minister and Treasury bench,

:09:20. > :09:25.that we ought to be kept informed of these changes not the day after, but

:09:26. > :09:28.certainly within a reasonable time frame so we can follow the changes

:09:29. > :09:35.to operational purposes that take place and the merit of it is that

:09:36. > :09:38.because we could if necessary ask for an evidence session, ask for the

:09:39. > :09:41.head of an agency to come along and talk to us and explain what's going

:09:42. > :09:46.on, we can provide that reassurance to the house but this system is

:09:47. > :09:51.being operated greatly, that's the purpose behind this. I don't spate

:09:52. > :09:55.the Minister to give me a completely positive response to amendment 12

:09:56. > :10:02.and he has kindly intervened but what I would like him to do,

:10:03. > :10:04.otherwise I would have been minded, but what I really want to do is

:10:05. > :10:11.provide an assurance the government will give us careful consideration,

:10:12. > :10:17.and come with a solution which enables the committee to do its job.

:10:18. > :10:23.That is indeed the issue which is troubled us the most, he will

:10:24. > :10:29.understand from what he has said already that the balance to be

:10:30. > :10:32.struck between that kind of proper scrutiny and the ongoing operational

:10:33. > :10:41.security operations which clearly will require a dynamic matter.

:10:42. > :10:44.Striking that balance is critical, but I hear the tone and tenor of

:10:45. > :10:48.what he has said and I'm happy to say, of course the government will

:10:49. > :10:54.consider that carefully and continue discussions. On that basis I think

:10:55. > :10:58.these will be probing amendments, I hope this will be properly resolved

:10:59. > :11:03.as the matter goes to another place. And finally, we see the

:11:04. > :11:06.investigatory Powers to include a summary of the operational purposes.

:11:07. > :11:11.Although there is likely to be more limited than the full list, it would

:11:12. > :11:16.be helpful if there was broad understanding. I am conscious of

:11:17. > :11:21.time and I will press on. There is new clause three, as this is

:11:22. > :11:27.important, I must take a moment of it. In the Intelligence and Security

:11:28. > :11:30.Committee's report, we recommended that dataset warrants should be

:11:31. > :11:36.removed from the bill on the basis that we thought the social inclusion

:11:37. > :11:42.into privacy was sufficient to require specific approval by

:11:43. > :11:45.ministers. But we then had, as has happened in the dollar group had

:11:46. > :11:50.with government, further evidence, particularly from SIDS, regarding

:11:51. > :11:55.the rationale for retaining class warrant in the bill, the evidence

:11:56. > :12:01.highlighted that many of these datasets were covering the same

:12:02. > :12:04.information or top of information. We consider a warrant would be

:12:05. > :12:11.appropriate since the property considerations were identical.

:12:12. > :12:16.However were we to accept warrants for personal datasets, then we do

:12:17. > :12:19.need safeguards to ensure their use is limited, and we therefore

:12:20. > :12:24.proposed three specific restrictions. The first is in

:12:25. > :12:29.Russian to the most sensitive personal data, using the definitions

:12:30. > :12:36.in the Data Protection Act 1998. That would prohibit the retention of

:12:37. > :12:40.any dataset containing a specific quantity of data, relating to

:12:41. > :12:46.register reliefs, physical or mental health, sexual life, face, the

:12:47. > :12:52.second is not all out of the ordinary, in those circumstances, we

:12:53. > :12:57.wouldn't consider a class warrant is appropriate and so that subsection

:12:58. > :13:01.one B of the new clause three is designed to ensure such cases will

:13:02. > :13:04.be referred to the Secretary of State and Commissioners by way of a

:13:05. > :13:12.specific warrant. Finally we expressed concern that we shouldn't

:13:13. > :13:16.get bulk personal datasets inflation and suggested that bulk personal

:13:17. > :13:21.dataset warrant should be limited to 20 individual datasets. I want to

:13:22. > :13:24.emphasise it an arbitrary figure in many ways, and the government has an

:13:25. > :13:31.alternative approach, I am more than happy to listen. I do accept that if

:13:32. > :13:32.you limit it to 20, it is possible the Home Secretary might be asked to

:13:33. > :13:50.sign two identical datasets... The Home Secretary or Foreign

:13:51. > :13:55.Secretary, depending on who it is, is aware of what it is is being

:13:56. > :14:00.collected. I would like to emphasise that bulk personal datasets, which

:14:01. > :14:04.we have seen the entire list, we have ever been of the opinion that

:14:05. > :14:08.anything is being collected which is not legitimate and some of it is

:14:09. > :14:14.pretty mundane, I can tell the house will stop that having been said, it

:14:15. > :14:18.is right that the house should exercise some caution as to its

:14:19. > :14:22.expansion because one can see that in certain circumstances it could

:14:23. > :14:29.touch upon information which is regarded as highly sensitive. I

:14:30. > :14:35.hesitate to intervene again but I hope these exchanges are proving

:14:36. > :14:40.helpful to the house as well, this is an important issue he touches on.

:14:41. > :14:47.I think he will acknowledge that the set an arbitrary figure would be

:14:48. > :14:50.undesirable, but it certainly the case that the Home Secretary,

:14:51. > :14:54.Foreign Secretary, Northern Ireland Secretary would want to take into

:14:55. > :14:57.account numbers, and it seems to be any miracle Kay said he is making

:14:58. > :15:01.which is not without merit, I am not sure that's a matter for the face of

:15:02. > :15:07.the bill but it certainly should be dealt with. I'm grateful to the

:15:08. > :15:11.minister again and yes, I entirely except that if the Minister can

:15:12. > :15:14.produce an assurance that the passage of this bill through

:15:15. > :15:18.parliament, there will be a protocol in place that we have access to

:15:19. > :15:24.which sets out exactly how this will be managed in practice, and we can

:15:25. > :15:28.provide reassurance to the house that is being followed, that would

:15:29. > :15:34.satisfy the concerns I have about this. But I do think this is an

:15:35. > :15:38.issue, because the world is made up of more and more bulk personal

:15:39. > :15:44.datasets, or being collected in digital form, and there does need to

:15:45. > :15:49.be a process in place to ensure that what is their illegitimately held,

:15:50. > :15:55.and not just being added to in a way that could impact the outside

:15:56. > :15:58.Minister's line of vision altogether. Unless they specifically

:15:59. > :16:03.started asking questions. That sort of approach, on that basis I would

:16:04. > :16:14.be happy to accept his assurance on that. I am less vexed about the

:16:15. > :16:19.arbitrary nature but more interested in one age, what is meant by the

:16:20. > :16:26.phrase, large, and can they indicate to what proportion that large would

:16:27. > :16:31.be considered or the quantum of what large would be reconsidering a

:16:32. > :16:36.personal dataset? The helpful really cross from the 98 legislation, it

:16:37. > :16:46.would be useful to know what would be meant by that open suggestion.

:16:47. > :16:51.Like everything else, we get it its ordinariness meaning. I can accept

:16:52. > :16:59.that you may collect a dataset which although its content is innocuous,

:17:00. > :17:02.and isn't used for personal data at all, there might be a nugget of

:17:03. > :17:08.sensitive personal data which has crept into it in some strange,

:17:09. > :17:16.unintended way. I accept that in those circumstances, predictions we

:17:17. > :17:27.put in are the Surrey, the truth is that the agencies wouldn't even know

:17:28. > :17:36.it was there. If we focus on the Data Protection Act, a person is

:17:37. > :17:39.significant quantity of data, relating to race, physical or mental

:17:40. > :17:46.health or sexual life, we're probably in quite a good place. I

:17:47. > :17:49.don't think a court would have difficulty showing what falls on one

:17:50. > :17:55.side of the line or other. Like everybody else, everything is open

:17:56. > :18:02.to interpretation so I don't offer it as 100% perfection for the

:18:03. > :18:07.honourable gentleman, but it's a way forward, most of us would understand

:18:08. > :18:15.what sort of data would contain that sort of material. Could I then turn

:18:16. > :18:23.also to amendment 24, also in this group. This is about specific

:18:24. > :18:29.warrants about personal datasets, simply trying to ensure that here

:18:30. > :18:35.too, we are far less concerned about these but this provision would cover

:18:36. > :18:39.data again relating to a person's race, religious beliefs, physical or

:18:40. > :18:43.mental health or sexual life and ensure that the Secretary of State

:18:44. > :18:47.authorising the warrant would have the sensitivity of the data

:18:48. > :18:50.highlighted for them as part of their overall consideration of the

:18:51. > :18:56.necessity and proportionality of examining the dataset. It would be

:18:57. > :19:02.excellent support of the government. But this would mean is that if there

:19:03. > :19:05.was an intention for example to enquire the debugger acquire dataset

:19:06. > :19:11.which clearly contained a great deal of information about people's

:19:12. > :19:13.religious or political opinions, in no circumstances would that be drawn

:19:14. > :19:19.to the attention of the Secretary of State, in asking him to sign off the

:19:20. > :19:31.warrant so they were aware that was in fact what was sought. And

:19:32. > :19:38.finally, in this list, I would just mention amendment 22 and 23, which

:19:39. > :19:42.are really carry-overs from yesterday, and are about the renewal

:19:43. > :19:45.of warrants that prevent to warrant extending over a 12 month period,

:19:46. > :19:49.which I believe the government has accepted but couldn't be considered

:19:50. > :19:54.yesterday. I apologised taking up so much of the house's time but I hope

:19:55. > :20:06.these amendments may help clarify and improve some of the areas. Thank

:20:07. > :20:11.you. We made good progress today in the house, so we now have clarity

:20:12. > :20:19.about the terms of the independent review of bulk powers, we have an

:20:20. > :20:24.overarching privacy clause, we have a strict test the judicial

:20:25. > :20:28.commissioners, protection for trade union activities, and an undertaking

:20:29. > :20:32.from the sinister the general to consider how to amend the bill to

:20:33. > :20:34.make it absolutely clear that whistle-blowers will make disclosure

:20:35. > :20:39.to the IPC without fear of prosecution. I hope we can make as

:20:40. > :20:46.good progress today. Let me start with this. Yesterday, one of the

:20:47. > :20:50.amendments that was made and is now on the face of the bill, is the

:20:51. > :20:56.requirement for judicial commissioners to consider necessity

:20:57. > :20:59.and proportionality with a sufficient degree of care to ensure

:21:00. > :21:08.the judicial commissioners comply with the general duties in racial to

:21:09. > :21:11.privacy. That amendment was made in relation to clause 21 which relates

:21:12. > :21:20.to intercept warrants. They were dealing with powers, and the

:21:21. > :21:23.commissioners have a important role and are important safeguards to the

:21:24. > :21:31.issue of warrants involving bulk powers. It is important we have

:21:32. > :21:37.clarity in the house today, that the tighter scrutiny that is on the face

:21:38. > :21:43.of the bill in relation to clause 21 applies equally to all other

:21:44. > :21:47.exercises of authorisation carried out or approval carried out by

:21:48. > :21:52.judicial commissioners, including whether exercising their powers in

:21:53. > :21:56.the nation to look warrants. Otherwise there is a risk of the

:21:57. > :22:01.tests, one under clause 21 and one under the other clauses that apply

:22:02. > :22:04.to bulk powers, there is a real danger when it comes to combined

:22:05. > :22:11.warrants, where judicial commissioners would be asked to

:22:12. > :22:16.carry out different tests, and it is important that the bulk powers have

:22:17. > :22:19.every bit as close scrutiny as the intercept warrants.

:22:20. > :22:28.I would ask if the Minister could make clear in his submission to this

:22:29. > :22:30.house that the test is of general application across all the functions

:22:31. > :22:36.the judicial commissioners whether it is in solution to the warrant

:22:37. > :22:39.under section 21 or in relation to bulk powers and other provisions in

:22:40. > :22:46.the ill because I think that would be a helpful extension of safeguards

:22:47. > :22:50.in relation to bulk powers. Can I then turned to the bulk powers

:22:51. > :22:55.themselves? As the honourable member from Glasgow North East has pointed

:22:56. > :22:59.out, the bulk powers are very wide and I think what concerns her

:23:00. > :23:03.constituents concerns my constituents and many other

:23:04. > :23:10.constituents is that inevitably the bulk powers will be applied to add

:23:11. > :23:15.impact upon people who are not themselves suspected of any

:23:16. > :23:21.wrongdoing whatsoever, it is an inevitability when bulk powers are

:23:22. > :23:24.used and that is a real concern. I'm sure members of the public have

:23:25. > :23:30.spoken to in many of the members of the house are concerned. I give way.

:23:31. > :23:37.Before the moves on to these wider issues, and I can sense he's about

:23:38. > :23:40.to do that, let me deal with the application of the content of the

:23:41. > :23:45.manuscript amendment which he rightly said was specified in part.

:23:46. > :23:49.He is right to say that the principles that underpin that

:23:50. > :23:57.amendment should apply to the whole of the Ville and as the bill enjoyed

:23:58. > :24:02.its further passage I would be sure that that is the case legislatively

:24:03. > :24:07.soak if we need to move further amendments to make that clear then

:24:08. > :24:10.we will. I am grateful for that intervention to clarify the position

:24:11. > :24:12.because that is an important additional measure in relation to

:24:13. > :24:19.the powers so I'm grateful for that. We will of course move forward any

:24:20. > :24:24.amendments necessary to achieve that end. The powers are very wide, they

:24:25. > :24:30.do inevitably impact on people who are not suspected of doing anything

:24:31. > :24:36.wrong at all. They inevitably will impact, it is impossible to ensure

:24:37. > :24:40.they would impact, an legally privileged material, all material

:24:41. > :24:48.that involves journalistic material, journalistic sources or indeed MPs

:24:49. > :24:51.correspondence. It would be good if a way could be achieved of excluding

:24:52. > :24:56.the material from the operational bulk powers but it is not possible

:24:57. > :24:58.to do so so that is why the concern about bulk powers. It involves

:24:59. > :25:04.ordinary members of the public are done nothing wrong, it involves the

:25:05. > :25:06.potential to capture legally privileged material, journalistic

:25:07. > :25:10.material and in the correspondence. I will come the safeguards, because

:25:11. > :25:16.it is important to understand why there is concerns about bulk powers.

:25:17. > :25:21.I know he's very good on whistle-blowing but I'm sure that

:25:22. > :25:28.ministers do not respond to whistles. David Davis. I was not

:25:29. > :25:36.intending to be discourteous, the point I wanted to pick up with the

:25:37. > :25:43.spokesman, the Labour spokesman, is this. He said that it is not

:25:44. > :25:47.possible to screen out the correspondence of the various

:25:48. > :25:54.privileged groups you described. This issue came up at the IPT with

:25:55. > :25:59.respect to one of the Wilson doctrine cases. That was the

:26:00. > :26:07.assertion made by the government banister at the time so I went to a

:26:08. > :26:11.number of experts, Ross Anderson among others and they said it was

:26:12. > :26:15.privately possible. A great deal is already done to take out dross and

:26:16. > :26:19.issues like pornography and so on and it is perfectly possible to

:26:20. > :26:24.screen out targeted groups as well. I'm grateful for that intervention,

:26:25. > :26:27.we will obviously very interested to hear how that could be done at the

:26:28. > :26:34.outset. As I'm sure the Minister word. Just to be the make two

:26:35. > :26:37.points. I am making the point to emphasise why there is such concern

:26:38. > :26:44.about bulk powers. It may well be that it is possible depending on the

:26:45. > :26:51.parameters set to reduce the likelihood of obtaining bulk powers

:26:52. > :26:55.material that is sensitive and one shape or form. I do not think it is

:26:56. > :26:58.possible to eliminate it and it may well be that it is that the

:26:59. > :27:02.filtering says that most of that is actually done rather than the

:27:03. > :27:12.initial exercise of the bulk power. I am not here seeking to explain or

:27:13. > :27:14.justify why bulk powers inevitably capture this information, I am

:27:15. > :27:19.simply explain why it is that I think so many concerned about the

:27:20. > :27:24.bulk powers and that is why from Labour's point of view we have been

:27:25. > :27:30.clear that given the breadth of the bulk powers the operational case for

:27:31. > :27:38.them must be properly made and must be properly reviewed. And by the

:27:39. > :27:41.safeguards must be viewed. As far as the safeguards are concerned that is

:27:42. > :27:46.an issue which may need to be revisited. When this bill is on the

:27:47. > :27:54.other place. Because the honourable member knows, the case of Thomas and

:27:55. > :27:56.David Davis, currently midway between the Court of Justice in

:27:57. > :28:00.European Union and Court of Appeal which though it touches on existing

:28:01. > :28:05.legislation and retention powers may have applications and knowledge to

:28:06. > :28:07.this bill when it has further consideration and certainly would be

:28:08. > :28:12.important when it comes to consideration of safeguards. I also

:28:13. > :28:16.in passing echoing the concerns of the Right Honourable member from the

:28:17. > :28:22.concealed English into operational purposes which came up in the Bill

:28:23. > :28:25.committee, as well. As for the review, the first stage is has the

:28:26. > :28:30.operational case been made out? I referred yesterday to the exchange

:28:31. > :28:34.of letters between myself and the Minister, I hope they have been made

:28:35. > :28:38.available, I think they have been made a veiled the house and so

:28:39. > :28:45.everyone has them and I just want to make it clear what the record for

:28:46. > :28:47.the house what was being asked for and what the response was an essay

:28:48. > :28:53.at the outset this was a constructive exchange of letters and

:28:54. > :28:58.moved a significant issue significantly further forward. What

:28:59. > :29:02.I set out in my letter to the Minister of State for security was

:29:03. > :29:08.that the review to be carried out by us should be secured by a barrister

:29:09. > :29:10.and a technical expert with experience of corporate

:29:11. > :29:13.investigations, that the review should examine the operational case

:29:14. > :29:19.for bulk powers in the Bill not merely respective of the utility of

:29:20. > :29:22.the powers that also the necessity, that the review should have access

:29:23. > :29:25.to an necessary information as is needed to undertake the review

:29:26. > :29:28.effectively, including all information provided to the

:29:29. > :29:32.intelligence and Security committee and the review should take about

:29:33. > :29:34.three months to complete and report to the Prime Minister contemporary

:29:35. > :29:37.findings to inform the Lords committee consideration of part six

:29:38. > :29:43.and seven of the bill. The reply for the Minister was, it is important as

:29:44. > :29:49.members who have had the opportunity to read it will appreciate because

:29:50. > :29:53.the reply from the Minister made clear in the stands, I can confirm

:29:54. > :29:59.that the basic framework for the review will be a set out in your

:30:00. > :30:02.letter, and then it went on to say David Hanson has hand-picked his

:30:03. > :30:04.team and we are confident that together they have the range and

:30:05. > :30:09.depth of knowledge needed to undertake a cob round to review and

:30:10. > :30:12.I was the reaction is that David Anderson should take the members of

:30:13. > :30:15.his team that he thought at the competency to help them with the

:30:16. > :30:19.review that he has been asked to independently carry out. I'm pleased

:30:20. > :30:23.that he has done that and I am assured by him that he is very happy

:30:24. > :30:27.with the choices and the skills that he has now got as a result of that

:30:28. > :30:31.exercise. In relation, the letter from the Minister of State Security

:30:32. > :30:36.goes on to say in allusion to your second point, and this is really

:30:37. > :30:39.important, it is absolutely the case that this review will assess the

:30:40. > :30:43.specific question of whether the bulk capabilities provided for an

:30:44. > :30:48.necessary. The review team will critically appraise a need for bulk

:30:49. > :30:53.capabilities that will include an assessment of whether the same

:30:54. > :30:55.result could have been achieved for alternative investigative methods.

:30:56. > :31:00.This goes to the heart of the issue because if that is the focus of the

:31:01. > :31:05.review then that will give comfort to the Labour team no doubt also to

:31:06. > :31:11.the SNP notwithstanding the concerns and also to our constituents about

:31:12. > :31:16.the review. I give way. This year he with me that the timetable of this

:31:17. > :31:20.independent review is such that whether the laws will have time to

:31:21. > :31:24.scrutinise it and debate it, the Commons want, and does he agree with

:31:25. > :31:33.me that this is not acceptable in a democracy? I am grateful for that

:31:34. > :31:38.intervention. I have been asking for this review for some time and my

:31:39. > :31:44.preference was always that it would have been available to us now but in

:31:45. > :31:47.fairness, and in keeping with what I said yesterday about the exercise we

:31:48. > :31:53.have been conducting, I recognise that this was a very big ask of the

:31:54. > :31:58.government at this stage in the legislation, particularly in light

:31:59. > :32:06.of the pre-legislative scrutiny, and I'm inclined always to look on the

:32:07. > :32:09.positive side and I think the fact that there is the review now in the

:32:10. > :32:14.Thames that we have asked for is very important. Of course when one

:32:15. > :32:20.looks back at anything one can always make the argument that it

:32:21. > :32:24.should have been done earlier. It would be good if we had a review at

:32:25. > :32:30.this stage, I accept that, and that is why I have put the argument

:32:31. > :32:36.forward as I did before. I do emphasise just how significant this

:32:37. > :32:39.was and what a significant change of position this has been for the

:32:40. > :32:45.government and it is a positive and constructive one that we are very

:32:46. > :32:54.grateful for. These powers mostly already exist and this is about

:32:55. > :32:57.existing power so in some sense the question by the Right Honourable

:32:58. > :33:01.Lady is different to what it normally would be. We have powers

:33:02. > :33:06.there and we may not change them as the result of the delay, but this

:33:07. > :33:11.does have an implication on how soon we review the whole package and how

:33:12. > :33:15.soon become back and we legislate. It has long seemed to me that this

:33:16. > :33:20.is a piece of legislation which lends itself to almost annual review

:33:21. > :33:26.and annual renewal and annual reform. Maybe the way to deal with

:33:27. > :33:30.that problem is to ensure that in another part of this business we get

:33:31. > :33:39.a relatively rapid review and reform of this legislation. I do think

:33:40. > :33:43.there is a case for frequent review, quite what form that takes is a

:33:44. > :33:49.matter to discuss at the next batch of amendments. I take the point that

:33:50. > :33:53.in many instances most of the bulk powers are powers currently

:33:54. > :33:59.available and being used. But as I said yesterday, that does not mean

:34:00. > :34:06.that we should not scrutinise them now through the passage of this bill

:34:07. > :34:08.because this is the first time that Parliament has had the chance to

:34:09. > :34:16.examine and scrutinise these provisions because this influence

:34:17. > :34:19.around. What has happened in the past few years is quite

:34:20. > :34:24.extraordinary in terms of the change position in allusion to the level of

:34:25. > :34:27.the powers and the fact that they are on the statutes. What would be

:34:28. > :34:32.wrong is to say that since the exist that we used more general provisions

:34:33. > :34:35.in the past, that means that we should not ask for the operational

:34:36. > :34:38.case to be made now and haven't scrutinised. I think this is the

:34:39. > :34:41.right way of doing it. Even though one might say it should have been

:34:42. > :34:48.done five or ten or 15 years ago when things were different. I will

:34:49. > :34:55.give way. That is why a focus on this are cities, not merely utility.

:34:56. > :35:01.It would have been very easy to have focused on utility and that he

:35:02. > :35:03.emphasised earlier, this is about establishing to the satisfaction of

:35:04. > :35:11.independent people that these powers are necessary. I thank you and I

:35:12. > :35:18.think that were necessary is very important in all of this. And as I

:35:19. > :35:21.say, the ability of the review team to assess whether the same result

:35:22. > :35:24.could have been achieved from alternative investigative methods is

:35:25. > :35:32.something which is very reported to that exercise in the outcome. The

:35:33. > :35:39.letter goes on to say that all necessary information and access at

:35:40. > :35:42.me before the review will be provided and we are absolutely clear

:35:43. > :35:46.that there is nothing to be gained in much to be lost by in any way

:35:47. > :35:50.restricting the review team access to sites -- too sensitive and

:35:51. > :35:53.classified material where it is necessary to inform the review

:35:54. > :35:59.process. And on the issue of timing your correct that review will be

:36:00. > :36:05.conducted in time to inform Paolo's consideration of parts six and seven

:36:06. > :36:11.of the committee. The is a complete and constructive response and I

:36:12. > :36:17.think that will help a great deal in the way that the review is received.

:36:18. > :36:23.Can I just say this, the review is very important. It is not just an

:36:24. > :36:27.exercise for us in this house are those in the other place, it is an

:36:28. > :36:30.exercise for the public and because the Right Honourable and learned

:36:31. > :36:35.member from Beaconsfield said there are members of this house who have

:36:36. > :36:40.had access to as seen in operation some of the powers, either in

:36:41. > :36:44.previous roles or in briefings that have been given to members of

:36:45. > :36:49.various committees. But it is not enough for members of the public any

:36:50. > :36:52.more, nor should it be, for politicians to stand up and simply

:36:53. > :36:56.say well I have had its demonstrated to me that these powers are

:36:57. > :37:01.necessary or have been used in a particular way. They have the right

:37:02. > :37:05.to have as much information as possible to make that decision for

:37:06. > :37:09.themselves. Of course I will. I think the Honourable member for

:37:10. > :37:14.taking the intervention. If the review comes back and says that the

:37:15. > :37:20.bulk powers are not necessary, what will the Labour Party do then?

:37:21. > :37:30.I'll assess that at the time. It depends what the report says. If the

:37:31. > :37:36.report calls into question any of the powers, that'll be something

:37:37. > :37:46.that we will all want to consider and I would want to consider as

:37:47. > :37:49.well. I think anybody, it would be difficult for anybody in this house

:37:50. > :37:53.or the other place to make a case for a bulk power which an

:37:54. > :37:57.independent reviewer has said is unnecessary but let us wait until we

:37:58. > :38:03.get that stage and see what the review actually says. It goes to the

:38:04. > :38:07.point about confidence in the review. It is the question of

:38:08. > :38:14.publication. I think it is important that the report of the review is

:38:15. > :38:21.publicly available. Obviously, I understand that David Anderson and

:38:22. > :38:24.his team are going to see highly sensitive material and will have

:38:25. > :38:28.unrestricted access and that means that the detail in any public report

:38:29. > :38:32.will inevitably be limited and wiping debris body understands that.

:38:33. > :38:37.I think it is very important that the report is published as, most of

:38:38. > :38:45.David Anderson's reports have been, in form, so that they can be read by

:38:46. > :38:47.members of this house, the other place and numbers of the public who

:38:48. > :38:57.seek reassurance about the confidence of the review. I'll give

:38:58. > :39:01.way twice. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. I think

:39:02. > :39:09.this issue goes to the heart of why this bill is particularly difficult.

:39:10. > :39:14.This house depends on members of the intelligence and Security committee

:39:15. > :39:20.who in private sessions have found out how these powers are being used

:39:21. > :39:24.and then report in a way that ends up being redacted to this house

:39:25. > :39:31.about their confidence in them and we have a duty to ensure that the

:39:32. > :39:38.public is as well-informed as is possible in concert with our needs

:39:39. > :39:42.to protect national security about how these things work. That is the

:39:43. > :39:49.challenge and it is one of the reasons why this house has bound

:39:50. > :39:57.this ill quite a difficult matter to deal with. I agree with the

:39:58. > :40:06.sentiments. Conventions and attitudes change. It was once a

:40:07. > :40:14.convention, to take an example from my past, that a prosecution wouldn't

:40:15. > :40:20.give regions for its decision. That has changed. Politicians who have to

:40:21. > :40:24.particular information can assure the public by simply saying they

:40:25. > :40:30.have had access our well and truly over. That presents problems and

:40:31. > :40:40.difficulties into what can be put in the public domain. She is right that

:40:41. > :40:45.these are sensitive, delicate, and secret matters when it comes to

:40:46. > :40:52.operational concern. He is absolutely right that we should put

:40:53. > :40:56.as much information as possible in the report. Clearly, he is right

:40:57. > :40:59.that there will be access to security cleared information of a

:41:00. > :41:03.highly sensitive nature but that should not stub as being as clear as

:41:04. > :41:12.we can be to this house and more widely as to why it is decided that

:41:13. > :41:16.these powers are necessary or not. I'm grateful for that intervention

:41:17. > :41:22.and I will take it in the spirit it is put forward. Maximum publicity

:41:23. > :41:28.within the constraints with which highly sensitive information is

:41:29. > :41:32.being looked at. The first point of the review is to make sure his

:41:33. > :41:36.lordships can perform the scrutiny function. They are not going to be

:41:37. > :41:41.able to do that if they do not have the information to assist them in

:41:42. > :41:45.their deliberations. The terms of the review are a material and

:41:46. > :41:48.important step forward and we are grateful for the information about

:41:49. > :41:54.the publication of the review when it is complete. That takes me to

:41:55. > :42:03.medical records. I can deal with this swiftly. Does he agree with me

:42:04. > :42:08.that the necessity of all powers is an very not just to give the public

:42:09. > :42:12.confidence but to give confidence to the intelligence agencies who must

:42:13. > :42:17.use them. They are scrupulous about acting within the law and we owe it

:42:18. > :42:21.to them to award powers that they can be satisfied are both necessary

:42:22. > :42:27.and enjoyed public support. I do agree. I have emphasised to the

:42:28. > :42:30.security services that there is value in this exercise from their

:42:31. > :42:35.perspective in making the operational case for the powers that

:42:36. > :42:39.they do exercise and wish to continue exercising. It is another

:42:40. > :42:51.good reason for the review. Turning to medical records. There has been

:42:52. > :42:55.an ongoing concern raised by, I think, the centre he, in fairness,

:42:56. > :43:02.for the first time and then by Labour in the Bill committee about

:43:03. > :43:07.access to medical records. As far as Labour is concerned and I'm sure it

:43:08. > :43:12.is a shared position, the concern has been about patient information

:43:13. > :43:17.as defined by section 251 of the National health act. That relates to

:43:18. > :43:21.mental health, adult social care, child social care and health

:43:22. > :43:27.services. I don't need to spell out for the house why many members of

:43:28. > :43:35.the public, my constituents and those of many members are deeply

:43:36. > :43:38.concerned about the very notion of the security and intelligence

:43:39. > :43:44.services having access an able basis to those sorts of very sensitive

:43:45. > :43:50.records. We laid an amendment, therefore, in the Bill committee

:43:51. > :43:56.introducing a high threshold for the exercise of powers in relation to

:43:57. > :44:02.those records, they are reflected in amendments 303 to 305 before the

:44:03. > :44:10.house today. The government has laid new clause 14 in response to the

:44:11. > :44:19.demands that we have made. Although new clause 14 is not in the same

:44:20. > :44:24.form as amendments 303-305, on my analysis it does cover mental health

:44:25. > :44:29.records, adult social care records, child social care records and health

:44:30. > :44:35.records because of the way it is framed with sub-clause six. If now

:44:36. > :44:38.and add some convenient point, the minister could indicate whether it

:44:39. > :44:43.does cover those records then I can indicate that I would not move

:44:44. > :44:52.towards a vote for those amendments. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank

:44:53. > :45:00.you very much indeed. There is a golden rule in my household. When in

:45:01. > :45:13.doubt, turn to Kipling. Not the exceedingly good baker but our

:45:14. > :45:19.rather excellent writer. He can effectively summarise, and I wasn't

:45:20. > :45:25.intending to speak on these move is, apart from having heard the case

:45:26. > :45:30.deployed by the SNP and the case deployed by the honourable and learn

:45:31. > :45:34.a gentleman from the Labour Party. On the latter point, I concur and

:45:35. > :45:40.support what he said entirely. But the approach now of the SNP which we

:45:41. > :45:48.have heard since second reading at, certainly is a golden thread that

:45:49. > :45:55.ran through committee, is one, I think, of serious annoyance to me.

:45:56. > :45:59.I'm pretty certain, to colleagues. I'm absolutely certain of huge

:46:00. > :46:06.anxiety to our constituents. The honourable lady for Glasgow North

:46:07. > :46:11.East obviously has constituents very different to mine. She and I sat on

:46:12. > :46:16.the immigration Bill committee, as did the Shadow minister, some little

:46:17. > :46:23.while ago, no constituent of hers had ever raised the issue of

:46:24. > :46:28.immigration. All constituents, according to the honourable lady,

:46:29. > :46:35.have raised with her these huge Glasgow concerns about baulk powers.

:46:36. > :46:41.I want to give the honourable lady the benefit of the words of Roger

:46:42. > :46:44.Kipling. I think what the SNP has demonstrated, I don't personalise

:46:45. > :46:52.this to the honourable lady, I make it as a general point to her party,

:46:53. > :46:57.power without responsibility has been the prerogative of the harlot

:46:58. > :47:01.throughout the ages. They are using their position of power to

:47:02. > :47:06.effectively, in my judgment, as they have continually sought to do, to

:47:07. > :47:12.undermine both the confidence of this house and of the country in the

:47:13. > :47:19.robustness and the ethics of our security services. Who every day,

:47:20. > :47:23.day in and day out, seek to use and require and I agree with the point

:47:24. > :47:27.made by the Shadow Minister, that require the public confidence that

:47:28. > :47:35.they have them in order to make sure that they have the right skills and

:47:36. > :47:39.tools to keep our constituents safe. I'm going to take the honourable and

:47:40. > :47:47.landed lady first and then I will take the honourable gentleman. I

:47:48. > :47:51.very much resent what he is saying. Compton Mackenzie was one of the

:47:52. > :47:56.members of British security services and in Scotland we have one of the

:47:57. > :48:04.best records of crime prevention in the world. In Scotland we have

:48:05. > :48:08.responsibility and we are in a successful third term and will he

:48:09. > :48:10.please reconsider his remarks which we on these benches and most people

:48:11. > :48:22.in Scotland would find most offensive. Once she has calmed down

:48:23. > :48:27.from her anxiety I would only say that Compton Mackenzie must be

:48:28. > :48:35.turning in his grave. There is a significant dereliction of duty. One

:48:36. > :48:39.would think... Maybe this might be the case in Scotland, then if it is

:48:40. > :48:47.the case, the honourable lady must forgive my ignorance, there is no

:48:48. > :48:51.organised crime, no paedophiles, no people traffickers, no terrorists,

:48:52. > :48:57.no drug dealers, no people who are trying to do is ill. Maybe in the

:48:58. > :49:03.analogy of my right honourable and learned friend it is the view of the

:49:04. > :49:07.SNP that a rifling through a mail sack, the identification of a hand

:49:08. > :49:15.on equal pen will be sufficient to interrupt some terrible deed. That

:49:16. > :49:23.may well be the case. That would satisfy their constituents. It will

:49:24. > :49:28.not satisfy mine. My constituents look for the government of the day,

:49:29. > :49:33.irrespective of what stripe it is, that it deploys with seriousness and

:49:34. > :49:39.democratic accountability the first duty of the state which is to

:49:40. > :49:45.protect the realm of its citizens. I hope the honourable gentleman will

:49:46. > :49:53.accept that I hold no brief for the Scottish National Party. I struggle

:49:54. > :49:56.many days to hold any for them. But can I offer him the opportunity to

:49:57. > :50:04.reflect on what he has said about the duty of the SNP members and

:50:05. > :50:12.others others, including a substantial number on his own

:50:13. > :50:18.benches. One of ours would seek to undermine -- Nantes of us would seek

:50:19. > :50:23.to undermine the security services that it is our duty to ensure that

:50:24. > :50:26.the powers given to them by this house are necessary and

:50:27. > :50:32.proportionate. That is the work in which with we are engaged here. If

:50:33. > :50:40.we are to talk about a breach of duty, it would the a breach of our

:50:41. > :50:45.duty if we were not do that. Can I just say, you want to catch my eye

:50:46. > :50:54.very shortly. I don't want to hear the speech twice. Short

:50:55. > :51:00.interventions. I don't wish to reflect or reconsider how I have

:51:01. > :51:04.positioned this. In this house, we have to be incredibly careful about

:51:05. > :51:08.what we say and how we say it and how it can be understood or

:51:09. > :51:13.construed. The Labour front bench have been very clear and I welcome

:51:14. > :51:19.their position. But for the last 12 months, almost since we had a debate

:51:20. > :51:24.in this place on that Thursday in July of last year on the Anderson

:51:25. > :51:31.report, there has been, certainly, my take, that those who are bringing

:51:32. > :51:36.together the collective was done of the honourable lady's party have

:51:37. > :51:42.watched too many reruns of the enemy of the state and have read too many

:51:43. > :51:47.books where they presuppose that those honest men and women who under

:51:48. > :51:51.the rule of law are trying to keep us safe are in some way or another

:51:52. > :51:59.insidious, acting in a honour hand or duplicitous way and wish is ill.

:52:00. > :52:07.I think that is what, in essence, I have understood what it is they are

:52:08. > :52:11.saying. That is my interpretation. We had it at committee and that is

:52:12. > :52:14.why I will be opposing their amendments later on.

:52:15. > :52:21.I want to put on record what was said by myself and the Minister,

:52:22. > :52:24.that was the significant role the SNP played in the Bill committee in

:52:25. > :52:29.ensuring that this bill has arrived at this stage in much better shape

:52:30. > :52:32.than it was when it was in the Bill committee, it was a very

:52:33. > :52:36.constructive exercise by the SNP. He took different approaches on issues

:52:37. > :52:39.to yourselves but to suggest that they have not played an important

:52:40. > :52:45.part is not to reflect the views at the end of the committee stages. I

:52:46. > :52:52.am inclined to agree on the latter point on the law but at every step

:52:53. > :52:56.and turned, every amendment on my reading and in my healing and my

:52:57. > :53:02.understanding from the SNP has been designed to delay and frustrate. We

:53:03. > :53:09.have had the run through the debate, but we have not had adequate time to

:53:10. > :53:12.debate and discuss these issues. I have not going to rehearse Mr Deputy

:53:13. > :53:17.Speaker because you know the, how many committees of this house, the

:53:18. > :53:20.Bill committee said the long period of time. We had a long second

:53:21. > :53:26.meeting debate and the government and the ministers in particular have

:53:27. > :53:30.bent over backwards in order to ensure that they can land this bill

:53:31. > :53:35.in a sheet and for which is acceptable to the vast majority of

:53:36. > :53:39.the members of this house and the other place. I will give way to the

:53:40. > :53:43.Honourable member. If he thinks of the amendments laid by the SNP were

:53:44. > :53:49.designed to delay or frustrate the Bill how does he explain that his

:53:50. > :53:53.own government have accepted new clause six yesterday, several

:53:54. > :53:59.liability for certain model and which was in amendment late in the

:54:00. > :54:06.on the half of the SNP. Perhaps he would again like to consider his

:54:07. > :54:13.comments carefully. It is marvellous that the punto one amendment out of

:54:14. > :54:16.about 127,000 that the SNP have taken in this process that has been

:54:17. > :54:25.acceptable to Her Majesty 's government. It felt like 120 7000.

:54:26. > :54:34.Forgive me. This is the fundamental point. The Honourable and Leonard

:54:35. > :54:40.lady the member for South West is right and this is why I find it

:54:41. > :54:44.surprising because the SNP is clearly a pro-control party, they

:54:45. > :54:47.are in the third term of government in Edinburgh, they will be the

:54:48. > :54:50.starting some of the duties, they will be consulted on different

:54:51. > :54:52.things by ministers and by those responsible for quoting

:54:53. > :54:57.commissioners and all the rest of it. There seems to be a rather

:54:58. > :55:01.peculiar disconnect between the seriousness of the duties of

:55:02. > :55:06.governments which the party takes or the border and the rather, certainly

:55:07. > :55:15.the impression of flippancy that is given when it comes to national

:55:16. > :55:19.security. In at the Honourable member likes to bring the chamber

:55:20. > :55:23.alive but also he needs to start to speak to the amendments, his

:55:24. > :55:26.antagonistic bits have come forward and now I want to hear about the

:55:27. > :55:30.amendments because I have surely also wants the US colleagues. Mr

:55:31. > :55:34.Deputy Speaker you're absolutely right and I was rather hoping and I

:55:35. > :55:40.hope I can continue to be in order, which is why I say it. You were not

:55:41. > :55:45.in order, that is why I want you to be in order. Mr Deputy Speaker let

:55:46. > :55:48.me reiterate that I spotted some of the steam, let me reiterate I am

:55:49. > :55:55.speaking because I am opposing the amendments which had been tabled in

:55:56. > :55:58.this way. I really don't speak much advice, in fact I will give you

:55:59. > :56:04.advice that says it is the amendments we speak to. But leading

:56:05. > :56:09.to or around but the detail of the amendments and I am sure that he

:56:10. > :56:15.will be back on track. I am putting the amendments because they would be

:56:16. > :56:22.deleting a very significant powers which are basically required. I have

:56:23. > :56:27.as I believe the government has, conference and services to deploy

:56:28. > :56:29.and accountable way. That is why if the Honourable Lady who has moved

:56:30. > :56:34.her reference this afternoon will be promoting them at pushing them three

:56:35. > :56:40.division, if nobody else will be opposing them, I certainly will

:56:41. > :56:44.because I am content is of the Ark must abide by the Treasury bench

:56:45. > :56:49.that those powers are required. We cannot dodge responsibilities on

:56:50. > :56:55.this, we may find it infringes and impinges on the sacred flame of

:56:56. > :57:04.civil liberties got to keep the country safe, so be it. I can only

:57:05. > :57:09.regret the town of the remarks of the Honourable gentleman for North

:57:10. > :57:14.Dorset. And he said anything about the content of the bill or amendment

:57:15. > :57:20.I might have regretted that as well. There are a number of matters that I

:57:21. > :57:27.want to touch on today. I would like to speak first of all in relation to

:57:28. > :57:32.the review, which has formed so much of the debate today. I very much

:57:33. > :57:36.welcome the appointment of David Anderson QC and I think he is

:57:37. > :57:42.somebody who can and respect and confidence in all parts of the house

:57:43. > :57:46.and I think as the Honourable and learned member from St Pancras it

:57:47. > :57:50.earlier, it is significant and important that first of all he has a

:57:51. > :57:56.remix that looks at the necessity of these provisions and also that he

:57:57. > :58:02.has been able to select for himself the team from which he will be

:58:03. > :58:07.working. I very much hope that the report outcomes will be one which

:58:08. > :58:16.can be produced in time for the Bill to the given the benefit of it when

:58:17. > :58:21.it is considered by the other place. But I would say at this stage to the

:58:22. > :58:24.Minister on the bench that if it is the question of a week or two here

:58:25. > :58:29.or there, notwithstanding the deadlines to which we are all

:58:30. > :58:35.working, I think it would be proper for the government to take the view

:58:36. > :58:40.that it would be best to get this right rather than to get it quick. I

:58:41. > :58:45.for my part and disinclined to think that David Anderson would have taken

:58:46. > :58:51.this job on if he was not able to do it in the time that is allowed to

:58:52. > :58:54.him, but as we all know with these matters, sometimes the unexpected

:58:55. > :58:59.happens and sometimes it is not always easy to get to the truth of

:59:00. > :59:02.these matters. So I do hope that there will be a degree of

:59:03. > :59:06.flexibility amongst the government business managers, not least

:59:07. > :59:10.actually if it is necessary for this house by whatever means, whether it

:59:11. > :59:15.is by way of a government to debate the report, to have its voice heard

:59:16. > :59:22.in the Legion to the report when we get it. I wonder if I might just

:59:23. > :59:25.suggest that the Honourable gentleman, I worked on so I know

:59:26. > :59:31.very well, I am quite happy that David Anderson discuss this and it

:59:32. > :59:34.is a matter that should be set for example. If you would to want to

:59:35. > :59:40.take into account the believes of other countries in this respect and

:59:41. > :59:44.this is a thing that he and the SNP have called for, that would be a

:59:45. > :59:49.matter for David Anderson. We are not attempting to tie his hands in

:59:50. > :59:53.any way, and as the Honourable gentleman knows it is my absolute

:59:54. > :59:58.view that we need to get this review completed so that we do not pass

:59:59. > :00:07.into legislation without information. I'm grateful to

:00:08. > :00:10.Minister for that, I think we will now be served by allowing Mr

:00:11. > :00:15.Anderson to get on and do the job that we have given him. I would

:00:16. > :00:19.merely say in passing it would have been better if we have given him the

:00:20. > :00:24.job sometime ago so that not just the other house but this house might

:00:25. > :00:36.have had the benefit of his conclusions when debating it. I

:00:37. > :00:39.welcome the fact, of the conversion of the government, however late in

:00:40. > :00:44.the day we have come, to the need is to the acceptance of what even the

:00:45. > :00:49.Labour Party on the side of the house is set that frankly the

:00:50. > :00:54.operational case for the extent of the bulk powers as the government

:00:55. > :00:58.has sought to bring in to this bill has not yet been made. The

:00:59. > :01:06.operational case that they have published has been vague, to be kind

:01:07. > :01:10.to it, and it has certainly been lacking in any persuasiveness. We

:01:11. > :01:16.will look very closely at the conclusions of David Anderson with

:01:17. > :01:22.regard to the necessity of these powers, the cost frankly that ought

:01:23. > :01:32.to have been the first test that was set. I take very little issue with

:01:33. > :01:34.the Right Honourable member for Beaconsfield or did the honourable

:01:35. > :01:42.member from Holland St Pancras when they talk about protections that

:01:43. > :01:48.they think require to be built in to this bill. Protections are only

:01:49. > :01:52.necessary if in fact the powers themselves are first judged to be

:01:53. > :01:56.necessary and this is where it does come to the very heart of the points

:01:57. > :02:01.that were made by the Honourable member from North Dorset. This bill

:02:02. > :02:09.has been very much a work in progress and I wonder whether in

:02:10. > :02:11.fact we would have had the 104 government amendments that we have

:02:12. > :02:17.yesterday, the 20 that we have today, never mind those from the

:02:18. > :02:20.intelligence and security committee from the opposition front bench in

:02:21. > :02:23.the Scottish National party, but if the house had taken the approach to

:02:24. > :02:31.the Bill and its scrutiny that was the purge on a few minutes ago. With

:02:32. > :02:37.regard to the question of bulk personal data sets, I share the very

:02:38. > :02:45.substantial concerns that have already been expressed by others.

:02:46. > :02:50.And again, I come back to the same objection that I have already been

:02:51. > :02:55.speaking about is the operational case. This is another aspect of the

:02:56. > :03:02.Bill which the government has failed to explain. The operational case for

:03:03. > :03:14.this is perhaps even more opaque than anything else in the Bill. The

:03:15. > :03:16.abuses, let's use that term, the abuses that were outlined by the

:03:17. > :03:20.Honourable and learned member from Edinburgh South West in which the

:03:21. > :03:28.rate Honourable member from the concealed acknowledged might be at

:03:29. > :03:30.the lower end of the scale, but I have a strong position -- strong

:03:31. > :03:33.suspicion that it is because they were at the lower end of the scale

:03:34. > :03:40.that they came into the public domain in the first place. But when

:03:41. > :03:45.you are dealing with something which strikes in such a fundamental way as

:03:46. > :03:52.the relationship between the citizen and the state then, frankly, there

:03:53. > :03:59.is no such thing as a trivial abuse. Any abuse is serious, any abuse is

:04:00. > :04:02.to be taken seriously and that is why I think the Honourable and

:04:03. > :04:08.learned member was right to bring in the house's attention. I would like

:04:09. > :04:11.to thank him for his journalist and measured comment earlier about the

:04:12. > :04:19.SNP's role in the bill. Picking up on this point there, is the problem

:04:20. > :04:23.is that once a warrant has allowed bulk data to be scooped up, there is

:04:24. > :04:27.no legal regulation of how it is analysed and that is why these

:04:28. > :04:32.individuals in the security service were able to make the rules because

:04:33. > :04:40.there is no warrant, it is internal regulation. The Honourable Lady, the

:04:41. > :04:42.Honourable Leonard is absolutely right and I draw my own personal

:04:43. > :04:49.experience when I say that when giving power to public authority in

:04:50. > :04:57.this way it is important that we should be as specific and as

:04:58. > :05:01.prescribed as possible. The reason I say this, and again I draw my own

:05:02. > :05:07.personal experience, I recall now the passage of the criminal

:05:08. > :05:10.procedure Scotland act 1995. At that time I was a Procurator Fiscal

:05:11. > :05:15.depute in Aberdeen and one of the innovations introduced in that bill

:05:16. > :05:20.of that act in fact was the ability of a prosecutor to comment on

:05:21. > :05:28.previous convictions before a duty in Scotland. I have no doubt that at

:05:29. > :05:34.that time there were all sorts of undertakings given at this dispatch

:05:35. > :05:40.box, but when we as prosecutors, and I like to think friendly measured

:05:41. > :05:43.prosecutors in the public interest, so that's the vision, the discussion

:05:44. > :05:47.did not centre around the way in which the undertakings had been

:05:48. > :05:53.given in the dispatch box, we discussed ways in which we could use

:05:54. > :05:56.it, the extent where the boundaries would lie and what would constitute

:05:57. > :06:00.a step over the line and what would be a step just inside the line, and

:06:01. > :06:08.there were always some in the office that are quite keen to see the line

:06:09. > :06:14.be a little bit elastic. That is a much more trivial example because of

:06:15. > :06:19.course that was something, a measure for which there would be obvious and

:06:20. > :06:24.immediate judicial scrutiny and if any get your twitter overstep the

:06:25. > :06:29.mark in court then it would be immediately obvious and they would

:06:30. > :06:35.be pulled up on it. There is not the same oversight and we do ask a great

:06:36. > :06:41.deal of those who serve on security services. If in fact what we do is

:06:42. > :06:46.give them such a wide range of powers with so little definition. It

:06:47. > :06:52.is the lack of definition and the lack of report reality and the lack

:06:53. > :07:00.of necessity that underpinned the concerns I have and I think which

:07:01. > :07:05.are shared in other parts. Thank you Mr dignity speaker. It is a

:07:06. > :07:07.privilege to speak in this second day of the consideration of this

:07:08. > :07:13.very important bill today. And to be able to follow on from Honourable,

:07:14. > :07:21.rate Honourable and some of the many learn it friends and colleagues in

:07:22. > :07:23.the chamber. I did not expect to get the lead from the sky with my

:07:24. > :07:37.opening speech. Unlike my honourable friend from

:07:38. > :07:42.North Dorset I didn't seek inspiration nor cake from Kipling. I

:07:43. > :07:49.turned to the American scientist and author Neil Tyson who wrote very

:07:50. > :07:54.perceptively that any time scientists disagree, it is because

:07:55. > :08:07.we have insufficient data. When we can agree on the data, we can move

:08:08. > :08:13.on. That does not exist in politics and religion. I think, wise words.

:08:14. > :08:18.The advantage that scientists have over the rest of others who base our

:08:19. > :08:23.judgments on instinct or hope should also be available to those people

:08:24. > :08:31.who keep as safe. As the security personnel and the agencies and The

:08:32. > :08:34.People they importantly serve. I appreciate the sensitivities and

:08:35. > :08:39.difficulties around this topic of baulk powers but I do feel that this

:08:40. > :08:44.bill has had a lot of scrutiny, it has been a long time in gestation

:08:45. > :08:51.and rightly so. Our security services need data. The role of

:08:52. > :08:55.information from thousands of sources with which to build a

:08:56. > :09:02.picture of threats that faces and they have the knowledge to take the

:09:03. > :09:07.right action. Our security personnel need to be able to collect data and

:09:08. > :09:12.have the right, of course with safeguards, to pull it all together.

:09:13. > :09:16.Mr Deputy Speaker, there was a good deal of discussion at second

:09:17. > :09:20.reading, in committee and now at report stage about the nature of

:09:21. > :09:26.baulk powers and the bulk review. It saddens me that there seems to have

:09:27. > :09:29.developed a notion amongst some that the security services given the

:09:30. > :09:34.chance will use these new powers to hoover up information on all of us

:09:35. > :09:40.without any control at all. I think that perception is false. As we've

:09:41. > :09:45.been told, baulk powers referred to in this bill are already provided

:09:46. > :09:49.for in existing legislation. This Bill brings those powers together.

:09:50. > :09:58.It makes them also very importantly subject to robust statutory

:09:59. > :10:07.safeguards. The honourable lady is making an excellent speech. The

:10:08. > :10:12.point is, having one bill bringing consistent tests to this makes an

:10:13. > :10:18.imminent sense and should be supported. He is absolutely right.

:10:19. > :10:22.It does make sense to bring these powers together and at the same time

:10:23. > :10:36.looking at the safeguards that are around those powers as well. We need

:10:37. > :10:41.this ability to identify new threats and existing threats but it does not

:10:42. > :10:44.confirm upon them new and sweeping powers. Our intelligence services

:10:45. > :10:51.have baulk and sweeping powers but they do not and nor would it enable

:10:52. > :10:54.them to collect data in an indiscriminate manner without

:10:55. > :11:00.reasonable suspicion. In the modern world, these powers which already

:11:01. > :11:04.exist are absolutely crucial. Baulk capabilities are crucial. In order

:11:05. > :11:08.to investigate a target agents need to be able to acquire its

:11:09. > :11:15.communications in the first place. Whether target is overseas bulk

:11:16. > :11:19.interception is the key means by which we can obtain communications

:11:20. > :11:23.that otherwise would not be available. This is especially so if

:11:24. > :11:32.that potential threat is operating in an area where we have no stronger

:11:33. > :11:40.big -- no stronger per Matic link or if the government of the area is not

:11:41. > :11:45.fully in power. It is worth noting that baulk powers in the bill have

:11:46. > :11:50.already played a significant part in every significant counterterrorism

:11:51. > :11:56.operation of the last decade including each of the seven

:11:57. > :12:03.terrorist attack plots foiled since 2014. They have also identified 95%

:12:04. > :12:07.of cyber attacks on people and businesses in the UK discovered by

:12:08. > :12:12.the intelligence agencies in the last six months. These are existing

:12:13. > :12:24.powers have been used to identify serious criminals seeking to be

:12:25. > :12:27.undetected on line. They have been used to arrest over 50 paedophiles

:12:28. > :12:35.in the UK over the last six months. I would like to quote the member for

:12:36. > :12:41.beacons field who has been contributing to the debate. Not a

:12:42. > :12:46.man, if I may say, who likely allows liberties to be chipped away, he

:12:47. > :12:50.said of this bill, the present committee and its predecessor is

:12:51. > :12:55.satisfied that the government are justified in coming to Parliament to

:12:56. > :12:59.seek in broad terms the powers that the bill can change. None of the

:13:00. > :13:06.categories including bulk collection of daters which have given rise to

:13:07. > :13:12.controversy is unnecessary or disproportionate to what we need to

:13:13. > :13:15.detect ourselves. There are some who will disagree with the former

:13:16. > :13:20.Attorney General and they rightly have the opportunity to do so. I

:13:21. > :13:30.happen to agree with him on those points. Finally, I want to touch on

:13:31. > :13:34.what Labour and the SNP have said an invalidation on the operational

:13:35. > :13:38.case. The government has listened and in response to their calls the

:13:39. > :13:44.government has confirmed that David Anderson QC will undertake a review

:13:45. > :13:49.to inform the passage of the bill through the house of lords. I will

:13:50. > :13:56.support this bill as one that codify his the law as much as it extends

:13:57. > :14:00.it. It builds robust state guards -- safeguards against intrusion while

:14:01. > :14:05.safeguarding the public. I believe it is extremely important. Important

:14:06. > :14:12.to our country, The People of our country, important to our

:14:13. > :14:19.constituents. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is

:14:20. > :14:24.great to follow the honourable lady. It sounded like a lightning induced

:14:25. > :14:30.a speech, if you take the weather from outside. I was commenting

:14:31. > :14:35.earlier that I probably wouldn't get the opportunity to contribute in the

:14:36. > :14:39.third reading of this bill because this debate yesterday and today has

:14:40. > :14:43.been dominated by heavyweights. When I said that to an honourable member

:14:44. > :14:49.from across the chamber, he looked surprised that I wouldn't satisfy

:14:50. > :14:54.that criteria but I am pleased to get the opportunity to speak. Not

:14:55. > :14:58.only to speak at this part of consideration stage but to make the

:14:59. > :15:03.point that I think it would have been wholly worthwhile to have had

:15:04. > :15:08.just one Northern Ireland voice on the bill committee. Members in this

:15:09. > :15:12.house will have recognised just how considered and detailed the process

:15:13. > :15:22.has been and during second reading of this Bill I focused my remarks

:15:23. > :15:27.solely on a prison officer who has been murdered in my constituency and

:15:28. > :15:31.died that very day. We can't continue to have struck

:15:32. > :15:35.conversations about the impact of terrorism or the protection is

:15:36. > :15:39.needed on security grounds because it is about protecting us today and

:15:40. > :15:47.tomorrow and for every day to come. I want to page review to the

:15:48. > :15:52.security minister, to the Solicitor General and to all the members of

:15:53. > :15:59.the house who have so collegiate league engaged in making sure that

:16:00. > :16:01.what was a difficult process with the traffic communications data

:16:02. > :16:07.Bill, the steepest chapter, all of that has been set aside in what has

:16:08. > :16:11.been an encouraging debate of thoughtful consideration of this

:16:12. > :16:20.Bill and I think it is a due credit to you, Minister, and your team.

:16:21. > :16:26.There was a point in arguing for amendments 303-305 by the shadow

:16:27. > :16:30.home affairs minister and I would be grateful if the honourable member

:16:31. > :16:36.for Holburn and Saint Pancras would consider this, we have had

:16:37. > :16:43.considerations from the Right Honourable member for Beaconsfield,

:16:44. > :16:49.he made the point that the data sets, personal data that was held

:16:50. > :16:52.should be held and engages both mental and physical health issues,

:16:53. > :16:58.it would not be appropriate to be retained. In light of that, I would

:16:59. > :17:04.be keen to hear from the shadow minister how he believes that deals

:17:05. > :17:10.with amendments 303-305. If the new clause was to pass, would those

:17:11. > :17:16.clauses be necessary? I understand it may not be possible for the

:17:17. > :17:21.shadow minister to respond and I'm happy to give way but it would be

:17:22. > :17:26.useful if there is likely to be a division on most three amendments,

:17:27. > :17:30.if they are likely to be pushed, or whether he believes that the new

:17:31. > :17:37.clause three adequately deals with the detections on personal health

:17:38. > :17:41.data? I will intervene briefly. I hope I made it clear that I won't be

:17:42. > :17:46.pushing those amendments to a vote because of the new clause that the

:17:47. > :17:50.government has laid in relation to health records which covers the same

:17:51. > :17:55.categories of records. We have been assured it is going to be dealt with

:17:56. > :18:00.by the minister when he stands up. That's very helpful and I'm very

:18:01. > :18:05.grateful to the shadow minister for that clarification. An bulk data

:18:06. > :18:08.collection generally, I think that the correspondence shared yesterday

:18:09. > :18:13.was incredibly useful. I don't recall getting correspondence

:18:14. > :18:26.between a shadow when Esther and the vote office so quickly. -- a shadow

:18:27. > :18:32.minister and the vote office. I now think it is important as the member

:18:33. > :18:38.for Orkney and Shetland said that we let that process commence and engage

:18:39. > :18:40.thoughtfully. Having made the point about no Northern Ireland

:18:41. > :18:43.representation on the bill at scrutiny stage, I do hope there is a

:18:44. > :18:52.mechanism through which members on this bench from whatever party get

:18:53. > :18:55.the opportunity to engage thoughtfully and purposefully in

:18:56. > :18:58.this conversation because, as we all know in this house, the legacy and

:18:59. > :19:04.the history of Northern Ireland means that these are acutely live

:19:05. > :19:10.issues for as daily. I'm more than happy to give the assurance that my

:19:11. > :19:13.door is open to him and his colleagues and of other parties

:19:14. > :19:20.joined the passage of this legislation. I will continue to be

:19:21. > :19:27.engaged and involved with all parties in the way he has described.

:19:28. > :19:34.I'm very grateful to the Minister for security. With that, Mr Deputy

:19:35. > :19:39.Speaker, thank you. I thank my colleague for giving way. I just

:19:40. > :19:44.want to follow up on what the Minister has said. The Minister has

:19:45. > :19:50.made a point that his door is always open. That is more to do with

:19:51. > :19:56.personal relationships he has built with Unionists. There will come a

:19:57. > :20:02.time when members of this party and of this bench should be considered

:20:03. > :20:07.all the time to be in those committees and it should not have to

:20:08. > :20:16.be that we have private arrangement. I'm grateful for that. No more

:20:17. > :20:20.interventions. It is an honour to follow the honourable member for

:20:21. > :20:24.Belfast East. Many members have spoken with great experience and

:20:25. > :20:30.expertise through the course of this bill. Looking to the high quality of

:20:31. > :20:35.debate, particularly yesterday, the thought occurred to me that if we

:20:36. > :20:40.conducted business in this manner our stock and currency as members of

:20:41. > :20:46.parliament might arise a little with constituents and other members of

:20:47. > :20:48.the public. I feel humbled to speak in this crucial piece of

:20:49. > :20:55.legislation, specifically against the amendments tabled by the SNP.

:20:56. > :20:59.This bill is designed to keep our constituents are safe from harm.

:21:00. > :21:07.Some honourable members may know that I grew up in Teheran in the

:21:08. > :21:13.1970s. That was a city pervaded by fear. Brutal secret police agents in

:21:14. > :21:19.fourth rated every factory, school and park. So I'm compelled to say

:21:20. > :21:25.that I have witnessed and my family has witnessed mass surveillance and

:21:26. > :21:30.this is not it. The SNP amendments would effectively remove parts six

:21:31. > :21:37.and seven of this Bill which deal with baulk warrants and bulk data

:21:38. > :21:41.sets. These show our adversaries that we will use every technological

:21:42. > :21:46.tool but we will not compromise on our principles.

:21:47. > :21:52.I am grateful to the Honourable Lady for giving way. I don't know if she

:21:53. > :21:55.was present for the second reading of this bill I made it very clear

:21:56. > :21:59.that the SNP were not calling this bill mass surveillance, we described

:22:00. > :22:04.it as suspicion must surveillance. Does she agree with me that part six

:22:05. > :22:09.and seven permit suspicion must surveillance? I am afraid that I

:22:10. > :22:14.would have two disagree with the Honourable and learned Lady, and

:22:15. > :22:17.indeed the point that I made in an intervention earlier, these bulk

:22:18. > :22:19.powers are absolutely crucial for our security and intelligence

:22:20. > :22:23.agencies and let's remember that they are the only agencies which are

:22:24. > :22:32.allowed to use these powers. I will give way to my honourable friend in

:22:33. > :22:37.a moment. The reason is that some of these things are unknown, and I

:22:38. > :22:40.don't want to sound like Dick Cheney, but there are unknown at the

:22:41. > :22:46.bulk powers are how we deal with them. I will give way. My honourable

:22:47. > :22:49.friend is speaking powerfully on this argument because one of the

:22:50. > :22:52.elements we remind ourselves of is that when we are looking for

:22:53. > :22:57.terrorism we are looking for these forms of abuses, we are looking for

:22:58. > :23:01.a needle in a haystack. That is true that without a haystack there is the

:23:02. > :23:04.possibility of starting the search. These bulk powers are essential in

:23:05. > :23:08.building up that network in order to be able to search. I thank my

:23:09. > :23:13.honourable friend the other intervention and he speaks with

:23:14. > :23:18.great experience on this matter. Mr Deputy Speaker, bulk powers are not

:23:19. > :23:22.novel. The already exist and the need to be given bigger and better

:23:23. > :23:26.oversight scrutiny and transparency. Some members of the opposition

:23:27. > :23:30.benches have spoken about the lack of necessity for these powers. But

:23:31. > :23:34.the necessity arises from an absolute obligation for our

:23:35. > :23:39.intelligence services to be as flexible and nimble as our enemies.

:23:40. > :23:43.Other members of my honourable friend the member for Oldland

:23:44. > :23:48.Brownhills has set out the operational assessor day of bulk

:23:49. > :23:52.data collection. Collecting information on overseas targets,

:23:53. > :23:55.providing this first set of information, as my honourable friend

:23:56. > :24:01.mentioned, the haystack to drill down for necessary data, discovering

:24:02. > :24:04.new threats from people who were previously unknown. Identifying

:24:05. > :24:09.patterns of behaviour. This would then actually exclude innocent

:24:10. > :24:13.citizens and facilitate more targeted searches. Mr Deputy Speaker

:24:14. > :24:17.the effectiveness of collecting bulk data is borne out by the fact that

:24:18. > :24:24.it has been used in every major counterterrorism operation in the

:24:25. > :24:28.last decade. It has prevented 95% of attacks, it has disrupted 50

:24:29. > :24:31.paedophiles. It is very clear that the UK does not undertake mass

:24:32. > :24:38.surveillance. Firstly because of the existing legal framework which

:24:39. > :24:41.fetters or the framework in which the intelligence services are

:24:42. > :24:43.already operating. And because of resource constraints, and they know

:24:44. > :24:50.that the Bill committee heard evidence to that. I want to speak

:24:51. > :24:55.very briefly about this argument that the Honourable and learned Lady

:24:56. > :24:59.referred to in my rate Honourable friend the member from be concealed

:25:00. > :25:04.said quite rightly, if we worried about the wrong hands everywhere we

:25:05. > :25:08.would never pass any legislation. In this bill it is only the security

:25:09. > :25:13.and intelligence agencies which are being given these powers. These are

:25:14. > :25:17.people who have an interest in disrupting plots and bringing

:25:18. > :25:22.suspects to justice. There is very little evidence been brought forward

:25:23. > :25:25.that they are motivated by prying into innocent citizens private lives

:25:26. > :25:30.or that they use information wrongly. Many enemies powers Oliver

:25:31. > :25:37.sitting here and sensitive data everyday. We are subject to rules

:25:38. > :25:39.and to a large extent we'll that. Are we honestly saying that

:25:40. > :25:44.intelligence agent having gone through rigorous vetting and

:25:45. > :25:49.appraisal in less trustworthy than our bank managers, how GPs,

:25:50. > :25:52.receptions, council officials? Mr Deputy Speaker the safeguards in

:25:53. > :25:55.this bill pertaining to bulk powers are manifold and robust. The

:25:56. > :25:59.Secretary of State must authorise bulk warrants. There is a double

:26:00. > :26:04.lock the radiation procedure. The warrants are time-limited. There is

:26:05. > :26:09.a code of practice on handling the data by the security and

:26:10. > :26:11.intelligence agencies and there is the review which other honourable

:26:12. > :26:17.and rate Honourable members have expanded on at great length. In

:26:18. > :26:21.conclusion Mr Deputy Speaker of the amendments on debates today would

:26:22. > :26:26.remove these necessary powers for our security services to be act to

:26:27. > :26:30.the evolving dangerous which face constituents today, here and now.

:26:31. > :26:36.And they do that while respecting our nation 's values. For that

:26:37. > :26:40.reason I will oppose the amendments today. Thank you very much Mr Deputy

:26:41. > :26:46.Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak that follow the member

:26:47. > :26:49.before. I want to put on the record at the start that I fully support

:26:50. > :26:52.this piece of legislation and if anything I am beginning to wonder

:26:53. > :26:57.about some of the one drink down effects that were -- that we are

:26:58. > :27:01.already seen and I want to make it even stronger. That is why I will be

:27:02. > :27:09.opposing the amendments brought forward by the Scottish Nationalist

:27:10. > :27:15.party. I remember the members from the opposition benches in the Labour

:27:16. > :27:18.Party speaking about the health benefits would support that of the

:27:19. > :27:22.coming forward but the wider part of these amendments, I have to say, we

:27:23. > :27:28.haven't I have two colleagues from other violent and the event is here,

:27:29. > :27:33.have lived to the trouble is another island and seen what terrorism has

:27:34. > :27:38.done. But we have a different type of terrorism now, a different type

:27:39. > :27:41.of world criminality now where matters dealt with through

:27:42. > :27:46.technology, the mobile phone signals and satellites, through the

:27:47. > :27:50.Internet. So we are into a totally different perspective. Therefore we

:27:51. > :27:54.need a different mechanism and we need that mechanism to be proactive,

:27:55. > :27:59.which is what I believe this bill is doing. It is being much more

:28:00. > :28:03.proactive at in and around the bulk capabilities, I do not see what the

:28:04. > :28:07.real problem is. We must have trust and faith in those people that are

:28:08. > :28:10.collecting the surveillance, that intelligence, because if we don't

:28:11. > :28:14.have trust and faith in them to do the bulk capabilities then why do we

:28:15. > :28:21.have trust and faith in them to do other things? I think there is a

:28:22. > :28:25.real challenge out the for the wider public to realise what is actually

:28:26. > :28:28.going on in society. I don't realise everything that is happening and in

:28:29. > :28:31.the wider public don't and that is why I must have trust in those

:28:32. > :28:38.people that are carrying out these actions. I am also aware that there

:28:39. > :28:43.must be a balance. I do accept that. There must be a balance for the

:28:44. > :28:50.public and the public aspect of what is actually stripping and what is

:28:51. > :28:56.going into too much detail? This must be balanced against the wider

:28:57. > :29:00.public face and the wider public information that is required to deal

:29:01. > :29:08.with terrorism. To deal with criminality. To deal with the

:29:09. > :29:12.fraudsters in society. I think that balance, to me, the priority of that

:29:13. > :29:17.balance is to deal with those people effectively and if that means that

:29:18. > :29:21.people and those investigatory measures are moving into some of my

:29:22. > :29:28.details, well if I have nothing to hide then I have nothing to fear. I

:29:29. > :29:32.have no difficulty around people looking at the details that are held

:29:33. > :29:36.on me. That should be the same for the wider public if they have

:29:37. > :29:42.nothing to hide. There must be real opportunities here for our

:29:43. > :29:45.government and those people who are carrying out the investigatory work

:29:46. > :29:48.to deal with those and that is why I think the amendments in this

:29:49. > :29:55.particular section are overstepping the mark and reducing the powers of

:29:56. > :29:59.the effectiveness of the people that are dealing with those causes.

:30:00. > :30:01.Again, Mr Deputy Speaker, my intervention has been brief but I

:30:02. > :30:08.think it has been succinct in dealing with the actual amendments.

:30:09. > :30:12.Thank you Mr dignity Speaker. It is a privilege to speak today and

:30:13. > :30:15.indeed to have taken part in the committee 's leading up to the

:30:16. > :30:19.presentation of the bill today. I was a member of the committee which

:30:20. > :30:23.reported on the draft bill in February and also a member of the

:30:24. > :30:30.Bill committee earlier this year. I put on record my appreciation for

:30:31. > :30:34.the constructive and fruitful contributions of the Labour Party.

:30:35. > :30:37.This vital legislation has come very far since its first iteration and

:30:38. > :30:45.this is an example of cross-party collaboration. I hope and I am glad

:30:46. > :30:49.that party politics has been put aside in the game of national

:30:50. > :30:52.security. I urge all members of this chamber to act in such a manner when

:30:53. > :30:58.we go through the lobbies later today. However, judging by the words

:30:59. > :31:02.of the Honourable member for Glasgow and at least I do not think that'll

:31:03. > :31:11.be the case and I stand to speak against the amendments, 390 onwards.

:31:12. > :31:15.This relates to bulk powers. The SNP say that those are disproportionate

:31:16. > :31:27.and have no utility and I therefore unlawful. Amendments 390 onwards

:31:28. > :31:33.proposed to remove most of part six and seven and was 119 onwards the

:31:34. > :31:37.three types of full power afforded to our security and intelligence

:31:38. > :31:41.services. Busby in bulk and reception, bulk acquisition of

:31:42. > :31:45.communications data and bulk equipment interference. Those powers

:31:46. > :31:53.allow for the collection of large volumes of data, set out in sections

:31:54. > :31:59.119 onwards. And warrants are then required before that data can be

:32:00. > :32:03.examined. The purpose of such examinations set out in the face of

:32:04. > :32:07.the bill may be to pursue more information about known suspects and

:32:08. > :32:13.associates or to look for patterns of activity that may identify new

:32:14. > :32:19.suspects. Those powers are crucially not afforded to unfortunate

:32:20. > :32:24.services. I have a viewpoint to make. Firstly these are powers

:32:25. > :32:30.founded on a clear and robust legal basis. They are all currently

:32:31. > :32:36.available to the agencies and existing legislation. Bulk at a

:32:37. > :32:39.contained in section 20 of Ripper, bulk communications data is

:32:40. > :32:45.contained in section 94 of the Telecom applications act 1984 and

:32:46. > :32:49.bulk equipment interference Mr Deputy Speaker is contained in

:32:50. > :32:55.sections five and section seven of the intelligence services act 1994.

:32:56. > :32:59.If amendments 390 onwards were to be passed today we would be removing

:33:00. > :33:04.and preventing our agencies from carrying out fatal pillars upon

:33:05. > :33:13.which they rely to do their jobs today. Secondly Mr Deputy Speaker

:33:14. > :33:17.these powers are not novel, or a quirk of the modern age. They have

:33:18. > :33:22.been around for decades. Back in World War I our intelligence

:33:23. > :33:29.services tracked the worldwide that work of German cables laid under the

:33:30. > :33:34.sea by placing secret sensors throughout. And they were able to

:33:35. > :33:37.intercept on a bulk basis telegraph messages are looking for patterns in

:33:38. > :33:44.communications and signals from the enemy. When cables ended, radio

:33:45. > :33:50.surveillance was necessary to break codes strewn World War II. That was

:33:51. > :33:56.bulk interception and famously based that room 40 of the Admiralty. Alan

:33:57. > :34:05.Turing and his team at Bletchley Park would never have cracked Enigma

:34:06. > :34:08.were not for the bulk interception of ciphers and that advantage change

:34:09. > :34:13.the course of history by enabling the allies to pre-empt any planning,

:34:14. > :34:21.saving countless lives ensuring the war. This legacy I will not like I

:34:22. > :34:27.will stop. The difference between what you describing now is that the

:34:28. > :34:33.-- in the days by the park, we were at war. We are not at war now. What

:34:34. > :34:37.we are looking at doing here is, not to assist this country's enemies,

:34:38. > :34:48.did -- but to protect the privacy of the people who live here, then click

:34:49. > :34:51.constituents. I am astonished by the Honourable and learned ladies words

:34:52. > :34:58.that we are not at war. Paris, Brussels, Jakarta, I don't need to

:34:59. > :35:03.go on. We are engaged in a worldwide conflict against Daesh and this is a

:35:04. > :35:10.set the security everyday and every night. She is right to draw

:35:11. > :35:15.attention to the terrorists but let's not forget those who wish to

:35:16. > :35:19.wage war in the city of children through paedophilia, those who wish

:35:20. > :35:23.to wage war on women through people and sex trafficking and all of

:35:24. > :35:31.those, that is that the none of this bill as well as terrorism. We should

:35:32. > :35:33.not forget that. I totally agree, well we have a foreign policy and

:35:34. > :35:37.international security war that we are waging we are also waging war on

:35:38. > :35:43.the online fraudsters and the paedophiles. We are in a constant

:35:44. > :35:49.state of threat and it is easy to delude ourselves if you are not

:35:50. > :35:52.faced with the directly. So when big data is presented to us as a modern

:35:53. > :35:57.phenomenon on it is actually something which has been used and

:35:58. > :36:04.which is actually quite old and lives at the heart of heritage of

:36:05. > :36:11.national security. Next and thirdly, the utility of bulk powers is clear.

:36:12. > :36:19.The joint committee in its report in which I sat made it clear that after

:36:20. > :36:23.taking evidence on a sensitive basis in paragraph 340 we reported we are

:36:24. > :36:26.aware that bulk powers are not a sausage and for targeted

:36:27. > :36:30.intelligence, but we believe they are an additional resource.

:36:31. > :36:33.Furthermore we believe that security and intelligence agencies would not

:36:34. > :36:36.seek these powers if they did not believe it would be effective as the

:36:37. > :36:41.fact that they have been operating for some time and give them the

:36:42. > :36:45.confidence to assess the merits. And next the joint committee concluded

:36:46. > :36:51.we are content that the safeguards proposed by the Home Office,

:36:52. > :36:53.buttressed by a physician by traditional commissioners and

:36:54. > :36:56.oversight from the investigatory Powers Commissioner will be

:36:57. > :37:00.sufficient to ensure bulk powers are used proportionately. So after

:37:01. > :37:09.taking evidence from all sides of the debate and all coalitions in

:37:10. > :37:10.this discussion, that was the considered conclusion of the

:37:11. > :37:21.cross-party committee. The operational case was clearly put

:37:22. > :37:28.forward by the government and they clearly put forward examples of the

:37:29. > :37:36.utility of bulk powers. Analysis of bulk data uncovered a previously

:37:37. > :37:41.unknown individual who was in contact with Daesh affiliated

:37:42. > :37:47.extremists in Syria. That allowed our agents to identify that he was

:37:48. > :37:52.based overseas which meant that it would have been unlikely to identify

:37:53. > :37:57.is patterns of movement without bulk information. They saw that he had

:37:58. > :38:02.recently travelled to the a European company and was planning an attack.

:38:03. > :38:08.This has led to them being able to disrupt this attack. In 2013,

:38:09. > :38:16.analysis of patterns of behaviour was used and identified again by our

:38:17. > :38:22.agents. Analysis of paedophiles online. Our agents identified a UK

:38:23. > :38:27.national who had been visiting a website that sold images of child

:38:28. > :38:36.sexual exploitation. That website was hosted in a country that rarely

:38:37. > :38:42.cooperated with enforcement agencies. That individual was

:38:43. > :38:45.prosecuted and sentenced. Lastly, old interception has detected cyber

:38:46. > :38:53.attacks against the UK including large scales efforts of data and

:38:54. > :38:58.serious fraud by cybercriminals and hostile individuals. Using

:38:59. > :39:04.electronic signatures which are similar to fingerprints using that,

:39:05. > :39:07.the agencies are able to scan technical detail of Internet

:39:08. > :39:13.communications for evidence of incoming attacks to the UK. They

:39:14. > :39:20.have identified known forms of computer malware and new forms of

:39:21. > :39:23.cyber attack. Cyberspace is so large and technological change so rapid

:39:24. > :39:31.that old interception is the only way that our professionals are able

:39:32. > :39:36.to monitor on that scale. In conclusion, these days the

:39:37. > :39:43.terrorists, the paedophiles, serious fraudsters or scheme in cyberspace.

:39:44. > :39:49.Technology that empowers us, also sadly empowers them. We want

:39:50. > :39:54.world-class encryption and privacy but also world-class security. We

:39:55. > :39:59.should trust the skill and restraint of those unsung heroes, the

:40:00. > :40:05.analysts, the cryptographers, the mathematicians, the codebreakers who

:40:06. > :40:08.use their genius to safeguard our security and maintain the confidence

:40:09. > :40:15.and discretion of the secrets that they have seen. As elected members,

:40:16. > :40:21.we have a duty to explain their role to the public and also trust their

:40:22. > :40:26.judgment which is subject to weighty checks and balances. They have

:40:27. > :40:31.proven their heroism in our moments of need in history. Let's not

:40:32. > :40:35.further tie their hands and just hope that our enemies who are

:40:36. > :40:41.plotting night and day to destroy our societies do not by chance it is

:40:42. > :40:48.and instead empower them. That is why I will be voting against these

:40:49. > :40:56.amendments. Like yesterday, I want to make my usual declarations about

:40:57. > :41:01.lawyers. It is always dangerous to follow lawyers, especially that

:41:02. > :41:09.excellent contribution. These amendments are clear and I want to

:41:10. > :41:15.address them from the point of view of economic cyber and why bulk data

:41:16. > :41:20.is so important. Understandably, the honourable lady for Edinburgh North

:41:21. > :41:25.East raised issues of concern and I understand that, the central point

:41:26. > :41:29.potentially using less targeted means and less intrusive means than

:41:30. > :41:33.bulk data but the minister rightly made the point that there is a

:41:34. > :41:37.review not only commenting on the necessity for the review but of the

:41:38. > :41:43.necessity of these powers. I think that if you look at the economic

:41:44. > :41:49.cyber case and what bulk powers do, the necessity becomes increasingly

:41:50. > :41:53.clear. We are all clear that our economy has been transformed by

:41:54. > :41:59.advancements in technology. Backed by encryption, huge chains is in

:42:00. > :42:05.which the conduct of businesses takes place. E-commerce is a reality

:42:06. > :42:08.not for few but for many. Certainly, if you look at the parcels that

:42:09. > :42:15.arrive on my doorstep for my daughter every day. It has reached

:42:16. > :42:19.everybody. There are new business of virginity is for the growing IT

:42:20. > :42:24.sector. The use of big data which has already been referred to in a

:42:25. > :42:29.historic context is becoming more clear in the context of the Internet

:42:30. > :42:34.economy. Looking at patterns of behaviour to identify product

:42:35. > :42:44.design, to look at new products, to look at customer and identify new

:42:45. > :42:47.customer opportunities. Those opportunities are extended to

:42:48. > :42:51.cybercriminals as well as terrorists. For anyone who wants the

:42:52. > :42:57.example, my right honourable friend spoke about the number of cyber

:42:58. > :43:06.attacks that had been identified by the use of bulk data. Let's use one

:43:07. > :43:12.specific of those 95. One Apple have publicly accepted that bulk data

:43:13. > :43:16.powers dictated a vulnerability in their operating systems which had it

:43:17. > :43:23.been used would have affected the modification of the software being

:43:24. > :43:28.used on iPads and iPhone Moore and may have been used for also had some

:43:29. > :43:33.purposes one of which could have been the removal of data about bank

:43:34. > :43:37.accounts and other personal data. To put that in context, it's clear that

:43:38. > :43:42.if we look at the open world at the moment which we see there is this

:43:43. > :43:50.myriad of threats but of course, the dark web, the password protected

:43:51. > :43:58.information where so much goes on, is really where so much goes on.

:43:59. > :44:04.Much of that is valid and is of huge benefit for people to be encrypted

:44:05. > :44:09.and for anonymity protocol still exist but equally for criminals and

:44:10. > :44:17.terrorists, they have embraced this dark world as well. The ability to

:44:18. > :44:22.analyse bulk data is essential. My right honourable than it friend made

:44:23. > :44:27.the point, as other members have, we need to trust our security services

:44:28. > :44:34.and those who have some experience have made the case very clearly that

:44:35. > :44:38.we should look at the whole point about data harvesting and that data

:44:39. > :44:44.harvesting does not exist, I believe the bulk powers are essential

:44:45. > :44:49.because they allow intelligence on overseas subjects of interest, they

:44:50. > :44:51.identify the threats, the needle in the haystack that might write and

:44:52. > :45:01.draw will friend from Tom Bridge was talking about, they identify small

:45:02. > :45:05.this placed pieces of information, understanding patterns of behaviour,

:45:06. > :45:10.of communication methods, and, indeed, looking at pieces of

:45:11. > :45:19.information that are required from new varying sources. Bulk

:45:20. > :45:29.interception clearly focuses on foreign intelligence but criminality

:45:30. > :45:41.and terrorism is international. That point has been made. It is only

:45:42. > :45:49.right that we should have access to the data... So that we can detect

:45:50. > :45:58.the International criminality aspects. There are a huge number of

:45:59. > :46:01.safeguards in place. Detailed and directed searches of bulk data

:46:02. > :46:07.communications can establish the fact that there is content between

:46:08. > :46:15.subjects of interest, it can reveal where attacks are planned and on the

:46:16. > :46:19.cold issue of bulk acquisition it helps direct where a warrant for

:46:20. > :46:27.more individual targeted data, such as intercepts, it would allow that

:46:28. > :46:33.targeted data to be overcome because the bulk data is essential and

:46:34. > :46:39.complimentary. It allows for searches of traces of activity where

:46:40. > :46:43.previously unknown suspects may be taking place in patterns of

:46:44. > :46:49.behaviour that are well known but not identified. What this will does

:46:50. > :47:12.-- bill does is codify is though safeguards have been spoken

:47:13. > :47:18.of by many. None of these powers are unnecessary nor disproportionate. I

:47:19. > :47:22.think it's absolutely clear that in terms of what the government is

:47:23. > :47:25.putting place for the safeguards, they will ensure that the ballot

:47:26. > :47:32.lines of operation that Mr David Anderson will review, amendments

:47:33. > :47:38.that have been put in place, will ensure that the operational review

:47:39. > :47:43.will take place. It makes clear that in a number of cases it not just the

:47:44. > :47:47.Secretary of State but the double lock that many have spoken about and

:47:48. > :47:53.therefore it is clear that if you look at what is acquired under the

:47:54. > :48:00.warrants that previously was going to be for International, if data

:48:01. > :48:06.pertains to people in the UK, that needs a more targeted examination

:48:07. > :48:09.warrant and that is another case of clear protection and additional

:48:10. > :48:15.safeguards that wasn't there before. This whole statutory code of

:48:16. > :48:23.practice putting place secures the safeguards that we need. Therefore,

:48:24. > :48:27.I hope that when the house considers, in particular with regard

:48:28. > :48:34.to economic cybercrime, the bulk powers amendments put forward by the

:48:35. > :48:38.SNP, they will conclude that Mr Anderson's review is appropriate but

:48:39. > :48:43.actually the powers that are there, there is an overwhelming case being

:48:44. > :48:47.made that these powers are necessary and I hope the vast majority of my

:48:48. > :48:55.colleagues will join us in rejecting the amendments made. Thank U. A

:48:56. > :48:59.pleasure to be called in this debate. I remember speaking in the

:49:00. > :49:05.second reading about how much of this can be taken to ways. One can

:49:06. > :49:10.be sensationalist and the other is to look at what is being proposed.

:49:11. > :49:17.Many of these bulk powers are already being used. Now they are

:49:18. > :49:22.being put into legislation and given a consistent framework. We also look

:49:23. > :49:29.at the registration that regulates much of this activity already from

:49:30. > :49:34.well before the time of smartphones and it is about looking at a much

:49:35. > :49:44.more modern piece of legislation is subject to clear safeguards. I

:49:45. > :49:52.appreciate the centre Mate -- sentiment of the argument from the

:49:53. > :49:57.Honourable member of Tyrone but we should be careful that this could be

:49:58. > :50:02.an argument for absolutely anybody to be under surveillance. This is

:50:03. > :50:06.not what the bill is proposing what these powers are proposing given

:50:07. > :50:10.that this would need to be warranted in terms of how information is

:50:11. > :50:13.gathered together. It has been a pleasure to sit through the debate

:50:14. > :50:19.which has convinced me of the fact that these amendments are not

:50:20. > :50:23.justified and should be opposed. In particular, the speech given by the

:50:24. > :50:28.honourable antler did member for open and said progress was very

:50:29. > :50:41.thoughtful. Making genuine progress in getting

:50:42. > :50:45.reassurances and to be fair to the minister in his response it was

:50:46. > :50:53.encouraging to see this level of response on matters that will give

:50:54. > :50:58.some people concern. Identifying analogies about taking every letter

:50:59. > :51:01.from the Post Office is particularly constructive or helpful. Neither did

:51:02. > :51:08.I find the idea that if the police kicked the door in, that the place

:51:09. > :51:18.was no longer secure, I didn't think that was a good analogy. I would

:51:19. > :51:23.never cast aspersions on any particular part of the country. It

:51:24. > :51:33.was a novelty to get a lecture on heckling from benches that have

:51:34. > :51:39.given me heckling on many occasions. Only too happy to have it all the

:51:40. > :51:44.time. For me, there are legitimate points that have come out of the

:51:45. > :51:47.interventions and there will be need to work with Scottish law

:51:48. > :51:52.enforcement authorities around many of these powers being exercised that

:51:53. > :51:56.a UK level. Where I think the balance has to come is if these

:51:57. > :52:01.amendments come through removing these powers completely, we don't

:52:02. > :52:05.modify them, make them more secure, give them extra protection, we would

:52:06. > :52:12.remove them completely and I don't think that is appropriate.

:52:13. > :52:18.In and in the bulk powers are not necessary as the review from the USA

:52:19. > :52:24.shows, with the member expect those powers to be taken out of the bill

:52:25. > :52:29.then? I thank the Honourable ready for that helpful and interesting

:52:30. > :52:32.intervention. I would not want to prejudge the review. The review came

:52:33. > :52:36.back and said these powers were absolutely the right thing and vital

:52:37. > :52:40.for national security, I hope we would look forward to seeing the

:52:41. > :52:44.SNP's immediate support. I have a funny feeling we might not see their

:52:45. > :52:48.wholehearted support. But let's not read out the review, as was touched

:52:49. > :52:53.on in the exchange between the two frontbenchers and the dispatch box

:52:54. > :52:56.as, it would be highly unlikely if this review came back and said

:52:57. > :53:00.something specifically was not needed that it would be likely that

:53:01. > :53:06.it would be proceeded with. If I knew what it was going to come back,

:53:07. > :53:08.the next accusation would be that it is not independent because we

:53:09. > :53:13.already know what is going to come out. This is not a point that I

:53:14. > :53:18.think supports having one of these amendments to remove these powers

:53:19. > :53:21.completely. As I say I think for me, seeing the changes that have been

:53:22. > :53:25.made through the process and are now coming out of the Bill committee

:53:26. > :53:28.here to report stage, we have seen strengthening of judicial

:53:29. > :53:30.safeguards, we have seen the fact that there is now a stronger and

:53:31. > :53:36.more consistent judicial test in terms of the review of these

:53:37. > :53:39.warrants, we have seen increased powers and around the offences of

:53:40. > :53:42.what happens when someone misuses the data that comes out. And

:53:43. > :53:46.ultimately I think the government is striking the right balance between

:53:47. > :53:51.what we need in the circumstances to get hold of the data that could keep

:53:52. > :53:53.the country safe against the legitimate expectations and privacy

:53:54. > :53:57.and where data has been collected that is of no use that it can then

:53:58. > :54:03.be removed and is not used for purposes beyond what the actual

:54:04. > :54:08.purposes of the warrant was. Ultimately in any unjustified use of

:54:09. > :54:11.the warrant a Secretary of State remains answerable to this

:54:12. > :54:16.Parliament. If for example someone decided for some unbeknown reason

:54:17. > :54:18.that it would make sense to go into details about political affiliations

:54:19. > :54:21.they would be answerable to this house and it is almost certain to

:54:22. > :54:28.say it is very unlikely that would be a minister who would survive.

:54:29. > :54:33.Does he agree with me that they would only be answerable to this

:54:34. > :54:38.house and the Secretary of State if it came to light. It might not come

:54:39. > :54:44.to light. An important point of the Honourable and landlady but looking,

:54:45. > :54:47.as was passed on from the Honourable men are from Beaconsfield, the work

:54:48. > :54:50.done by the joint intelligence and Security committee would be looking

:54:51. > :54:56.to oversee what was happening and that was touched on, the minister

:54:57. > :55:00.who was not involved in live Intel's work, clearly in the review, as was

:55:01. > :55:05.touched on in the action to one of the amendments, there was an

:55:06. > :55:09.understanding of an exchange of information. I think it is highly

:55:10. > :55:12.likely that some of that would come to light and of course clearly a

:55:13. > :55:16.Secretary of State who would have sanctioned that would know that the

:55:17. > :55:20.job would be on the line. So for me the powers that are proportionate to

:55:21. > :55:24.the aims they seek to achieve, they have appropriate safeguards and

:55:25. > :55:29.there is more work to be done following the review. I think it is

:55:30. > :55:34.wrong to prejudge an independent review by Castle is in what happens

:55:35. > :55:37.if they say now? What happens if they say yes? So firmly I don't

:55:38. > :55:46.think these amendments are the right one at this stage. I will be putting

:55:47. > :55:49.to retain these parts of the bill. I am honoured to take part in this

:55:50. > :55:56.bill as I was to serve on the Bill committee. I waited with much

:55:57. > :56:00.anticipation to hear the Honourable member from North Dorset's wrote of

:56:01. > :56:04.Roger Kipling which I am not sure was forthcoming. At first I thought

:56:05. > :56:06.he might be going to see as Kipling did at the women's guess is much

:56:07. > :56:12.more accurate than a man's certainty, but on reflection I

:56:13. > :56:17.thought perhaps he was going to say that words are the most powerful

:56:18. > :56:25.drug used by mankind. If you was it would be a very apt quote of Kipling

:56:26. > :56:30.'s. Communication, it can be revolutionary. We saw it with

:56:31. > :56:33.printing, printing established the first mass medium to transmit

:56:34. > :56:37.information and some historians said it played a role in the unrest which

:56:38. > :56:43.characterise the devastating 30-year war. They see it because the

:56:44. > :56:48.doctrines that are set out by Luther in the 16th century where in fact

:56:49. > :56:53.formulated two centuries earlier but they did not spread until the

:56:54. > :56:57.printing revolution itself. Madam Deputy Speaker we are in the midst

:56:58. > :57:02.of a technological revolution, the ability for terrorists to spread

:57:03. > :57:06.hatred, devastation across continents and recruit others to do

:57:07. > :57:09.so has never been easier and our security services need the tools to

:57:10. > :57:15.keep up with technological developments. I would like to deal

:57:16. > :57:20.with two matters. First, the background to the bulk powers and

:57:21. > :57:23.the reasons why we need them. And secondly, the safeguards that

:57:24. > :57:29.already exist in the Bill in the context of bulk powers. The threat

:57:30. > :57:38.that we face are real. MI5 have said that terrorism offences have gone up

:57:39. > :57:41.35% since 2010. David Anderson the independent reviewer of terrorism

:57:42. > :57:46.has said that MI5 explained to him and the time of his report that they

:57:47. > :57:51.has to structured to of lone actors in the last nine months. They

:57:52. > :57:57.explained to him that identifying such individuals was increasingly

:57:58. > :58:02.challenging, exacerbated by the current limitations in technical

:58:03. > :58:05.difficulties. David Anderson was saying the same thing as the

:58:06. > :58:10.director of Euro poll, who gave evidence to the home affairs select

:58:11. > :58:14.committee in January 20 15. He said that the majority of communications

:58:15. > :58:19.networks are now going online. And that there is a security gap. He

:58:20. > :58:23.thinks this is one of the most pressing problems facing police

:58:24. > :58:27.across Europe. The bulk powers are an important part of our toolkit.

:58:28. > :58:32.The Home Office has said that the bulk capability has played a

:58:33. > :58:38.significant part in every major counterterrorism attack in the last

:58:39. > :58:42.decade. Including the seven terrorist attack plots disrupted

:58:43. > :58:46.since 2014. And there are already safeguards in the Bill English in to

:58:47. > :58:51.bulk interception I have counted at least seven. Bulk interception

:58:52. > :58:54.relates only to overseas medications. It needs to be

:58:55. > :58:59.activated in the interest of national security or serious crime

:59:00. > :59:06.or the economic well-being of the UK. I warrant can only be issued by

:59:07. > :59:10.the Secretary of State. It can only be issued if the action is necessary

:59:11. > :59:15.and proportionate. The action of the Secretary of State is reviewed by a

:59:16. > :59:21.judge. The material that is collected is then restriction on

:59:22. > :59:25.copying and retention in the early canopy of offences if there is

:59:26. > :59:29.misuse. During the passage of this bill we have also heard additional

:59:30. > :59:33.safeguards. The Home Secretary has already committed that there will be

:59:34. > :59:38.a further operational case for bulk powers at least yesterday with the

:59:39. > :59:42.passage of the new clause five that whether a bulk power or not will be

:59:43. > :59:47.allowed will be subject to the additional safeguard will be the

:59:48. > :59:54.test of whether the result can be achieved by less intrusive means.

:59:55. > :59:58.Like printing, the Internet is improving our ability to

:59:59. > :00:03.communicate. We need to give our security forces the means to keep

:00:04. > :00:07.pace with those developments, because the country which cannot

:00:08. > :00:15.protect its citizens provides no freedom at all.

:00:16. > :00:21.I would like to speak to the amendment to my name, which is a

:00:22. > :00:30.review of cost health of the Bill to allow modification of more wallets.

:00:31. > :00:32.I will not move my members there. We are trying to use information from

:00:33. > :00:38.the ministers to ensure a fair debate. I said yesterday in the

:00:39. > :00:43.debate that there are surely comes a point in my humble opinion that two

:00:44. > :00:46.major modifications it has the potential to completely change the

:00:47. > :00:53.key components of that wallet and I would like to understand that what

:00:54. > :00:56.point does it become reasonable for new in which to be gathered? I

:00:57. > :01:00.listened carefully yesterday and the minister told the house that it

:01:01. > :01:06.would be completely unacceptable to have a robust system for issuing

:01:07. > :01:09.warrants let alone a system from modifying them, warrants must be

:01:10. > :01:13.consistent throughout winter can be no way of meeting the process. That

:01:14. > :01:16.is not with the government intends nor what we would allow. That is

:01:17. > :01:19.very reassuring and something I greatly welcome. I look forward to

:01:20. > :01:23.seeing how this robust system for modifications would be introduced at

:01:24. > :01:27.the Bill progresses. I do accept that the government has tabled a

:01:28. > :01:30.number of amendments that try to help in this area and I will not be

:01:31. > :01:35.pushing any of my amendment to a vote. On a final point, I'm not a

:01:36. > :01:39.particular fan of the bulk powers contained in the bill. I have

:01:40. > :01:44.listened with great interest to the debates today and yesterday. And

:01:45. > :01:47.also to the chairman of the Security committee and the appointees on how

:01:48. > :01:54.bulk powers are being used. I think in my view amendments should be

:01:55. > :01:58.targeted on the subject of that activity clearly identified. That

:01:59. > :02:00.might be naive in some senses, Heidi said there could be some areas would

:02:01. > :02:05.you do require bulk powers to identify the haystack but some --

:02:06. > :02:09.are some of the member said but I do think that this carte blanche on

:02:10. > :02:12.bulk powers could not and should not be the first resort, it should

:02:13. > :02:16.always be a last resort. There has been a lot of talk about pushbikes

:02:17. > :02:20.and whether or not the country is at one and anything else, and I think

:02:21. > :02:23.the debate in general has been very conciliatory and members on all

:02:24. > :02:29.sides have tried to get a bill that is very difficult at the beginning

:02:30. > :02:33.of this Parliament in a place where most people are some of what element

:02:34. > :02:38.of the bill. I have still not in a position where I can support it. I

:02:39. > :02:40.think a lot of people feel there have been great improvement in the

:02:41. > :02:44.Bill and a lot of trust in the ministers for the work they have

:02:45. > :02:48.done in listening to people and accepting the amendments. I am very

:02:49. > :02:52.grateful that the Home Secretary has tried to alleviate concerns and has

:02:53. > :02:56.agreed to the independent review of the bulk powers in the Bill to be

:02:57. > :02:59.led by David Anderson, the independent reviewer for terrorism

:03:00. > :03:08.legislation, so I look forward to his recommendations and to see them

:03:09. > :03:13.going for. Madam Deputy Speaker it is a pleasure to serve under your

:03:14. > :03:15.chairmanship and speakership today. Particularly as you are

:03:16. > :03:20.appropriately attired something that may indeed be collecting bulk data.

:03:21. > :03:25.It is a great pleasure today because we are talking about an amendment

:03:26. > :03:32.that would fundamentally undermine the very bill that we have come to

:03:33. > :03:34.support. We are talking about some amendments that would in fact change

:03:35. > :03:38.the very tone of the debate and I speak very much in support of my

:03:39. > :03:44.right honourable the trend the honourable member from who has run

:03:45. > :03:47.through various aspects of this insignificant detail, explaining to

:03:48. > :03:50.us time and again why the controls over the collection of bulk data and

:03:51. > :03:57.entirely appropriate and I speak as well in support of the right

:03:58. > :04:00.honourable and learned member for overseas pancreas who has been

:04:01. > :04:03.through this with the eye of the former Director of Public

:04:04. > :04:09.Prosecutions seen both the loopholes in the potential abuses and covered

:04:10. > :04:13.them off. I also speak in support here of the Solicitor General

:04:14. > :04:17.England and Wales who has done exactly the same for us. And

:04:18. > :04:21.therefore the security minister who has put forward a bill that answers

:04:22. > :04:27.the very questions that this state must always ask itself. How do the

:04:28. > :04:31.gardener citizens? How do we keep them safe? How do we also keep them

:04:32. > :04:38.free? This bill does that very thing. My first encounter with bulk

:04:39. > :04:40.data collection came in the constituency of my right honourable

:04:41. > :04:46.and learned friend from Beaconsfield. That is ready defence

:04:47. > :04:51.School of languages was cited and I was going to vast amount of Arabic

:04:52. > :04:54.text. I was doing it in the most genuine and rather ineffective

:04:55. > :04:59.manner but I did learn how it was done properly. I was only a student

:05:00. > :05:04.and the matters has learned from John Napier who in the 17th century

:05:05. > :05:07.developed the logarithm and his lessons do all of us to mathematics

:05:08. > :05:13.is how you build the pattern, how we understand the shape and how you

:05:14. > :05:16.break the code. That is why this bulk data matters, because you

:05:17. > :05:19.cannot build the pattern without data, it cannot build patterns

:05:20. > :05:25.without volume, you cannot make shapes without substance. For the

:05:26. > :05:30.bulk data itself is not intelligence. As an intelligence

:05:31. > :05:36.officer myself in Her Majesty 's Armed Forces, I was very proud to

:05:37. > :05:39.work on intelligence but intelligence is not the raw product,

:05:40. > :05:46.intelligence is what is analysed, it is what is useful and is what

:05:47. > :05:52.decisions can be made from. That is not the bulk, that is not the mass,

:05:53. > :05:55.the intelligence is the product. There appears a five so it is a mad

:05:56. > :05:58.indicative speaker, a slight misunderstanding in some ways as to

:05:59. > :06:03.what is the intrusion because the intrusion is surely not the claim

:06:04. > :06:07.from which the former is made, the intrusion is only the detail on the

:06:08. > :06:13.individual which could be used against them. And this bill does not

:06:14. > :06:17.allow any of that without the tightest of safeguards, both from

:06:18. > :06:26.former judges and from serving ministers. I will give way. Is the

:06:27. > :06:31.aware that once the bulk data is collected by warrant the is an

:06:32. > :06:36.intermediate stage at which it is analysed in the way that he

:06:37. > :06:42.describes? But there is absolutely no legal regulation of how that

:06:43. > :06:47.analysis is carried out. That is our objection. How can I make it any

:06:48. > :06:50.clearer? The honourable and learned Liddy for Edinburgh South West

:06:51. > :06:54.speaks with her usual eloquence but I'm afraid I'm going to refer her to

:06:55. > :06:58.schedule for part one, to the table of authorities and officers listed

:06:59. > :07:03.and to say that the people who are here to analyse are listed here.

:07:04. > :07:06.They are inspectors and superintendents of the prison

:07:07. > :07:10.service, the Allegan commanders and commanders of the Royal Navy. They

:07:11. > :07:14.are majors and in my case very general at the kernels of the Army.

:07:15. > :07:19.They squadron leaders and Wing Commander 's, ER general duties of

:07:20. > :07:22.this is a grade four and above, the seasoned intelligence officers.

:07:23. > :07:26.There is a listing catalogue in Channel 4 of people in our country,

:07:27. > :07:30.men and women across these islands who we have trusted with the

:07:31. > :07:38.intelligence procurement for our nation to keep us safe.

:07:39. > :07:43.It is they who will be doing the analysis under supervision and it is

:07:44. > :07:50.only when they have got something worth taken that they will be

:07:51. > :07:53.allowed to use it. This is absolutely the provision we are

:07:54. > :07:59.talking about. You will not simply be allowed to collect and analyse,

:08:00. > :08:06.you will only be allowed to collect and analyse under warrant. That is

:08:07. > :08:12.absolutely essential. I repeat again, does he accept that no

:08:13. > :08:15.warrant is required to carry out the initial computer analysis and does

:08:16. > :08:20.he understand that those of others on the bill committee working on

:08:21. > :08:25.this for months have uncovered this, unlike some of his colleagues who

:08:26. > :08:29.shout from a sedentary position that we don't understand it, we do

:08:30. > :08:36.understand it, we have analysed it for months. There is no regulation

:08:37. > :08:42.by warrant for the analysis of information that he describes. He is

:08:43. > :08:49.picking on a whole in the bill that is simply not there. It is simply

:08:50. > :08:55.not there because the collection of bulk data is entirely categorised by

:08:56. > :09:00.this Bill. The analysis is then done by trusted officers of the state, by

:09:01. > :09:05.people who frankly to accuse of anything other than the highest

:09:06. > :09:09.forms of integrity would be an extraordinary state in this house.

:09:10. > :09:17.It would be baffling to look at the list of names and additions to

:09:18. > :09:22.accuse people of such integrity to having anything other than the best

:09:23. > :09:28.intentions. The important thing is that we don't just trust them, we

:09:29. > :09:33.supervise them. We trust and verify them. The verification comes from

:09:34. > :09:42.the that we have had listed yesterday their explanations,

:09:43. > :09:50.eventually supervision comes from this house. I am reassured that very

:09:51. > :09:54.much in this bill is not simply some snoopers charter, some grubby

:09:55. > :09:58.attempt to procure the information of the private citizens of these

:09:59. > :10:03.islands, it is on the contrary and extremely effective ill that has

:10:04. > :10:10.been through months of discussion, through hours and hours of detailed

:10:11. > :10:14.and deliberate interrogation that have satisfied the extremely

:10:15. > :10:18.demanding standards of the chair of the intelligence and Security

:10:19. > :10:21.committee, that has satisfied the exemplary work of the former

:10:22. > :10:25.director of the brick prosecutions Huang very pleased to see in the

:10:26. > :10:30.place opposite, this bill has come to the house as a work, nigh on

:10:31. > :10:35.complete that even so the government has heard amendments to it, even so

:10:36. > :10:41.the government has considered further changes and even so the

:10:42. > :10:46.government has accepted them. We get here not just a final copy but a

:10:47. > :10:50.polished copy of a bill that is designed to do exactly what this

:10:51. > :10:56.country so vitally needs. Exactly what this government is here to do.

:10:57. > :11:03.It keeps The People of these islands from whatever background, whatever

:11:04. > :11:09.their origins, whatever their could be days -- the occupations of duties

:11:10. > :11:13.here, fundamentally it protects the freedoms that we enjoy here in this

:11:14. > :11:19.country. Because these freedoms are not, as our Americans put it, free.

:11:20. > :11:26.They afford for everyday by the list of people I have identified in that

:11:27. > :11:30.schedule. Ford for bow our intelligence services which is why

:11:31. > :11:35.am proud to be there today to speak up for the intelligence services who

:11:36. > :11:40.love as for these powers. To speak up for the Armed Forces who require

:11:41. > :11:43.them, the police who use them and most importantly to speak up for the

:11:44. > :11:49.government and in this case the opposition who have so carefully

:11:50. > :12:05.crafted a legal document that will hold water today and for long into

:12:06. > :12:10.the future. Minister. Not minister. I was basking in the acclamation of

:12:11. > :12:19.my right honourable friend. What an interesting and important debate we

:12:20. > :12:25.have had. The dressing bulk powers, it is right that we should consider

:12:26. > :12:31.them in such detail. These are matters of profound importance and

:12:32. > :12:38.public concern. The public want to be concerned that the safeguards put

:12:39. > :12:44.in place for these vital powers are right, that they are adequate and

:12:45. > :12:50.that they are properly considered and reviewed. Many honourable

:12:51. > :12:57.members have made contributions to this debate. I thought, tellingly,

:12:58. > :13:10.the honourable members for East, South East, Rebel and Fermanagh and

:13:11. > :13:15.Tyrone spoke personally of terror and the scale and nature of the

:13:16. > :13:18.threat we face. Though we know it, it doesn't mean that it should not

:13:19. > :13:25.be explored again and again in this house. To explore it is to realise

:13:26. > :13:33.what we need to counter it. That is precisely what it has done. Speeches

:13:34. > :13:39.from members of all sides from the house. The threat is real, imminent

:13:40. > :13:45.and unprecedented in its character. Our opponents are increasingly

:13:46. > :13:51.adaptable and flexible and though their aims maybe barbarically

:13:52. > :13:56.archaic, their means are up-to-date, entirely modern. They are prepared

:13:57. > :14:03.to use every device, every kind of communications media to go about

:14:04. > :14:08.their wicked work. Which is precisely why this bill does what it

:14:09. > :14:11.does and why bulk powers matter and why the amendments that stand in the

:14:12. > :14:18.name of the honourable lady which I shall deal with in a moment, in my

:14:19. > :14:24.judgment, are not ones which the government can accept. It won't come

:14:25. > :14:33.as any surprise to her, by the way. I want to go considerably further,

:14:34. > :14:38.if I might. Because there has been an argument made over sometime that

:14:39. > :14:43.the operational case for bulk powers need to be fleshed out more fully.

:14:44. > :14:48.Members will know that the government did just that when it

:14:49. > :14:56.produced the operational case for bulk. That referred to the committee

:14:57. > :15:04.that has been referred to many times in the debate today. It has been a

:15:05. > :15:07.helpful way of establishing why bulk powers really count. I wanted to say

:15:08. > :15:16.a little more about that. We are dealing here with powers that have

:15:17. > :15:21.played a significant part in every major counterterrorism investigation

:15:22. > :15:25.over the last decade, including each of the seven terror attacks

:15:26. > :15:37.disrupted since 2014. Powers that have enabled over 90% of operations

:15:38. > :15:46.in the south of Afghanistan and that allowed 95% of the cyber attacks to

:15:47. > :15:53.be discovered on the UK in the last month. It is about real life,

:15:54. > :16:04.operational necessity. The threat that was described vividly by the

:16:05. > :16:09.honourable member for Fareham, and I congratulate her, it is as she

:16:10. > :16:12.describes it worldwide and of a kind that would allow others to do

:16:13. > :16:18.nothing other than to take the necessary steps to counter it in the

:16:19. > :16:27.defence of our freedoms. The honourable lady who spoke for the

:16:28. > :16:32.Scottish Nationalist party, perhaps I was a little unkind when I said

:16:33. > :16:42.this, but I make no apology for reprieve is in Yate, -- for

:16:43. > :16:47.reprising it. Frankly, Mr the point. The point isn't whether these powers

:16:48. > :16:51.are necessary but whether we can safeguard them sufficiently to

:16:52. > :16:58.ensure that they are only used when and how and where they should be.

:16:59. > :17:03.That was the point made by the ISC when they had the chance to consider

:17:04. > :17:14.these matters, as the chairman properly said, and then reconsidered

:17:15. > :17:17.them haven't been given further information of a secure kind that

:17:18. > :17:26.persuaded them that these powers were indeed necessary. I think it is

:17:27. > :17:31.right to have an informed, thoughtful debate about safeguards,

:17:32. > :17:36.about checks and balances and constraints but I just don't think

:17:37. > :17:41.we can have a grown-up debate about whether these powers count because

:17:42. > :17:47.they are not new, they are existing powers and what the bill does is to

:17:48. > :17:51.introduce additional safeguards which frankly I would have thought

:17:52. > :17:57.any reasonable member of this house would welcome. Can I gently

:17:58. > :18:07.suggested him that we have already seen this afternoon that patronising

:18:08. > :18:11.those of ours who have taken the trouble to scrutinise this bill,

:18:12. > :18:19.speak on it in detail and try to understand it doesn't actually get

:18:20. > :18:23.you anywhere. My point is, if the government's operational case for

:18:24. > :18:26.investigation E powers, is so overwhelming why have they conceded

:18:27. > :18:35.that an independent case review is required? Let me repeat to things I

:18:36. > :18:40.said yesterday. First, the members of the committee of the scrutinising

:18:41. > :18:44.pill all made a useful contribution. The honourable lady of course as

:18:45. > :18:50.part of that. The second thing I said yesterday was the government

:18:51. > :18:55.obviously in wanting to get this bill right is prepared to listen and

:18:56. > :19:06.learn as governments should. There isn't a single piece of legislation

:19:07. > :19:09.that has been altered through its process that hasn't been a better

:19:10. > :19:15.piece of law as a result of the consideration of this house. We

:19:16. > :19:22.should be proud of that. To focus on some of the detail around safeguards

:19:23. > :19:27.seems to me to be absolutely right, whereas a debate about the necessity

:19:28. > :19:34.of these powers is a debate that has already been had and I think there

:19:35. > :19:42.is a general acceptance... 90% of the operations in Afghanistan, 95%

:19:43. > :19:45.of the cyber attacks, every single major countering terrorism

:19:46. > :19:50.investigation over the last decade. I can't be plainer than that

:19:51. > :19:56.necessity. But because this government is so determined to

:19:57. > :20:01.explain that the safeguards are adequate, we have agreed to further

:20:02. > :20:06.review. As member opposite generously said, that is to be

:20:07. > :20:10.completed in exactly the form that emerged as a result of the

:20:11. > :20:15.discussions between opposition and government, again an illustration of

:20:16. > :20:22.how this house can act when it is behaving in this house at its best,

:20:23. > :20:25.that review chaired by David Anderson will have the ability to

:20:26. > :20:32.look at not just utility but necessity. The review will be

:20:33. > :20:38.independent, it will be at David Anderson... So the minister is

:20:39. > :20:43.saying that all these counterterrorism activities that

:20:44. > :20:48.were helped by Bo powers are now going to be reviewed and we will see

:20:49. > :20:53.if it is true. As they did in the United States, two independent

:20:54. > :21:01.reviews showed that when the NSA argued the same that operations had

:21:02. > :21:05.relied on bulk powers, both committee said, absolutely not.

:21:06. > :21:11.Other techniques could have been used. What is he going to do if this

:21:12. > :21:17.reviews finds the same as those two reviews in the United States? Will

:21:18. > :21:25.he then remove the right to use these bulk powers from the bill?

:21:26. > :21:29.It's a bit rich to say we want a review and we want the government to

:21:30. > :21:35.listen and agree and then when the government listens and agree, say

:21:36. > :21:39.you haven't agreed enough. OK, I accept that the review should be

:21:40. > :21:48.entirely independent. I have made that clear in my letter to the

:21:49. > :21:50.Shadow minister. I accept today that we should look into national

:21:51. > :21:56.comparisons. That is perfectly reasonable. David Anderson will

:21:57. > :22:00.decide whether he wants to do that and certainly it will be within the

:22:01. > :22:05.scope. This review will be independent and will be made with as

:22:06. > :22:10.much information made public as possible and will have the ability

:22:11. > :22:14.to arrange in the way she described across the range of powers.

:22:15. > :22:19.I have no doubt that all that the review done by David Anderson will

:22:20. > :22:26.be very valuable and I hope that it will also help inform the house as

:22:27. > :22:30.to how bulk powers work. In that context, because I have picked this

:22:31. > :22:34.up, the suggestion that the examination of material under a bulk

:22:35. > :22:39.warrant is somehow a free for all which is left to the discretion of

:22:40. > :22:44.the official, and plainly is not. It is subject to the operational

:22:45. > :22:48.purposes sent down in section 125 of the bill and if they are departed

:22:49. > :22:55.from, the official who's doing it would be acting unlawfully. The

:22:56. > :22:59.member from cities get richer mazy point that the honourable member has

:23:00. > :23:05.underlined that these powers are subject to safeguards and let the

:23:06. > :23:08.clear, analysing data collected in bulk is subjected to automated

:23:09. > :23:12.filtering to insure that data that is not a intelligence value is

:23:13. > :23:16.automatically discarded. This is a safeguards set out in the code of

:23:17. > :23:19.practice. We have regular safeguards in the suggestion that there are not

:23:20. > :23:30.frankly would seem to me wrong. This is a confusion in the collection of

:23:31. > :23:38.material. It is right Madam Deputy Speaker that we emphasise that the

:23:39. > :23:43.safeguards are very clearly set out on the face of the bill and the

:23:44. > :23:45.supporting material and indeed have evolved in the results of the

:23:46. > :23:51.scrutiny we have enjoyed the committee. I'm very grateful to the

:23:52. > :23:55.honourable member. You are responding to a point which the SNP

:23:56. > :24:00.are making on a number of occasions about the US. Thus the honourable

:24:01. > :24:05.member remember when the honourable member for Edinburgh South West put

:24:06. > :24:10.this very point to David Anderson at the first day of our committee, and

:24:11. > :24:16.he said it is of course, it is difficult of course to beat from

:24:17. > :24:19.section two to what we have here which is rather different. I cannot

:24:20. > :24:29.speak for the US, different power, different circumstances. The

:24:30. > :24:35.honourable lady with an assiduity that is matched by her intellect has

:24:36. > :24:39.identified the fundamental flaw in the argument of her critics. Which

:24:40. > :24:45.is that those who have looked at these matters both carefully have

:24:46. > :24:49.concluded that these powers are necessary and the safeguards that we

:24:50. > :24:54.are bringing in this bill and by the way these powers have existed for a

:24:55. > :25:00.long time, the powers are not only numerous but also rigorous. And that

:25:01. > :25:05.was precisely the point is David Anderson made. But the member for St

:25:06. > :25:12.Pancras in committee and since has said that we need to do more. There

:25:13. > :25:15.are two ways of governments handling opposition justice activism

:25:16. > :25:21.oppositions handling government. You can either do antagonistic quickly

:25:22. > :25:27.do it cooperatively. The way I go about my work, inspired perhaps by

:25:28. > :25:33.the great Doctor Johnson, the man who said, by the way, that the devil

:25:34. > :25:43.was the first way and I agree with him on that, Samuel Johnson said

:25:44. > :25:46.like rotten society but by reciprocal concessions. This bill

:25:47. > :25:52.has been a model of that kind of reciprocal approach and these

:25:53. > :25:55.concessions have not been by the way we climb downs, they have not been

:25:56. > :26:02.given reluctantly, they have not been tyrants, they have not been in

:26:03. > :26:07.any sense wrong out of the government. Nevertheless they have

:26:08. > :26:08.been given on the basis of a proper pressure exerted by the honourable

:26:09. > :26:13.gentleman and other honourable members of this house for the

:26:14. > :26:17.government to do more and good government is about listening and

:26:18. > :26:22.learning as I said yesterday and that is precisely what we have done

:26:23. > :26:26.in respect to this review and I look forward to it and eight to speak it

:26:27. > :26:34.out, the same kind of interest that I the honourable gentleman and

:26:35. > :26:38.others share. I will give way. I am grateful. I feel I should put on

:26:39. > :26:45.record my gratitude to him for the way he has dealt with the demands

:26:46. > :26:48.that I on behalf of the Labour Party have made, they have been

:26:49. > :26:53.considerable demands. I thank him for that support and I know that the

:26:54. > :27:11.government whips will make a careful note of it. I'm sorry... We have

:27:12. > :27:20.listened to the calls and David Anderson has undertaken a review and

:27:21. > :27:25.I will not say more about that. We have deleted at some length here

:27:26. > :27:31.today and earlier the amendment from the great honourable gentleman. He

:27:32. > :27:37.has made a number of proposal in his amendment. I am grateful for his

:27:38. > :27:45.contribution to the debate is generally more specifically today. I

:27:46. > :27:49.am seized that the right honourable gentleman has explained the purposes

:27:50. > :27:54.behind the amendments and closely and 24 and the government certainly

:27:55. > :27:59.accept the principle, the argument that we should provide further

:28:00. > :28:04.restrictions on the use of national dataset warrants. The government

:28:05. > :28:07.also accepts the detail contained in the draft clause, including the need

:28:08. > :28:13.for restrictions relating to sensitive personal data. I have

:28:14. > :28:18.dealt with the issue he knows who at least happy about, the timetable and

:28:19. > :28:22.scale on which these matters are reported to the IC but I do think

:28:23. > :28:25.more can be done and I think the protocol kindly explained in his

:28:26. > :28:38.brief contribution is the way we might cooperate that and we can take

:28:39. > :28:44.that away. The honourable gentleman for Stevenage, an old friend of

:28:45. > :28:52.mine, he's not in this place I see, but an old friend of mine by the

:28:53. > :28:55.way, raised issues in relation to modifications and I want to make

:28:56. > :29:02.absolutely clear that in all modifications a warrant will require

:29:03. > :29:05.the same double up. This reflects the debate yesterday and the

:29:06. > :29:11.committee where the opposition spokesman argued that the double

:29:12. > :29:16.lock applies when he warrant is originally sought, it must apply to

:29:17. > :29:22.modifications. I entirely accept that point. The honourable judgment

:29:23. > :29:27.from Stevenage made it again today and I can assure him it will apply

:29:28. > :29:31.to bulk powers, too. The honourable gentleman raised the issue of

:29:32. > :29:35.medical records. He is right that sensitive data should be handled in

:29:36. > :29:37.a particularly sensitive way, I have pleased that he has noted the

:29:38. > :29:44.government amendment I feel deals with that. We will look at the

:29:45. > :29:47.technical points you raise a road social care and mental health but

:29:48. > :29:52.I'm confident we can find a way forward in that regard. I do not

:29:53. > :29:58.want to delay the house unduly. That is not my habit as you know. We have

:29:59. > :30:05.other important matters to consider as we progress. But I do want to

:30:06. > :30:11.emphasise this, because one of my regrets is that we have not had more

:30:12. > :30:17.proof than either this debate is today with the bill more generally.

:30:18. > :30:19.And proves set the only real voyage of discovery exists not in seeking

:30:20. > :30:27.new landscapes but in having new highs. The consideration of this

:30:28. > :30:31.bill, which has been extensive, the reports before the draft

:30:32. > :30:34.publication, the Parliamentary committees while the draft Bill was

:30:35. > :30:40.published in a very thorough examination in committee following

:30:41. > :30:47.the second reading. It has allowed us to have new highs, to see more

:30:48. > :30:53.clearly, both the need to secure our people, to counter the very real

:30:54. > :31:01.threats we face and also the need to deal with those checks and balances

:31:02. > :31:06.to make sure the powers we give to keep us safe argues that report

:31:07. > :31:09.shall I had only where necessary. To achieve that balance, a balance that

:31:10. > :31:14.lies at the heart of this bill, has required a balanced approach in this

:31:15. > :31:21.house. And as I said a few moments ago, Parliament is at its best when

:31:22. > :31:34.it puts national interest beyond party interest. This is common

:31:35. > :31:39.ground for the common good. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I have to

:31:40. > :31:43.say that the twin that the minister is using the is not merely

:31:44. > :31:49.reflecting the tour and that some of his members have addressed this

:31:50. > :31:54.debate with. I have felt completely patronise the times today, because

:31:55. > :31:59.we have had people shouting at us from these benches, you don't

:32:00. > :32:02.understand this bill. Just because you take a different view, just

:32:03. > :32:05.because you're coming at it from a different angle does not mean that

:32:06. > :32:08.you do not understand it. The honourable member shaking his head,

:32:09. > :32:13.but it was offensive to have to listen to that nonsense,

:32:14. > :32:18.particularly when he was directly to my honourable friend the member for

:32:19. > :32:24.Edinburgh South West is a learned QC and certainly does know what she is

:32:25. > :32:36.talking about. The honourable member, now I will not take any

:32:37. > :32:45.intervention. OK, patronise away. Order! We will listen to Sir Alan

:32:46. > :32:50.Duncan. There is no intention whatsoever to be patronising. And if

:32:51. > :32:53.she wishes to take it in that vein then may I apologise and do so

:32:54. > :32:58.graciously, as it is not the intention. Our view is very simply

:32:59. > :33:03.to say that the issue of bulk interception and bulk powers is a

:33:04. > :33:08.very previous of the word bulk and as in many cases misunderstood in

:33:09. > :33:10.terms of the intrusion it has on the individual concurred with the

:33:11. > :33:14.collective gathering of information. That is the point we're making and I

:33:15. > :33:20.hope she can accept that in that spirit. I most certainly will accept

:33:21. > :33:23.the honourable member's apology, but I will reiterate, just because we

:33:24. > :33:29.are coming at it from a different angle does not mean we are wrong.

:33:30. > :33:31.These are our opinions, they are your opinions and I also want to

:33:32. > :33:37.make mention of the honourable member from North Dorset. He was

:33:38. > :33:45.utterly offensive in his suggestion that we on the SNP quarter do not

:33:46. > :33:53.care, as the Lib Dem quarter, sorry, and everybody else, the site, do not

:33:54. > :33:57.care about terrorism, do not care about people affected by

:33:58. > :34:00.paedophilia. Of course we care. And to suggest that we do not just

:34:01. > :34:03.because we do not believe that this is the way to go about tackling it,

:34:04. > :34:07.and we are not the only wanted to believe this is the only way to go

:34:08. > :34:10.about tackling it, is truly offensive and below the belt and I

:34:11. > :34:17.think the member should apologise. I will accept in writing a few more

:34:18. > :34:27.moderate here. I will wait a long time, will I? To some up, we will be

:34:28. > :34:31.pushing the amendment, because there is nothing that we have hedged today

:34:32. > :34:36.that reassures us. How can we be expected to vote on legislation, the

:34:37. > :34:40.legislative process is coming to the end of its time in this House of

:34:41. > :34:43.Commons but it is going to be reviewed but we are to vote on it

:34:44. > :34:48.now? And on that note I would appeal again to some very dear and learn it

:34:49. > :34:57.friends in the Labour Party to think again about trusting the slot with

:34:58. > :35:00.this review, is not one of them, I don't know the Labour Party has not

:35:01. > :35:06.done it either, none of you will see what they will do if this

:35:07. > :35:10.independent review shows that these bulk powers are not necessary, as

:35:11. > :35:15.has been shown in the United States. If they choose that... Now, I give

:35:16. > :35:17.the Minister and opportunity to see an instead of answering the question

:35:18. > :35:23.he took an intervention from the zone benches. As I said, what are

:35:24. > :35:26.they going to do if the review shows not what he's expecting it to show?

:35:27. > :35:36.We will be pushing the amendment to a vote. The question is that the

:35:37. > :35:41.amendment 319 the made, whenever and in the eye. I. Of the country, no.

:35:42. > :37:16.No. Division. Order! The question is that

:37:17. > :37:23.amendment 390 be made. The smell of that opinion say hi. I! Of the

:37:24. > :37:27.country, no. Tellers for the eyes, or in Thomson and Marian Fellows,

:37:28. > :44:11.tellers for the nose, Sarah Newton and George Lynwood.

:44:12. > :47:45.Order! Order! The Ayes to the right 66. The Noes to the left 285.

:47:46. > :48:15.The Noes have it. To lock. The question is the government amendment

:48:16. > :48:27.42-48 and 127-130. Being made. Opinions say Ayes. On the contrary

:48:28. > :48:40.Noes. The Ayes have it. Question is the government new clause 14 be

:48:41. > :48:44.added to the bill. The Ayes have it. We now come to new clause 18 with

:48:45. > :48:49.which it will become Fenian to consider the new clauses and

:48:50. > :48:57.amendments considered on the selection paper. Mr Steven learnt to

:48:58. > :49:11.move new clause 18. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The first group is

:49:12. > :49:21.news clause 18, amendment 208. To restrict to intelligence agencies

:49:22. > :49:28.and law enforcement only. It currently includes food standards

:49:29. > :49:35.and I'm not sure why these should have such intrusive powers. It gives

:49:36. > :49:40.incredibly wide-ranging powers and there is real nervousness about

:49:41. > :49:44.that. I complete respect the integrity of the security services

:49:45. > :49:49.and the police but a lot of the fear stems from some local authorities in

:49:50. > :49:54.the past for the way in which they have used anti-terrorism powers to

:49:55. > :49:59.spy on people, for not doing their recycling correctly, or areas like

:50:00. > :50:02.that. As a result, those local authorities are not included in the

:50:03. > :50:06.bill but if you look at an example from my point of view in

:50:07. > :50:13.Hertfordshire, the child protection unit in Hertfordshire county council

:50:14. > :50:18.does not have access to communications data to catch

:50:19. > :50:25.paedophiles but the Food Standards Agency and the gambling commission

:50:26. > :50:32.does. I would not understand why they could not have those powers but

:50:33. > :50:40.organisations like the gambling commission and the food stage

:50:41. > :50:45.standards agency can. I understand the normal sessions when witnesses

:50:46. > :50:50.were providing evidence there was a lot of talk about intelligence

:50:51. > :50:56.agencies and paedophilia and questions around that. It was clear

:50:57. > :51:01.that robust cases were put forward why they should be included. These

:51:02. > :51:07.amendments are to tease out why those amendments were put forward

:51:08. > :51:10.and accepted and others won't. I'd much rather have child protection

:51:11. > :51:14.units have access to some of the powers in this bill than the Food

:51:15. > :51:18.Standards Agency or the gambling commission or some other

:51:19. > :51:24.organisations. The purpose of these clauses is to identify why we are in

:51:25. > :51:30.the place we are at the moment. I'm very grateful to my honourable

:51:31. > :51:35.friend that we have spoken about these matters with some detail. I

:51:36. > :51:39.recognise his abiding concern and those of others with regard to this

:51:40. > :51:44.issue which is why I will commit to publishing a detailed case for the

:51:45. > :51:50.minor public authorities and head of these being considered in the other

:51:51. > :51:54.place. I hope that will address the concerns he has raised.

:51:55. > :52:04.I am very grateful. I think this was the work that myself and other

:52:05. > :52:07.members have done throughout. All of my amendment have been probing

:52:08. > :52:10.amendment had none of them have been designed to be pushed to a vote.

:52:11. > :52:15.They have been designed to get information. I shall move on to the

:52:16. > :52:20.next group of amendments. Amendment 161 through two 172, these

:52:21. > :52:24.amendments deal with the filtering arrangements. The Home Office

:52:25. > :52:28.describes the filters as a safeguard designed to reduce the collateral

:52:29. > :52:31.intrusion produced in searching for small specific information in a

:52:32. > :52:38.large dataset. However its very nature means the -- that the filter

:52:39. > :52:46.allows huge automated searches of large datasets, which is a useful

:52:47. > :52:54.facility. Any organisation listed in schedule for, will have access to

:52:55. > :52:57.this request filter. My amendments try to restrict the use of the

:52:58. > :53:03.filter to exceptional circumstances, place them under the control of the

:53:04. > :53:07.judicial Commissioner as with other powers and greatest Briton of how it

:53:08. > :53:10.is used by which organisations. The fact we have almost all information

:53:11. > :53:16.on who will be in charge of building this request filter either that it

:53:17. > :53:20.would be operated by a third party on behalf of the Secretary of State

:53:21. > :53:24.does fill with great fear. I would make you question whether not this

:53:25. > :53:27.request filter with a pre-existing reality. Governments of all colours

:53:28. > :53:31.throughout the ages have been absolutely rubbish at commissioning

:53:32. > :53:34.and running large IT projects and delivering them on time or on

:53:35. > :53:41.budget. What's the request filter actually does is it means that the

:53:42. > :53:49.third-party organisation build a system and collect data from the

:53:50. > :53:52.unification set provided. It then analyses the data inside that system

:53:53. > :53:57.and passes that analysis over to the police. The police are given direct

:53:58. > :54:01.access to the information which is I think why the ministers refer to it

:54:02. > :54:05.as a safeguard but I do wonder why the police are not allowed access to

:54:06. > :54:13.this information but this third-party organisation is. The

:54:14. > :54:18.filtering process needs to be looked into, restrictions needs to be

:54:19. > :54:22.placed on it. We just don't store enough about the mechanics of how

:54:23. > :54:25.these systems are going to work, who gone to build them, whose greater

:54:26. > :54:30.pay for them, how they're going to operated, what safeguards are

:54:31. > :54:37.involved. Me that huge problem. My last rebel amendment in my name

:54:38. > :54:40.because quite simple the bill deals with national security and changing

:54:41. > :54:47.technology capabilities and so I feel they should be suspect --

:54:48. > :54:51.subject to new powers. I know there will be a lot of calls in this house

:54:52. > :54:54.for things to happen every 12 months and two or three years but the

:54:55. > :55:00.reality is that under changing technological circumstances some of

:55:01. > :55:04.the provisions in this bill, the technical people in this house and

:55:05. > :55:07.outside this house who can already get around some of the provisions in

:55:08. > :55:11.this bill. We are legislating to catch up on some areas. In other

:55:12. > :55:16.areas it will be difficult for the bill to work so if you are based on

:55:17. > :55:20.integrated -- based on Internet protocol that is no possibility of

:55:21. > :55:24.identifying individual IP address so if you're on a mobile phone and

:55:25. > :55:29.striding around the M25 the IP address is the individual

:55:30. > :55:32.telecommunication that houses you as you are moving out of the M25 so

:55:33. > :55:37.it'd be impossible to identify what you're doing long as you are moving.

:55:38. > :55:41.So you Internet protocol six which provides an IP address for each

:55:42. > :55:46.individual device. Until we get the a lot of the provisions will not get

:55:47. > :55:49.that so it will be a long way off until we get Internet protocol six

:55:50. > :55:54.me some of the provisions in this bill technically do not quite work.

:55:55. > :55:57.You can already get around and based on things that may be happening in

:55:58. > :56:01.ten or 15 years' time, the technology can move forward so

:56:02. > :56:06.quickly at this point that the provisions in the bill will not

:56:07. > :56:09.catch up then anyway. There are a number of what you would know as

:56:10. > :56:14.tour browsers that allow you to master IP address. Even download a

:56:15. > :56:18.simple app on your iPhone and when you access your IP -- when you

:56:19. > :56:21.access the Internet IP address will be based in Munich or someone else.

:56:22. > :56:26.It is simple to get around a lot of these issues very quickly and

:56:27. > :56:29.easily. I would like to see on a final point I do understand the

:56:30. > :56:33.effort that ministers have made to work with the opposition and

:56:34. > :56:37.concerned members on all sides of the house to ensure the bill gets

:56:38. > :56:42.put on the statute book by December. I appreciate the sunset clause and

:56:43. > :56:45.that we must do something. It is horrible that as a society that we

:56:46. > :56:50.live in that many of the situations are happening at the moment but for

:56:51. > :56:54.me these amendment are not to be moved, they are amendments to prove

:56:55. > :56:58.and to highlight specific areas of concern and need further scrutiny. I

:56:59. > :57:01.hope they will be of interest to some member 's of the House of Lords

:57:02. > :57:04.and they will look into these issues around the filter out I have spoken

:57:05. > :57:08.about and I hope the government will also take these amendment in the

:57:09. > :57:11.spirit in which they are offered, as probing amendment is not to be moved

:57:12. > :57:19.or voted on, but as a basis for more negotiation going forward. Persons

:57:20. > :57:23.who may apply for issues of warrant. The question is that you clause 18

:57:24. > :57:31.be read a second time. Mr Andy Burnham. This final group of

:57:32. > :57:39.amendments covers three of the seven substantial concerns that I set out

:57:40. > :57:43.after a second reading. First, the protection of journalistic material

:57:44. > :57:48.and sources, second the definition of Internet connection records and

:57:49. > :57:53.the threshold for the US. And third the independent review of the

:57:54. > :57:57.operational case for bulk powers. Let me take each in turn. I will

:57:58. > :58:00.deal briefly with general is in material and the protection of

:58:01. > :58:06.sources is this also was debated at length yesterday. Protecting the

:58:07. > :58:09.ability of whistle-blowers in private or public sector

:58:10. > :58:12.organisations to speak to journalists without fear of

:58:13. > :58:19.identification is one of the important checks and balances on the

:58:20. > :58:24.state and corporate power. Many journalists and the NUJ have real

:58:25. > :58:29.concerns that clause 68 of the bill weakens the existing protections in

:58:30. > :58:33.law for journalistic sources operated under the police and

:58:34. > :58:40.criminal evidence act. They point to an incident in 2014 when police

:58:41. > :58:47.secretly access the mobile phone records and from a national

:58:48. > :58:51.newspaper, bypassing the protections so radically that are now worries

:58:52. > :58:54.that this has set a new precedent. Furthermore they feel that this bill

:58:55. > :59:02.might now be about to enshrine that new precedent in law. Under pace,

:59:03. > :59:05.journalists get notification of when the authorities want to access

:59:06. > :59:12.material and sources, and so then they get the ability to challenge

:59:13. > :59:17.this in open court. The worry is that the bill removes those

:59:18. > :59:21.protections. The National Union of Journalists makes the point that

:59:22. > :59:28.there is no real difference between physical notebooks and held health

:59:29. > :59:35.cons data, both could reveal the same thing, both could reveal the

:59:36. > :59:38.identity of the source. Labour shares these concerns and they were

:59:39. > :59:43.ably raised by my honourable friend the member for Holborn and St

:59:44. > :59:49.Pancras. We also raise them at second reading. The government have

:59:50. > :59:57.gone some way to addressing our concerns, tabling amendments 51 and

:59:58. > :00:00.52 and we welcome this. These amendments would ensure that

:00:01. > :00:07.judicial commissioners, when considering a warrant, must give

:00:08. > :00:10.weight to the overriding public interest anyone had been granted for

:00:11. > :00:14.use of investigatory Powers against journalists. We must ensure that

:00:15. > :00:20.this is in keeping with wider more general privacy points. This is a

:00:21. > :00:23.significant move, it takes points that would otherwise have been in

:00:24. > :00:29.code underpinning the bill onto the face of the bill, so Labour will

:00:30. > :00:36.accept these amendments, but we will do so while being clear that they do

:00:37. > :00:40.not go far enough and indeed only cover the warrants but not general

:00:41. > :00:43.access to communications data. We support the amendments that have

:00:44. > :00:48.been laid by my great honourable friend the member for Camberwell and

:00:49. > :00:54.Peckham on the half of the joint committee on human rights,

:00:55. > :00:57.amendments 143 - 145, which seek to extend the same level of protection

:00:58. > :01:06.to journalists as is currently the case under pace. We accept that this

:01:07. > :01:10.is a difficult area to get right, particularly when the definition of

:01:11. > :01:16.who is and who is not a journalist is changing in the digital world. We