Serious Fraud Office

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate; I can see that some have already taken that advice.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) on securing this debate on the important work of the SFO in tackling economic crime. The all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax recently met with the Serious Fraud Office team and its director. I have the pleasure of chairing that APPG, a role I inherited from our current anti-corruption champion Baroness Hodge. I thank the SFO’s staff and leadership for taking on incredibly complex cases in the national interest. It was clear that the SFO has an ambitious agenda to tackle serious economic crime, but it was equally clear that without sustained political and financial backing from Government, and cross-Government work to prevent economic crime and fraud, the agency will not be able to fulfil its potential.

I am therefore pleased that this Government have committed to a new cross-Government anti-corruption strategy, led by the joint anti-corruption unit at the Home Office. I hope that that strategy will include some of the policies that will help deter and prevent economic crime and fraud in the first place, and I will mention a couple of them before moving on to some recommendations for the SFO. The first, which has long been debated in this Chamber, is the role of UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies as facilitators of economic crime and fraud. We asked the SFO for an estimate on the volume of fraud and economic crime that has a connection to the UK overseas territories, and we are waiting for an answer.

However, needless to say, it is common practice to use shell companies in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies to launder the proceeds of crime to facilitate tax evasion and avoidance. I commend the Government of Gibraltar, who have taken an important step towards publishing a transparent register of company ownership. A few weeks ago, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) and I met the Gibraltar premier. Our request is this: if Gibraltar can do it, why can the British Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos, Cayman Islands and others not meet their obligations to Parliament on transparency over beneficial ownership? That will help us to follow the money, and it will help investigators in the SFO to bring successful cases.

The last deadline for the overseas territories was 30 April. That deadline was only set in the autumn, when we had the last joint council meeting, chaired by the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). Only two overseas territories met that deadline for enabling legislation on publishing information on beneficial owners. What consequences will there be for those that have not met the deadline, and what support can be provided to get those registries up and running so that our investigators can follow the money?

The second area in which I think the public expect more co-ordination is the proliferation of economic crime and fraud on our high streets. In Kensington and Bayswater, a number of constituents have contacted me about our latest Harry Potter shop, souvenir shop, candy shop, barber shop, vape shop, nail bar and so on. Obviously legitimate businesses conduct those trades, but we know from the National Crime Agency’s recent Operation Machinize on barber shops across the country that there is a significant link between economic crime and fraud and serious organised crime. There are serious organised crime links on our high streets, but also VAT avoidance and business rate avoidance from companies that phoenix. We need co-ordination across the enforcement agencies, with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the NCA and the SFO working together to enforce the law on our high streets. I think that a lot of our constituents would thank the Government for an additional push on that front.

I want to mention three areas where I think that the SFO could do with our support under its strong new leadership: first, on whistleblowing reform; secondly, on sustainable funding for disclosure; and thirdly, on enforcement on foreign bribery, which comes under the SFO.

First, I strongly welcome the SFO’s commitment to progressing a new incentivisation scheme on whistleblowing. In the United States, such schemes have unlocked more than $50 billion in recoveries, and significant numbers of UK whistleblowers have contributed tips to US authorities because the scheme incentivises them more than if they did so here. It is beyond time that the UK had a comparable mechanism, and I hope that the Government will look at ways to develop a properly resourced whistleblower reward scheme, subject to the outcome of the independent review by Jonathan Fisher KC on what exactly that would look like.

Secondly, despite recent progress, disclosure continues to consume a staggering portion of the SFO’s capacity at approximately 25% of its budget and 40% of its staff time. We know that the SFO can be one of the most effective agencies in tackling financial crime, but that means we must properly fund and support it, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon mentioned, with modern technology. Independent reviews have already shown that disclosure remains an Achilles heel for the justice system, particularly in the prosecution of complex economic crime. Support in this area would go a long way.

Thirdly, there is a lack of enforcement on foreign bribery, in particular by UK small and medium-sized enterprises in developing countries. According to recent analysis, there have been zero successful prosecutions of UK SMEs for such offences since 2016, when the NCA’s international corruption unit took over responsibility for pursuing that kind of bribery. That enforcement gap undermines the UK’s credibility and efforts to promote clean business globally, and we want to support our SMEs to go out and make those deals in a fair and transparent way. The SFO must therefore be properly resourced and supported to take the lead in this area. The Government should ensure that there is sufficient funding for the SFO to take a lead role in prosecuting all UK firms who commit bribery overseas, including SMEs.

To conclude, the SFO must be supported to improve outcomes, with additional resources for trained staff, modern technology and digital disclosure tools. The responsibility now lies with us—with this Labour Government, who have rightly put tackling economic crime at the heart of their agenda. The Foreign Secretary has said that we want to

“be the anti-corruption capital of the world”,

and I support that entirely.

Our APPG strongly supports the creation of an economic crime-fighting fund, which would allow enforcement proceeds to be reinvested into frontline agencies such as the SFO, which returned £3 to the taxpayer for every £1 invested. That is a sound investment for taxpayers and would help to ensure that the SFO is equipped to tackle some of the disclosure challenges that I mentioned, and to close the enforcement gaps on foreign bribery. I believe that the SFO is setting the right direction through its business plan and its newish leadership, and it is now for us to provide the funding and political backing to allow it to contribute to the UK’s leadership on economic crime.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I intend to begin the winding-up speeches at 5.50 pm, and we have two more Back-Bench speakers, so it would be lovely if I could get you both in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) for securing this important debate. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just pointed out, last year alone fraud accounted for a staggering 40% of crimes against individuals in England and Wales. This is not a faceless crime; behind every one of those statistics is a victim, someone who has been left not only financially worse off, but emotionally distressed, fearful and often devastated. Whether it is a vulnerable pensioner scammed out of their life savings or a small business misled into paying false invoices, the human impact of fraud is real and growing.

We have already heard about the devastating impact of romantic fraud, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Clwyd North (Gill German), and the hon. Member for Strangford outlined the increase in fraudulent calls offering things such as fake holidays. I have heard from countless constituents in North Cornwall—hard-working people, whether they are pensioners or young adults saving for a first home—who have fallen victim to online fraud, authorised push payment scams and identity theft. They feel ignored, disempowered and unprotected. Far too often, they felt like the system just did not care. For them, justice feels out of reach, and that is because sadly, in most cases, it is.

Despite the enormous scale of this crime, only around 2% of recorded frauds are actually referred to local police forces for investigation. The vast majority of victims never see their cases taken forward, let alone justice done. That simply is not good enough. The Liberal Democrats believe that it is time to move beyond empty promises and underfunded initiatives and take bold, decisive action. We have set out in our manifesto a comprehensive plan to tackle fraud because we recognise it for what it is: a national emergency hiding in plain sight.

We would establish a dedicated online crime agency, a national body designed specifically to tackle online fraud, co-ordinate investigations across forces and employ the kind of digital expertise that is urgently needed to tackle cyber-enabled crimes. Right now, fraudsters exploit jurisdictional boundaries; they use fake identities, offshore servers and untraceable digital accounts. Victims in Cornwall, for example, might be targeted by criminals operating from London, Lagos or Luxembourg, and our existing systems are not designed to cope with that level of sophistication or scale. A specialist online crime agency could plug that gap.

The hon. Member for Hendon rightly pointed out how big banks need to seriously step up. We would name and shame banks with the worst records on preventing fraud and compensating victims. If we do not hold institutions accountable for allowing these scams to happen under their watch, nothing will change. In 2023 alone, criminals stole £1.2 billion from individuals through banking fraud and scams. While banks have improved reimbursement rates, nearly 40% of authorised payment fraud losses still go completely uncompensated.

While it is welcome news that, from October, payment providers will be required by law to reimburse victims of authorised push payment fraud, regulation alone will not be enough. We need pressure and transparency, so that banks feel real accountability to their customers. That is why we would launch a high-profile national fraud awareness campaign, giving people the tools to spot, report and avoid scams. The Government have a duty to act, but the public deserve to be better informed, supported and empowered.

Fraud prevention must be treated as seriously as fire safety, road safety or other forms of crime prevention. We should have national guidance for at-risk groups, and there should be a visible, accessible place to report crimes and get the help they need. Most importantly, we need to do more to support victims. The emotional harm caused by fraud, which has already been laid out by other hon. Members, is often overlooked, yet for many the betrayal, fear and shame of being scammed is as damaging as the financial loss suffered.

A constituent of mine who was the victim of such a devastating economic crime wrote to me of how it not only resulted in his farm business being “crippled”, but led to a detrimental impact on his livelihood, health and wellbeing, causing him worry, stress and severe depression. He ultimately required counselling, and has since been identified as at high risk of suicide, has become a recluse, and suffers from

“a host of health issues with heart and blood pressure problems, bowel cancer, severe migraines”.

Ultimately, it has taken a huge toll on his physical and mental health.

Let me be clear: we cannot continue to treat victims of fraud as if they are to blame for their misfortune, or expect individuals to prevent it. Fraud is a crime—not a mistake or bad luck. It is a deliberate act of deception, and the victims, whether they are small business owners, retirees or university students, to name a few, deserve justice and redress.

That brings me to the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, currently making its way through Parliament. On the surface, it offers important tools to recover public money lost to fraud, especially in the welfare system, and of course every pound stolen through fraud is a pound not going to our schools, hospitals or those genuinely in need. However, the Bill as drafted lacks a comprehensive impact assessment. Without that, we risk placing enormous emphasis on clawing back money from ordinary claimants, without matching it with investment in the prevention or prosecution of high-level economic fraud.

What about the billions lost through covid support schemes? Let us not forget that under the last Conservative Government, fraudsters were allowed to get away with billions of pounds of covid support funds. Meanwhile, revenue worth an estimated £38.9 billion a year goes uncollected due to tax evasion and criminal activities. We need a clear, cross-agency, strategic and well-resourced national effort to tackle economic crime and fraud, and the Serious Fraud Office has a central role to play in that. The hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) has already called for a much more joined-up approach between the SFO, the NCA, HMRC and other agencies.

The SFO is the very agency tasked with investigating some of the most complex and serious frauds in the country, yet it remains under-resourced, underpowered, and far too often underperforming. We have seen well-publicised failures, with high-profile cases being dropped, poor conviction rates and concerns raised about its investigatory capacity. The SFO has been left to firefight with nowhere near the scale of investment it needs to pursue the most complex, high-value economic crimes.

If we are serious about tackling corporate fraud, money laundering and criminal networks exploiting our economy, we must give the SFO the independence and resources it so desperately needs. We need a Serious Fraud Office with teeth. That means increasing funding, improving oversight and ensuring that its leadership has the freedom to pursue complex cases without any interference. It also means ensuring that it works hand in hand with the National Crime Agency, local forces and international partners.

Fraud is not victimless. It targets the vulnerable and undermines trust in our financial systems. It is draining billions from our economy. I urge the Solicitor General and the Government to act—not just to reform the SFO but to lead a co-ordinated and compassionate national effort to protect our constituents from fraud and economic crimes. This Government and every Government have a moral duty to offer more than token support. We must build a justice system that investigates fraud robustly, prosecutes it swiftly and protects those most at risk of harm. The people of my constituency of North Cornwall, and communities across this country, expect and deserve nothing less.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call the shadow Solicitor General.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) on securing such an important debate, on an issue that affects all our constituents.

In our time in government we took decisive action to combat fraud, including benefit fraud, and economic crime. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we introduced the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. That legislation enabled faster sanctions against oligarchs, and removed barriers to the use of unexplained wealth orders. In 2023, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act received Royal Assent. That legislation further enhanced the UK’s ability to target organised criminals and those seeking to abuse our open economy. New powers were given to Companies House to stop criminals using false names or registering companies with fictitious characters. The legislation was welcomed by many, including the Law Society and the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

In 2019, the Government published the economic crime plan 2019-2022. The plan represented a step change in our response to economic crime, and had 52 action points and seven strategic priorities. It was followed by the economic crime plan 2 in March 2023, which the hon. Member for Hendon assured me he has read in full. The second plan aimed to deliver real-world outcomes, and

“to cut crime, protect our national security, and support the UK’s legitimate economic growth”.

The Association of British Insurers called the plan

“a landmark in the fight against economic crime.”

In May 2023, the Government published a fraud strategy. It outlined the actions that the Government would take to further reduce fraud. It was especially welcomed by the Crown Prosecution Service and the City of London police for the additional investment it proposed. In February 2024, the Home Office announced that fraud had been reduced by 13% since the launch of the strategy.

Clearly, good progress was made by the Conservative Government during our time in office—but there is, of course, always more to do, so I have some questions for the Minister. I appreciate that she may not be able to answer them all today, given the time, so I would welcome her response in writing in due course.

What steps is the Minister taking to improve the number of prosecutions undertaken by the Serious Fraud Office and the speed at which those prosecutions progress? Is she confident that the SFO has the technical knowledge and digital technology for cryptoasset-related fraud? Does she agree that deferred prosecution agreements should be used more frequently to ensure swift justice and financial resolution for victims? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the enhanced powers given to Companies House under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act are effectively implemented? Finally, will she assure the House that her Government will maintain the important momentum established by the Conservative-led economic crime plans?

Tackling fraud and economic crime is about safeguarding the livelihoods of our constituents and businesses across the UK. We remain absolutely committed to ensuring that the UK is a safe place to do business and we urge the Government to build on the robust foundations that we laid during our time in office. We will continue to hold the Government to account and push for stronger enforcement, greater transparency and more effective prosecution of economic crime.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I ask her to leave a few moments for the Member in charge to wind up the debate and for me to put the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady failed to mention the horrific attacks on civilians inside Israel as well. It is important in this matter to remain calm and urge all sides to strive for peace, and that is very much what I will do as Prime Minister and have done in the conversations that I have had with the Israeli Prime Minister.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

In 2016, the British people had the wisdom and foresight to take back control from foreign lawmakers. When they did so, they believed we were taking back control of our borders, yet since that time we have faced wave after wave of illegal migration. Will my right hon. Friend, without further delay, bring forward the necessary legislation to turn back the tide and fulfil the promise that was made to the British people?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is why one of this Government’s five priorities and promises to the British people is indeed to stop the boats. We will introduce new legislation that makes it unequivocally clear that if you arrive in this country illegally, you will not be to stay, and we will swiftly detain you and remove you to your own country or a safe third alternative. That is the right and responsible way to tackle this problem.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 24th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]]

I rise to speak on Lords amendments 3B and 4B to 4J. While there are improvements to the legislation, I would like to reaffirm on record that I continue to be utterly astounded at the chilling gravity and significance of this piece of legislation, which seeks to decriminalise criminal conduct by intelligence and undercover agents, representing another departure from the recognised rules of domestic and international law.

Amendments 4B to 4J provide safeguards where children and vulnerable individuals who are involved in criminality become covert human intelligence sources. However, I would have liked this to go much further and, in particular, include safeguards for ethnic minorities, protest movements and trade unions in particular. The amendments outline that no criminal conduct authorisation can be made for a source who is under the age of 18 or is a vulnerable individual unless in exceptional circumstances, yet human rights and the rights of children are absolute in my mind, and I am not sure what circumstance could possibly render this fundamental principle secondary.

As a Muslim growing up in east London, I have experienced the well documented rise in Islamophobia and the steady erosion of civil rights, including the installation of cameras on street corners and increased surveillance. Our communities are too often seen not as citizens worthy of equality and respect, but as a threat viewed with hostility and suspicion. Indeed, Prevent has been widely criticised for fostering discrimination against people of Muslim faith or background. It was developed without firm evidence, and is rooted in a vague and expansive definition of extremism, including overt targeting of Muslim children in schools, which has meant that our Muslim young people in particular are being increasingly viewed through the lens of security. I fear that, as currently drafted, amendments 4B to 4J, while a moderate improvement, do not provide the safeguards for ethnic minority children. They will not protect my constituents from what they increasingly feel to be the lawlessness of undercover agents, which makes our communities feel less safe.

The use of undercover police posing as protesters, committing crimes and provoking violence, including violent responses from the authorities, has been discussed in the public domain in recent years in relation to Black Lives Matter protests, actions on climate change and G20 demonstrations. Lords amendment 3B seeks to ensure that innocent victims are able to seek compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Throughout its passage, this Bill has triggered alarm bells for trade unions and justice campaigns such as the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, which fear that these latest draconian powers could be used to interfere with the legitimate activities of trade unions. The deployment of agents provocateurs to commit and incite criminal activity, misconduct, malpractice and corruption during the miners’ strike has been well documented—the idea being to sabotage and destroy from within. Lords amendment 3B, while an improvement, falls far short of providing innocent victims with the right to seek justice.

To conclude, it is because I believe in a free and democratic society that I have opposed this Government’s authoritarianism with all my might. Our police and security services should exist to uphold the rule of law, not to break it. Human rights are absolute. The amendments today, despite their relative merit, are unable to counter- balance this legislation’s unprecedented breach of this essential principle.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) [V]]

This legislation is first and foremost about taking risks to save lives. The information acquired by covert human intelligence sources, often requiring great personal sacrifice at the cutting edge of terror, disrupts plots, secures prosecutions and prevents death and destruction, all of which takes courage and skill; sharp minds and brave hearts. As the Chairman of the ISC, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), said, reiterating the advice from MI5, if it was not for the covert intelligence sources, many of the attacks foiled in recent years would not have been prevented, and dozens of individuals presently alive would have been killed and, with them, loves lost and lives blighted.

The Bill before us is timely and necessary. It is right that the Government have engaged with those in the other place and elsewhere to improve safeguards, but in the end, for all the talk of rights, it is wrongs that ruin lives. The people whom we mission to keep us safe expect of us the legal means and mechanisms that are necessary for them to succeed, and by definition, those tasked with infiltration of organisations intent on wickedness are fraternising with individuals and groups capable of ruthlessness, often rationalised as a means to a desirable end. Not only would abject and inflexible refusal to engage in any and all criminal activity by covert human intelligence sources render it impossible to gain or retain trust, it would place those who are defending our interests in direct danger.

I am grateful, therefore, that this Bill provides our brave operatives with legal protection. While carefully authorised participation in criminality has been, for some time, accepted in the UK courts as a necessary and proportionate means to safeguard the public, there remains at present no formal, single, statutory basis for that. This Bill alters that by providing legal clarity, as previous contributors have made clear. It means that the current authorisation to engage in monitored criminal activity, which confers no immunity from prosecution, will be put to an end. By amending the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, we can correct what has, up until now, been an uncertain situation by ensuring that those engaged in preserving and protecting our freedoms and liberties are not themselves treated as common criminals.

Of course, all criminal authorisations by the security and intelligence agencies must be properly circumscribed, absolutely necessary, proportionate, compatible with law, and—most importantly—subject to proper scrutiny, which is what this Bill also does. I am pleased that the Government have added to that scrutiny during the course of the Bill’s consideration and through the amendments they have accepted. Along with other members of the ISC, I have made clear that any and all authorisations must be specifically limited, and any criminal activity outside that expressly approved can, of course, be prosecuted. Moreover, authorisation must be reasonable, and positive and potential outcomes should outweigh criminal conduct. I think all Members of the House will agree that it is essential that criminal conduct authorisations must only be granted by highly trained and experienced authorising officers.

Finally and most importantly, effective scrutiny must underpin the entirety of this legislation. Authorisations must be overseen by the independent investigatory powers commissioner; the ISC should be kept informed of the use of CCAs; and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal will investigate any complaints about public authorities using this power. Lord Anderson’s amendment, accepted by the Government, on the timely referral of these matters to a judicial commissioner is helpful and valuable.

It is the very nature of law enforcement that risks and rewards must be balanced and considered. Few would doubt that access to unique information is essential to the prevention of horrors beyond our dreams but, tragically, not beyond our lived experience. Certain controlled criminal conduct, subject to specific safeguards, is necessary for our protection. This is the pragmatic principle on which the Bill is based, and I am pleased to support it.

This Bill does strike a balance between powers and scrutiny. It strikes a balance between giving those whom we have missioned to defend us what they need, and ensuring that in doing so, they act properly. It clarifies the law protecting operatives, and makes clear the circumstances in which those powers should be used. Its provisions are specific and limited; its purpose is right; and its time is due. It should be supported by all Members across the House.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]]

First, on behalf of my party, I welcome the amendments that have come from the other place that the Government are accepting. These are important concessions, which certainly improve the Bill. It has be said, however, that the Bill as a whole remains inadequate in the protections that it puts in place, and it bears the hallmarks of its history. Let us not forget that the Government did not bring in this Bill because they had a sudden damascene conversion to the need for scrutiny of this particular area of security and intelligence. They brought it in because they thought that they were at risk of losing a case in the Court of Appeal, having had a very close judgment in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

Essentially, in bringing in the Bill in this way, the Government have tried to recreate in statute the very loose and uncontrolled system that they have had prior to this. I suggest to the House that that will not stand the test of time. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) is absolutely right when he says that we need to hear from the Solicitor General at the Dispatch Box tonight clear undertakings in regard to the operation of the Human Rights Act as it applies to this Bill—soon to be an Act, no doubt.

The ambiguity is not just inherent in the Bill, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden correctly said. Actually, that ambiguity can be seen between the way in which the Government have sought to argue their case in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and the way in which they have presented their case in relation to this Bill. The Government have sought to claim that acts of torture by covert agents could be justified

“where the intention is to disrupt and prevent that conduct, or more serious conduct…or where the conduct would take place in any event.”

That, in itself, is not consistent with the Human Rights Act. It is clearly wrong and has been described as such by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on the Bill. The Committee found that covert agents could not be authorised to get involved in abuses such as torture and that

“the intention behind that conduct cannot justify the violation.”

It has also been said, I think by the Intelligence and Security Committee, that the Bill is effectively about the Government outsourcing decisions that they could not take for themselves. That approach should provide us with concern and does worry us, because we know that these provisions will not then stand the test of time, and we will be back in the same territory that we have seen in recent years with other legislation, where the Government have to come back with legislation that is retrospective or seeks to amend the law to catch up with the courts.

I fear that we have a Bill that is not the last word on this matter. The Houses have made significant improvements to it, but it remains some distance from what the country needs and what those who do this very dangerous work on our behalf deserve to have.

Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to open this Adjournment debate on an issue that is of great importance to my constituents. We have a brilliant judicial system in our country—it is the envy of the world—and we get it right most of the time. However, sometimes we get it wrong when it comes to sentencing. The good news is that we have the unduly lenient sentence scheme, a highly successful scheme that allows sentences for certain offences that are unduly lenient to be referred to the Attorney General and, subsequently, the Court of Appeal, to hopefully get the sentences of some of the worst criminals in our society increased.

It is right that the most serious offenders, including those who have committed violent and sexual offences, should spend more time in prison to match the severity of their crimes. The Prime Minister has been clear that the Government he leads will strengthen public confidence in the criminal justice system, and on behalf of the residents of Ashfield and Eastwood, I will support legislation designed to achieve that.

Legislation was recently introduced in Parliament to abolish automatic halfway release for serious offenders who receive standard fixed-term sentences of seven years or more. That includes those found guilty of rape, manslaughter or grievous bodily harm with intent. Instead, a new requirement to serve two thirds of a sentence in prison was introduced, with the existing strict licence conditions on release continuing. That action means that around 2,000 serious offenders will spend longer in custody, keeping the public safe—and rightly so.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

With the permission of my hon. Friend, which I sought in advance, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether he agrees with me that the Government also need to tackle the vexatious liberal bourgeois lawyers who try to get the thugs, villains and crooks that he describes—

United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union

John Hayes Excerpts

Friday 29th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Today is a sad day—not because we should have left the EU but have not, but because today signifies the pinnacle of a process in which a Government have for months refused to respect and listen to Parliament. We live in a parliamentary democracy. The sovereignty of our Parliament is a cornerstone of our democracy, but today MPs are being handcuffed, blindfolded and threatened to approve a deal that Parliament has overwhelmingly refused twice. If anything signifies the death of our parliamentary democracy, this is it.

This is the desperate last attempt of a Government and a Prime Minister who have lost control. For anybody who is a passionate supporter of democracy, Parliament and sovereignty, this is an outrage. For that reason alone, MPs should vote against today’s motion from an arrogant Government who have attempted to bamboozle, arm-twist and vilify the very representatives of the will of the people. The Government have lost not only trust but the last morsel of good will, and this is no way to get consent. Who buys the argument that voting for today’s motion will provide certainty? It will do nothing of the sort.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady make it absolutely clear whether she and the Liberal Democrats want to honour the result of the referendum and leave the European Union, or whether they want to frustrate the will of the people and keep us locked into it?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that contribution and for the opportunity to say this again. If it was 100% clear that 17.4 million people voted to leave without a deal, or if it was 100% clear that 17.4 million people voted for the Prime Minister’s deal—which is what he should discuss with his own Prime Minister—then I would agree. But we do not know that, which is exactly why we need to test the will of the people. It was not clear.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

No. That is not true, I am afraid. Perhaps I will be a bit more polite to the hon. Gentleman and say that he raises a proper concern, but I can reassure him that that is not the case, and it is certainly not the approach of this Government.

May I now deal with the issue of the protections?

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

[The Solicitor General]

No; may I develop this point?

This amendment will deliver robust protections. In particular, it acknowledges that there may be circumstances where the new environmental body should be able to take the Government to court; this is the important enforceability point. That power will be proportionate and appropriate, and used only as a provision of last resort, supplementing established processes including parliamentary scrutiny.

The amendment also requires that the Government list the environmental principles, such as the “polluter pays” principle and the precautionary principle, in the proposed draft Bill. The draft Bill and forthcoming policy statement will provide further details of how these principles will be interpreted and how they will apply. It will also set out that the principles should have an effect in the UK after we leave the EU that is equivalent to that before we leave. It will ensure that their primary focus will be on the formation of policy at a national level. In addition, the statutory policy statement will set out how, as at EU level now, the environmental principles will be considered in the context of the Government’s wider policy objectives. That includes the applicability of the principle of proportionality.

A policy statement will be presented here in Parliament for scrutiny before it comes into effect. As at EU level, the principles will also be considered in the context of wider objectives to ensure balanced decision making, meaning that Ministers of the Crown will also be required to give proper consideration to other important policy objectives, such as delivering a thriving economy and building the homes that people need, when making decisions. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset for tabling his amendment, and I urge hon. Members to support it.

I want to move on to the important issue of refugees—

[Mr John Hayes]

Will the Solicitor General give way?

[The Solicitor General]

Please forgive me, but I need to press on.

The Government recognise and share the strength of feeling in this House and beyond on the important matters of asylum and refugees, not least in relation to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I should be clear that what we are discussing here is the situation concerning asylum seekers—that is, people who have made an application for international protection and have not yet had their claim decided. That is entirely distinct from the equally important issue of refugees: people who have had their claims considered and been found to be in need of protection.

We as a country can be proud of the role that we have played in supporting children affected by the migration crisis. Since the start of 2010, we have granted more than 51,000 children resettlement, refugee status or alternative forms of protection. Our resettlement schemes have provided protection to more than 6,500 children. These are among the most vulnerable refugees, who the Government, with the UNHCR, have brought directly to the UK from conflict regions, together with their family members, so that they do not have to make appalling, perilous journeys to Europe, often in the hands of traffickers or smugglers.

Investigatory Powers Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

John Hayes Excerpts

Committee Debate: 15th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The clause introduces schedule 8. I seek an assurance for the record from the Minister, but if it is not convenient to deal with this point now, it can be dealt with in some other way. Schedule 8 deals with the supplementary provisions for combined warrants. Having been through it, I think its effect is that any of the conditions necessary for any single warrant will apply notwithstanding that there is a combined warrant—in other words, none of the safeguards is lost by virtue of the combination—and the duration of the shortest warrant will apply. I am pretty sure that that is the intention, but it would be helpful to have that to confirmed for the record, so that we are clear that none of the safeguards is lost when warrants are combined.

[The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)]

With brevity that I know you will welcome, Ms Dorries, I can say that that is certainly so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 212 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 213

Payments towards certain compliance costs

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 844, in clause 213, page 165, line 26, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

“(6) The appropriate contribution shall represent the full amount of the relevant costs, subject to any audit process under subsection (4)”.

This amendment would ensure that the Government meets 100% of the compliance costs and that there is full cost recovery for Communication Service Providers (CSPs) implementing the legislation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. The amendment speaks for itself, I think. The clause deals with payments towards certain compliance costs and subsection (1) deals with appropriate contributions. As the Committee will know, there has been real concern about what the cost of compliance will be for those called upon to comply and what contribution they will receive toward their relevant costs. The clause allows for “an appropriate contribution”. The amendment would ensure that the Government met 100% of the compliance costs and there was full cost recovery for communication service providers implementing the legislation..

There is concern among providers about what they will be expected to do by way of compliance and what the cost will be. It may be convenient for the Minister to deal with the estimated costs, because £170 million was mentioned at one stage but I am not sure that that is a final figure as far as the Government are concerned.

[Mr Hayes]

The amendment is designed to ensure that the Government’s commitment to cost recovery for providers is explicitly provided for in the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise this issue again, reflecting what we heard during the witness session when we debated the issue in part. In his evidence, Mark Hughes said he was aware that

“Under the proposals in the Bill—the Home Secretary has made reference to it—we would recover our costs from the Home Office, as we have done under existing legislation.”

He went on to say that

“the proposed regime is more sensible as long as it is clear that we will recover 100% of our costs.”––[Official Report, Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2016; c. 45-46, Q126.]

And I am clear, quoting the Home Secretary, that

“100% of the compliance costs will be met by the Government.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 821.]

The hon. and learned Gentleman asks what that means in practice. The £174 million he mentioned is not a cap, but an estimate. It is dealt with in the impact assessment, and there is no cap in the impact assessment. We will meet costs such as they arise. We are determined to make sure that the Bill works and is not inhibited by any doubts about the cost of its implementation. Clearly, future Governments will inherit this legislation. It is worth emphasising that the current policy has not changed since the passage of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, so it has survived three Governments of different colours or combinations of colours—we used to be more rainbow-like than we are now, which is actually quite welcome, by the way. We are clear that 100% means what it says.

Above and beyond that—the hon. and leaned Gentleman did not ask for this, but I will add it—we need to be clear that the providers are consulted on any changes to the cost model and that they will be able to seek review of any variation to the notice that affects the level of their contribution. To sum up: we have an estimate, not a cap; a determination that 100% means 100%; a willingness to have a proper input into this; and an assurance—which I think is what the hon. and leaned Gentleman really seeks—that the Government will cover the costs so that the Bill does what it should.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

What a great reassurance it is to see you in the Chair, Ms Dorries. I will be very brief. I welcome the contributions of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras and the Minister for Security. As Committee members know, I have been banging on about this issue—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Yes.

[Christian Matheson]

—rather tediously. The Minister says, “Yes,” but I have to point out that he said it before I said “rather tediously”. I welcome the Minister’s assurance as I have been concerned about communications service provider security since Second Reading. Will the Government consider providing security advice and testing for the smaller communications service providers, in addition to the financial contribution that they are making?

[Mr Hayes]

I will make only two points in reply to the hon. Gentleman. First, when he describes it as “banging on”, he understates his contribution. I see it more as informed, eloquent and sensible inquiry. Secondly, he is absolutely right that the small providers need to be fully involved at all stages. It may be fair to say that the bigger providers have the mechanisms to implement the requirements for data retention more straightforwardly, so we need to ensure that that does not mean that small providers are in any way disadvantaged. I acknowledge that point, and he is right to make it elegantly. He should never apologise—at least to me—for banging on about anything.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out that assurance for the record. That will reassure those who are concerned about this issue. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 213 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 214 and 215 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 216

National security notices

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I have been interested in the clause for a while, because there are issues about what “relevant notice” means, for example. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that that applies only to technical capability notices, not national security notices. I will carefully consider how we can make that absolutely clear, and in that context I will have another look at the how the clause is worded. I want to put beyond any doubt the fact that the clause relates only to a technical capability notice and does not relate to third parties. That has been an important undertaking that we have given.

[Mr Hayes]

Deliberating on the interesting discourse that has taken place between the Solicitor General and the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, I take the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes about necessity and proportionality running as a theme throughout the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General is of course right that these are preliminary measures, and therefore once an outcome that has been tested for proportionality has been reached, that will not be a problem. I say to him that there is an argument for taking that into account and making it even clearer, either in the supporting documentation or in the Bill.

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I will do that.

Before I go further, I will deal with the point that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West made about Apple. My understanding is that the process will give her some reassurance. In that scenario, Apple, as the recipient of the notice, could refer it back to the Secretary of State, who in turn must then consult the technical advisory board and the IPC before deciding whether to proceed further with the notice. If the Secretary of State proceeded, it would then be judicable in the courts, which would determine whether the notice could be enforced. It is quite similar to the scenario that we discussed in the context of national security notices. I hope that gives her some assistance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

The SNP takes the same position as it did on the previous clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 218 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 219

Variation and revocation of notices

[Mr Hayes]

I beg to move amendment 734, in clause 219, page 170, line 8, at end insert

“(and in the application of section 218(3) and (4) in relation to varying a relevant notice, references to the notice are to be read as references to the notice as varied).”

This is a technical amendment. Ms Dorries, I should have welcomed you to the Chair earlier, but I do so now. The amendment is uncontentious and makes a drafting correction to clause 219. On that basis, it should not cause the Committee any undue concern, and I move it in that spirit.

Amendment 734 agreed to.

Clause 219, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 220

Review by the Secretary of State

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 851, in clause 220, page 170, line 31, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

‘(6) The Board must consider the technical requirements and the consequences, for the person who has made the reference and for others likely to be affected, of the notice so far as referred.”

This amendment would require the Technical Advisory Board to look at more than just an implementation of cost measure and instead examine the full costs of the notice.

Our discussions have already strayed on to clause 220. This short amendment is reasonably clear. Subsection (6) makes it clear that the technical advisory board, referred to in subsection (5)(a),

“must consider the technical requirements and the financial consequences, for the person who has made the reference, of the notice so far as referred.”

That is where the person served with the notice has referred the notice back to the Secretary of State, which then triggers a consultation exercise. The board must be consulted; subsection (6) sets out what the board must consider. The amendment is fairly self-explanatory; it would serve the limited purpose of requiring the technical advisory board to look at more than just the implementation of cost measure, and instead examine the full costs of the notice.

[Mr Hayes]

As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the amendment would broaden the scope of the technical advisory board by requiring it to consider other matters as part of any review of the obligations imposed by the Secretary of State in a notice. Under the amendment, the board would be required to consider the consequences for others likely to be affected by the obligations imposed by a notice. That is understandable—I can see why the hon. and learned Gentleman tabled the amendment—but unnecessary.

The technical advisory board is essentially a committee of experts. It has a very specific role to play in advising the Secretary of State on cost and technical matters. That role is reflected in its membership: a group of experts drawn from communications service providers and from those entitled to apply for warrants and authorisations under the Bill. Such people are well placed to consider the technical requirements and the financial consequences. If they consider it appropriate, they may look beyond cost and technical feasibility, but those matters, rightly, are the board’s central purpose and are at the core of its work. The board is also required to consider evidence or representations made by communications service providers and must report its conclusions to them and to the Secretary of State.

In my view, responsibility for considering the broader effects of the notice on the communications service provider to whom it has been given should sit with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. While it is absolutely right that the board considers both the technical aspects and the cost, the broader matters that the hon. and learned Gentleman is rightly concerned about should fall within the scope of the commissioner, as they do in the Bill. As part of any review of the obligations set out in the notice, the commissioner must report on the proportionality of those obligations; that will include an assessment of the consequences of the notice, both on the persons seeking the review and on anyone else affected—which is essentially the argument the hon. and learned Gentleman made for the amendment.

Furthermore, the clause requires the commissioner to seek out the views of the person who has received the notice, who will have the opportunity to raise any concerns about the effect of the notice with the commissioner for consideration; the commissioner must report his or her conclusions to that person and to the Secretary of State. Essentially, combining the role and responsibilities of the board with the role and responsibilities of the commissioner means that each of them will provide a function central to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s concerns, so the amendment is unnecessary. I should add that the commissioner is properly and well placed to consider the proportionality of the matter as a whole, after careful assessment. The amendment’s wording would introduce duplication and, frankly, a degree of ambiguity about the respective roles of the board and the commissioner and about what each of them is considering. With that reassurance, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

[Keir Starmer]

The Minister says that the Bill places no inhibition on the wider technical consequences looked at by the board, and that other consequences rightly come under the remit of the commissioner. I am grateful for that clarification; I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 852, in clause 220, page 171, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—

“(9) The Secretary of State may, after considering the conclusions of the Board and the Commissioner, and with approval of a Judicial Commissioner—”.—(Keir Starmer.)

This amendment would require judicial authorisation for these clauses and bring them in line with other parts of the bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

Yes, that is probably the way out of my dilemma, but really this is more for the record. I will not vote against clause 222, but that is not because I think it is preferable to new clause 23; I would like to have the new clause as well. We will reflect on how we deal with that apparent dilemma.

[Mr Hayes]

That was the most heartwarming qualified advocacy of an amendment that I have ever heard in Committee; I was quite touched by it. I could not help thinking that there must be countless Tory voters in Holborn and St Pancras who feel about the hon. and learned Gentleman as he feels about this clause. I know that he bathes in their generous acclamation on a daily basis. It was very decent of him to put his case in the way he did.

I will deal with the substance of the new clause and its purpose. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that new clause 23 would replace the Government’s proposals for a review of the operation of the Act as set out in clause 222, and he is also right that the clause obliges the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the operation of the Act within four to five years. He described the detail, and I will not tire Committee members by quoting it more specifically. The new clause proposes instead the appointment of an independent reviewer to report on the operation of the Act every five years, beginning five years after the Act is passed.

Where we find common cause is in thinking that both pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny are essential. One could make that argument for most legislation, but particularly for legislation in this field, for two reasons: first, its import; and, secondly, the changing circumstances that will doubtless apply, as regards both technology, which the Bill deals with expansively, and the threat we face. All we know about the changes that have taken place over recent years suggests that those changes will continue and may grow in character and speed.

I fully understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman wants the whole House to take a close look at these matters over time. Indeed, the Home Secretary, in her evidence to the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, said:

“As technology advances, it may be necessary to revisit the powers, the legislative framework and the safeguards that are available”.

That is eminently sensible, and something that the Government wholeheartedly support.

As I said, clause 222 provides for judicial review. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention it, but he will know that the Joint Committee looked at that, and said that

“the appropriate vehicle to do this would be a specially constituted joint committee of the two Houses. This work should begin within six months of the end of the fifth year after which the Bill is enacted. Although the appointment of such a committee would be a matter for the two Houses, a provision in the Bill would provide a clear mandate and guarantee the timescale for this review.”

The Joint Committee gave that quite careful consideration. The members of this Committee who were also members of that one will recall that they did so because of the shared determination, which the hon. and learned Gentleman has articulated well, that we should not assume that as time goes on we will not need to be reasonably flexible about the application of the powers.

The Solicitor General made a point about providing legislation that looks as far into the future as possible. Certainly, the purpose of the Bill is to not only draw existing legislation into a single place but, as far as one reasonably can, prepare for the future. However, in doing so, it is important to be mindful of what the Joint Committee said, reflecting the Home Secretary’s evidence.

The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras will know that the Joint Committee went on to recognise that the Government cannot, in statute, require Parliament to appoint a post-legislative scrutiny Committee. Let me explain that a little more. Ms Dorries, as you will understand with your experience in the House, it is not for the Government to say what Select Committees might look at over time. It certainly would not be for the Government to dictate to the Intelligence and Security Committee, for example, how it should regard or review the legislation within its scope or purview. It would be a dangerous precedent to set to say that any particular Select Committee should, statutorily, consider matters at a particular point in time, or in a particular way.

The clause says that the report should take account of any other report on the operation of the Act, mindful of what I have just described—that is, that the ISC, other Select Committees, or Committees of both Houses could bring evidence to bear that would inform that review. In essence, it would be a matter for Parliament to decide precisely what was looked at and when, within the confines determined in the Bill, but it is essential that the Secretary of State is missioned to report on the Bill’s implementation in the timetable described. That is something that legislation can quite properly do; it both gives all kinds of powers to the Secretary of State, and confirms those powers.

While I can see why the hon. and learned Gentleman supports the new clause, it is unnecessary, not because of the intent, but because of the detail. Essentially, we are offering two different models in order to achieve the same end. A parliamentary Committee would be just as independent as a separately appointed reviewer—and it would avoid the argument, which I know Opposition Members would be quick to have, about who should be responsible for appointing the reviewer.

[Keir Starmer]

This may be blindingly obvious, and any Secretary of State, including the current one, would almost certainly take this into account anyway, but could we amend subsection (3) to make it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State must take into account reports of the independent reviewer in addition to those of Select Committees? While that is not precisely what the new clause would achieve, and while I am absolutely sure that any Secretary of State would do that in any event, it would weave in an element of the new clause’s intention. It would not presuppose that there would necessarily be a report, but if there were one, it would be taken into account.

[Mr Hayes]

I am not unsympathetic to that suggestion, but let me qualify that slightly. There is an argument to say that we would want another reviewer involved in the process, because what we want is as much empiricism as possible. We have neither the time nor the patience for a long debate about the philosophical character of empiricism, and I am not an empiricist, philosophically, but in terms of legislation, it matters. There is an argument for introducing still more independence into the process.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that, of course, the Secretary of State would want to take into account the views of all those in positions of authority who have taken a view on the Bill and its implementation and effects in her or his report. I certainly would not want to exclude from that consideration any of the authoritative reports published on the Bill. I think that probably meets the hon. and learned Gentleman halfway, and perhaps a little more than halfway.

Any parliamentary review would take evidence from a range of witnesses. It is, again, almost inconceivable that the independent reviewer would not be a key witness, as our current independent reviewer was to the Joint Committee and other Committees of the House. It would—again, as the Joint Committee did—be likely to appoint technical advisers, who would inform the process and work in concert with the ISC. While the Government support a post-legislative review of the Bill, that review should be conducted by Parliament—by legislators drawing on external expertise and evidence, as the Joint Committee recommended. I therefore invite hon. Members not to press the new clause to a vote.

[Joanna Cherry]

I will not press new clause 23 to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 222 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Simon Kirby.)

Investigatory Powers Bill (Seventh sitting)

John Hayes Excerpts

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th April 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)]

On a point of order, Madam Chairman. I will be writing to you today to summarise all of the areas on which the Solicitor General and I have offered to provide more information during the course of our sittings. I will do that each week, with a view to informing the debate and ensuring that all members of the Committee have the information.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Clause 61

Relevant public authorities and designated senior officers

--- Later in debate ---

Relevant public authorities and designated senior officers

[Mr Hayes]

I beg to move amendment 105, in schedule 4, page 206, line 40, at end insert—

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 106 to 108.

[Mr Hayes]

Welcome to the Chair, Ms Dorries.

The amendments make minor changes to schedule 4. As has already been said, schedule 4 lists the public authorities that are able to acquire communications data, the types of communications that they are able to acquire and the statutory purposes for which they can do so. Amendment 105 adds a new entry for ambulance trusts in England, amendment 106 removes the existing entry and amendment 108 introduces the definition of an ambulance trust. The changes make the definition of ambulance trusts consistent with the definition in the Policing and Crime Bill.

The amendments also remove purpose (b) in clause 53(7) from the purposes for which ambulance trusts can acquire communications data, because ambulance trusts obviously do not need to acquire communications data for the purpose of the prevention or detection of crime. In the same vein, amendment 107 restricts the purposes that the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board can use to acquire communications data, consistent with the purposes for English fire and rescue authorities. These are uncontentious amendments designed to make the Bill consistent and coherent.

Amendment 105 agreed to.

Amendments made: 106, in schedule 4, page 207, leave out lines 24 to 35.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 105.

Amendment 107, in schedule 4, page 207, line 39, leave out—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I know the hon. and learned Gentleman is probing. He is right that the clause sets out how the Secretary of State may, by regulation, add or remove public bodies listed in schedule 4 and make modifications accordingly, but it also sets out that the Secretary of State does so by means of regulations. He will have noted that in practice that means a statutory instrument, which is subject to the affirmative procedure, as is made clear in clause 63(3).

I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point, which is reasonable, but there are limits on what the Secretary of State can do in the sense that the affirmative procedure must be followed, which will give an opportunity for further consideration. I am happy to confirm that the intention in the Bill and the spirit in which it was constructed are very much along the lines he described.

[Joanna Cherry]

I wish to oppose this clause.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

They were.

[Keir Starmer]

That is welcome and we support them for that reason. In tightening controls, there has been a failure, perhaps deliberate, not to align this with the test in other cases. The judicial authority would be able to say, “I would not in fact authorise, but there were reasonable grounds on which somebody else could have done so.” I am making a probing point; no amendment was tabled. I support the further protection in relation to local authorities. I just wondered whether there was a deliberate intention not to align this provision with the other safeguard provisions in the Bill.

[Mr Hayes]

There are two things to say. First, the measure replicates the current position under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, so it is established practice. Secondly, as the hon. and learned Gentleman conceded, it is an attempt to add an additional safeguard, for the reasons he gave. It seemed important that this was not used permissively. The only other thing I would add, given that he is probing, is that all of this would have to pass the tests of proportionality and necessity; that is a given. I am happy to look at whether we need to reinforce that, in the code or perhaps elsewhere, because proportionality and necessity underpin all of this; that is not specified in this part, but it is a prevailing and underpinning assumption about authorisation. I understand that he is probing and also appreciate that he understands what we are trying to do.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit in which he is approaching this issue. I accept that necessity and proportionality are the key tests for the application in the first place. The question for the magistrate is then whether there are reasonable grounds for considering it to be necessary and proportionate. That leaves room for the magistrate to say, “I personally do not think it is necessary and proportionate but I accept that somebody else might think there are reasonable grounds.” I do not want to take this too far because it is a relatively minor provision in the Bill and I accept that it is in the scheme of tightening the safeguards; however, I just wonder whether some thought can be given. When the other tests have been so carefully construed—and we will have further discussion on what those tests are—this is an outlier in the way that it is expressed. I accept that it reflects current practice, but I do not think that is necessarily a good reason for simply replicating that unless, on reflection, current practice is thought to be the right way forward from here.

[Mr Hayes]

I will test that. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a reasonable point, so I will test our experience of current practice regarding this issue and I will also test and consider whether we need to provide further guidance. I would not want to go too far because, as he says, it is a minor matter, but he is right to say that it is important that it is consistent. I am more than happy to take a look at that, and on that basis I think we should move on.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

The amendments are jointly supported by Labour and the Scottish National party.

Throughout this part of the Bill, public authorities and other decision makers are placed under a duty to consider a range of factors connected to the decision to access retained communications data. Those factors include cost and other resource implications and

“any issues as to the lawfulness of the proposed authorisation.”

These amendments include a specific duty to consider the public interest and the protection of individual privacy—that is, the protection of the privacy of our constituents; and the security of communications systems and computer networks—that is, the security of our constituents’ private data. Both David Anderson, in his independent review, and the Intelligence and Security Committee, in its report on the draft Bill, emphasise the importance of privacy principles and the need to make clear the legality of the use of surveillance powers in this new legislation.

Although we are focusing on a specific amendment to increase safeguards for individual privacy and security of data, we are concerned that throughout the Bill there appear to be statutory duties on public agencies, officials and agents and on judicial commissioners, to consider factors relevant to national security and the prevention and detection of crime, and the effectiveness of powers and resources expended, but there is no specific treatment of privacy standards and the public interest.

While the clauses that these amendments are attached to refer to

“any issues as to the lawfulness”

of the powers, the vagueness of this instruction is, in my submission, very contradictory. Surely it must be the first consideration of any individual considering the exercise of powers under the Bill that they should be legal. Legality should be a first consideration; treating it as just one at the end of a list of other factors to be considered seems entirely inappropriate. In this regard, it would be of huge assistance if the Minister could give us a fuller explanation of why statutory duties in the Bill have been approached in this way, with legality as a final duty; of the objectives of including the factors as provided in the manner in which they are drafted; and of why the protection of privacy and the public interest in the integrity of communications systems and computer networks will not be mentioned unless this amendment is made.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras is right about the purpose of the clause, and I understand the reason for the amendments. The single point of contact may advise the applicant and designated senior officer of the cost and resource implications for the public authority, and the communications service provider of any unintended consequences of the proposed authorisation and any issues surrounding the lawfulness of the proposed authorisation—one of the points that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West raised.

The points about cost and lawfulness that the hon. and learned Lady raised are certainly part of the advice that the applicant should receive, as well as the appropriate methods to obtain the data they are seeking, while the designated senior officer will be advised on the practicality of obtaining the data sought. Bear in mind that the single point of contact can already advise on the lawfulness of proposed authorisations. For authorisation to be lawful, it has to be both necessary for one of the statutory purposes in the Bill, and proportionate in all circumstances.

The point the hon. and learned Lady made about privacy is a reprise of the debate we had at the very beginning of our consideration, when I argued—I thought pretty convincingly, but clearly not—that privacy is woven through the Bill. For the sake of emphasis, I say again that the protection of privacy and personal data must be a key consideration in gauging proportionality.

[Joanna Cherry]

I hear what the Minister is saying. As I understand it, he is saying that the issues highlighted by the amendments will be taken into account, so why not say so? What is the detriment in saying so and making it crystal clear? This is for the comfort of the many constituents and members of the public who are concerned about the privacy and integrity of their data, so why not say so in the Bill? What possible detriment could there be in following that course of action?

[Mr Hayes]

Let me rehearse the argument that I used originally, because despite what I described as its persuasiveness, it clearly was not sufficiently well articulated to convert the hon. and learned Lady to the cause of virtue. Let me rearticulate it: if privacy is separated out in the way that some argue we should have done and might do now, and it is identified in the desiccated way that those people suggest, its significance is curiously—one might even go so far as to say paradoxically—weakened as a defining characteristic of the purposes of the legislation. However, it is worth emphasising the point I made a few moments ago about the need to tie personal interests and the protection of private data in to the test of proportionality in the draft codes of practice.

I draw attention to the codes of practice at paragraph 3.18—the heading is “Further guidance on necessity and proportionality”—which says:

“An examination of the proportionality of the application should particularly include a consideration of the rights (particularly to privacy and, in relevant cases, freedom of expression) of the individual and a balancing of these rights against the benefit to the investigation.”

That could not be plainer in doing precisely what I have described, which is to look at the right to privacy—I do not like to use the word “right”; I prefer to use “entitlement”—the entitlement to privacy with the functioning nature of an investigation into the effectiveness of the process.

[Joanna Cherry]

As I understand it, the Minister is saying that privacy is so important and so woven into the Bill that to single it out would weaken its importance. Surely lawfulness is equally important and that has been singled out by the draftsmen in subsection (6)(d).

[Mr Hayes]

I have already argued that lawfulness is, again, an underpinning requirement in these terms. Just to be absolutely categorical, the designated senior officer is the one who makes the final assessment of necessity and proportionality, as required by the code of practice. They must have a working knowledge of legislation, specifically that which relates to necessity and proportionality and the entitlements of individuals in those terms.

I just think that the combination of the Bill and the codes of practice render the amendment unnecessary. I emphasised previously that the codes of practice are drafts and the final code of practice will reflect some of this Committee’s considerations. If I may turn my attention momentarily from the hon. and learned Lady, if the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras feels that the code should be strengthened in that regard—I re-emphasise that I think they are pretty clear—I would of course be prepared to hear his argument. [Interruption.] Before I move on to the amendment about system integrity, I can see that he is champing at the bit, or maybe I am misinterpreting him.

[Keir Starmer]

I was going to cover this in my reply, but the argument the Minister is now putting is unpersuasive, and I am afraid I found it unpersuasive a week ago. In practical reality, when a senior designated officer gets to lawfulness, they will be thinking necessity and proportionality, and they are likely to be advised about that. That is the test for restricting privacy. What we do not see is the statement of privacy, either in this subsection or an overarching clause—I have been trying to articulate what is nagging away as to why the overarching clause is needed. In the end, real people, in real time, will find that lawfulness will mean going back to check necessity and proportionality. That is welcome and right, but they are not the definition of privacy; they are the permitted restrictions of it.

[Mr Hayes]

That is a fair argument and that is why it is necessary to supplement what the hon. and learned Gentleman describes with the code of practice in the way that I have described. My invitation to him was that if he accepts that, he might want to focus attention on the code of practice to see whether it is as good as it might be. I drew attention to the provision on the necessity and proportionality. It might be that the draft could be further improved. After all, nothing, at least on earth, is perfect, and certainly no Government would want to claim perfection—

[Suella Fernandes]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I was about to say that perfection was an intellectual construct, but I am happy to give way on that note.

[Suella Fernandes]

Is it not impossible that privacy will not be considered as part of any application? Proportionality runs through the authorisation regime, and if a single point of contact has to apply a proportionality test, by definition and necessity, he will incorporate a wide-ranging consideration of the impact on privacy.

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, I agree. That is an elegant re-articulation of the point that I was imperfectly making about the intrinsic relationship between a consideration of personal interest and the test of proportionality. For the exercise of the power to be proportionate, it must take proper account of the balance that I described between personal interest and investigative effectiveness.

[Keir Starmer]

This is a relatively minor point, but it goes to the wider question of the overarching clause.

[Mr Hayes]

It does.

[Keir Starmer]

We have to look at this issue practically, through the eyes of the people who will operate such authorisations. I know how it will work: they will be directed to look at the necessity against clause 53(7) and they will go through a list. They will then be asked to look at the proportionality against the matters set out in clause 53. That does not point them to privacy. In the vast majority of cases—in good faith, I am sure—they will go through that clause, rather like a checklist. I do not mean to demean or undermine the exercise that they will go through, but I have seen the operation of such tests many times. Those people will ask themselves, “Is it in the interests of X, Y and Z? Is it proportionate to that?” I accept the point about the code of practice, but they will not necessarily ask themselves about privacy. That point is probably more about the overarching clause than about the specific amendment, but that is our nagging concern. One has to see this issue through the eyes of how in practice the process will work on the ground in real time.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. and learned Gentleman describes the concerns and says that he knows them. Of course, he will also know that it is part of the requirements that those people undertake the right training and that they are expected to have competence, in particular an understanding of all the necessary legislation, including rights legislation. It is important to understand that those people will be making an assessment based on both evidence and comprehension. I re-emphasise that the code of practice is vital. I am trying to tip him off—perhaps I am being too subtle—that he may want to press me further on those very matters in terms of the draft code of practice, which is pretty good, but such drafts can always be improved.

Let me be even more generous. I am an Hegelian, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, and I believe that the truth lies in the whole, as Hegel said. The emphasis on privacy that underpins the whole Bill is fundamentally important, but in this regard I take his point that those missioned to do this job need to be very clear about that balance. To be still more generous, he is right in his strong implication that the training and guidance that those people receive about the interpretation of proportionality in this regard is important. That is the purpose of the code of practice, but we might want to go still further and I am happy to be tested further on that during the course of our consideration. I want to move on to the next group of amendments, because otherwise we will do this to death, but have I signalled clearly my direction of travel?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the Minister. I raised this issue of how we go through this exercise with the codes of practice, to which we cannot table amendments, a week ago today. I take his comments as an invitation to draft or suggest tightening amendments—not necessarily in Committee, but outside it—where we think they are appropriate. I take it that those will be taken into consideration in any possible re-drafting of the code. I am grateful for that and we will engage with that exercise.

[Mr Hayes]

Yes. I think we have settled that, then. I was trying to act as an old hand to a young blood, despite our appearances and demeanour. To that end, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has got the point.

[Simon Hoare]

To my simple mind, I just wondered which was which.

[Mr Hayes]

I would like to think I was a young blood with an old head. That is how I would see it; let us leave it there and move on.

Let me turn to systems integrity. It is important to set out the process for obtaining communications data. A public authority must require a communications provider to disclose communication data or it may engage in activity to acquire the data directly from a telecommunications system. Where data are sought from a provider, they will mostly be data that the provider has for business purposes or data retained under a retention notice. To the extent that a provider has put in place any dedicated system to provide for the acquisition of communications data, that capability and the necessary security assurances will be provided for under a data retention notice or technical capability notice.

In relation to obtaining data directly from a telecommunications system, the communications data code of practice makes it clear that communications data authorisation cannot permit the undertaking of any technique that involves interference with those systems themselves. That is quite important because, as various Committee members will know, that is an important assurance for providers. Such techniques could be authorised only under an equipment interference warrant. We will discuss those matters in the next part of the Bill.

The processes of requiring a provider to disclose data or the obtaining of data directly from a network will not have any impact on the integrity of telecommunications systems or the computer networks concerned. Accordingly, this is not an area on which the applicant or designated person will require advice. In essence, with that absolute firm assurance, the amendment is unnecessary and I invite the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras to withdraw it.

[Keir Starmer]

The more I have listened to the debate on the amendment, the more convinced I have become that there is a need for an overarching privacy clause, to which I will turn our attention at a later stage. It follows from that that I will focus my energies elsewhere, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Investigatory Powers Bill (Fifth sitting)

John Hayes Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 14th April 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr Owen. If there is any further information that the tech companies can provide, they will do so. To be absolutely clear, these concerns were raised with me by a particular company but, after reflecting on them, I put them forward in my own name because I think they are genuine concerns. The conflict of laws is a real concern.

This comes up in a later clause, so we can look at it in detail then, but the problem the companies foresee is that if they are asked to do something that puts them in breach of the law in the country in which they are based, they will have a real dilemma. The Bill as drafted does not give them a way out of that dilemma. I am raising their concerns; it is appropriate for a scrutiny Committee to know the real concerns of those who are going to be called upon to implement the warrants, and to consider them.

Amendment 252 states:

“Subsection (4) shall not apply where the person outside the United Kingdom is established for the provision of services in a country or territory with which the United Kingdom has entered in to an international mutual assistance agreement or is subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”

It intends to ensure that, where there is a mutual legal systems’ provision that bites, this Bill should not be the route for enforcing the requirements of the warrant. It is a perfectly practical and sensible provision; if that enforcement is provided for by an international mutual assistance arrangement, that should be the primary route, because it will, one hopes, have in-built ways of dealing with the conflict point that I articulated.

Amendment 252 is to clause 34. I will deal with the amendments to clauses 35 and 36 when we get to them, if I may. There is a theme running through.

[The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)]

Thank you, Mr Owen, and I welcome you to the chair.

There are two points at the outset. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for being clear about the genesis of these amendments. I also asked my officials that question; I assumed that the amendments had come from that source. Secondly, he will be aware that extra-territorial matters regarding overseas organisations or companies are always challenging, but, equally, he will recognise that in this context it is critically important that we address that point, because the ownership of companies that have a profound effect on the matters we are debating is often outside the UK.

Mindful of those points, let me move to the amendments. Amendment 252 seeks to remove the ability to serve warrants on an overseas provider, where a mutual legal assistance agreement is in place. It is important to understand that that would have several consequences. One possible consequence would be to slow the process down. The second, more fundamental, consequence would be for us to lose the ability to serve a search warrant on a company based outside the UK that provides services to users in the UK. Contextually, many of the people who pose the greatest threat to us use services which are based in companies outside this country, especially, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested in his opening remarks, in the United States of America. The mutual legal assistance treaty does not provide a course for interception warrants. It is a route to secure evidence, as he will be very much aware from prosecutions. It is used to obtain communications data and store them for use in prosecution. It is of little or no use in very fast-moving counter-terrorism circumstances or in serious crimes operations, which we are frequently dealing with. I do not need to go into immense detail because, I think, the demand for brevity is such that that would be superfluous. Any number of the pieces of evidence offered in the work done so far on the Bill make it absolutely clear that, in both of those kinds of cases, communications data are absolutely central, which is true to an increasing degree, and it is often provided by companies from outside the United Kingdom.

In his report, with which you will be familiar, Chairman, David Anderson addresses that point precisely. He argues that the mutual legal assistance treaty route is

“currently ineffective. Principally this is because it is too slow to meet the needs of an investigation, particularly in relation to a dynamic conspiracy”

of the very kind I have described in relation to organised crime and terrorism. He argues that it does not address intelligence needs. He notes that progress has been made and he cites the Irish Government in the context of the EU protocols for legal assistance. The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras made reference to the work that the Prime Minister’s envoy is doing in this regard, but the Prime Minister’s envoy has said:

“While we should improve our current Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, it will never be fast enough or have a scope wide enough to allow for urgent counter-terrorism and similar requests.”

The final point is critical. As well as being too slow, the MLAT route is limited to a request for evidence in relation to serious crime prosecutions; it does not provide for national security or investigations that are at an intelligence-gathering stage rather than those in which the focus is on obtaining evidence. As I said, it is essentially about prosecutions, so it cannot deal with that earlier work. Other similar agreements—for example, the European mutual legal assistance convention—have similar drawbacks. Although I appreciate that the amendment is probing, relying on this route simply would not deliver the effectiveness that we need.

Clause 35 makes provision for the service of a targeted interception warrant or a mutual assistance warrant on a person outside the UK. The amendment would require a warrant to be served on an overseas communications provider at their principal overseas office in the first instance. The ways in which an interception warrant may be served on a person outside the UK are already set out in the clause, providing a number of alternative methods, to allow flexibility.

It is interesting that the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about companies that have been deep in discussion. He will know that there is quite a difference of opinion among companies about this. Some want flexibility and some take a different view. It is a mixed picture. He will also know that we have had extensive discussions with the sector and providers over a considerable period of time about various aspects of the Bill, including this one, and there is a difference of opinion among companies about that. Service to the principal office overseas is already possible under the clause, so there is nothing added to the Bill in that sense, but stipulating a mandatory method for how a warrant is served is unnecessary and possibly even unhelpful.

On the amendments to clause 36, I have set out the importance of the need for flexibility, and I hope that I have also made the case about vital intelligence work and so on. I can see the hon. and learned Gentleman beginning to stir.

[Keir Starmer]

The last time I was in a Bill Committee, I moved my arm in a particular way and somebody thought it meant I wanted to intervene. On this occasion, I do.

On clause 36, there is a concern, and anything the Minister can say on the record would be helpful. The problem is subsection (5), which is an attempt to help or to get round a problem, but does not go all the way. It states:

“In determining for the purposes of subsection (4) whether it is reasonably practicable for a relevant operator outside the United Kingdom to take any steps in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom for giving effect to a warrant,”—

because it is only reasonable steps they must take—

“the matters to be taken into account include the...requirements or restrictions under the law of that country”.

The concern is about asking for something that is unlawful.

[Mr Hayes]

I was going to refer to that, of course, because that is the part of the Bill that explicitly deals with the legal conflict issue, as he describes.

[The Chair]

Order. Just to help the Minister, we are still on amendments 252 to 256 to clause 34. We will come to the future clauses.

[Mr Hayes]

Without question, we will return to the matters in hand. The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras is very helpful, but I appreciate your guidance, Mr Owen.

The effect of removing subsection (5) would leave the company alone to decide what reasonable steps were required to be taken for giving effect to the warrant. I do not think we should accept that position. Our engagement with overseas companies over the past few years has been clear. They require certainty of their obligations, and I know that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking. For that reason, Parliament enacted the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 as emergency legislation, to remove uncertainty.

I am not sure, given the threats we face, whether it is appropriate to leave a private company to determine whether it is obliged to do what is asked of it by legal instrument. The Bill already requires any requirements and restrictions under the law of the country where a company is based to be taken into account. In my view, it is wholly right that the UK Secretary of State makes that decision rather than a corporation.

The effect of the amendments in practice would be to transfer fundamental decision making to the corporation and I am not comfortable with that. I think it is right that these companies providing communications services to users in the UK should be required to comply with our law. I know that is not necessarily always their view but it is certainly mine and the Government’s. That must include UK warrants requesting the content of criminal and terrorist communications.

Members might recall the Home Secretary’s comments on Second Reading that made clear that we are working with the United States—I know the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted that assurance—to establish a new framework, which would release American companies from any perceived conflicting legal obligations.

The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point about balancing a range of possibly competing or conflicting legal requirements but, frankly, multinational companies deal with that kind of thing all the time. These are companies dealing with all kinds of legal provisions and demands from all kinds of places in the world. This is not uncharted territory for them.

[Joanna Cherry]

It is incumbent on me to challenge something the Minister has just said. As I understood him, as far as possible it is desirable for the law of the UK in this respect to have effect abroad. How would the Minister feel if the French passed legislation that they wanted to have effect in England and Scotland?

[Mr Hayes]

That would be a more appropriate question to put if we were debating different amendments. I do not want to stray too far from your guidance, Mr Owen, so I will stick strictly to the amendments, rather than being encouraged down a tributary that I would not necessarily seek or want to navigate, particularly as it is implicitly about the European Union.

Let me return to the subject in hand. I accept that this is challenging but we need flexibility in the way we go about these things, coupled with determination that everyone must play their part, including these corporations, in helping to deal with the threat we face. We are trying to do that as much as we can through co-operation, as the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras knows. It is vitally important that we retain the ability to take action against companies that do not comply with their obligations.

Once an agreement is reached it will be placed before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 in the normal way. On that basis, notwithstanding the hon. and learned Gentleman’s perfectly proper desire to probe the matter, I invite him to withdraw the amendment.

[Keir Starmer]

Of course, I accept the need for arrangements to be made with service providers and others in other jurisdictions. If that were not provided for, a lot of the Bill simply would not work or have any meaningful effect. I accept that proposition. I also accept that there are problems with the existing mutual legal assistance arrangements. The amendment—it was a probing amendment, so I shall not push it to a vote—envisaged further arrangements in due course. In truth, the sooner they can be progressed and agreed, the better.

I accept the proposition that we cannot necessarily leave it to the companies themselves to take decisions about which bits of any requirement they ought to comply with. The choice set up by the provisions, which may be a stark choice, is not whether to comply but which offence to commit. I am sure that, in reality, and hopefully in the consultation discussions, there will rarely, if ever, be a requirement that puts a company in breach of the law where they operate, but if it does, the company will have to make a choice: “Either we breach US law or UK law.” That is pretty invidious.

Companies do not want to be put in that position, but they will read carefully what the Minister has said. They are following progress carefully, and I know that progress is being made. On that basis, I will withdraw all three amendments, which address all three clauses, but I hope that I have made clear those companies’ concerns, which I share. Everything that can be done to fast-forward an international legal framework for this sort of requirement should be done as soon as possible. If it is not, not only tech companies but, I fear, the security and intelligence services, will be the losers. The more difficult it becomes to comply with a requirement in real time, the more likely it is that things will be lost while disputes are had about the requirements. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I can deal with this in two minutes. First, of course these things are challenging. I said that at the outset. Secondly, David Anderson is very clear in recommendation 25 of his report—the recommendation after the one that the hon. and learned Lady quoted—that:

“Pending a satisfactory long-term solution to the problem, extraterritorial application should continue to be asserted in relation to warrants and authorisations…and consideration should be given to extraterritorial enforcement in appropriate cases.”

That was his consideration, and that is right. These are challenging matters, but, frankly, companies have to make grown-up decisions about where they operate. Conflicts and other issues are already dealt with in the Bill, and we are working with the US to address concerns and to negotiate a new framework.

I think it would be extraordinary, given the current state of multinational business and the increasingly global online environment, if we did not put provisions in the Bill to provide powers to take action where necessary. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Investigatory Powers Bill (Sixth sitting)

John Hayes Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 14th April 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The clause deals inter alia with interception in immigration detention facilities, and it is that which leads me to oppose its inclusion in the Bill. We can see that there is some replication of previous legislation in the provisions that deal with interception in prisons and psychiatric institutions, but the provision on immigration detention facilities is new and it is deficient in several respects. The theory underlying it is deficient, because immigration detention facilities are dealt with in a part of the Bill that includes psychiatric hospitals and the facilities are defined to include immigration removal centres, which are short-term holding facilities in which people, including families with children, are held in the so-called pre-departure accommodation.

Immigration detention has been the subject of much discussion on the Floors of both Houses because it is done by administrative fiat and without limit of time. The person detained will not have been brought before a court or tribunal to have the lawfulness of their detention or entitlement to bail considered, unless they instigate such a process; and the powers to detain are very broad and cover a large number of scenarios. The Bill states that conduct is to be authorised if it is done in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the detention centre rules or the rules for short-term holding facilities.

[The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)]

It may help the hon. and learned Lady to abbreviate her remarks if I say that the provision is not intended and cannot be used to deal with someone’s asylum or immigration status. That is not its purpose. With that assurance, perhaps the last point she made will not quite hold the water in her mind that it currently does.

[Joanna Cherry]

That does not really give me the assurance I seek. I was going to say that, under the clause, conduct is to be authorised if it is done in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the detention centre rules, or the rules for short-term holding facilities and pre-departure accommodation made under sections 157 and 157A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 respectively. The latter sets of rules do not actually exist. Rules governing the regulation and management of short-term holding facilities were made in 2002, but it took until 2006 for draft rules to appear covering similar ground for short-term holding facilities as the detention centre rules do for immigration removal centres.

Back in 2006 the Home Office consulted on draft rules, to which various persons responded. In 2009 the Home Office consulted on another draft of the rules, to which there were further responses, many of them adverse; a number of freedom of information requests and parliamentary questions followed. In April 2012 the rules were described by the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), as being “still under development”.

In March 2014, during the passage of the most recent immigration Bill, which became the Immigration Act 2014, Lord Taylor of Holbeach gave a commitment to Lord Avebury, who had been chasing the rules since 2006, that

“rules governing the management and operation of short-term holding facilities and the Cedars pre-departure accommodation will be introduced before the Summer Recess.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 March 2014; Vol. 752, c. 1140.]

Lord Avebury was informed before the recess that the commitment would not be met. He continued to pursue the matter, and draft rules were finally published on 18 February this year, almost a decade after the first draft was published and some 14 years after they were envisaged. That wait does not appear to have produced a version markedly different from earlier versions or particularly tailored to short-term facilities. In those circumstances, it is very far from clear what powers are being given by the current Bill. That shall be the gravamen of my exception to the clause.

In his review of immigration detention, Sir Stephen Shaw paid special attention to the problems of short-term holding facilities and the dreadful conditions in some of them. We have all heard about that on the Floor of the House. His concerns led him to recommend that a discussion draft of the short-term holding facility rules should be published as a matter of urgency. In the meantime, after he had said that, Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons published a damning report on one particular facility, the Longport freight shed in Dover, describing the dire state of the facilities there. He said:

“on various occasions Home Office staff told us that they did not consider Longport to be a place of detention…despite detainees being in possession of legal authority to detain documentation and obviously being unable to leave. At this facility, the normal mechanisms of internal oversight and accountability that should apply to any form of detention were lacking.”

Under such circumstances, the notion of any lawful exercise of the powers contained in clause 44 seems fanciful.

There are also problems with immigration removal centres. The latest version of the detention centre rules dates from 2001. They were last amended in 2005 to update the name of the tribunal hearing immigration cases and bail applications, but by the time that was done the name itself was out of date because it had already been replaced by the immigration and asylum chamber of the first-tier and upper tribunals. The rules contain a broad range of powers from powers to fingerprint individuals and powers of search, to powers to identify survivors of torture or persons with a mental or physical illness; powers on medical information and notification of illness and death; powers to segregate and use force, and powers to carry out compulsory tests for drugs. There are also rules regarding visitors to centres and contractors.

My point is that the rules cover the sorts of matters that would be covered by prison rules but they apply to a different regime and to people who have not been detained by the courts or by due process of law. The overall effect is a lack of clarity. When one is working against the background of rules that do not exist or, if they do exist, lack clarity, a clause such as clause 44 potentially has a very far-reaching impact on people whose civil liberties are already severely undermined by the circumstances of their detention. The Government do not need to take just my word for that; it is a view widely held, including by a number of Government Back Benchers and peers.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

We will not oppose the clause but I wish to put on record our concern about immigration detention and the intercept of communications in immigration detention facilities. There is growing concern, as has already been said, about the fact of that detention, the length of it and the conditions. There have been a number of reports, to which the Government have responded. In those circumstances, it is incumbent on the Government to justify the clause, although we will not seek to delete it.

[Mr Hayes]

I will be equally brief. There is a misconception about this matter. The Bill as drafted simply ensures that any interception carried out at a detention centre and under detention centre rules is lawful. No purpose is intended other than the maintenance of safety and security of the people in those centres. It is clearly right that officers should be able to intercept attempts to send contraband material, for example, such as drugs, in particularly sensitive environments. The power cannot be used to deal with the outcome of any immigration cases, asylum applications and so on.

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 contains the power to make rules for management of immigration detention centres. Clause 44 provides that interception, carried out in accordance with those rules will be within the law. In a sense, it is as simple as that. I can see why the hon. and learned Lady might have misunderstood this, but I can assure her that that is what is in the Bill and, I put on the record, is the Government’s position. Rather than detain the Committee now, it might help if I send copies of the detention centre rules to Committee members, as they contain the essence of the argument that I have just made.

[Joanna Cherry]

My essential objection to the clause is that subsection (1) states:

“Conduct taking place in immigration detention facilities is authorised by this section if it is conduct in exercise of any power conferred by or under relevant rules”,

with the relevant rules described in subsection (2), and the underlying “relevant rules” are wholly inadequate. There has been a long history of problems with the rules, so the clause rests on a very shaky and unsafe foundation. I am concerned to protect the civil liberties of persons who are not criminals, who are not guilty of any violation of the law, but who are detained under immigration rules and whose civil liberties are already severely curtailed.

[Mr Hayes]

I have a great deal of regard for the hon. and learned Lady’s diligence, but she is tilting at windmills. The clause is pretty straightforward. The points she makes about the management of detention centres may be perfectly reasonable debating points for a different Bill at a different time, but this Bill is not really about the management of detention centres and similar places. That matter is rightly dealt with in the relevant legislation. This Bill is merely about the application of certain powers to those centres to ensure that they are lawful. It is not much more complicated than that. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I can be brief because the amendments speak for themselves. Amendment 77 is intended to insert a reasonable excuse exception to the duty not to make an unauthorised disclosure, and amendment 78 goes with it by spelling out that it is a reasonable excuse if the disclosure is made with the permission of the person issuing the warrant or the person to whom it is issued.

There are two principal arguments. One is that in this and the following two clauses flexibility is needed for disclosure made in certain circumstances. The second point is one that some of the service providers are concerned about. They want to have discussions among themselves and with others about how to make the provisions in the Bill work.

At the moment, clause 49 would prohibit them from discussing either particular warrants or steps that they may be asked to take in order to solve some of those difficulties. It is the absolute nature of the prohibition that is the concern. Amendment 78, which allows disclosure if it is made with the permission of the person issuing it or to whom it is issued, seems to me to be a sensible way of getting around that particular problem.

[Mr Hayes]

As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, amendments 77 and 78 would amend the duty not to make an “unauthorised disclosure” to add the defence of “reasonable excuse”. I accept that that would be on par with clause 73(2), which concerns the communications data provisions. I think that it is right that we retain the position that exists under RIPA, which itself reflects the sensitivity of the techniques of intercepting agencies, the fact that material obtained through intercept cannot be used in evidence—unlike communications data—and makes it an offence to disclose the existence of a warrant.

As clause 50 sets out, disclosure is already permitted if

“authorised by the person to whom the warrant is…addressed”.

I would therefore argue that amendment 78 is not required.

It is worth adding that clause 50 sets out four categories in which disclosure can be authorised. I will not repeat them; they are pretty self-explanatory and, for the sake of brevity, we need to move on. Those exceptions provide adequate protection and, in my judgment, collectively render this amendment unnecessary, particularly clause 50(2)(b). I see why the amendment has been tabled and why the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to probe on it, but as he has acknowledged during our deliberations, the techniques and details of the capabilities of intercepting agencies must be protected for all kinds of reasons that we do not need to rehearse once again. Disclosure of such details would potentially cause some damage to the ability of those agencies to do their job.

Having said that, I completely accept that, if there is a case of wrongdoing or impropriety, and that case is made public, it is right that justice is done. There is no doubt about that, which is precisely why we have put into the Bill the establishment of a commissioner with the power to look at any aspect of those matters. In the end, it is better that a senior impartial and qualified person should take a view than, say, a junior official or employee of a telecommunications operator.

Nevertheless, I accept that it is important that people can raise concerns without fear of prosecution, which is why—I invite Committee members to look at it—we added clause 203 to the Bill, which we will get to when the Committee considers part 8. You will not let me go into too much detail about that now, Mr Owen, but people will understand that it provides protection for whistleblowers through an information gateway, so that the commissioner that I described will receive information of the kind that I described in a straightforward way.

These clauses combined maintain an important principle: techniques and details of capabilities of intercepting agencies must be protected. Of course, it is important that we caveat that with the checks and balances that I have set out. I am not sure that these amendments would add much—or anything; I was just being polite—and I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw them.

[Keir Starmer]

I listened carefully to what the Minister said about clause 50(2)(b). It may be that that provides a different route but achieves the same objective, and in those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50

Section 49: meaning of “excepted disclosure”

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

There is a substantive point, but that comes under clause stand part, so I will deal with it when we get to that, if I may. Amendments 65 and 66 would bring into alignment—where are we? They are both focused on head 4. I think we have missed an Act out.

[Mr Hayes]

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that amendment 65 would remove the exception from the duty not to make disclosures about a warrant where a postal operator or a telecommunications operator discloses statistical information about warrants in accordance with requirements set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State. Is that helpful?

[Keir Starmer]

That is helpful and I am grateful to the Minister. Amendment 66 is designed to align clause 50(7)(b) with clause 49(2)(a)(i) and (ii). The duty not to make unauthorised disclosures applies to both a warrant under chapter 1 of this part and a warrant under the relevant part of RIPA. The problem with head 4, unless I have misunderstood it, is that under clause 50(7)(b), it only relates to chapter 1 of this part and does not cross-relate to RIPA. I am happy to withdraw this amendment if it is catered for by other measures.

[Mr Hayes]

I will deal with this matter as briefly as I can. In the end, if we follow through the logic of the amendment, it would provide additional opacity rather than additional transparency. I think that if the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks through what he has just said and what I am about to say, he will realise that. In life, I am quite keen on opacity, but in legislation I am not keen on it at all.

Just to be absolutely clear, I point out that amendment 66, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, relates to clause 50(7)(b)—disclosures of a general nature. At present, this subsection allows a disclosure of information that does not relate to any particular warrant under chapter 1 of part 2, but relates to warrants in general. As we understand the intention of the amendment, it would extend this provision to include a warrant under chapter 1 of part 1 of RIPA. Given that the disclosure simply permits disclosures of a general nature, this proposal is one that could be considered, and I think I would consider it. I am happy to take it away to ensure that there is the consistency that the hon. and learned Gentleman calls for, but I think that the amendment as drafted could be unhelpful to the cause that he has articulated. If he is happy for me to do this, I am happy to take it away, because I do take his point about ensuring that there is consistency. That seems to be the essence not quite of the amendment but of the argument that he made.

[Keir Starmer]

I will happily withdraw the amendment on that basis. It is intended to allow appropriate discussion of warranting in general so that all those with an interest can take part in the relevant discussions and debates. At the moment, head 4, subsection (7)(b) achieves that for warrants under chapter 1, but does not relate to other warrants. If there is a way of amending or otherwise achieving the desired objective, that would be acceptable. I will not press the amendment, but there is a need for a debate about warrants in general to make sure the systems and processes are articulated and dealt with. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

The purpose of the amendment is to state clearly on the record what the safe route is for whistleblowers. There are similar versions in other legislation, including the Official Secrets Act, and the absolute prohibition causes great concern to those who want to expose iniquity. In certain cases and places, the safe route for a whistleblower has been explained. The challenge on the table for the Minister is recognising the concerns and anxieties of those who want to disclose wrongdoing where it is in the public interest for them to do so. There must be a safe route for them. If not this, what is the route? In support of that way of putting it, I pray in aid the Joint Committee recommendation that there ought to be amendment to make it clearer for those who need to know what the route is.

[Mr Hayes]

This is an interesting amendment. It deals with the tension, which I think all Committee members recognise, between allowing the proper opportunity for those who have legitimate concerns to bring them forward to be dealt with and encouraging feckless complaint. Much of what we do in this House in framing law means dealing with that dilemma, and this is a good example.

The hon. and learned Gentleman—I think that the hon. and learned Lady said it first, actually—drew particular attention to the Joint Committee report. I refer to paragraph 629, which recommends that

“the Bill should contain an explicit provision for Communication Service Providers and staff in public authorities to refer directly to the Judicial Commissioners any complaint or concern they may have with the use of the powers under the Bill”,

and goes on similarly.

That is precisely what we intend and what we have tried to set out. That said, the hon. and learned Lady will understand that it is important to create a duty, as clause 49 does, not to make unauthorised disclosures. Clause 50 sets out the exceptions to that duty, and clause 51 provides for the offence of making an unauthorised disclosure. Providing a public interest defence of the kind that she discussed is unnecessary in light of the exceptions already in the Bill. In my view, it might even encourage feckless or unlawful disclosures.

[Joanna Cherry]

The defence would not apply to a feckless or unlawful disclosure. If somebody sought to pray in aid that defence, the jury would have to decide, under legal direction from a judge, whether what had been done was in the public interest. Something feckless—which I gather means “without good reason”—would not be in the public interest.

[Mr Hayes]

There is a balance to be struck, of the kind that I described. The hon. and learned Lady is right that the route to the commissioner must be clear and straightforward, allowing people of the kind that the hon. and learned Gentleman described to know how they can bring their concerns to his attention. That is why clause 203 provides the information gateway that I spoke about earlier. That is the point made by the Joint Committee. What we have done in clause 203 is essentially give life to the Committee’s recommendations about a direct route to the commissioner.

[Joanna Cherry]

Does the Minister accept that there might be situations in which an immediate disclosure is required to prevent conduct that is seriously unlawful? That is the situation where the defence is required. Somebody might find themselves in a position of having to make a public disclosure immediately to prevent unlawful conduct. Rather than going around the houses looking for advice or being assured after the fact that what they did was all right, they need to know that there is a defence of public interest to encourage them to make a disclosure immediately to prevent unlawful conduct.

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, but I am not so sure that, in the modern age, we do not live in precisely the opposite circumstance to the one the hon. and learned Lady sets out. All kinds of information are put into the public domain, whether for right or wrong and whether for good or bad reasons. That information cannot then be withdrawn and it is often taken to be fair and true, when it is anything but. I am not so sure that we do not need a process that is sufficiently rigorous that the commissioner is better placed to take a view on what is, or is not, in the public interest.

I will go further than that. It seems to me that, if we are going to have the commissioner, we have to vest power in his or her hands. If we then created all kinds of other means for dealing with these issues, I suspect that would undermine the commissioner’s significance and discourage people from taking their concerns to the commissioner.

However, I think perhaps we can reach a synthesis around the way we make the route known. In clause 203, we have done what the Joint Committee asked us to do—I note that there are distinguished Members sitting behind me who were on that Committee. But I am not sure that we have thought enough about how to inform people about the route they can take under clause 203, so I will ask my officials to look at that again. There is an information challenge here, because it is all very well for the cognoscenti—there are many of them in this room—to know about such things, but I am not sure that that is good enough. So I will meet the hon. and learned Lady halfway—halfway in my judgment, at least, even if not in hers—by ensuring that we look closely at how well informed people are about their ability to go down the route I have set out. On that basis, I ask her to withdraw the amendment.

[Joanna Cherry]

I wish to insist on the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 127, in clause 54, page 44, line 20, leave out subsections (1), (2) and (3).

This is formally my amendment and therefore my embarrassment, because I do not think it achieves its intended purpose. I do not intend to press it to a vote. When I looked at it again in the early hours of this morning, I could see that it does not achieve whatever I hoped to achieve.

[Mr Hayes]

I wish to put on the record that I think the hon. and learned Gentleman deserves a big mark for honesty.

[Keir Starmer]

I will make such comments as I have during the clause stand part debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I understand the Solicitor General’s point, which is that when it comes to access, there is a further, stricter test. I absolutely understand that and I accept that clause 54(4) is there for a purpose. The question that my constituents and I, and others, want answered is, “What about what is being retained?” There is a chilling feeling if it is being retained. The comfort of the Government saying, “Well, we are keeping everything but we will not look without a stricter test”, is, of course, a comfort, but it is not that much comfort to many concerned individuals.

[Mr Hayes]

I support the Solicitor General’s view—I do not want the hon. and learned Gentleman to be caught in a pincer movement by the way. None the less, clause 223(6) is pretty clear, is it not? It mentions anything that

“might reasonably be considered to be the meaning (if any) of the communication”.

That seems very helpful. I know that that clause is in the other part of the Bill but, of course, it relates to the content in exactly the way he describes.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the Minister for pointing that out but that was the route that I trod a few days ago when I was preparing my submissions. The problem is that content is given the description that he just set out, but it also says,

“any meaning arising from the fact of the communication or from any data relating to the transmission of the communication is to be disregarded, and (b) anything which is systems data is not content.”

That obviously led me to have a look at what systems data are, for which we have to go to clause 225(4), which states that systems data

“means any data that enables or facilitates, or identifies or describes anything connected with enabling or facilitating, the functioning of…a telecommunication system”.

It is true, and I accept, that an internet connection record does not include content in the form set out in 223(6), but then one gets to systems data, and part of it comes back out again. It would be very helpful if someone were to attempt to describe, by reference to the Bill’s provisions, why it is said that, at the point of retention, the provision does not include web browsing history. That is a question that many people would like answered. I leave that challenge on the table for the Government.

I rose to say that at this late hour and it is a complicated point, but it goes to the heart of the question about ICRs. At the moment, it is being framed in the sense of, “Well, they won’t look at it unless”, but people are genuinely concerned about the retention of their browser history.

--- Later in debate ---

I accept the argument that anything that allows the authorities to get to the data they need and moves out of the way data that are irrelevant to any possible exercise has real use. We will not oppose the clause because if the idea is effectively to deselect data on individuals who are not of interest, the sooner that is done the better. Nevertheless, I echo the concerns that have already been expressed that it is a very wide power that will in the end be exercised by relatively low-ranking individuals in an authority to look at and organise a huge amount of data. I have real concerns about the clause, but, for the reasons I have identified, we will not be voting against it.

[Mr Hayes]

We can probably satisfy the need to address the concerns that have been raised. First, let us be clear about privacy. To restate what I said when we began our consideration of the Bill, because there is no one’s canon that I like to draw on more than my own,

“privacy…is at the heart”––[Official Report, Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, 12 April 2016; c. 90.]

of all we do. The defence of private interests and the protection of the public are the essence of the Bill. This filter is, of course, an additional safeguard. It will allow public authorities, when they are dealing with such a request, to consider on a case-by-case basis what needs to be released and, by implication, what does not.

The Joint Committee on the Bill considered this matter in some detail and concluded at paragraph 38:

“We welcome the amendments that have been made to the Request Filter proposal. They constitute an improvement on that which was included in the Draft Communications Data Bill.”

There is, however, an argument about the process once a request has been made, and that is the argument made by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras.

The code of practice goes a long way towards making things clearer in chapter 9, paragraphs 9.1 to 9.4. Indeed, that chapter describes the request filter as

“an additional safeguard on the acquisition of communications data”

that will work in tandem with other safeguards to

“limit the volume of communications data being provided to a public authority.”

Therefore, the filter is a way of eliminating unnecessary data from release.

Nevertheless, I hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about ensuring that the permission to do that is in the hands of the right people and dealt with in the right way. It might be that we can say a little more about that in the code of practice. I will take a look at that, because there is an argument for refining that part of the code.

In response to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, it is clear that public authorities will sometimes need to make complex inquiries. For example, they may ask multiple questions of multiple communications service providers for data to identify an unknown person who is suspected of having committed a crime at different places and at different times. The complexity of the requests is the context in which the application of the filter will be applied.

Currently, public authorities might approach communications service providers for location data to identify the mobile phones in specific locations at the relevant times to determine whether a particular phone and a particular individual is linked to three offences. To get to the end that I have described, very large amounts of data would be required, so the filter process is both a safeguard—a protection—and a way of making the system more practicable. For all of those reasons, it is an important part of the Bill. Having said that, I hear what is being said about the process rather than the principle of it. Maybe we could look at the process, but I am absolutely committed to the principle and on that basis I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.