Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 8 July, be approved.

The Government are determined to do all they can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We propose, through the order, to add both Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati wal-Jihad, more widely known as Boko Haram, and Minbar Ansar Deen, also known as Ansar al-Sharia UK, to the list of international terrorist organisations, amending schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 12th proscription order under that Act.

Schedule 3 of the Act provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently “concerned in terrorism”. The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, including the unlawful glorification of terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, the Home Secretary may exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation, having taken into account a number of factors. Those factors are: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.

Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation. This includes open source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. These decisions are taken with great care by the Home Secretary and it is right that the case for proscribing new organisations must be approved by both Houses.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

Can the Minister tell me, as someone who has been on the sharp end of attack by Muslims Against Crusades, whether having organisations out in the open where they can be monitored is preferable to proscribing organisations, which makes it harder to monitor them?

[James Brokenshire]

I note my hon. Friend’s comment. Clearly, his own experience was very shocking and I well understand why he would wish to intercede in the debate to make that point clearly. Proscription can be an important mechanism to disrupt activity. We therefore believe that it is an appropriate mechanism to send a strong message that terrorist organisations are not tolerated in the UK and to act as a deterrent to their operating here. It also means that an organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate.

It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to a proscribed organisation, invite support for a proscribed organisation, arrange a meeting in support of that organisation, or wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that they may be a member or supporter of such an organisation. We believe that proscription is a powerful mechanism to disrupt and take firm action against terrorist groups, which is why 49 international and 14 Northern Irish terrorist organisations are currently proscribed.

On the specific groups before the House this evening, having carefully considered all the evidence we firmly believe that both organisations, Boko Haram and Minbar Ansar Deen, are currently concerned in terrorism. Right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, but I can provide a brief summary of each group.

Boko Haram is a prolific terrorist organisation based in Nigeria whose ultimate goal is to establish the Islamic caliphate. Seeking to undermine democratic government through its campaign of violence and attacks, it has targeted all sections of Nigerian society—Muslims, Christians, rich, poor, civilians and members of the security forces alike—as well as members of the international community. For example, an attack near Abuja on Christmas day 2011 that killed at least 26 people, and an attack on a bus station in Kano City in March 2013 that killed over 60, were both attributed to the organisation. The organisation has also sought to attack international targets in Nigeria. In August 2011, it claimed responsibility for a suicide attack against the UN building in Abuja that killed 26. It has also targeted westerners for kidnapping in the past few years.

I stress to the House that the Government are aware of the concerns over the approach used by the Nigerian Government to defeat Boko Haram. While the UK Government continue to work with Nigeria to fight terrorism, we make it clear that human rights must be respected at all times in our work to defeat terrorism across the globe.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning some of the disgusting attacks by Boko Haram in Nigeria. We live in an interconnected world and I am sure that the Government of Nigeria will be pleased at the action being taken by the British Government today. Has my hon. Friend had any conversations with the Nigerian Government with respect to the motion before the House?

[James Brokenshire]

What I can say to my hon. Friend is that Boko Haram has carried out indiscriminate, mass-casualty attacks, and clearly we are conscious of all the events I have outlined. We believe that proscribing that organisation shows our condemnation of its activities very clearly and will prevent it operating in the UK and give the police powers to tackle any UK-based support for it, so proscription is an important step. I cannot comment on specific discussions we have had with the Nigerian Government, but clearly those continue. I stress the point I made earlier about condemning any human rights abuses in that regard. I think it is important to state that in this context.

The second group we are proscribing is Minbar Ansar Deen, a Salafist group based in the UK that promotes and encourages terrorism. It distributes material through its online forum, which promotes terrorism by encouraging individuals to travel overseas to engage in extremist activity, specifically fighting. The group is not related to Ansar al-Sharia groups in other countries. Proscribing it sends a clear message that we condemn its terrorism activities.

Decisions on when and whether to proscribe an organisation are taken only following extensive consideration and in the light of emerging intelligence. It is important that decisions are built on a robust evidence base, do not adversely impact on any ongoing investigations and support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. It of course would not be appropriate for us to discuss specific intelligence that leads to any decisions to proscribe, but clearly we keep the whole area under constant focus.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am sure that the House will support what the Minister is proposing, so he must not take anything I say as criticism of the Government’s decision. He will know that whenever the matter has come before the House I have raised the necessity of a time limit on some of these orders and, in particular, the report by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC. The Minister told the House almost exactly a year ago, on 4 July 2012, that the Government’s response would be published in due course. The Immigration Minister said on 22 November 2012 that it would be published shortly. When will it be published?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that this is an issue that the right hon. Gentleman has pursued through the Home Affairs Committee and through interventions in debates of this kind. I can tell him clearly that we have noted carefully the comments in David Anderson’s report about the de-proscription process and that we responded to the report in March. In that context, under the current regime any person affected by a proscription can submit an application to the Home Secretary requesting that she consider whether the organisation should be de-proscribed. The Home Secretary has received no de-proscription applications, and I understand that none was received by her predecessor since 2009. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that officials continue to explore options for improving the de-proscription process. That is under active consideration and we will inform Parliament of any resulting changes to the regime. Our current thinking is that there are ways in which the existing regime for de-proscription can be used effectively. We will report back to the House shortly, and I genuinely mean that—the right hon. Gentleman smiles. I assure him that this is under active consideration. There are issues that need to be worked through carefully, and we will report back to the House at the earliest opportunity. I say to him genuinely, the matter is being considered carefully and actively in the light of David Anderson’s recommendations in his report, and in looking more generally at the proscription regime, as well as de-proscription within it.

[Keith Vaz]

I am sorry to do this, because I like the Minister, but he has said absolutely nothing that he did not say a year ago. It is important to distinguish between the process, which we all know about, and the issue that David Anderson has raised about time-limiting orders. The Minister has used the words “under active consideration” and said that officials are doing this or that. That is all very well, but ultimately Ministers have to make a decision. Either they are in favour of a time limit or the order will be endless, subject to somebody’s application. We need to know precisely at some stage—not today, obviously.

[James Brokenshire]

As I said, we responded to David Anderson’s report in March. I understand that this matter is of concern to right hon. and hon. Members, and we are therefore examining how the existing de-proscription process can be used more effectively.

I hope that, following my comments, the House will be minded to support the proscription of both groups and support the Government’s focus and clear intent to combat terrorism in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate, which has been well informed and well focused on the tasks at hand and the specifics of the order before the House.

Let me comment at the outset on the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) about the appalling murder in Woolwich of Drummer Lee Rigby. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will join me in saying that all our thoughts and prayers are with the family in their preparation for Drummer Rigby’s funeral in just a few days’ time. Can I also echo—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Will the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) move away from the Front Bench? Only the Minister is supposed to be standing there, no other Member.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I echo the comments of the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs about the work of the Security Service, as well as the police involved in counter-terrorism work and, indeed, all officials engaged in keeping our country safe. That includes activities overseas, as well as in the United Kingdom. I wholly endorse his comments about how so much of that work necessarily has to be done out of sight. In my role as security Minister, I have the genuine privilege to have some insight into that work and to see the professionalism, focus and drive that those people have in seeking to keep all of us safe. I entirely endorse the comments that the right hon. Gentleman made in that connection.

Let me deal with a number of the points that were flagged up. On Boko Haram, we have regular dialogue with the Government of Nigeria on a broad range of mutual terrorism concerns. The Nigerians have proscribed Boko Haram and are aware of our intention to do so.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked about the timing of the order being laid before the House tonight. The decisions on whether to proscribe a particular organisation are taken after careful consideration and in the light of emerging intelligence. It is important that such decisions should be built on a robust evidence base and that they should support other members of the international community in their fight against terrorism. It would be inappropriate for me to discuss specific intelligence matters, but I can assure her that these issues are carefully considered in this context, and in the context of our broader support for others around the world in their fight against international terrorism. I note the points that she has raised, however.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newark spoke of the need for balance and the need to ensure that, when we take action, we properly consider individual freedoms as against the need for collective security. Sometimes the challenges might be pushed in one direction or the other, but I am clear that they should be mutually reinforcing. If we are to uphold our values and traditions, and uphold who we are as a country, we must ensure that we properly respect individual freedoms and liberties while providing collective security for the country as a whole.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked about Hizb ut-Tahrir. That organisation is not proscribed, and proscription could be considered only when the Home Secretary believed it to be involved in terrorism, as defined by the Terrorism Act 2000. However, I want to make it clear to the House that the Government have significant concerns about Hizb ut-Tahrir, and we will continue to monitor its activities closely. Such groups are not free to spread hatred and incite violence as they please. The police have comprehensive powers to take action under the criminal law to deal with people who incite hatred, and they will do so. We will seek to ensure that Hizb ut-Tahrir and groups like it cannot operate without challenge in public places in this country. We will not tolerate secret meetings behind closed doors on premises funded by the taxpayer, and we will ensure that civic organisations are made well aware of Hizb ut-Tahrir and groups like it, and of the names under which they operate and the ways in which they go about their business. It would not be right for me to comment on individual cases, but we keep all organisations of concern under review.

The hon. Lady will be aware of the taskforce that the Prime Minister has set up to examine the further options that we can take in the context of preventing terrorism. We are looking again at how we might deal with groups that fall below the current threshold for proscription but none the less espouse extremist views.

[Keith Vaz]

Will the Minister tell the House how many times the taskforce has met?

[James Brokenshire]

The taskforce has met twice, and it has considered a wide range of issues. We are focused on taking action to build on the very good work of the Prevent strategy. An example is the work of Prevent co-ordinators in universities to provide support and advice and to highlight understanding of the potential of extremist groups to operate on university campuses. The Prime Minister made it clear in his statement on the matter that he wants to examine all the issues closely to determine what further work and action could and should be undertaken. That work is progressing, and I am sure that the Prime Minister will continue to update the House on the work of the taskforce.

Let me address the point raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North about the People’s Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran. That organisation was proscribed in 2001 and was de-proscribed in June 2008, following the judgments of the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission and the Court of Appeal. An appeals process can be undertaken in respect of a proscribed organisation.

I should perhaps have underlined in my initial response to the Chairman of the Select Committee that proscribed organisations are kept under constant review. There is a rolling 12-month basis on which those organisations are reviewed by a group that draws in experts from across government. It is not the case that an organisation that has been proscribed would have to stay proscribed, as there is an ongoing process. I am sorry if he was not satisfied with my initial response to him. The work I highlighted related to how to ensure that the process of the annual reviews and what they produce can be strengthened and developed further to give greater assurance in respect of some of the issues that he highlighted.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their considered comments. I believe that the proscription of Boko Haram will demonstrate our condemnation of that group’s activities. Proscribing it will also enable the police to carry out disruptive action against any of its supporters in the UK and ensure that they cannot operate here. The proscription of Minbar Ansar Deen will be a powerful tool for the police to help them successfully disrupt the organisation, and it will also send a powerful message that the promotion and encouragement of terrorism are not acceptable and that we will take action against organisations that partake in such activities.

On the basis of those comments, I hope that the House will support the actions proposed by the Government, and I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 8 July, be approved.

Alcohol Licensing Advertising

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this occasion, Mr Streeter. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and I had the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship during the Public Bill Committee stage of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It is good to see you in the Chair again today.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this debate today, and on providing an opportunity to debate the important issues relating to the advertising requirements that pertain to alcohol licensing. My hon. Friend is a strong supporter of local media. He is proud to be a true man of Kent. I welcome his using the opportunity to champion the Kent Messenger and other local Kent titles, whose influence even reaches across the borders to my constituency. I hope that the Bexley Times and the Bexley News Shopper provide some local competition to his titles, too.

I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) and for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for their interventions. The strength of support for the local press and local media comes through clearly in our debate, and I will deal with those comments later, feeding back on a number of points during my response this afternoon.

I welcome the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North to her place. As she highlighted, we had many happy hours together, debating the detail of alcohol licensing policy during the Public Bill Committee stage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, when we highlighted a number of important points and added to the scrutiny of the Bill. Although I no longer hold the policy lead on alcohol, which is with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), the crime prevention Minister—he is not able to respond to this debate because he is in Committee—I welcome the opportunity to revisit some of the ground that we debated at that time. I had not appreciated that the hon. Lady was a Daily Mail reader, albeit the Hull Daily Mail.

Local newspapers have more than 30 million readers in the UK, through their print titles alone each week—some 61% of all UK adults—as well as 62 million web users a month. My hon. Friend talked about the immense value and importance of local newspapers and that was emphasised by additional contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Lincoln and for Dartford, particularly on the benefit that they provide to people who do not have internet access.

Like my hon. Friend, I am also committed to a strong, local, independent media. I reassure him that this Government regard the independent local press as essential for local democracy, as it helps local people to hold their local council and other agencies to account. The Government have recently introduced measures in the Local Audit and Accountability Bill to protect the independent press from unfair competition from council newspapers—the so-called “town hall Pravdas” that disregard the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity. The code restricts the publication of council newspapers and news sheets to once a quarter, but some local authorities are disregarding it by publishing their newspapers as frequently as weekly, taking paid advertising revenue away from the independent local press. The new legislation will enable the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to direct authorities to comply with the code.

The Government are committed to tackling alcohol-related harm and developing a licensing regime in which the public have a strong voice. At the same time, we want to lift the burden of bureaucratic processes from licensing authorities and responsible businesses. The proposal to remove the relevant requirement on licensing applicants, many of whom are small businesses, was introduced to remove what some see as an unnecessary burden. I should like to be clear and say to my hon. Friend that there is no desire to prevent local people getting information about new licensing applications or playing an active role in the licensing process. This Government have done more than any other to increase the ways in which local communities and local people have a say in whether pubs and clubs should be open in their areas, and for how long. Ensuring access to local information about licensing is key to that.

As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said, I led on much of the Government’s legislation in the 2011 Act, to overhaul Labour’s Licensing Act 2003 and rebalance it in favour of local communities. We gave local people a stronger voice by scrapping the old vicinity test that the hon. Lady mentioned, so that, now, anyone can make representations and object to licensing applications regardless of where they live in relation to the premises. In addition, we made it easier for licensing authorities to respond to local concerns about irresponsible businesses selling alcohol and close problem premises down. We have lowered the evidence threshold for decision making and the burden of proof to show that a premises is causing public nuisance or crime and disorder, for example. That is helping to ensure that the appropriate balance is given to local communities to make those decisions.

We have also given responsible authority status to licensing authorities, ensuring that those are better able to respond to the concerns of local residents by taking swift action to tackle irresponsible premises, without having to wait for representations from the police or other responsible authorities. At the same time, we have given local health bodies a greater say in licensing and increased the availability of information about alcohol licensing online.

More than 40% of violent crime is alcohol related. In October last year, new powers were introduced and made available to help local communities tackle the problems of crime and disorder caused by late-night drinking. The late-night levy allows local councils to charge pubs and clubs opening late at night for a contribution to policing costs. The early morning alcohol restriction order allows for alcohol sales to be banned between midnight and 6 am, if there are local grounds to do so. The powers commenced on 31 October 2010. Many licensing authorities, including the London borough of Islington, and Newcastle, are considering carefully whether the late-night levy could benefit their area. They must also consult publicly before introducing the levy. I hope that hon. Members will note that Newcastle has already begun to do so. Early morning restriction orders, as I said, were introduced at the same time and allow councils to prohibit the late-night sale of alcohol. A number of licensing authorities, including West Lancashire and Northampton, are considering such orders for their areas.

The hon. Lady asked me about minimum unit price. She will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane responded to an urgent question in relation to this matter and highlighted that the Government are carefully considering responses to the alcohol strategy consultation. We will publish a response to that in due course, taking into account all the representations.

As well as measures to tackle alcohol harms, the public consultation recognised the contribution that the responsible alcohol trade makes to our economy and society. The Government sought views on ways to cut red tape in licensing for responsible businesses, while not, of course, undermining safeguards against the harms that alcohol can cause. The consultation sought views on a number of areas relating to proposals to cut red tape, including whether to give discretion for licensing authorities to develop their own simplified processes for temporary event notices and reducing the burden of alcohol licensing for certain types of premises that provide minimal alcohol sales as part of a wider service.

It is important, as hon. Members have said, to recognise that the vast majority of our pubs are vital community assets, contributing to the economy and providing local jobs, in many ways at the heart of communities, fostering strong social values and encouraging responsible drinking. The alcohol strategy reflects that. It is also notable that each pub contributes an estimated £100,000 annually to its local community. The Government are helping pubs through a wide range of measures. In the last Budget, we scrapped the beer escalator and cut alcohol duty, resulting in a pint of beer being 4p cheaper than if we had done nothing. We have also extended the business rates holiday for a further year, until the end of March 2014, and got rid of much of the red tape that frustrated landlords and kept them from focusing on what they are best at: running a business and managing drinking in a safe environment. Most recently, on 15 June, we announced that new CCTV guidelines will mean that pub landlords no longer have to pay for intrusive and costly surveillance cameras where they are not needed.

One proposal to cut red tape that the alcohol consultation considered—it has obviously been mentioned in the debate—related to whether to remove the requirement for applicants to place advertisements in local newspapers or circulars when applying for a premises licence, provisional statement or club premises certificate or for a full variation of a premises licence or club premises certificate. Some in the licensed trade found that burdensome and pointed to other mechanisms whereby local people could find out about new licensing applications.

I understand hon. Members’ concerns. Similarly, I understand the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, as well as his motives in calling for the debate. Adverts in local newspapers are one way in which local communities can find out about premises licence applications, and I note the contributions that have been made about the importance of that and the reach it provides.

I should highlight that there is a requirement for applicants to advertise information about a premises licence application by displaying a notice at the premises. That, too, can be a way of alerting a community to the fact that a licence may be being sought in respect of the premises. Alongside that obligation, the Government have added a new requirement, from April last year, for licensing authorities to publish details of such licence applications on their websites. Some licensing authorities have gone further than the strict legal requirements, and they proactively provide e-mail alerts to those interested in licensing applications. The Government’s guidance to licensing authorities encourages them to ensure they comply with legal requirements. We will look to ensure that licensing authorities consistently publish the relevant information. I recognise the points made by my hon. Friend, but it is important to recognise the changing ways in which information is provided and the importance of online platforms in communicating information. We should look at innovative ways of strengthening that further.

The Government’s consultation received a large number of responses from business, the public and local government. A number of arguments have been made for and against the proposal, and the Government are grateful for how the public have engaged and for the information that has been provided, including by those in the newspaper industry and the licensed trade.

The arguments in favour of abolishing the advertising requirements include the burden it places on licensing applicants, who must pay for the cost of the advertisements. However, others have pointed out—this is reflected in the mood of the debate and the comments that have been made—that newspaper adverts provide a valuable source of information for those who might not see notices on premises or licensing authority websites.

Let me be absolutely clear: the Government do not wish to remove the say that local people and communities have in the licensing process. There is an important balance to strike, and we must consider whether there are already adequate ways for people to find out about premises licence applications. We also acknowledge the role newspapers have as a central point for local information. That, and the other points I have mentioned, need to be weighed up by the Government as we consider our response to the alcohol strategy consultation. As I said, we will publish our response in due course.

I am grateful for the contributions that have been made this afternoon, which amplify some of the representations that have been made as part of the consultation. We will reflect further on the clear points that have been made in the debate. We continue to listen to the points that are flagged up. I very much hope that that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance that we take this matter very seriously and that the proposal in the consultation document continues to be given detailed consideration. We will continue to reflect on the proposals, and we will publish our formal response in due course.

EU Police, Justice and Home Affairs

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

Before I respond to the points that have been made by various Members, it is important in the short time that I have to restate a few simple points to ensure that this debate is understood and placed in its proper context, particularly in the light of the last contribution and some of the other contributions this afternoon and evening.

First, the decision that the previous Administration left us to make is whether to exercise the opt-out by 31 May 2014. The Opposition motion and a number of the contributions this evening have given the impression that this is a rushed decision. Before coming to a final view on such an important matter, the Government must be satisfied that they have worked through all the options, understood the implications of them, provided Parliament with as much information as is practical and given Members the chance to debate the issues in an informed way. That is the proper way for a Government to conduct business and that is precisely what we are committed to doing.

Secondly, I remind Members that some 130 measures are subject to this decision, not just the handful named in the Opposition motion. While the Opposition may view those measures as the most important ones that are subject to the decision—although in the light of the contributions this evening, I am not so sure about that—I do not agree that we should single out individual measures when making the large opt-out decision. Instead, we should look at the measures in the round. That is to say, we should consider all 130 or so of them. We must take a decision based purely on what is in the national interest.

My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary have been consistently clear to this House and in evidence to the other place that the Government’s current thinking is that we should opt out of all pre-Lisbon policing and criminal justice measures, but seek to rejoin measures where it is in the national interest to do so. The Government have given a clear commitment, reiterated today by the Home Secretary, to hold a vote on the matter before any formal decision to opt out is made.

I am proud to be a member of a Government who have done so much to allow Parliament to scrutinise EU matters more fully than ever before, and who are allowing a vote on such an important matter. When such an unambiguous commitment has been made and repeated by the Government, I am not clear what benefit is to be gained by holding a vote on a motion that only partially deals with this matter. Surely it is better to welcome the Government’s commitment to a vote, and for the Government to ensure that any vote takes place in a fully informed manner.

The decision on exercising the UK’s opt-out will be taken in the national interest. After contributions from hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), let me say clearly that this is not about playing games or not acting responsibly—something the Home Secretary made crystal clear in her contribution this afternoon. Consideration will be given to how a measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by the measure, and whether there would be a detrimental effect on such co-operation if pursued by other mechanisms. That is the correct and measured approach the Government will take.

Important contributions have been made this afternoon, and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) highlighted the impact of European Court of Justice jurisdiction. Much of the third-pillar legislation was made to the lowest common denominator in order to secure unanimity, and it was not negotiated with European Court of Justice jurisdiction in mind. Much of the drafting reflects that and is not of a high standard. Indeed, some of it is ambiguous and could lend itself to expansive interpretation by the Court—a point effectively made by my hon. Friend. He also referred to the Metock case that highlights the issues involved and why this matter must be considered so carefully.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) highlighted evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers which said that 55 of the measures in the basket have no practical effect, and that is why the evidence presented must be weighed carefully. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) highlighted the balance of competences review, but that is a separate matter concerning modifications to treaties. The issue currently before the House concerns the utilisation of a measure in an existing treaty.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) seemed to imply that there was no room for practical co-operation, but there absolutely is. Much of our co-operation to fight crime and terrorism does not depend on EU-level instruments. Indeed, our operational partners co-operate closely on a daily basis and that will not change. We have been clear throughout this process that where there is a case for practical co-operation with other European partners, the Government will support it.

Some hon. Members, including the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, highlighted Europol. Obviously, the Commission has published a new measure and there will be a separate debate on that at the start of July. Therefore, our decisions on Europol will clearly be framed in the context of the new measure and existing measures that fall within the basket. We also expect the publication of new instruments in relation to Eurojust.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Oral Answers to Questions

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

10. How many prosecutions have been brought against those subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure regime was introduced.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

Prosecution is always our preferred option to deal with terror suspects. TPIMs are used to protect the public from individuals whom we cannot currently prosecute or deport. The police will seek a prosecution if new admissible evidence comes to light. As of 28 February, the end of the last reporting period, four charges had been brought in relation to TPIM subjects, with one prosecution.

[Steve McCabe]

Given that the Minister sought to make more prosecutions a central feature of his argument for replacing control orders with the TPIM regime, and that there has been very little progress in prosecution— I think there were three failed prosecutions for those who had breached their TPIM order—does the hon. Gentleman regret making such proud boasts in the House that have proved so ridiculously optimistic, if not downright wrong?

[James Brokenshire]

As I indicated, prosecution remains the primary objective in relation to terrorism offences. I hope the hon. Gentleman would, for example, congratulate the work of the police, the Security Service and prosecutors in successfully securing lengthy prison sentences today in respect of six individuals for planning a terrorist incident in Dewsbury last year. The focus certainly remains on investigating TPIM subjects, and I would have hoped that he recognised the package of TPIMs plus the additional resources that have been made available to the police and the security services for that purpose.

[Heidi Alexander]

The independent reviewer of terrorism, David Anderson QC, has recommended that the Government release the regional location of individuals who are subject to a TPIM. This information would let my constituents know whether potential terrorism suspects had returned to London. Why did the Minister refuse this perfectly reasonable request?

[James Brokenshire]

I congratulate the independent reviewer, David Anderson, on his work. He has underlined the fact that the TPIM regime continues to provide a high degree of protection against those subjects who cannot be prosecuted or deported. We considered carefully his specific recommendation on the location of TPIM subjects. We believe that such disclosure might make it harder to manage TPIM subjects and add to community tensions, but we will certainly keep his recommendations under review.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

One individual currently on a TPIM is AM, who was originally detained for being involved in a plot to bomb an aircraft. He was described by Mr Justice Wilkie in the High Court as “highly intelligent” and

“prepared to be a martyr in an attack designed to take many lives”.

Under the coalition’s TPIM regime, he has been allowed back to London. As his TPIM has already been renewed once, it cannot be renewed again. Will the Minister confirm that once AM’s TPIM expires next year, Ministers will have no power to supervise him or restrict his movements?

[James Brokenshire]

For TPIM subjects, the time period is a maximum of two years, as the hon. Lady highlights. At the end of that period, a number of alternatives may be available. If there is sufficient evidence, it may be possible to bring a prosecution. At the end of that period, if there is evidence of new terrorist-related activity, it is possible to secure a further TPIM. The Security Service and police robustly enforce the TPIM regime and manage subjects in the community, and I have every confidence in their ability to do so.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

7. What assessment she has made of the ability of the public to access front-line police services through the provision of local police stations in London boroughs.

CCTV and Surveillance Camera Technology

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

My hon. Friend the Minister for Criminal Information, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has today made the following written ministerial statement:

The Government favour the use of CCTV and automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) systems as a crime fighting and public protection tool. They support the use of overt surveillance in a public place when it is in pursuit of a legitimate aim; necessary to meet a pressing need; and proportionate, effective, and compliant with any relevant legal obligations.

Like the public, the Government expect that where CCTV is deployed it is as effective as it can be in meeting its stated purpose and has appropriate privacy safeguards.

The public must, however, have confidence that such surveillance is appropriate and proportionate, and that those who operate the camera systems, or use the images and information they capture, demonstrate integrity in so doing and can be held to account.

This is why the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 now requires the Government to put in place a regulatory framework for surveillance camera systems comprising a code of practice and a surveillance camera commissioner. The appointment of Mr Andrew Rennison as surveillance camera commissioner was announced in a written statement on 13 September 2012, Official Report, column 14WS.

On 7 February 2013, I issued a written statement to the House announcing arrangements for a period of statutory consultation in relation to the preparation of the code of practice required under section 29 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for the regulation of surveillance camera systems (the code).

We have now given careful consideration to the 134 submissions made in response to that consultation exercise, and are today publishing the Government response. Our response summarises comments and views expressed about the preparation of the code and about the position of the three non-territorial police forces and the Serious Organised Crime Agency in relation to the code. It also provides detail about further amendments made to the code in the light of consultation and says more about plans for implementation and review of the code once it is brought into force.

The code is being laid before Parliament today, along with the necessary draft affirmative order to bring it into force. Copies will be available in the Printed Paper Office.

This code provides a single source of bespoke guidance and is intended to increase understanding of existing legal obligations in relation to the overt use of surveillance camera systems in public places, and to promote good practice—particularly in encouraging: regular reviews of whether use remains justified; greater transparency, and; the effective use of a system in meeting its stated purpose through working to relevant standards.

The draft code also establishes a framework within which the surveillance camera commissioner can fulfil his statutory functions and publicise how this will be done, while retaining some flexibility to enable him to influence and respond to future developments in surveillance camera technology and practice.

A copy of the Government response to consultation will be placed in the House Library.

Protection of Freedoms Act/National DNA Database

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

My hon Friend the Minister for Criminal Information, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has today made the following written ministerial statement:

There has been significant progress in preparation for the commencement of the DNA and fingerprint provisions in part 1, chapter 1 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. To date, 1,136,000 DNA profiles belonging to innocent individuals have been deleted from the national DNA database. A total of 6,341,000 DNA samples containing sensitive biological material, no longer needed as a DNA profile has been obtained, have been destroyed.

DNA sample destruction is due to be completed by the end of this month, and DNA profile and fingerprint deletion by the end of September. By the time the Act commences in October, only those convicted of a criminal offence will have their DNA and fingerprints retained indefinitely.

The national DNA database (NDNAD) annual report for 2011-12 was today published on the Home Office website: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office/series/dna-database-documents.

A report covering the period 2009-11 is also available from the website.

The figures in these reports show the size of the NDNAD before work began to delete DNA profiles in line with the Protection of Freedoms Act. Following the deletions described above, the NDNAD will now be considerably smaller.

These reports, however, still provide valuable detail on the activities and effectiveness of the NDNAD, and are an important part of the Government’s aim for transparency and public confidence in the use of DNA.

A copy of both of the reports will be placed in the House Library.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

6. What steps she is taking to tackle cybercrime.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

The Government’s approach to tackling online crime is set out in the national cyber-security strategy, which is underpinned by a £650 million programme of new investment over four years. This includes strengthening law enforcement capabilities by establishing the national cybercrime unit, which will lead the national and international response to tackling this issue.

[Simon Wright]

Many security experts report that small and medium-sized businesses are increasingly targeted by cybercriminals, but are not always well equipped to protect themselves. What progress are the Government making to ensure that small businesses get the support they need to pursue new business opportunities online with confidence?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about awareness and ensuring that we equip the public and business with the best advice and guidance on how to protect themselves from the threat from online criminals, which we do through Get Safe Online. We are focused equally on small businesses, however, which is the point he makes directly, and this spring the Government are looking to update the advice and guidance to business, focusing on those small businesses.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Cybercrime is not just about fraud; it is also about online bullying, which can devastate people’s lives and constitute a criminal offence. How confident is the Minister that local police forces have the expertise and the resources to deal with complaints about such crime?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the expertise within police forces. We are establishing the national cybercrime unit, not simply to deal with the most sophisticated, high-end internet crimes, but to be a centre of expertise and to make that expertise available to police forces up and down the country. That will put in place a more end-to-end approach in dealing with these forms of criminality, which cause so much harm.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

7. What assessment she has made of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

11. What steps she is taking to increase the use of CCTV in communities where it is wanted.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

The Government support the effective use of CCTV to cut crime and protect the public. It is for local agencies to determine how best to deploy and use CCTV systems to meet local needs. Our surveillance camera code of practice will help them to do so.

[Barbara Keeley]

The context in Greater Manchester is that we have lost 825 police officers from the front line since 2010. In fact, Salford is now losing 27 police officers and nine police and community support officers to other parts of Greater Manchester. Given that context of losing such a lot of the visible police presence that reassures the public, why does this Minister and other Ministers also want to make it harder, which it will be, for the police and local authorities to get CCTV?

[James Brokenshire]

One point on which the hon. Lady might like to reflect is the fact that crime in Greater Manchester is down by 11%. We are not seeking to make it harder to get CCTV. The hon. Lady may shake her head, but we are not. We are supporting local communities in their approach. The fact is that, yes, CCTV can help to make a difference, but it also needs to command the support of the public. That is precisely what the code of practice seeks to assure.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Since the last election, one in five councils has cut the number of CCTV cameras on the streets. Why is that?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady has clearly not reflected on the answer that I have just given. Ultimately, it is for local communities to decide what works best in their area. She quotes a figure, but no evidence of widespread reductions in town centre CCTV systems has been brought to our attention. Our code of practice is simply about supporting local communities. We believe in the use of CCTV. The problem under the last Government was that they spent hundreds of millions of pounds without working out whether the CCTV systems actually made any difference to cutting crime. That is our focus; that is what we will support local authorities to do.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

13. What assessment she has made of the number of student visitor visas issued in the last year for which figures are available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

16. How many local authorities have imposed a late levy on licensed premises to date; and how much income has been raised for policing as a result.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

The late-night levy was introduced in October last year. Since then a number of councils have been actively considering how a levy could benefit their area. The first formal public consultation to introduce a levy began in Newcastle last month.

[Lyn Brown]

I take that answer as being “absolutely none”. The Home Office told us that 94 of the 100 licensing authorities would impose the late-night levy, which would raise £10 million for police forces in its first year. Six months in, not a single pound has been raised. Is this not another illustration of the Government’s collapsing alcohol policy, and where is the Minister going to get the money from to police our night-time economy?

[James Brokenshire]

I find it quite interesting that the hon. Lady makes her point in the way she does, given that the last Labour Government promised that we would have a café culture, but instead we had 1 million violent crimes linked to alcohol. A number of councils are taking forward this policy, and we see this as a local issue: it should be for councils, with their police and crime commissioners, to decide if it works for them. That is precisely what we are doing, and I am surprised that the hon. Lady does not support local action to deal with the problems her constituents would like to see addressed.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

21. We hear about tough new licensing laws, yet no action is taken on tackling the problem of cheap booze, often consumed at home before going out. The Government’s alcohol strategy is obviously in disarray. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have finally abandoned their plan to implement a minimum price for alcohol?

[James Brokenshire]

The Government have already taken a number of important steps to reform the licensing laws and strengthen the powers available to local communities to deal with the problem of alcohol-related crime. The Government have consulted on the important issues of pricing and low-cost alcohol. We are reflecting on the representations that have been received and we will respond to the House in due course.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

18. What assessment she has made of the capabilities of the police to record, investigate and detect rapes and serious sexual assaults.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

T7. The breach rate for antisocial behaviour orders is running at 57.3%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to change the law on antisocial behaviour so that we punish the perpetrators and empower local communities, and through that, cut antisocial behaviour and crime?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the effectiveness of measures to deal with the antisocial behaviour that blights so many of our communities. A lot of measures are slow, bureaucratic and quite expensive; therefore the Government have published a draft Bill to reform antisocial behaviour measures, to support communities. We thank the Select Committee on Home Affairs for the pre-legislative scrutiny applied to the draft Bill and we shall respond to the Committee’s recommendations in due course.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Has the Home Secretary found it at all embarrassing to be the centre of so much speculation about going for the top job in politics?

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

T8. I will make an effort to ask a better question than the last one. Ministers will be aware that alcohol-fuelled crime and antisocial behaviour have damaging consequences in seaside resorts such as Blackpool. Given that we are not proceeding with minimum unit pricing for alcohol, what additional measures, not in the Government alcohol strategy, will they now consider to tackle this social scourge?

[James Brokenshire]

The Government have already strengthened powers for local authorities in Blackpool and elsewhere; for example, to introduce early-morning restriction orders to control the hours when licensed outlets are able to trade. Indeed, we have given councils extra flexibility to act. As I have already indicated, the Government are reflecting on the representations made on the pricing of alcohol and we will come back to the House with our confirmed position in due course.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Earlier, the Minister spoke of the Government’s commitment to tackling cybercrime, yet that commitment does not seem to include either defining or measuring what cybercrime is, so could the Minister say whether individuals and small businesses are encouraged to report all cybercrime to the police?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that the hon. Lady has examined the issue over a number of years and I recognise her direct interest. I underline that the Government have acted on national cyber-security by virtue of additional funding, the creation of the national cybercrime unit and the establishment of Action Fraud as the direct means for reporting online cybercrime. I absolutely encourage the public and small businesses to ensure that those crimes are properly reported so that we can provide the most effective advice to prevent crime and bring those responsible to justice.

Terrorism Suspects (Police Detention)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I am today commencing subsections 4 to 8 of section 117 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which provides for important enhanced safeguards for terrorist suspects in police detention. This implements a recommendation of the Government’s “Review of Counter-terrorism and Security Powers”, published in January 2011.

Independent Custody Visiting (ICV) is the well established system whereby volunteers may make unannounced visits to police stations to check on the treatment of detainees and the conditions in which they are held to ensure that their rights and entitlements are being observed. Section 117 amends section 51 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which places a statutory obligation on Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales to have an effective Independent Custody Visiting scheme in their force area, by requiring PCCs to ensure equivalent arrangements are in place for any visit made to an individual held under terrorism powers. Independent Custody Visitors will also be required to prepare and submit a copy of the report of their visit to the relevant PCC and the Independent Reviewer Of Terrorism Legislation, currently David Anderson QC.

I have also today laid the revised Independent Custody Visitor code of practice, under section 51 of the Police Reform Act 2002. The revised code has been updated to reflect the new arrangements and requirements for ICVs visiting suspected terrorist detainees; to reflect recent changes to police accountability mechanisms, in particular the transfer of responsibility to provide ICV schemes to PCCs; and to take account of legislative changes since the code was last revised in early 2010. The revised code also benefited from a public consultation, which closed on 28 January. The revised code is available from the Vote Office and a copy of the summary of consultation responses will be placed in the House Library.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Baker]

Not for the first time I have made common cause with a well-known Member from the left of the Labour party, and I am grateful that on this occasion I have done that for the first time with the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). I was also grateful for the support from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), who brings to bear his experience from the Wright Committee.

Some of the arguments against these elections have been somewhat ingenious, and I shall treasure Hansard tomorrow when I look at the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who I think brilliantly set out the advantages of appointment over democracy. I shall look at that with some joy. We have all understood what the Bill provides; it certainly takes us forward although, as I have said, I would prefer the Chair to be elected in the way that I outlined. I am glad we have held this debate and aired the issue.

The Opposition have said that this provision puts the cart before the horse, but they did acknowledge the context, which is crucial. We have seen encroachments on the principles of liberty and justice, which many of us thought we were sworn to defend. However, in the view of this Government, and the previous Government, such measures have proven necessary to protect the public, and we are where we are. With that in mind, and having listened to both Front-Bench speakers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament

[James Brokenshire]

I beg to move amendment 56, in schedule 1, page 16, line 31, leave out ‘(6)’ and insert ‘(5)’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 57

Amendment 75, page 17, line 38, leave out from ‘ISC’ to end of line 43.

Amendment 73, page 18, line 34, leave out from ‘private’ to end of line 3 on page 19 and insert ‘from a person subject to the Official Secrets Act 1989.

‘(2) The ISC may only publish or disclose the information—

(a) by way of a report under section 3,

(b) if the ISC and the Prime Minister are satisfied that publication or disclosure would not be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Government Communications Headquarters or any person carrying out activities falling within section 2(2), or

(c) if publication or disclosure is necessary for the ISC to comply with any enactment or rule of law.’.

Government amendments 59 and 60

Amendment 76, page 19, leave out from line 4 to end of line 7 and add—

‘Protection for proceedings of the ISC

6 No part of the proceedings of the ISC, including evidence given to the ISC may be used in any civil, criminal or disciplinary proceedings, except in the case of evidence given in bad faith.’.

Government amendments 61, 62 and 55

Amendment 71, in clause 2, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

‘(4A) Subsections (3) and (4) do not apply where a plausible claim has been made by or on behalf of an individual to the ISC that the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or the Government Communications Headquarters has disseminated any information to any recipient concerning any person that appears to be—

(a) materially false; and

(b) harmful to the person defamed.

(4B) In any case where subsection (4A) applies, the ISC shall fully and expeditiously investigate the claim and, where the claim appears to be well founded, shall ensure that the misinformation is expeditiously corrected.’.

Amendment 74, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

‘(4A) The ISC shall consider the proposed appointment of the following, including by questioning the prospective appointee at a meeting of the ISC—

(a) the Head of the Security Service;

(b) the Head of the Secret Intelligence Service;

(c) the Head of the Government Communications Headquarters; and

(d) such other persons as the Prime Minister may direct.

(4B) The ISC may consider the appropriateness of holding hearings considering each prospective appointee’s proposed appointment in public.’.

Government amendments 63 and 64.

[James Brokenshire]

After that interesting debate about the basis for the important reforms that are taking place to strengthen the scrutiny, and perhaps some of the principles behind measures in the Bill relating to the parliamentary ISC, we will now consider a number of amendments that touch on procedural matters relating to the functions and operation of the ISC. I apologise to the House in advance that I will touch on a range of different points. I know that a number of other amendments have been grouped for this debate, so I will touch briefly on those and then reflect on points made in the debate. If time allows, I hope to respond to any further points that may arise.

Amendments 56 and 57 were originally tabled on Report in the other place and Lord Taylor highlighted that one possible consequence of the change in the Bill to refer to the Intelligence and Security Committee “of Parliament” could be that the ISC would have the power to take evidence on oath. However, further analysis concluded that the consequence of changing the ISC to a statutory Committee of Parliament would be that the ISC may, in future, take evidence on oath. Our view was that, when taken together, the Parliamentary Witnesses Oaths Act 1871, which concerns the power of Committees of the House of Commons to administer oaths, and its Lords equivalent, the Parliamentary Witnesses Act 1858, would give the ISC the authority to administer oaths.

However, the House services raised a concern with the Government about that provision and disagreed with our analysis that the change to “of Parliament” would give the ISC the authority to take evidence on oath. They believe that the Bill should contain an express power for the ISC to take such evidence. Following further discussions in response to that point, and with the intent of putting this issue beyond doubt, we have decided to address the concern of the parliamentary authorities by tabling amendment 57, which puts the ISC’s power to take evidence on oath beyond doubt.

The amendment makes it unnecessary to specify in the Bill who has the power to administer oaths on behalf of the ISC, as there is no longer any need to displace the provision in the relevant statutory authorities. Amendment 56 makes procedure in relation to the ISC hearing evidence on oath a matter for the ISC to determine, pursuant to paragraph 2(1) of schedule 1.

An amendment was agreed in Committee that places restrictions on the ISC’s ability to publish material that it receives in connection with the exercise of its functions, other than through its reports. We had a useful debate in Committee, which highlighted some of the issues and challenges and recognised the need for safeguards to ensure that sensitive material was not inadvertently disclosed, as well as the need for the ISC to be able to fulfil its duties.

The amendment addresses a consequence of the ISC being a statutory Committee of Parliament. In that context, the ISC will have a general power to publish information, which will sit alongside its express power to publish reports to Parliament. Absent the restriction, which is now contained in paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the Bill, under that general power the ISC would have been able to publish evidence it has received other than through its reports to Parliament. Following concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), I was able to provide assurance that it was not the Government’s intention that the amendment would inhibit or limit some of the existing practices of the ISC, and made a commitment to look at the language to see whether there was any way of giving further assurance. I have considered that matter and, as a consequence, we have tabled amendment 60.

Amendment 60 would provide a further gateway allowing publication or disclosure where the Prime Minister and the ISC agree that this would not cause prejudice to the functions of the agencies or other Government security and intelligence bodies. This is the same criterion that is used in clause 3(4) of the Bill which allows the Prime Minister, after consultation with the ISC, to require that the ISC must exclude a matter from any report to Parliament.

The consequence of amendment 60 would therefore be that the ISC would be able to publish informally—for example, in an open letter—any information which, ultimately, it would be permitted to include in its reports to Parliament. As I have said, the criteria are exactly the same. I recognise the concern to ensure that the existing arrangements for the ISC and the steps that it takes are maintained, and that is in part reflected in amendment 73, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) with the support—I believe—of the existing members of the ISC. While I am sympathetic to the intentions, and have had several discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend to work out some suitable language to address the issues, our view of amendment 73 is that it would have some unintended consequences. In its current form, the amendment would widen the net in a way that I suspect the ISC had not anticipated.

I shall return to the principle after I have gone through some of the technical issues that have been identified. The amendment refers to information received by the ISC

“from a person subject to the Official Secrets Act 1989.”

While I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, that phrase suggests that the prohibition should apply to any person inside or outside Government who had ever known, or been in a position to know, any classified information. Unfortunately, the effect of the amendment would be slightly different. The Official Secrets Act 1989 contains prohibitions of general application, most notably in section 5, and it extends to the whole UK. It even apparently covers some acts done outside the UK by British citizens or Crown servants. It would therefore cover information beyond the purview and structure anticipated. It would cover all information supplied by a person who has, at any time, been in a position to have access to classified information. Information supplied to the ISC by such a person will be covered by the prohibition whether or not it is in fact classified information, and whether or not it even came to that person in connection with the role in which they had or could have had access to classified information.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I accept the validity of what my hon. Friend says, but the problem is that in that formulation the ISC was trying to do away with a similar problem with the Government’s wording, which suggests that all information that the ISC receives in private is subject to these restrictions. The whole point of what we are trying to say is that it should apply only to classified or sensitive information that we receive in private. Other information that we receive in private, such as from victims of the 7/7 bombing, should not be restricted in that way. Even though my hon. Friend makes a valid point against the wording that we have offered, the same point still applies to the Government’s wording.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend, in his customary way, has highlighted the genuine challenges that both the Government and ISC members have had in seeking to frame legislation, which can be a challenging mechanism within which to express matters effectively. He rightly points out the evidence given by the families of the victims of 7/7 and those who were sadly caught up in that terrible event. There have also been discussions of the evidence taken from communication service providers during the ISC’s recent inquiry into communications data, including whether the information provided was sensitive. It is a challenge at times to analyse evidence from third parties to decide whether evidence is sensitive and thus not suitable for disclosure. Sometimes that is clear, but sometimes it is not.

[Hazel Blears]

I am following the Minister’s argument closely, and I acknowledge that it is difficult to get the right legislative framework for this area. I wish to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) that part of the change we are seeking to achieve is to make the Committee more independent. The consequence of the provision that all information in private will be covered means that the decisions can be made by the Government rather than the Committee. We must have a clear delineation of information that belongs to the Committee, which can then decide what to do with that information. No matter how hard this is, I hope that the Minister will be creative and ingenious enough to provide clarity. Such information is not the Government’s information: it is for the Committee to decide.

[James Brokenshire]

I hear the point that the right hon. Lady makes. The intent of the changes in the Bill is to underline the greater scrutiny and the import of the ISC as a Committee of Parliament in fulfilling its work, and therefore ensuring that it has an appropriate mechanism for the publication of information relating to its deliberations. As we have already discussed, sometimes there are challenges on evidence given, perhaps in private, and we had some useful debates in Committee on public hearings. We hope that we will be able to work with the newly formed ISC to have public evidence hearings for some evidence that has previously always been held in private. I acknowledge that most evidence would probably still continue to be heard in private because of the very nature of the materials provided, but we want to look at ways to make hearings more public to show the important scrutiny that is provided by the ISC, and thus to enhance visibility, transparency and confidence in the scrutiny role.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

Perhaps I might endorse the Minister’s enthusiasm for the public hearings, which would constitute a complete departure from what has previously been the case and provide an interesting opportunity for that greater degree of public interest and public understanding. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) has had to leave because of another commitment, but it is my understanding that he has been in informal discussions with the Minister about the issues raised by amendment 73. Am I right in understanding that it is possible for those discussions to continue and that consideration may be given in another place to an amendment that would satisfy both the Government and the Committee?

[James Brokenshire]

Informal discussions have taken place to work through the detailed and technical issues that need proper consideration and ensure we strike the right balance. I welcome that dialogue. Before I return to the substance of my right hon. and learned Friend’s point and respond formally, I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field).

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I hope the Minister will recognise that the concern expressed by all of us as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee is that the terms of the Bill are far too broad. If the Government remain unwilling to go along with amendment 73, will he give some consideration to these issues being dealt with in detail in the memorandum of understanding? It may be that some of the technical difficulties to which he referred would be more appropriately dealt with in that forum.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. There is scope to deal with this further in the memorandum of understanding. I reiterate that it is not the Government’s intention to try and stop the ISC from continuing to do things in the way that it does at the moment as a consequence of the changes contemplated in the Bill, and I am content to reflect on providing further clarity in the memorandum of understanding to address some of those technical points. We have a framework in the legislation. While we may have found it challenging to get the precise legal wording right for an amendment because of those technical areas, I am willing to reflect on how we can seek to encapsulate the existing arrangements, under which the ISC conducts its affairs, in the memorandum of understanding.

These exchanges highlight some of the difficulties in putting changes in the Bill in a rigid way. In some ways, because of the nature of the evidence, they probably lend themselves to being addressed more effectively in the memorandum of understanding. If it will help the House, I am happy to give that commitment on how we may best address those challenges in greater detail in the memorandum of understanding. I hope right hon. and hon. Members will accept the spirit in which that commitment is given.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

In the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, may I say how grateful the Committee is for the attitude displayed by the Minister? We await the resolution with interest. We have a common intention; it is just a question of making sure we frame it in a way that satisfies all other criteria.

[James Brokenshire]

I understand. I look forward to continuing informal discussions, and hope that agreement on the memorandum of understanding on the operations of the ISC in Parliament will be resolved quickly.

Government amendment 59 is a technical, clarificatory amendment that makes clear how paragraph 5(2) of schedule 1 will operate. The insertion of the word “otherwise” puts beyond doubt certain technical issues that have been highlighted, so I will not take up the House’s time and go through it in detail.

On Government amendments 61, 62 and amendment 76, in Committee, a Government amendment was agreed to provide protection to witnesses before the ISC. It will prevent evidence given by a witness before the ISC from being used against them in any criminal, civil or disciplinary proceedings, unless it was given in bad faith. The provision, now in paragraph 6 of schedule 1, replicates an important part of the protection that witnesses before a Select Committee would have, by virtue of a Select Committee’s proceedings being subject to parliamentary privilege. In doing so, that will encourage witnesses appearing before the ISC to be full and frank in the evidence that they provide. It is perhaps worth stressing that witnesses before the ISC currently enjoy no special protections with regard to the subsequent use of their evidence.

The amendment made in Committee was therefore an important change to ensure that the ISC is able to perform its oversight function even more effectively, because the fuller and more candid the evidence the ISC receives, the more effective it is likely to be in supervising the security and intelligence community. During the debate in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) questioned whether the protection went far enough. In response, I made a commitment to reflect carefully on the points that were made. I have considered whether further protection could be given to witnesses’ evidence, preventing its disclosure for the purposes of any legal proceedings; in other words, not merely legal proceedings where the evidence would be used against the particular witness. I am happy to confirm to the House that, while we concluded that such a protection would be problematic in terms of compatibility with the European convention on human rights in relation to criminal proceedings, we are satisfied that it will be compatible for civil and disciplinary proceedings.

Government amendment 61 therefore introduces a statutory protection for evidence given by witnesses to the ISC, preventing its disclosure for the purposes of any civil or disciplinary proceedings. That protection applies not merely to civil and disciplinary proceedings where the evidence would be used against the particular witness, but to all such proceedings. As a result, the existing prohibition on the use of evidence against the witness needs only to deal with use of evidence in criminal proceedings, since the wider protection given by the provision introduced by Government amendment 61 will cover use of evidence against a witness in civil or disciplinary proceedings. Government amendment 62 makes the necessary consequential changes.

As amended, paragraph 6 of schedule 1 will therefore provide a statutory protection for evidence given by witnesses to the ISC, preventing its disclosure for the purposes of any civil or disciplinary proceedings. In addition, evidence given by a witness before the ISC will not be able to be used against that witness in criminal proceedings. Of course, evidence that is deliberately misleading is of no assistance to the ISC. Accordingly, the protections do not apply to evidence given in bad faith. It is important to explain the context in which the drafting has been framed.

It may be that others will argue that this further protection, while welcome, does not go far enough. Indeed, I note that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has tabled an amendment that would extend the protection even further, and no doubt the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North will wish to speak to that. All I will say at this stage—obviously, I will listen to what the hon. Lady says in her speech—is that we believe there is a significant issue of compatibility with the European convention on human rights. For example, it is possible that criminal proceedings against an individual could hinge on the testimony of a particular witness who has given inconsistent evidence to the ISC about broadly the same matters. If approved, this protection in the proposed amendment would prevent the inconsistent evidence given before the ISC from being used by the defence in the criminal proceedings to discredit the witness.

That would lead to obvious unfairness for the defendant in criminal proceedings. We do not believe that our preferred protection on this issue runs into that problem, because of the nature of its framing and the protections against self-incrimination. The ECHR has recognised that the privilege against self-incrimination lies at the heart of the notion of a fair trial. By providing the accused with protection against improper compulsion by the authorities and thereby avoiding miscarriages of justice, the existing protection secures the aims of article 6, whereas we judge that amendment 76 would run into challenges and issues in that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Does the Minister agree that this is a similar dilemma to the one we faced on the question of publicity? The Opposition’s amendment might go too far, but we on the Committee feel that what the Government propose does too little. It protects witnesses against their evidence being used against them, but falls short—as the Minister seems to be conceding—of the protection the Committee would have if it were a Select Committee. Will he undertake to come back with something else at a later stage—perhaps in the other place—that would be a better compromise between those two positions?

[James Brokenshire]

I fully respect what my hon. Friend has said. We have given careful consideration, at length, to the statutory protections afforded to the ISC through this Bill. He will remember the debates we had in Committee about issues under the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act, along with a number of other statutory provisions, which we believed needed to be addressed to afford the ISC a number of additional protections. Although I very much hear what he says, the Government believe that we have taken this as far as we can through our amendments—and within the remit of article 6 of the ECHR, for example—to afford those protections and frame the provisions. I note the concern he has raised; all I would say is that the Government have taken some additional steps—on things that the existing Committee does not currently have—in how the Bill is framed to move the Committee as close as we can, within the framework of law, to provide the relevant protections.

As members of the ISC who are here today will recognise, consideration was given to how one might approach the issue of parliamentary privilege. Indeed, there was a lengthy debate in the other place on that issue. There is a broad recognition that trying to define parliamentary privilege in statute would open a whole new array of issues. Indeed, I do not think this House would welcome an attempt to frame the privileges that reside in this place by way of an Act of Parliament, which might be subject to further litigation and challenge, which not only might have an effect simply on the ISC but could have a limiting effect on parliamentary privilege for broader issues in this House. When considering this issue, everyone involved in the examination of the Bill thought that that would be a very unfortunate step to take. Therefore, the Government have thereafter sought to approach the issue by framing matters within existing legislative frameworks.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I just want to advise the Minister—who might not need advising—and the House that there is a Joint Committee of both Houses wrestling with precisely the problem he has just outlined, and it would not have made a great deal of sense for this Bill to proceed in a way that pre-empted any conclusions reached by the Committee.

[James Brokenshire]

I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman; hence the reason the Government have taken the approach they have.

Let me turn briefly to amendment 55, which concerns the ISC’s ability to oversee operational matters. With the amendments, the Bill now provides for three routes by which the ISC may consider particular operational matters. The first is where the Prime Minister and the ISC are agreed that the matter is of significant national interest and not part of any ongoing intelligence and security operations. The second route is where the Government request the ISC to consider a matter notwithstanding the fact that those criteria are not met. The third is where the ISC’s consideration of an operational matter is limited to considering information provided to it voluntarily by the agencies or another Department.

That additional route was provided to meet a further concern of the ISC—that the requirement that both the ISC and the Prime Minister should be satisfied that the criteria for oversight of operational matters had been met risked slowing the provision of information to the ISC on routine operational matters. Obviously that already happens now; the concern was that not framing the third limb might hinder it. We therefore made an amendment in Committee to address that third point. The key issue is that, as has been highlighted, for the first two categories there is the ability to require further information to be given, whereas for the third limb—because, in essence, information is provided without being compelled—those further requirements did not operate. That is why the structure has been framed in this way.

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East expressed some concern about the term “voluntarily”. I think his point was that this was in some way a presentational issue—that we understood what we were talking about when it came to information that would ordinarily be provided to the Committee. We have reflected on that point; hence the reason for a further amendment to try to clarify rights of access.

[Hazel Blears]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explicit recognition of the fact that the Committee has had access to operational information for some considerable time, despite the fact that no such provision is in the current legislation. The Committee remains concerned about the use of the word “voluntarily”, and I had hoped that the Government would withdraw it from the Bill. It goes against the whole spirit of the direction in which we are moving, from the right to request information to the right to require it. That is a small change on the face of it, but it is actually a big, transformational step. I do not think that the word “voluntarily” is necessary in the Bill; it is superfluous and its retention goes against the direction of travel, in that the agencies will voluntarily be able to decide whether to provide information. That is not the relationship that we currently have with the agencies, let alone the one that we want for the future. I ask the Minister to think again. Why does he want the word “voluntarily” in there when we acknowledge that for the issues in question, this is a matter of requesting information just as we do now?

[James Brokenshire]

As the right hon. Lady says, the Committee already receives information on ongoing operational matters, and that would fall short of the requirements in the first two limbs that I have described. She will have seen the Government’s amendment that seeks to reflect the existing work that takes place and the information that is provided. As always with legislation, this is a question of the wording and the way in which matters are interpreted by lawyers, as well as by Members of Parliament. The provision is in no way intended to cut across the Committee’s existing work or the existing flow of information when a request for further clarification has been made. It is intended to provide a distinction between the first two limbs, which will contain an element of further requirement, and the third limb, in which information will be provided because it has been requested rather than required, and in which further investigations will be limited to using the information that has been so provided.

[Mr George Howarth]

I am following the Minister’s argument closely. It would be helpful if he told us how he envisages a situation being resolved where an agency decides voluntarily not to provide information that the Committee feels is important. There might be a mechanism for doing that but, off the top of my head, I am not sure what it is.

[James Brokenshire]

This relates to operational matters and inquiries by the Committee. We have had discussions about the exploration of operational matters—this is a new aspect of the Committee’s work, as the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge—and about how to frame that. Detailed consideration has been given to the specific matters that an inquiry may cover, and that is supplemented by the memorandum of understanding in respect of the first two limbs. Clause 2(3)(c) is intended to cover the ordinary information that is being provided. I think it was accepted in Committee that that paragraph dealt with the concerns of the ISC about ordinary matters that would be provided in that course. It states that

“the ISC’s consideration of the matter is limited to the consideration of information provided voluntarily to the ISC by”

the agencies, following those kinds of inquiries. These are issues that have customarily been dealt with by the Committee in its ordinary course. A relationship is established between the Committee and the agencies, and information is provided in that ordinary course, and we have sought to reflect the current practice.

[Mark Field]

The Minister will have gathered from the contributions from the right hon. Members for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) that the Committee currently goes well beyond the constraints of the original legislation. Does he recognise that the use of the word “voluntarily” will give rise to concern outside this place that the Committee remains the poodle of the Executive or, to a certain extent, of the security services? He is right to suggest that it will make relatively little difference to general day-to-day operations, but one of the ideas behind the Bill was to make it crystal clear that we are not a poodle of the Executive or the Prime Minister of the day, and that we are not under the control of the security services. The whole idea of this is that we should be in a position to demand, and ensure that we get, material, rather than being at anyone else’s beck and call.

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely agree and direct my hon. Friend to the provisions in schedule 1, particularly the part on access to information, which sets out clearly the rights of the ISC to obtain further information. That clear reform has been taken forward through the Bill. I would certainly endorse and underline my hon. Friend’s point. The ISC has not been a poodle in any sense in its existing format and that position would be strengthened even further under the Bill. The ultimate purpose of the reforms it contains is to ensure that scrutiny is enhanced further—for the very important reasons we have discussed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hazel Blears]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady, but then, because of time considerations, I should let other right hon. and hon. Members contribute.

[Paul Murphy]

I am grateful. Does the Minister not accept that the word “voluntarily” goes against the spirit of the Bill and the spirit of the memorandum? Perhaps he should reflect a bit further on it.

[James Brokenshire]

I take note of that point, but let me take the right hon. Lady’s intervention before I respond. She is likely to make a similar point, so I might as well take the two together.

[Hazel Blears]

The Minister is likely to face a unanimous view on this issue—certainly from members of the Committee. The use of the word “voluntarily” creates entirely the wrong impression of the direction of the Bill. It is superfluous; the Government do not need “voluntarily”. In the past, the ISC has sometimes received partial information from the security services that has affected the Committee’s decision-making. Voluntarily means “you can if you like; and if you don’t want to, you don’t have to”. Use of that word in the Bill is superfluous to requirements and sends out entirely the wrong message.

[James Brokenshire]

In their contributions this afternoon, members of the ISC have clearly underlined the robust scrutiny that is provided. These provisions relate only to operational matters—the new element added to the overall purview of the ISC that will result from the Bill. I have already highlighted the importance of clause 2(3)(a) and (b) for the two limbs, which covers the ability to require the provision of further information. If other more general inquiries take place, the provisions for the third limb are intended to denote the fact that the request to the agencies would not fall under the first two elements of the three limbs. It is a separate category.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I am conscious of how long I have already spoken for, but I will give way one last time.

[Paul Goggins]

The Minister has been generous and is providing an excellent defence of his position, but he does not need to be defensive because we know he is not being obstructive and is genuinely trying to find a way forward. He really should consider carefully, however, taking out the word “voluntarily” and then setting out his concerns in the memorandum of understanding. It is quite clear that it could be done in that way, so I urge him to consider doing it.

[James Brokenshire]

I hear the clear statements, but I have sought to respond in an equally clear fashion on why we judge that the need for that word still remains. Right hon. and hon. Members have argued loudly and clearly across the House in what I believe has been a good public demonstration of the clear and robust challenge that the ISC provides to Ministers and to members of the security agencies. I welcome the exchange we have had to underline the clear and focused challenge that will no doubt be given and enhanced as a result of the provisions.

I note that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has tabled amendment 71. Rather than delay her presentation further, I will if I may respond to the points she raises in my summing up, although I have already taken up a great deal of the House’s time. With those comments, I support Government amendment 56.

[Diana Johnson]

I want to discuss amendment 75, which deals with the Osmotherly rules, amendment 76, which deals with the protection of ISC proceedings, and amendment 74, which deals with pre-appointment hearings.

Amendment 75, tabled by me and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), would remove the Government’s ability to refuse to disclose information to the ISC when it is information “not proper” to be disclosed to a Select Committee under the Osmotherly rules. The Bill currently allows a Minister to withhold information if

“it is information of such a nature that, if the Secretary of State were requested to produce it before a Departmental Select Committee of the House of Commons, the Secretary of State would consider (on grounds which were not limited to national security) it proper not to do so.”

What Ministers are able to disclose to Select Committees is governed by those famous Osmotherly rules, which we discussed in Committee. There are three reasons for withholding information: disproportionate cost, the fact that the information is sub judice, and the fact that it relates to a previous Administration. Our amendment would rule out the use of the Osmotherly rules altogether, although we would be happy for an agreement on cost to be included in the memorandum of understanding, which would achieve the same result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

I want to consider briefly the restrictive wording of parts of clause 2 and the voluntary issue that has been raised by a number of Members.

I served on the Intelligence and Security Committee for about 11 years from its very beginning. It was a slow and painful task to get the first generation of heads of agencies and civil servants from Departments to understand the Committee’s need for a deep understanding of the relevant matters in order for us to do our job effectively. Subsequent generations of heads of agencies were ready to involve the Committee more closely and to bring up operational matters, whatever the statute said. It did not take me long to realise that it was not possible for members of the Committee to do their job properly unless they understood how various kinds of operations were conducted and the constraints and problems faced by the agencies. In particular, it was not possible to discharge an important responsibility without an understanding of operational matters.

One of the purposes of the ISC, where Members of both Houses of Parliament look closely at the work of agencies, is to give people on the outside—both in this place and in the community at large—a sense that Members who are there by democratic means are observing the agencies sufficiently closely to give confidence that their work is within the framework not only of the law, but of the ethics and principles by which we try to run our country. The background is that agencies were often accused of doing precisely the opposite in years gone by. Unless we can give people that confidence and say, “Yes, I have looked very closely at this matter and I do not think you need to be concerned about it,” the Committee will not be discharging properly one of its most important roles. We found that we had to look very closely at operational matters and that became easier as time went on.

The work sometimes involves what are, in effect, ongoing intelligence operations. In some fields, the work never stops and an operation to do with a particular recurrent problem does not have a simple end, so the provision in clause 2(3)(a)(i) is restrictive.

I fully understand how the Government have arrived at the word “voluntarily”. It would have been absurd if the wording had prevented the Committee from continuing to work closely with the agencies in the way it has done in recent years. That would have been ridiculous, so the word is there for a perfectly respectable reason. Indeed, things have been improved by the insistence that, if the Committee requests something, that does not by definition make it involuntary. However, I still think, as the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, that that is not the kind of language we want to see in the Bill. Nor does it give people outside the confidence that this Committee will be able to find out whether something is going wrong when it needs to do so, or that it can be relied on when it seeks to give assurance that all is reasonably well.

The task of getting this right is by no means over. The memorandum of understanding may be able to deal with those issues better, but, even then, words are being put on paper and when that happens, as we have discovered, simple, practical and sensible ways of doing things may appear to be precluded. Moreover, when there is friction or tension, it becomes easier for the head of an agency or, at least as often—indeed, perhaps more often—a Minister or civil servant to say, “This goes beyond the memorandum of understanding. It is outwith the terms of the statute.” We have heard such language and the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who is a previous Chairman of the Committee, will remember how rigid some people in the relevant Departments could be from time to time.

Ministers need to make it clear, as they have done to some extent in these discussions, that it is in the interests of the democratic accountability of these extremely important and valuable agencies that the public have confidence, not only in the agencies, but in that process of democratic accountability, circumscribed as it is by the need to protect the work of those agencies.

[James Brokenshire]

This has been a useful debate underlining the importance the House attaches to the scrutiny provided by the ISC and how it is being enhanced by the steps contemplated as a consequence of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), the Chairman of the Justice Committee, made the point about the scrutiny so far seen in the House and how we are seeking to strengthen it further.

I shall respond first to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and her amendment 71. As others have said, the essentially judicial function she seeks does not sit well within the ISC, which is intended to be a Committee of Parliament. It is not for the ISC to consider, much less determine, individual complaints about the intelligence services, especially given that there is already a body that can consider these matters and which we believe is well equipped to do so. Right hon. and hon. Members have highlighted the work of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which is the appropriate route through which complaints should be made.

The hon. Lady referred to the case of Shaker Aamer. I assure her that his case remains a high priority for the UK Government and we continue to make it clear to the US that we want him released and returned to the UK as a matter of priority. We continue to work with US counterparts to consider the implications for Mr Aamer’s case of the 2013 National Defence Authorisation Act. Discussions continue with senior officials within the US Administration. The Foreign Secretary raised Mr Aamer’s case numerous times with former Secretary of State Clinton and will continue to do so with Secretary of State Kerry. As the Foreign Secretary told Parliament last October, he and the Defence Secretary also made representations to the US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta last June.

[Caroline Lucas]

I appreciate the Minister’s rehearsing the Government’s commitment to getting Shaker Aamer back from Guantanamo. I have no doubt about that, but does he understand what the obstacle is? The US says he can come back here and the UK Government say we want him back. What, then, is the obstacle? Does he have any idea?

[James Brokenshire]

I can only say that decisions about the release of Mr Aamer rest entirely with the US Government. I underline that the British Government remain committed to engaging with the US with the aim of securing Mr Aamer’s release and return to the UK as soon as possible. To conclude my remarks on the hon. Lady’s amendment, let me say that we believe there is an appropriate mechanism by which she or others can bring complaints to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

On amendment 74 and pre-appointment hearings, I do not wish to go back over the lengthy debate we had in Committee on this issue. I can only restate several points I made then: pre-appointment hearings are a relatively new phenomenon in the UK; the Cabinet Office has published guidance on the process to be followed for such hearings; and at the moment the list of posts subject to those hearings relates to public bodies, such as the chair of Ofcom or the Social Security Advisory Committee. The pre-appointment process has never been used for the appointment of civil servants. The heads of the intelligence and security agencies are permanent secretary-level civil servants, so the recruitment process is expected to follow the process for the appointment of civil servants of such seniority. We judge that this continues to be the appropriate mechanism.

On the Osmotherly rules, I made the point in Committee that the powers to withhold information from the ISC have been used sparingly and that we expect them to continue to be used only in exceptional circumstances. The Osmotherly rules set out categories of information, including information on officials’ personal views, as distinct from the views of Ministers, on policy options; information that could be supplied only after carrying out substantial research or at excessive cost; information about matters that are sub judice; and the papers of a previous Administration. The provisions in the Bill are necessary to safeguard the long-standing conventions that are reflected in the Osmotherly rules. We judge that the provisions, although they have been used only sparingly, remain appropriate.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I wish to make it clear that the programme motion before the House respects the fact that the Bill’s original programming indicated that there would be two days for Report and remaining stages. That is what we have put before the House today. Indeed, the programme motion seeks to reflect the issues and concerns expressed in Committee by prioritising matters to ensure that all issues that need to be debated are discussed fully. Therefore, for the reasons that have been alluded to, to allow debate to take place and not to lose time, I urge the House to accept the programme motion so that we can move on to the debate at hand, which is about underlining that the Bill will deliver more justice, not less.

Question put and agreed to.