Passports

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[Katy Clark]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passport (a) applications and (b) renewal applications were received by the Passport Office in each (i) month and (ii) year of the last five years.

[Official Report, 30 June 2014, Vol. 583, c. 378W.]

Letter of correction from James Brokenshire:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on 30 June 2014.

The full answer given was as follows:

[James Brokenshire]

The following table provides the requested information.

[James Brokenshire]

The following table provides the requested information.

Her Majesty's Passport Office

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Her Majesty’s Passport Office annual report and accounts 2013-14 has been laid before the House today and copies will be available in the Vote Office. Publication will take place shortly.

Electronic Communications

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Data Retention Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.

The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which passed into law last week, was a necessary response to a European Court of Justice judgment that called into question the legal basis on which we require communications service providers in the UK to retain communications data. The judgment was handed down in April this year, not August as the explanatory memorandum accompanying the regulations incorrectly states—an administrative error for which I apologise to the House.

Communications data—the who, where, when and how of a communication, but not its content—are crucial for fighting crime, protecting children and combating terrorism. Indeed, Members will have seen the recent reporting on the National Crime Agency’s child abuse investigation, which led to more than 600 arrests and the protection of more than 400 children. The NCA has confirmed that much of the operation would have been impossible without access to communications data. Where an investigation starts with an internet communication, as in online child sexual exploitation cases, for example, communications data will often be the only investigative lead. The loss of such data would have been potentially devastating and would have impacted seriously on the ability of the police, law enforcement agencies and security and intelligence agencies to investigate crime, uncover terrorist links, protect children, solve kidnappings and find vulnerable people in danger. I am therefore extremely grateful for the support shown in both Houses for the passage of the Act. I put on the record my thanks to right hon. and hon. Members—and in particular to the Opposition—for the constructive way in which they engaged in the debates.

However, as was made clear last week, secondary legislation is required to cover the detail of the operation of the data retention regime and to ensure that the appropriate processes and safeguards can be applied to the retention of such data. That approach mirrors the existing position, in which the detailed data retention regime is set out in secondary legislation. That has worked well for a number of years. It is to those regulations that our attention must now turn.

Members will be aware that a provisional draft of the regulations was published before the legislation was introduced. The regulations before the House today are substantially the same as those which have been available for scrutiny and examination. I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for considering and reporting on them. I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie), the Chairman of that Committee, for arranging an exceptional meeting to consider the regulations.

Before turning to the content of the regulations, let me deal with the discussion that took place during the passage of the Act about the speed at which the legislation was being passed. Without revisiting those debates today, I will briefly explain why we consider it necessary for the regulations to be passed before the summer recess.

To ensure a strong legal basis for continued retention by service providers, we need to get the regulations in place before the House rises. The regulations ensure that the data to be retained are subject to appropriate safeguards, and the communications service providers concerned will welcome the certainty that the regulations bring.

The Act gives the Secretary of State the power to issue a data retention notice to a communications service provider, if he or she considers the retention to be necessary and proportionate. The regulations made under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 revoke and replace the 2009 data retention regulations. In large part the regulations replicate the obligations placed on providers under the 2009 regulations. In particular, they set out the types of data that can be retained. As was made clear during the debates on the Act, the list goes no further than the existing regulations. Crucially, the regulations set out the nature of the controls that must be placed on the data, both to ensure that they are adequately protected while they are being retained and to ensure that they are appropriately deleted at the end of that period.

The regulations also ensure that service providers are not penalised financially as a result of complying with a notice or the regulations. That is in line with previous practice and is a fair way of ensuring that the data are retained effectively and that there is no distortion of the communications market, given that obligations may be placed selectively. The regulations contain transitional provisions for the continued effectiveness of a notice under the 2009 regulations, until a new notice is given under the new regulations. We will work closely with providers in the coming months as they make the transition to the new regime.

As I highlighted to the House, the regulations contain additional safeguards. They differ from the 2009 regulations only in the context of those additional safeguards. They provide for data to be retained for a maximum of 12 months and allow the notice to specify that different types of data may be retained for shorter periods, where appropriate. If it is not proportionate to retain certain data for a full 12 months, a lower period can be chosen. The 2009 regulations provided for a blanket 12 months, although the directive on which they were based allowed for periods between six and 24 months.

The regulations also provide for a number of issues which must be considered before a retention notice is issued. I wish to assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I take our responsibilities seriously, scrutinising in detail any case for imposing a data retention notice to ensure that it is necessary and proportionate. It is with equal care and attention that we will approach our obligation to keep such notices under review.

The Home Office has always worked closely with communications service providers prior to serving a data retention notice, and the regulations enshrine this existing best practice in law by requiring the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to consult the provider affected. As I have previously explained, the regulations will ensure that the data are subject to appropriate safeguards and controls. Those who followed the scrutiny of the draft Communications Data Bill, including some Members in the House this afternoon, will be aware that there was some uncertainty as to the extent to which the Information Commissioner would oversee the integrity and deletion of retained data, as well as their security. The regulations therefore clarify that the Information Commissioner will oversee all elements of the protection and security of the data. We have discussed this with the commissioner and will provide him with the necessary additional resources to carry out this vital role.

Finally, the regulations amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to enable the creation of a data retention code of practice. That will allow us to provide further guidance to communications service providers on how to implement their obligations under a mandatory data retention notice and the regulations.

The House may wonder why certain other changes that we agreed to make are not given effect in the regulations. Separately, we will also update the data acquisition code of practice under RIPA to make it clearer that the officer authorising access to the data should be independent of the operation, and to ensure that consideration is given to the level of intrusion where there may be concerns relating to professions that handle privileged information. I know that that has been of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The House will have the opportunity in due course to review and comment on both draft codes of practice. In addition, we have announced that a number of public authorities will lose their access to communications data under RIPA and we will bring forward secondary legislation in the autumn in this regard. Hon. Members who followed the discussions about the draft Communications Data Bill will be aware that communications service providers are also able to retain communications data on a voluntary basis under a code of practice made under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The regulations apply the same security safeguards and access restrictions to data retained under that code.

As right hon. and hon. Members know, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act will be repealed on 31 December 2016. Any notices made under the Act and the regulations will similarly fall away. The Government have begun the process of a wider review of investigatory powers and it is right that there should be a full and proper debate on the threats, capabilities and, of course, safeguards that govern the use of such powers. I am sure the House will agree that that should include a wider public debate on the issues.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I am sure the Minister will agree that for that public debate and a review to take place, we need good statistics and information. One of the few things that seems to be missing from the previous regulations and the new ones is a section about statistics. Will he confirm that there will be the same or stronger requirements on public communications providers to keep good statistics on such data and how they are used? How will those will be provided to the Government, who will then publish them?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting this aspect. As he knows, in the debates last week we underlined the need for greater transparency and reporting of information about the use of the powers under the Act. I can assure him that we will take that forward. He will be aware, too, of the requirement on the interception of communications commissioner to report on a six-monthly basis—I know that was of concern—to assure the House and the public about the use of the powers under the new Act. Therefore, I expect that providers of information and communications service providers retaining that information would provide data to facilitate transparency and to ensure that the public are informed about the use of the powers under the Act.

As has been made absolutely clear over the past week, this legislation merely preserves the status quo. The Act passed last week and the regulations before the House today do not extend or create any new powers or obligations on communications companies that go beyond those that already exist; they simply ensure that the communications data that have been retained by the communications service providers will continue to be available to ensure that the police, the law enforcement agencies and the security and intelligence agencies have the capabilities they need to protect the public and keep us safe. I commend the regulations to the House.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I very much support the process that the Government have brought forward today. The Opposition will support the regulations before the House this afternoon. As the Minister has said, they are made under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which we debated last Tuesday, although it seems a long time ago. It was certainly an interesting debate.

The Minister has outlined clearly why the regulations are needed. Last week we supported him in taking the Act through the House, because we recognise, as he does, that retaining records and data is vital in fighting crime, whether tackling serious organised crime, dealing with child abuse or helping to prevent terrorism. We also welcome the safeguards we discussed last week in relation to access to those data. As he explained, the regulations put in place broadly what is already in place, and they therefore have our support.

In offering our support, I wish to raise two issues that the Minister might like to respond to in any winding-up speech he cares to make. First, there was limited consultation on the regulations. As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the 2009 regulations had a 12-week public consultation. Due to the pressing nature of the legislation we passed last week, the regulations before us had nothing that could be called a full consultation. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that the six-monthly review by the Information Commissioner of how the legislation is working will include the regulations so that providers and other individuals have an opportunity to put on the record any concerns they have about their operation and so that those concerns can be examined?

[James Brokenshire]

The interception of communications commissioner is required to make a six-monthly review, and my expectation is that that would certainly cover the use of those powers. We need to consider the interrelationship with the Information Commissioner, because it is a separate regulator that looks at the retention of those data. Obviously, we will consider any interrelationship and any discussions that might need to take place between the two regulators to give an assurance to the public about the use of those data.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. My main point is that the legislation’s sunset clause means that it will cease to have effect in December 2016. The regulations are being made by the House today, but I want to ensure that they are examined on a regular basis, given that there was no proper consultation because the Act had to be rushed through last week.

Secondly—I raised this matter privately with the Minister’s office earlier today—the initial regulations specified 8 August 2014 as the date on which the European Court of Justice declared the data retention direction 2006/24/EC invalid. The date was in fact 8 April. I just want to be clear that the Minister has relayed that matter to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments so that there is no doubt about what we are discussing today and the way it has been framed.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for contacting my office earlier today to highlight that point, to which he will have heard me make specific reference in my opening remarks. A further draft of the explanatory memorandum is certainly in the process of being relayed, if that has not already been done, as he rightly indicated. We are clear that that has no bearing on this afternoon’s debate.

[Mr Hanson]

I just thought that it was worth placing that on the record, as I would not wish there to be any confusion, given the nature of the debate we are having today.

I am happy to support the regulations, given the potential for review and the safeguards we have put in place with regard to the Act. I look forward to formal reviews, as secured by the legislation. Given the assurances the Minister has given today, he will have our support for the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful for the support for the regulations offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). I understand the concerns that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) flagged up last week during our debates on the Act. He has highlighted issues relating to different categories of what I might describe as either protected or special groups of individuals in relation to the powers under RIPA. It would be the intent to obtain data from a communications data provider that would principally be at issue in such a context, and that would appear to fit within the code of practice relating to acquisition and disclosure. We therefore intend to bring forward amendments to that code as part of the arrangements. However, I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has flagged up those issues, and I will perhaps write to him—

[John McDonnell]

Or meet me?

[James Brokenshire]

Equally, I will see whether it is possible to facilitate a meeting with my officials so that they can hear more directly any concerns that might be raised.

I can tell the right hon. Member for Delyn that the interception of communications commissioner will look at the operation of the new legislation, which includes the regulations made under it, as part of his six-monthly review. I hope that that clarifies that point and gives him further assurance.

I also want to make it clear that I stand by the statement in the explanatory memorandum about compliance with the European convention on human rights. That is the purpose behind the Act and the regulations, reflecting the judgment. That is why we have made these changes to secure the legal base—

[John McDonnell]

And the legal opinion?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman asks about the legal advice. He will know that it is not the practice of the Government to share or publish our legal advice, but I stand by the statement that has been made. I welcome the support of the House this afternoon, and the regulations will come into effect.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Data Retention Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.

British Citizenship Applications (War Crimes Screening)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

The Equality (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2013 and the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2013 enable me to subject applications from certain nationalities for British citizenship to more rigorous scrutiny than others for the purposes of determining whether the applicant has committed, been complicit in the commission of, or otherwise been associated with, the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.

The condition for subjecting these applications to more rigorous scrutiny is that the applicant is a national of a state specified on a list approved personally by me for the purpose of the arrangements.

I have now reviewed and approved this list in accordance with our commitment to do so annually. I am satisfied that the conditions set out in the arrangements are met in respect of the countries on the list.

The arrangements will continue to be reviewed on an annual basis and will remain in force until revoked.

Relocation Scheme (Syrians)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) on securing a debate on such an important matter. We have benefited from her direct testimony of visits to refugee camps, in which she explained the conditions and the situation. I recognise the passion, commitment and focus that she has brought to the issue, not just in the past few months but for a considerable time. She is committed to dealing with the refugee issue, which has motivated her to obtain this afternoon’s debate.

My hon. Friend made important points about the crisis in Syria, together with the continuing instability in Iraq, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also pointed out. It is right that the question of what support we provide to those in need provokes passion, and that was exemplified by the speech of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the contribution that this country should make to supporting people who are vulnerable and in need, and who are suffering during a huge humanitarian crisis.

I am sure that all hon. Members share our deep concern about the appalling violence in Syria and the suffering and hardship that that has caused for millions of people. Nearly 3 million refugees have now been displaced into surrounding countries and 6.4 million people are internally displaced inside Syria; 10.8 million require humanitarian aid. The scale of that tragedy caused my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central to pause in her speech, and it is worth pausing and reflecting on how staggering the figures are. The Government have always been clear that the crisis is of international proportions and that it needs a fitting response from the UK and the international community.

The Government have three clear priorities in Syria: supporting efforts to find a political solution to the conflict; alleviating suffering; and protecting UK security by tackling extremism and getting rid of Assad’s chemical weapons. I strongly believe that only a political settlement will ensure that Syrian families who have fled the crisis can return to their homes and livelihoods in peace. In the meantime, only humanitarian aid can help the majority of those in the region who so desperately need our help. Aid is also the best way to ease the enormous burden on Syria’s neighbours, and I think that was clear from what my hon. Friend said about her visit to Jordan and the pressure that the situation is causing in the countries that are most generously hosting and supporting refugees.

That is why the UK has pledged £600 million to the regional relief effort, making us the largest bilateral donor after the USA. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) acknowledged and appraised that fact fairly. UK funding is helping to support hundreds of thousands of refugees in Syria and neighbouring countries. The hon. Member for Strangford was seeking detail about that in some of his questions. For example, the UK provides food for up to 535,000 people a month, drinking water for more than 1.5 million and funding for more than 300,000 medical consultations. I think that that is the largest humanitarian aid effort that the UK Government have ever attempted, which shows the huge scale of the tragedy that has unfolded before us.

It is important to recognise the way in which aid can be focused on some of the most vulnerable people. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central highlighted the situation of children, and their lack of education. The UK helped to launch and mobilise international support for UNICEF’s “no lost generation” initiative, which provides education, psycho-social support and protection for Syrian children.

Humanitarian aid is the best way to ensure that the UK’s help has the greatest impact for Syrian refugees and their host countries. Compared with aid, resettlement can only ever support a comparatively small number of people in need. However, we recognise that there are some particularly vulnerable people who cannot be supported effectively in the region. That is why, in January, the Home Secretary launched the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme to provide sanctuary in the UK for displaced Syrians who are most at risk.

We are working closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify the people who need our help most. In particular, the scheme prioritises support for those with serious medical needs, survivors of torture and violence, and women and children at risk. Beneficiaries of the scheme are granted five years’ humanitarian protection, with all the rights and benefits that go with that status, including access to public funds, access to the labour market and the possibility of family reunion. All people who arrive under the scheme also receive a 12-month package of integration support to help them to start to build a new life in the UK.

I announced the scheme in January and am pleased to say that the first group arrived at the end of March, just eight weeks after that announcement. Groups are now arriving in the UK on a monthly basis. We expect more arrivals in July and August, and we intend to relocate two or three families a month. The figure of 50 people that has been cited is the number who had come by the end of June. We intend to provide the House with quarterly updates; as we publish transparency data in the Home Office, we intend to provide an update on the numbers who have benefited from the scheme, to keep the House and the public updated. Those who have benefited include a number of adults and children with severe medical needs, who could not get the treatment they desperately needed in the region.

The right hon. Member for Delyn asked me to provide estimates of future cost, but that is difficult, given that the needs will relate to particular families’ and individuals’ specific circumstances. We are not working on a quota at all. Rather, we are working on the basis of need with the UNHCR. Given the severe vulnerabilities of the beneficiaries, it is important that we ensure that the support and accommodation they need is in place before they arrive. As I said, we are working closely with UNHCR, the International Organisation for Migration and local authority partners to achieve that.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the Minister say when the first quarterly update is due, from today?

[James Brokenshire]

Yes, the first update is due in August. We are providing quarterly updates on that basis, in that regular pattern. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to see, quarterly, on our transparency release, the numbers of people who have benefited from the scheme. The intent is to provide a regular update in that way and that is fair and appropriate.

[Jim Shannon]

The shadow Minister mentioned regional variations. Has there been any discussion with the devolved Assemblies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, to see whether they can contribute to the resettlement of the refugees, at least in the short term? I am keen to know whether that is so. If there has not been such a discussion, I am keen that there should be.

[James Brokenshire]

Of course. I am keen to support more local authorities signing up to the scheme. Across the UK, a number of local authorities have already indicated their willingness and we are in discussions with others that have expressed an interest. Obviously, the scheme is based on vulnerability, including women and children at risk, medical needs and survivors of torture and violence.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I apologise, Mr Dobbin; I could not be here at the beginning of the debate due to a constituency commitment.

Will the Minister say a bit more about the process and the criteria by which the number of vulnerable cases is identified? It is difficult to imagine that there are not very many more who would fit the criteria, but who we are not taking. I am interested in liaison with the UN and how the numbers are determined.

[James Brokenshire]

In respect of liaison, we are working with the UN to identify families and then to ensure that the support that they need is there before they arrive. As I said, two to three families are arriving steadily each month, under the regular plan for continuation of the scheme that we have in place. I will come to the overall numbers and reaffirm the commitment made by the Home Secretary in that regard.

The scheme is to ensure that families receive the support that they need in local areas, given their vulnerability, and central Government are responsible for its overall funding. However, as was mentioned, we will recover costs, if possible, from the EU and other funding sources, and work and discussions continue in that regard.

The Government have delivered what we promised in January: a bespoke scheme to complement the UK’s humanitarian aid, focused on giving sanctuary to the most vulnerable refugees and ensuring they get all the care and support they need in the UK.

[Sarah Teather]

I want to press the Minister a little further, because there is concern about numbers. I want to get from him a sense of whether this scheme is proceeding at the pace he expected. Was the Government’s initial ambition simply that we would only resettle two or three a month or was it higher? Has there been a problem and, if there has, what is it and what are the Government doing to try to resolve it? Two to three families a month is a small number; even my own council manages to move more people into accommodation per month, and this is across the whole of Britain. What is the problem?

[James Brokenshire]

To respond directly to my hon. Friend, we said we would support several hundred of the most vulnerable Syrians over the next three years. It was always envisaged that there would be a focus on a steady process of identifying families and seeing that they have the support that they need to be settled, working with the UNCHR, delivering the commitment to taking several hundred over the next three years. I believe that we remain on course to deliver on the commitment as a result of the excellent collaboration with the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration.

[John McDonnell]

I calculate that there will not be several hundred if we are taking only two to three a month, but never mind. How did we arrive at several hundred? What assessment was made about only several hundred wanting to come here or whether we would cope with that demand?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

That was the basis of the statement made by the Home Secretary in January, on assessing specific needs and the ability to ensure that resources and capabilities could be in place to see that some challenged family groups—it is groups that will see this continued roll-out through the coming months—are supported, to ensure that there is appropriate integration.

I believe that we remain on track to meet the commitments that we stated to the House at the beginning of January. That is obviously in addition to the places available to refugees of other nationalities under our established programmes, which offer the opportunity of a new life in the UK for those in long-term, protracted refugee situations, for whom the only viable long-term solution is resettlement.

[Sarah Teather]

The Minister did not quite answer the question put by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), which I also asked. The Minister mentioned the basis of the Government’s statement, but did not explain how we arrived at the position of saying that we would support several hundred, as opposed to several thousand or tens of thousands. Why that particular figure?

[James Brokenshire]

Clearly, the Government considered what would be a suitable figure, to ensure that the scheme could deliver on its aims and ambitions to meet the needs of some of the most challenged and vulnerable, including some who need specific medical care and assistance, and ensure that they could be resettled within the UK with that support and that package. It was on that basis that the assessment and the programme was drawn up.

Given their vulnerabilities, it is essential that we give beneficiaries of the scheme the specific care they need as soon as they arrive in the UK. We have therefore had to ensure that the support and accommodation they need is properly in place before arrival, and we have been liaising, in the way I mentioned, to achieve this. Successful delivery of the scheme depends on the capacity of local authorities and health bodies to provide the high level of support required by beneficiaries of the scheme. Our emphasis is therefore on quality, not quantity. We are extraordinarily grateful to local authorities and health and education partners who have supported the scheme; they have played a vital role in helping those arriving under the scheme settle into a new, safe life in the UK.

We are, of course, continuing to consider Syrian asylum claims under our normal rules. Since the crisis began in 2011, we have received over 4,000 Syrian asylum claims. During the same time, we have granted asylum or other forms of leave to more than 2,700 Syrian nationals and dependants. We also operate an immigration concession for Syrian nationals who are already legally present in the UK, to enable them to extend their stay or switch immigration category without leaving the UK.

[Sarah Teather]

I should like to take the Minister back a little and question him on local authorities and health services. What is his Department doing to encourage local authorities to take more people? Is he having difficulty persuading them? If so, are there any particular barriers? Knowing that would help those of us who are interested in this issue, partly to see whether there might be anything we can do to help encourage local authorities increase interest. Will he give a bit more information on his discussions in that regard?

[James Brokenshire]

There have been discussions with local authorities, a number of which have been extraordinarily generous and positive in taking part in the scheme. As I said, other local authorities are expressing an interest in joining the scheme. Hon. Members have commented on individuals who have volunteered their homes and their personal support.

Having seen correspondence on my ministerial desk, I am struck by the generosity and desire of so many people wanting personally to see what they can do to provide support and assist in this appalling crisis. There have been ongoing conversations. I am confident that more authorities are coming forward, that we are able to house vulnerable Syrians fleeing the conflict and that we will provide support for them in different parts of the country.

We are, of course, aware that the international community has responded to the crisis in different ways. In the face of such an enormous challenge, it is right that the international community should use all means to relieve the suffering of the Syrian people. It is ultimately for individual states to decide for themselves how they help those displaced by the crisis, but we would not want to see a strengthened focus on resettlement detract from the international community’s continued relief effort to support the majority of refugees who remain in the region and their host countries. I do not see that it has detracted from that, but we need to retain focus on that.

I am conscious that the hon. Member for Strangford is no longer in his place, but I wanted to respond to the point he raised about protecting Christians in Syria. I share his concerns about those who are at risk due to the crisis, including Syrian Christians. There are a growing number of reports of Christians and other minority groups being targeted in Syria. The Syrian National Coalition has responded to those reports, emphasising that they are contrary to the coalition’s vision of a future Syria that protects pluralism and the rights of all its citizens. In that context, it is important to note that it is not only Christians who are being identified, brutalised and murdered as a consequence of their faith; we are aware of other minority communities that are also being targeted on that basis.

It is important to recognise that a brutalising group such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant does not seek to concern itself in virtually anything. ISIL is a brutal organisation that kills those who do not hold the perverse beliefs that it puts forward. That means killing Muslims, whether Shi’a or Sunni, and other minority groups. That is why it is so important that we support the international efforts to resolve the crisis in Syria and that we support the Government of Iraq in finding a solution for that country that brings together all faiths and confronts the challenge that ISIL has brought forward.

To come back to the focus of the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central, we believe that the vulnerable persons relocation scheme will make a real difference to the lives of the most vulnerable refugees, who can only be supported in countries such as the UK. I am delighted to see those who have arrived so far settling into their new homes and receiving the care they need, and I look forward to us welcoming further families to the UK as the scheme progresses. We must not, however, lose sight of the majority, who remain in the region. Continuing our efforts to help them must remain our highest priority, along with providing a long-term political solution for Syria.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (Business of the House)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill:

Timetable

(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration, and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at today’s sitting in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph.

(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 5.00pm.

(c) Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on Consideration shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 9.00pm.

(d) Proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 10.00pm.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:

(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put.

(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill.

(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(8) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(9) (a) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (8).

(b) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.

(c) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith:

(i) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

(ii) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(d) The Speaker shall then put forthwith:

(i) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

(ii) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(e) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.

(f) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(g) As soon as the House has:

(i) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment; or

(ii) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,

the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments that are moved by a Minister of the Crown and are relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent Stages

(10) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(11) (a) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10).

(b) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.

(c) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(d) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.

(e) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

(12) (a) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chair.

(b) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(c) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

(d) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (c), the Chair shall:

(i) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair, and

(ii) then put forthwith successively Questions on Motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(e) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

(13) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.

(14) (a) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(15) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(16) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(17) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(18) The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(19) (a) Sub-paragraph (b) applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(b) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

(20) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(21) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 7.00pm, 4.00pm or 2.00pm (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.

(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between 7.00pm, 4.00pm or 2.00pm (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.

(22) At the sitting of the House on Thursday 17th July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until–

(a) any Message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at the sitting has reported; and

(b) the Speaker has reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.

I will be brief, as I want to leave as much time as possible for the substantive debate on the matters before the House today. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members appreciate the urgency of the issues contained in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear in her oral statement last week, it is crucial that we act now to ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the tools they need to keep us safe.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

If the Bill is so urgent, will the Minister explain why it was not introduced three months ago, as soon as the European Court of Justice judgment was announced? Why are we debating it in one day, just before the recess?

[James Brokenshire]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained the situation clearly in her statement last week. The judgment was made in April and we have sought clarity on it. Indeed, the pressure brought to bear by other legal challenges and the industry itself has made it necessary to clarify these essential measures and tools relating to the ability of our law enforcement and security services to assure us of our national security and to combat crime. I am sure we will get into those issues in the substantive debate, so I do not want to detain the House too much on them.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I support the principle of what the Government are trying to do, but, like many people, I would try to avoid pushing Bills through in one day. Why was this Bill delayed? Did the Liberals delay it?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend will know that proposed legislation is always given due consideration. No Government embark on fast-track legislation lightly. There is a pressing and urgent need to bring into force the Bill’s measures, to ensure that capabilities that are used day in, day out are maintained and that there is no risk to what are essential facilities for our policing and other enforcement agencies.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Why was there no discussion with parties other than the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives, even on Privy Council terms? For heaven’s sake, if there is an urgency, why keep most of the Opposition in the dark? It is absolutely disgusting, disgraceful and undemocratic.

[James Brokenshire]

We have engaged on the purpose and nature of the Bill and there have been discussions across the House. Clearly, there will be an opportunity this afternoon to talk through the issues and consider the Bill. I hope there will be a consensus across the House about the importance of the issues and the need to ensure that we have the legislative framework—the back-up—so that our police and law enforcement agencies can continue to do the job they do today in the way that they have hitherto done it.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I recognise the urgency in starting consideration of this Bill, but was the Minister denied a deferment of the summer recess, which would have afforded us more time?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend needs to recognise—I am sure he does—the sensitivity and importance of communications data and how they are used for the prosecution of offences, and of interception and how we have reached a tipping point, which is why there is a need for urgent legal certainty and clarification in the light of the European Court judgment. We face two serious and urgent problems relating to both communications data and interception: first, the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice has called into question the legal basis on which we require communications service providers in the UK to retain communications data; and, secondly, the increasingly pressing need to clarify the application of our laws on interception, so that communications service providers that provide services to people in the UK are in no doubt that they are covered by the laws, irrespective of where they are based.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Home Secretary was rather less than clear at the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, so will the Minister provide clarity? What would happen if instead of passing the Bill now, we passed it in September? Is there a definite risk, and if so, what risk do we definitely face?

[James Brokenshire]

There is a risk in relation to co-operation on the use of the powers; indeed, there may be legal challenge. The House must face up to the prospect that the powers we use—they are constantly used by our law enforcement agencies—are at potential risk, and we are seeking to address that risk through the Bill this afternoon.

That is why the Government have decided that a fast-track process is appropriate. We have not done so lightly; we would not consider the Bill in this way unless we thought that there is a real risk to such capabilities. We believe that the issues have reached a dangerous tipping point, and that we must act now. If we do not enact the Bill before the summer recess, we face the real prospect of a serious degradation in the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to investigate crime, preserve national security and protect the public. That is why the Bill requires a fast-track approach.

The motion provides for some nine hours of debate on the Bill. If the House approves the motion, we will move directly to the debate on Second Reading, which will take us to no later than 5 pm. The Committee of the whole House will follow until 9 pm, with the debate on Third Reading concluding no later than 10 pm. The motion also provides for programming of the later stages of the Bill in this House on consideration of Lords amendments.

I fully appreciate the restrictions that today’s timetable imposes. However, given the very specific issue that the House is being asked to consider, we are satisfied that the House—and, in due course, the House of Lords—will have sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill properly. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the Bill does no more than maintain the status quo, and that it contains a termination provision, meaning that it will lapse at the end of 2016. I welcome Opposition Front Benchers’ continued support for expediting the Bill.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Why will the Minister not extend the Bill’s provisions only to the autumn, when there could be a full and long debate and more time could be spent looking at the whole situation? Why does it go on to 2016?

[James Brokenshire]

I am sure that we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss the issues of timing and of why we judge it appropriate that the sunset or termination clause is until 2016. We will get to that debate, but simply seeking a limited period would pressurise the House into making substantive decisions without knowing the impact or import of the review that we have asked David Anderson, the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, to inform. The House will have the time and space to consider the issues properly, given that the Bill is simply to maintain the position—the status quo ante—in respect of capabilities for the retention of communications data and interception powers.

I hope that the whole House understands the need for fast-tracking the Bill and will therefore support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

May I say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that the Government have had discussions with the Scottish Government in respect of these provisions? What this comes down to is the assurance of security for our citizens in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Government would not be legislating on a fast-track or emergency basis if we did not think that it was necessary. That underpins the approach that we have taken on the motion.

This is about maintaining the status quo. I hope that we will be able to get into that debate and hear the Home Secretary and others, and then get into the line-by-line analysis to show that that is the issue at stake. It is about ensuring that the police and our other agencies are able to do the job that they do day in, day out; using communications data and the interception powers that they have had to ensure that the public are protected.

Yes, this is about responding to a Court judgment and about responding to the uncertainty that that judgement has created, but I say clearly that that judgment did not say that the actions of the Government or of our agencies were unlawful. It was focused on the directive itself, whereas our existing law takes into account a vast array of other issues on human rights matters. We assert, and continue to assert, that the data retention regulations remain in full force and effect. However, the uncertainty and the risk that the judgment has occasioned mean that the Bill is required. Yes, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) highlighted, it was a complex judgment. That is why I think it was right for the Government to consider these issues carefully before coming back to the House and to assess the representations made by industry on the uncertainty that the judgment has occasioned.

It is known that the House is able to bring forward fast-track legislation in circumstances where we have had adverse judgments. It is also why, in doing so, there are termination provisions, which the Bill sets out. There is a legal risk here. We believe that it is the responsibility of the Government to protect the public and to guard national security. That is why we are bringing the Bill before the House this afternoon and why we believe the fast track process is needed.

Question put.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to a vibrant and valuable debate. I note that some comments were made about the role of the House in defending liberty and ensuring that we strike a balance between collective freedoms and individual liberty. The speeches this afternoon have brought that to the fore, and I understand and recognise the significance of the legislation before the House this afternoon. The Government have to work quickly to address the problems created by the judgment of the European Court and declining co-operation from communication service providers. The Bill has undergone some good debate and challenge this afternoon.

I welcome the fact that, almost without exception, right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have understood the importance of interception and communications data in the fight against terrorism and other serious crime and have therefore supported the Bill. Several hon. Members highlighted its import in confronting child abuse and safeguarding children. It will play a crucial role in enabling our law enforcement agencies to bring crimes to justice.

Sometimes this debate can be framed round security—what the intelligence agencies are doing. Actually, much of it is about what our police and law enforcement agencies are doing to identify, prosecute and bring to justice those who would harm our constituents; about how the use of communications data is such an integral part of that; and obviously, as we all understand, about the importance of intercept. I was struck by the speech of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who referred back to the year that I was born and his role at Royal Mail, reflecting on how interception played such a role even then, but in a different way, and on how technology has moved on. We have discussed the vital importance of this Bill in ensuring that those who work to keep us safe can continue to have the tools that they need. That is at the heart of our debate.

Some speeches were framed on the basis that this Bill is extending powers. I reiterate, yet again, that it is not about extending powers but about maintaining the powers that already exist to retain data, including under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, in order that our police and law enforcement and security agencies, and others, can continue to do the work that they do now.

A number of Members mentioned the European Court judgment. Let me briefly go through some of the issues that were highlighted. On scope, the Bill will limit any data retention to a strict list of data types specified in the data retention regulations. It will enable the Secretary of State to issue data retention notices to communications services providers, on a selective basis, only if she considers the obligations to be necessary and proportionate.

On duration, each notice will have to specify the duration for which data is to be retained, up to a maximum 12-month period. If it is not proportionate to retain certain data for a full 12 months, that enables a lower period to be chosen. Again, that reflects some of the comments made in the European Court judgment, with a clear requirement for the Secretary of State to keep any notice under review. Access will be limited to that which is necessary and proportionate under RIPA.

On storage, the UK already imposes strict data security requirements on our communications service providers. These will become part of the notice requiring a CSP to retain data and will therefore be enforceable. It is right that we have reflected on the European Court judgment, but we retain our focus on what the powers are today as well as reflecting on some of the points that the Court made.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Part of the judgment proposes that the Government provide exceptions for persons whose communications are subject to an obligation of professional secrecy. That does not seem to be covered in the Bill or in the draft regulations.

[James Brokenshire]

I hope that in Committee we will be able to get on to the role that the statutory code of practice may play in that regard. The hon. Gentleman will note that there is reference to that in the Bill, and we will be able to discuss it shortly.

It is important to note that the Intelligence and Security Committee has endorsed these proposals, with one notable exception. Indeed, the Home Affairs Committee has done the same, obviously recognising that there may not have been unanimity in that respect. It is important to say that Committees have reflected on and examined this and seen that it is about protecting the status quo.

[Keith Vaz]

It was 7-1, like Germany and Brazil.

[James Brokenshire]

The Chair of the Committee has made his point in his inimitable fashion.

It is important to understand that this is about protecting powers, not adding to them. It is about ensuring that our law enforcement agencies and security agencies have the powers that they need. That is what the proposal in this Bill is about. While I note the clear concerns over the balance between security and liberty, this is about protecting powers, not enhancing them. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

As the House has heard, communications data are information relating to the who, when, where and how of communications, but not to their content. These data are crucial to the work of both law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies.

As a result of the recent European Court of Justice judgment, we need to ensure that communications companies in the UK continue to retain this key information. The Bill will replace the data retention regime currently set out in the UK’s Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009, and preserve the status quo in relation to the retention of data, while responding to certain points made in the European Court judgment. Let me make it clear that the Bill will not create any new powers or obligations on communications companies beyond those that already exist.

Clause 1 will create a power for the Secretary of State to give notices to communications service providers to require them to retain relevant communications data. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already made clear, the Bill does not enable the retention of any data which cannot already be retained by communications service providers under the existing data retention regulations.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that there will be no change for data retention by overseas providers and that overseas companies will not be ordered to retain data?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have said, the law will be exactly as it now stands. My hon. Friend will know that there are provisions relating to extraterritoriality, and we will come on to the relevant clause later. He will understand that we have a relationship with communications service providers in the UK about their retention of data and that, in the regime under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Security Service, the police and listed bodies can make specific requests for the purposes set out in RIPA.

It is important to stress that those defined purposes are contained in existing law. To emphasise a point I made on Second Reading, the Bill is not about extending the current situation. Although the European Court of Justice commented on the data retention directive, we had already legislated in a number of ways to ensure that issues of proportionality and necessity are considered in framing requests. We have obviously reflected carefully on the judgment; hence some of the provisions, which I am sure we will come on to in Committee.

[Dr Huppert]

I just want to ensure that I understand the Minister’s answer. Perhaps I did not phrase my question well. Does the clause provide the power to issue a retention notice to an overseas provider in respect of information that is flowing overseas? That would be something new and I would be grateful if he could rule it out. That is not currently the practice and I hope that he will confirm that it will not be the practice.

[James Brokenshire]

It is certainly not our plan or intention—indeed, it is not part of our process—to make those sorts of requests. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we make requests for communications data to be retained by companies in the UK. He knows of the processes and the safeguards that exist in respect of the specific requests that are made by the different agencies, and of the tests that need to be satisfied.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the impact of the European Court of Justice judgment is enormous because, in a nutshell, it will continue to be the law of the European Union irrespective of whether we pass the Bill?

[James Brokenshire]

Obviously, we have considered carefully the impact of the European Court of Justice judgment, the European convention on human rights and other parts of the law in examining the position. That is why we have considered the Bill so carefully. The additional safeguards and provisions that have been written into the Bill reflect that consideration. We remain confident that the provisions meet the legislative requirements.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

May I refer the Minister back to the question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)? Does this debate not underline the importance of the report of the European Scrutiny Committee on establishing the supremacy of Parliament? I am afraid that the Minister’s response was not absolutely clear. I think he said that the Government are “confident”. Surely on matters as important as the freedom of the individual and national security, we should be more than just confident; we should be sure of the supremacy of Parliament.

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend knows, legislation is always subject to court challenges. That is the nature of our constitution. The House often reflects on changes that are made to the law as a consequence of decisions that are made in our courts. There is a separation of powers between the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary.

We have reflected carefully on the European Court of Justice judgment on the directive. It is important to state that that judgment related not to our domestic legislation, but to the directive. Obviously, the Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009 were made to implement the directive. We believe that the regulations remain in full force and effect, but the questions, doubt and risk have arisen because of how the industry and others have looked on the judgment and the regulations. Although we assert that the regulations remain extant and in full force and effect, it is essential, given the questions and points that have been raised, to deal with the risk and put the matter beyond doubt.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights made the extremely valid point that it would have been useful if the Government had published details of how the legislation complied with each of the points that was raised in the judgment. May I take the Minister back to the point that I made earlier about paragraph 58 of the judgment? Will he point me to the place in the legislation, the regulations or the Bill that addresses the point in the judgment about providing exceptions for

“persons whose communications are subject…to the obligation of professional secrecy.”?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that point has been raised, and the hon. Gentleman will see that clause 1(4)(f) enables the provision of

“a code of practice in relation to relevant requirements or restrictions or relevant powers,”.

The intent is to have a statutory code of practice that will sit alongside the regulations, and there is scope to ensure that the issues relating to confidence highlighted by the hon. Gentleman are addressed in that manner. We are putting in place a legal mechanism to address his concerns and the points raised by the court.

[John McDonnell]

I am trying to be helpful. When will that code be published, and how will it be scrutinised?

[James Brokenshire]

We are seeking to ensure that the code is drafted effectively, and we are looking at ways that that scrutiny can take place, given the import we have mentioned. We will certainly look to engage appropriately to ensure that issues such as those highlighted by the hon. Gentleman on confidence, professional positions and matters such as legal professional privilege are contemplated and reflected on. Codes of practice already exist and it is now about putting that on a more statutory footing to give it statutory teeth, but I recognise his point.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend referred to our courts, and I am sure that by that he meant our domestic courts. Unfortunately, that is not what we have to grapple with here. The issue is what our courts may be able to do, because they are bound by section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, which states that we must have regard to, and indeed implement as an obligation of European law, judgments of the European Court. The data retention directive is European Union law, so the regulations and replacement regulations are all derived from that assertion of the supremacy of European law. As my hon. Friend will know, I am deeply concerned about that and I hope we will come on to it later. The bottom line is that we are not able to ensure that the Bill will be effective against any European Court judgments.

[James Brokenshire]

Part of the reason we are introducing the Bill is to give that fundamental statutory underpinning in primary legislation. The questions raised have been as a consequence of the linkage between the old data retention regulations, and whether they are reliant on the data retention directive being in force and effect. We have asserted clearly that we do not accept that that is the case, but because of those questions we judge it important to deal with that uncertainty and risk, and ensure that that is stated clearly in primary legislation.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am happy to support the legislation, but I would like to clarify one small but important point in relation to Northern Ireland. The Bill makes it clear that it extends to Northern Ireland, but the Minister will be aware that policing and justice are devolved matters. Which aspects of policing and justice or reserved matters does the Bill cover?

[James Brokenshire]

Given the nature of the legislation, we are clear that it is reserved, so it does not require a legislative consent motion, for example, to be passed. It clearly has that approach, given the interception powers and the communications and national security issues inherent in the powers under RIPA and reflected in the Bill. We are clear that it is a reserved piece of legislation, so it will be passed by the House without the additional requirement that may otherwise be the case.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

In the light of that, the Government accept that this is a reserved matter and I am happy that that is so, but were discussions held on that with the Northern Ireland Executive before the Bill was brought to this House?

[James Brokenshire]

We have kept the Northern Ireland Executive up to speed with the proposals, sending them details and setting out our legal analysis. As this is a reserved matter, we have a slightly different relationship than might otherwise be the case if it were a devolved matter. I hope that that is helpful. It is important to state the benefits of the clause and the regulations that will sit underneath it in respect of the whole of the United Kingdom. It has effect in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England, and will be instrumental in guarding our security and bringing those who may harm us to justice. I recognise the particular interests that have, understandably, been raised by representatives from across the United Kingdom.

The clause creates a power for the Secretary of State to give notices to communications service providers requiring them to retain relevant communications data. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, the Bill does not enable the retention of any data that cannot already be retained by communications service providers under the existing data retention regulations.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Clause 1(2)(b) states that it will

“require the retention of all data or any description of data”.

Should the Bill have said, “require the retention of all communications data or any description of communications data”? As drafted, it seems broad and completely open to interpretation.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend needs to understand that clause 1(2) is framed in the context of clause 1, which makes it clear that it relates to “relevant communications data”. It has to be read in the context of the interrelationship between clause 1(2) and clause 1(1), which I think provides the necessary clarification and context.

The Secretary of State may give a notice only where she considers the retention requirements are necessary and proportionate for one or more of the purposes set out in RIPA. These include national security, preventing or detecting crime, and the interests of public safety. The clause also enables the Secretary of State to make regulations that will replace the existing data retention regulations. Those regulations will, among other things, set out the process for serving a data retention notice and the safeguards that must be put in place to protect the data. To give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the details of our proposals, we have published a provisional draft of the regulations. They are available in the Vote Office and have been made more widely available.

[Sir William Cash]

Is my hon. Friend aware that Professor Steve Peers of Essex university—he is an expert in this field, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows—has drawn attention to the objection by the Court of Justice to the requirement to retain all communications data? The fact that the directive required all data to be retained from all subscribers was the first of the considerations taken into account by the Court in reaching its conclusion that the directive was disproportionate.

[James Brokenshire]

If my hon. Friend reads the judgment, he will see that the Court upheld the principle of retention of data as contemplated in the Bill. A number of frameworks on the purpose for which data are retained were referred to, but we are clear that the regime the House is contemplating this evening, in the context of the Bill and how it sits alongside the existing regime of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, does provide a legally robust approach to enable our police, law enforcement and security agencies to combat organised criminality and to provide the national security that is needed. The powers we already use are intrinsic to delivering on that. The Bill makes it clear that regulations cannot specify a retention period longer than 12 months. We reflected on the judgment of the Court. As the Home Secretary said in her opening statement on Second Reading, different time periods could be allowed in relation to specific types of data.

We are maintaining that focus on proportionality and necessity not simply in terms of giving a notice, but in keeping it under review. The European Court considered that the period of retention should be based on objective criteria to ensure that it is limited to what is strictly necessary. On the basis of law enforcement surveys in 2005, 2010 and 2012, we consider that a maximum period of 12 months strikes the right balance between the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to investigate crimes and an individual’s rights to privacy. Unlike the current regime, under which all relevant communications data is retained for 12 months, this approach will mean that data could be retained for a shorter period than 12 months if considered appropriate, and that different types of data could be retained for different periods.

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

My hon. Friend is making a perfectly good and sound case and I am pleased that he used the phrase “the necessity of proportionality”, which is crucial. But does he accept that there is no longer a clear-cut distinction between data and content? The worry of many outside this House, therefore, is that there will be an opportunity for ever more power to be retained by CSPs and thus by the state. Can he give us some assurances that the Government will keep this matter constantly under review?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has expressed his views on a number of occasions on the need for continued focus on the balance between individual freedoms and collective freedom, because that collective freedom relies on our being able to conduct our affairs and to live our lives free from those who would do us harm. Sometimes people have sought to describe them as if they were in parallel, but I see them as mutually reinforcing; security and liberty must go hand in hand to develop and defend the fundamental principles that we have as a society, so to frame it separately misses the point.

My hon. Friend raises the important issue of how technology is evolving; it is constantly changing. That is why we see the import of the review by David Anderson, the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, to look at the issues more broadly, and at existing legislation and capabilities. We will come on to that, I am sure, in some of the subsequent debates in this Committee where that might be teased out in further detail, but my hon. Friend makes an important point.

[Sir William Cash]

May I make one last intervention?

[James Brokenshire]

One last go.

[Sir William Cash]

I am extremely grateful. My hon. Friend is pursuing doggedly what I believe to be a fundamentally and ultimately erroneous assumption, as will be discovered in due course, Does he accept, as everybody else appears to, that this Bill will be within the scope of EU law and that the charter of fundamental rights and the general principle of EU law will continue to apply, and that, as he correctly pointed out when he referred to primary legislation, the only way in which we can avoid running into difficulties with European Court judgments that we do not want—which, clearly, is what the Bill is about—is by using primary legislation, such as this Bill, to disapply the provisions of European law that come through sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act, and that it has to be notwithstanding those provisions?

[James Brokenshire]

I know the clear position that my hon. Friend has enunciated on many occasions in the House. There will be wider debates and discussions on the position of the European Convention and a British bill of rights, with which my hon. Friend is very familiar and which I personally support to ensure that our domestic law is framed properly in the context of convention rights. However, we have reflected carefully on the judgment—the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) described it as dense and complicated—which the Bill reflects on in the nature of the obligations set out therein. We have judged that primary legislation to avoid any uncertainty is appropriate and necessary, given the huge reliance that is placed on communications data and the right to be able lawfully to intercept for the prescribed purposes. I am sure that the wider debate—and the Select Committee that my hon. Friend chairs—is focused on the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over matters that are opted into and the position post-December 2014. We have reflected carefully on the application, scope and enforceability of the Bill and its compliance with relevant legislation of whatever kind, and we are confident that it meets that challenge.

Given that the European Court was considering only the data retention directive and not how member states implemented it, it did not take into account the rigorous controls in place in the UK as part of its judgment. Access to communications data in the UK is stringently regulated and safeguarded by the Regulatory and Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Data are retained on a case-by-case basis and must be authorised by a senior officer, at a rank stipulated by Parliament, from the organisation requesting the data. The authorising officer may approve a request for communications data only if the tests of necessity and proportionality are met in the particular case.

Our system was examined in detail by the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill, and it was satisfied that the current internal authorisation procedure is the right model. However, to ensure that communications data cannot be accessed using information-gathering powers that are not subject to the rigorous safeguards in RIPA, the Bill ensures that data retained under this legislation may be accessed only in accordance with RIPA, a court order or other judicial authorisation or warrant.

Hon. and right hon. Members who followed the discussions surrounding the draft Communications Data Bill will be aware that communications service providers are also able to retain communications data on a voluntary basis under a code of practice made under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. This clause ensures that the regulations made under this Bill can apply the same security safeguards and access restrictions to data retained under that code. I therefore believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I welcome you to the Chair of this important Committee, Sir Roger. I shall not detain the Committee for long because, given that we broadly agree with the Government’s approach on this key issue, the Opposition have not tabled any amendments to clause 1.

As the Minister said, the stated context for the Bill is the continued threat from serious organised crime and potential terrorist activity. Given that the European Court of Justice struck down the regulations because they were neither proportionate nor objective, we have taken the view that we need to look at how to frame legislation that will be proportionate and objective in respect of the retention of data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

I have only remembered the case because my hon. Friend made the same point on a previous occasion. He has not been slow to point that case out. It is worth remembering—this may not be an approved thing to say—that the European Court is not always entirely consistent from one judgment to the next in the way that it applies its principles. It is important that we make it absolutely clear that we have a set of rules to ensure that the Government only require the retention of data when they have good purpose for doing so, and they only retain those kinds of data for which there is good purpose. Access to that data should be the subject of stringent conditions. In essence, that was what the European Court judgment was about, and the Government are meeting those conditions in the way that they have framed this legislation. That is not to say that they could not be open to challenge; perhaps they will be at some point. If that challenge is made, we should make it quite clear how important the distinction is between retention and access to data.

[James Brokenshire]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) makes his point well. He talks about the retention of data, the security and assurance that is provided and the separate regime that relates to access to data and how that is reflected in the Bill’s provisions. Those provisions relate to the retaining of data, the safeguards that exist and some of the steps that we propose to take in relation to the Information Commissioner and the powers that he has to ensure that the data are retained securely. Then there is the separate regime that relates to the rights of different agencies, as set out in legislation, to gain access to that data. My right hon. Friend understands that concept and expressed it well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has highlighted the point about seeking to put beyond doubt that any legal challenge to this Bill should be considered by this Parliament and by the courts of the United Kingdom. Given the backdrop to this legislation—the data protection directive—and the approach that the European Court of Justice has taken in striking down the directive, I suppose I can understand why he is motivated to raise these issues in the Committee this evening. His comments raise broader points about the European Communities Act 1972. Our membership of the EU is wider than this Bill, and I respect the consistent way in which he has advanced those issues in the House.

We have considered carefully the existing law and legislation, and we have reflected on the European Court of Justice judgment in seeing what further measures can be put into effect to reduce the risk of challenge. That risk of challenge is most likely to heard within the UK courts than the European courts, as that is where challenge to the legislation might be flagged up in the first instance. Legislation is challenged in our courts from time to time. We believe that we have considered carefully the compliance of the Bill with the necessary regulatory requirements and remain confident that it meets those requirements.

[Sir William Cash]

I simply ask the Minister whether he accepts—he has more or less done so—that there is a risk that the sort of principles that were applied in the case of the Merchant Shipping Act could apply to the Bill as drafted, and that the only way of dealing with that would be to employ the “notwithstanding” formula to ensure that the Bill actually survives for the reasons of terrorism, national security, child pornography and child abuse that were properly mentioned earlier. Does he accept that what I am proposing is effectively to sustain the provisions of this domestic enactment and that I am not just making a general speech about the sovereignty of the UK Parliament?

[James Brokenshire]

I understand my hon. Friend’s points. I am always sympathetic to the aim of having clarity in legislation, which is why we are taking the Bill forward this evening. I do not want to discuss an amendment that we have not yet reached, so I hesitate to engage further in that context, because it would be inappropriate. However, amendments need to be considered carefully for their unintended consequences. Legislation is always subject to legal challenge of whatever kind. I am talking about not only this Bill, but all forms of legislation. The separation of powers between this place, the Executive and the judiciary is part of our constitution and part of how legislation, of whatever nature, can be challenged in our courts. While I understand his desire to try to avoid that through express language, I do not think he is able to rule out challenges before our courts for a whole host of different reasons.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Before we move on to clause 2, I should inform the House that the Home Secretary has tabled new clause 7 and amendments 7 and 8, which the Chairman of Ways and Means has selected. They will be debated with the amendments and new clauses relating to clause 6. I am advised that copies are available in the Vote Office.



Clause 2

Section 1: supplementary

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

[James Brokenshire]

Clause 2 sets out the meaning of various terms used in clause 1 and includes provisions that underpin and support the application of the powers contained in that clause. In particular, the definition of “relevant communications data” in clause 2 limits the communications data that can be retained to those specified in the existing data retention regulations: the data that are already being retained by service providers in the UK. To be absolutely clear, the Bill does not extend in any way the types of data that we will be asking service providers to retain.

The capability gaps identified and discussed during scrutiny of the draft Communications Data Bill will not be addressed and will continue to grow, impacting on UK law enforcement. As important as that matter is, I am sure that the Committee will agree that fast-track legislation is not the appropriate vehicle for considering addressing such gaps. The Prime Minister has made it clear that it is important that the issue is addressed in the next Parliament.

The clause also provides that the regulations made under clause 1 must be made under the affirmative procedure. We have placed in the Library a draft of the regulations that we intend to make, which will give Parliament the maximum possible opportunity, given the urgency of the matter, to consider the detailed contents of the regime before secondary legislation is taken through.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Grounds for issuing warrants and obtaining data

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 4, line 19, at end insert—

‘(5) In section 25 (interpretation of Chapter 11), subsection (1), after “in accordance with subsection (2);”, insert— ““economic well-being of the United Kingdom” is defined as the security of critical national infrastructure, the conduct of defence contracts, the development, manufacture and design of UK defence systems, and the stability of the UK currency, banking and financial systems.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I will make a short contribution in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), who I think made some extremely valid points in relation to amendment 1. I believe that the Government should at least look at it favourably and give a positive response covering the issues he raised. He indicated that issues such as defence contracts and national infrastructure are crucial to the United Kingdom’s infrastructure. I simply want to endorse his points.

I have one question for the Minister on clause 3. I think I know what it means, as I think most people do, but it would be helpful if the Minister outlined what he believes the statement

“relevant to the interests of national security”

means in practice. The clause gives the Secretary of State powers

“in circumstances appearing to the Secretary of State to be relevant to the interests of national security”.

An explanation from the Minister would be helpful, because I have received some representations on what it means, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) has made the point that it could be defined very widely. I think that it would help to reassure those outside the House if the Minister could give some clarity today by putting on the record what I think we already know.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) for tabling the amendment and giving us an opportunity to look in detail at clause 3 and at the importance of the economic well-being purpose currently retained in RIPA. Let me set out a little more context. Clause 3 translates into primary legislation a constraint—it is intended to be a constraint—on the exercise of this purpose that is already provided for in the codes of practice issued under section 71 of RIPA. It effectively puts those statements into primary legislation. It requires that an interception warrant is only issued, and access to communications data only authorised, for the purposes of economic well-being where there is also an independent national security justification for the authorisation. It is intended to be read in that context. I hope that explanation is helpful as we explore some of the language in the Bill.

Clause 3 does not mean that economic well-being for the purposes of RIPA is synonymous with national security, but the amendment gives us the opportunity to underline the fact that there has to be that connection between the two, which obviously is relevant in determining whether or not the powers under RIPA can be exercised for the statutory purposes. Along with national security and the prevention and detection of serious crime, protecting the UK’s economic well-being is one of the statutory functions of the security and intelligence agencies, which are set out in the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

I understand and recognise the points made by the right hon. Member for Knowsley. I think that this debate has been quite useful in airing some of the cyber-security and cybercrime issues that I know he has raised in the House on a number of occasions. It has also highlighted our reliance on information communications technology, which is now a core part of our national infrastructure. I think that there is read-across into other legislation. I understand that he tabled the amendment on a probing basis, but I think that it requires careful thought.

A definition of economic well-being is reflected in the legislation I have mentioned—RIPA being the key focus for this evening’s debate—but it is also important to acknowledge its context as a well-established principle in law. Its origins lie in the European convention on human rights, which provides for exceptions to article 8—the right to a private and family life—when it is in the interest of the economic well-being of the country. Many aspects, therefore, are wrapped up in the broad context of how the definition has come about and the interpretations of it. Case law may also sit alongside this provision in determining the scope and ambit of the definition, so seeking to clarify it may have unintended consequences.

[Katy Clark]

The Minister will be aware that in the past the security services have taken a great interest in political campaigns and, indeed, industrial matters. I mentioned the miners’ strike in my previous intervention. Will he give an assurance that the proposed legislation will not be used against political activists or, indeed, trade union activists in situations similar to last year’s Grangemouth dispute and the miners’ strike?

[James Brokenshire]

It is always difficult for Ministers—not just me; this has been the case with successive Governments—to comment on security and interception matters. Perhaps it will help the hon. Lady if I explain that what we are doing tonight is strengthening the position by underlining that the purpose has to be connected to national security, so it is not simply a question of economic well-being. The fact that we are putting that into legislation is an important development, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has said.

I am sympathetic to the amendment in principle, as it seeks to provide clarity on the meaning of economic well-being in law. In many ways, I think it seeks to address some of the points raised by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark). David Anderson may wish to reflect on it in his review of existing legislation and new legislation capabilities. Indeed, the privacy and civil liberties oversight board may also wish to address the issue of clarity. My simple point is that it needs to be done with care, given the other legislation I have flagged up and the broader context of the European convention on human rights.

[Sir Alan Beith]

Ought we and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) not to be celebrating the fact that for the first time in statute we are narrowing and specifying the circumstances in which economic well-being can be used as a justification? In other words, there has to be a national security element to it, not just a general feeling that some piece of information would be helpful for our economic well-being.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are putting this provision front and centre in primary legislation. I hope that that is helpful in giving an assurance. National security is clearly a pretty high bar to reach, so framing the economic well-being argument in those terms should give an assurance that this is not something that would be relied upon lightly.

[Katy Clark]

The concern that many have is that, in the past, national security has been considered to be a catch-all. Indeed, the miners were considered to be the enemy within, and much of the rhetoric we hear from Government Members considers trade union activity and people who use democratic means to assert their rights to be a threat to the state. That is what I am trying to seek assurances about from the Minister. He is asking us to pass emergency legislation, but he seems unable to provide any assurances as to how it will be used in industrial situations.

[James Brokenshire]

I am genuinely surprised that the hon. Lady has made her point in that way, because the Bill is about strengthening governance and oversight. Sitting alongside the Bill in relation to the retention of communications data, there will, in addition, be a statutory code of practice, while the Information Commissioner has the right to look at further audit and oversight of data retention, and the interception of communications commissioner can consider the use of the powers. That should give independent assurance to not just the hon. Lady but others who, reasonably and legitimately, want to know that such powers are not abused or expanded.

Our governance and oversight of communications data and interception have been strengthened and enhanced over the years, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said on Second Reading. Equally, in relation to wanting to know that the tests are adhered to in relation to a Secretary of State effectively authorising a warrant for interception, the oversight of the interception of communications commissioner should provide a great deal of assurance.

I have always recognised that people should be able to uphold their industrial rights, including the right to form a trade union. I certainly do not in any way intend this debate to get into such an issue. Indeed, from his speech, the right hon. Member for Knowsley understands that the Bill’s provisions will tighten important rights in existing law. The point concerns whether there is a need for any further clarification. The comments of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran on the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment highlighted the tricky nature of trying to frame the Bill correctly and the potential for unintended consequences in that context.

[Sir Alan Beith]

May I just hammer the point home? Economic well-being would not be mentioned in the Bill were we not providing a greater safeguard than has ever existed before or under RIPA to ensure that the power is used only in relation to national security.

[James Brokenshire]

Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes a very good comment for me to conclude on. Clause 3, which will provide such strengthening, has given us the opportunity to have a constructive and helpful debate.

[Mark Field]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I will give way one last time before I sit down.

[Mark Field]

The debate has been worth while. I have some sympathy for the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), who made a legitimate point. Equally, however, it is quite right that the Minister cannot give a categorical assurance along the lines that she ideally wants. Clause 3 tries to ensure that economic well-being must be underlined by national security. I hope that it goes some way to giving confidence not just to the Members in Committee, but to our many constituents who feel very strongly about this matter—trying to narrow the scope of the Bill and therefore of the power of the state.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes his customary point about ensuring that there is such clarity. I am sure that we will return to this issue, but for the reasons I have outlined, I hope that the right hon. Member for Knowsley is minded to withdraw his amendment and that the clause will stand part of the Bill.

[Mr George Howarth]

I will be brief. I am happy to withdraw amendment 1, which I tabled as a probing amendment. The Minister’s last point is perhaps the most significant one. I do not think that we have a clear enough understanding of the scope of economic well-being, although it is reassuring to know that in this context it must be related to national security. We have had a reasonable debate. We have not reached any firm conclusions, but I am comforted by the fact that the issues will be discussed by David Anderson and others, and I hope that we can move the issue further along before there is any fresh communications data legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Extra-territoriality in Part 1 of RIPA

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

[James Brokenshire]

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 allows the Secretary of State to issue interception warrants and allows those warrants to be served on persons who can assist in giving effect to them. Anyone who is providing a public telecommunications service who is served with a warrant is obliged to give effect to it. It has always been the case that that applies to any company that offers services to customers in the United Kingdom, irrespective of where it is based.

The territorial extent of RIPA has perhaps never been as explicit as it should have been. As a result, some overseas companies have started to question whether they are obliged to comply with warrants that are served on them. Our judgment is that that situation has reached a dangerous tipping point, and that it is necessary to put it beyond doubt that RIPA applies equally to public telecommunications services that are located overseas and those that are headquartered in the UK.

The clause makes clear Parliament’s intention that RIPA should have extraterritorial jurisdiction. It does that in three ways. First, it specifies that an interception warrant may be served on a company that is located overseas, and that a company providing telecommunications services to customers within the United Kingdom, but which is located overseas, has a duty to provide assistance when served with that warrant. Secondly, it specifies that a notice that is issued under section 12 of RIPA may be given to a company that is providing telecommunications services to customers within the UK, but that is located outside the UK. Such a notice would require the company to put in place the necessary infrastructure to give effect to interception warrants. Thirdly, it specifies, as has always been the case, that a notice under section 22 of RIPA for the provision of communications data may be served on a company outside the UK.

The clause specifies the means by which the serving of a warrant or the giving of a notice may be effected. It also makes clear the obligation to comply with a warrant or notice, and the means by which that obligation may be enforced.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the Minister make clear what consequences the clause might have for overseas providers? Is there any possibility that a section 12 order could require a foreign company to install surveillance equipment on its network? Does the Minister have the powers to do that?

[James Brokenshire]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on surveillance techniques. However, I restate clearly that the Bill and, in particular, clause 4 do nothing more than is already the case in respect of the requirement to serve notices and the ability to issue warrants to overseas providers.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I confirm, for the benefit of the Committee, that what the Minister has just said about the intention being that RIPA should extend extraterritorially in these respects is entirely accurate? If hon. Members look at RIPA itself, they will see that section 2(1), which provides definitions, states that

“‘telecommunication system’ means any system (including the apparatus comprised in it) which exists (whether wholly or partly in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)”.

That is but one example—there are many to which I could point—that shows that the clear intention of this House and the other place was to make this part of the Act extraterritorial. Indeed, we thought that that would be the effect of the Act.

[James Brokenshire]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for providing that clarification and for highlighting that provision in section 2 of RIPA, which gives a sense of the extent and nature of the provisions that were contemplated when it was introduced. It was thought that it would have extraterritorial effect. Given legal challenges, other court cases and the language used in the legislation, we think it right to put that beyond doubt. That has always been the intent and practice for this measure; I repeat that the Bill does not extend the position but restates and asserts what has always been the case in the legislation. Those who may be subject to notices or warrants should understand clearly that it will apply to them if they are outside the UK.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I am interested in the practical application of this measure. What happens if a foreign IT provider refuses to comply, and uses encryption or another security mechanism effectively to flout the relevant order? What practical steps will the Government seek to take?

[James Brokenshire]

The approach we have taken is to promote co-operation, and stating as clearly as possible that the legislation has extraterritorial effect is a key part of that. Ultimately, given the clarity provided in the legislation, a company that did not comply with a warrant or notice served on it would be open to court challenge.

[Dr Huppert]

Perhaps my previous question was not clear. A number of companies are concerned about the important issue of how section 12 orders would be interpreted. RIPA currently deals with powers to enable companies to make lawful intercepts. Will the Minister confirm that if a company—a webmail provider, or whoever—can provide legal intercept, he is not claiming powers to require them to put specific equipment on their networks?

[James Brokenshire]

Perhaps I did not explain this clearly to the hon. Gentleman, but we are not intending to add additional powers to compel. I suppose he is trying to elicit whether the measure is a means of getting more data retained outside the UK—he raised that point in the previous debate on this issue, and again I may be misunderstanding him. I reassert that the Bill contains nothing that in any way extends the existing reach of section 12 of RIPA. Other than reasserting the position on extraterritoriality, it does not in essence change section 12 at all. If that does not answer his point, he may wish to write to me on the matter.

The clause provides that where a warrant has been served on a company outside the UK, the law in the country where the firm is located must be taken into account when determining whether it is reasonably practicable for that company to give effect to the warrant. The clause also makes it clear that the court should consider what steps the company has taken or could take to avoid such a conflict arising. It does not extend the powers of law enforcement or security and intelligence agencies. It simply puts beyond doubt the fact that sections 11, 12 and 22 of RIPA apply to telecommunication service providers that are based outside the UK but provide services to customers in the UK.

[Mr George Howarth]

I raised this point on Second Reading but I do not think the Minister had an opportunity to respond. In clause 4(6), proposed new subsection (3B)(a) and (b) covers the circumstances of delivering a notice to the sort of companies he has just described. Paragraph (a) states

“by delivering it to the person’s principal office within the United Kingdom or, if the person has no such office in the United Kingdom, to any place in the United Kingdom where the person carries on business or conducts activities,”

and (b) states

“if the person has specified an address in the United Kingdom as one at which the person, or someone on the person’s behalf, will accept documents of the same description as a notice, by delivering it to that address.”

I am sorry to read that out, but it provides the context.

The example I used earlier was of a relatively junior member of staff in a billing office in Liverpool for Google or one of the other communications service providers, and my concern is that they could end up having a notice served on them and be put in an invidious legal position. I hope that I am wrong about that and that the Minister will be able to reassure me. The provisions seem entirely appropriate for a senior member of staff.

[James Brokenshire]

Provisions on a person having a specified address, such as proposed new subsection (3B)(b), refer to a situation where lawyers accept service, proceedings or notification on a person’s behalf. In essence, the Bill gives effect to such clarification.

[Mr George Howarth]

The Minister has provided the reassurance I was looking for, so at this point I can say that I am perfectly happy with the clause as it now stands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I have two questions and I would be grateful if the Minister provided a written response to them, to ensure we get a clear answer. First, may we have a written confirmation that there would be no power to force foreign companies to install surveillance equipment on their networks if they are able to provide the intercept that is needed? Secondly, will he confirm the impact of subsection (4) and make it clear that, if a foreign company is under an obligation not to provide such data—if it would, in fact, be a criminal offence for them to comply—no such requirement would be made by the Government? That would put people in the invidious position of having to face criminality on one front or the other. If the Minister wrote to me with confirmation on those points, that would be very helpful.

[James Brokenshire]

I will respond briefly to the points made in the debate. On the latter point, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) will have noted the reference I made to companies’ reasonable ability to comply and the consideration that would have to be given in particular to conflict of law issues, but I will see if I need to supplement that in some way.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

Clause 5 is a simple but necessary part of the Bill that puts into law an important clarification. Today people communicate using a range of web-based services and applications. As the scale and diversity of these services have grown, there should not be any uncertainty about whether a communications service provider to users in the UK is covered by the definition. RIPA was written in a technologically neutral way to allow for developments in the way in which services are delivered. We believe that web-based services such as web-based e-mail, messaging applications and cloud-based services have always been covered by the nature of the definition. Clause 5 simply clarifies how this definition should be interpreted and makes it clear that these services are covered by the definition of a telecommunications service.

Some have asked whether this is extending the definition in some way. I want to make it absolutely clear that that is not the case. We are not changing the existing definition, which remains absolutely as it stands in RIPA. The Bill clarifies how the current definition should be interpreted, but a clarificatory provision of this kind cannot change or extend the meaning of the definition in RIPA to capture new services. This provision simply makes it explicit that the existing definition includes so-called over-the-top services such as webmail and instant messaging for the purposes of that interception. In many ways, it has been the industry itself that has welcomed this clarification and restatement of the existing legislation, which is why I think it is important to give that clarity to the House and to the industry generally. It does not extend the scope of RIPA; instead, it restates and provides clarification in terms of the existing definition, which remains as it was before.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Commencement, duration, extent and short title

[Mr Hanson]

I beg to move amendment 3, page 6, line 41, at end insert

“and is subject to a reporting requirement as set out in subsection (1A).

(1A) The Commissioner for the Interception of Communications must report on the operation of this Act six months following commencement of this Act, followed by subsequent reports every six months.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I spoke a lot in the debate earlier and was not going to speak again until my colleague, the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), reminded us of how this debate looks to the public outside this place.

As we have all said, this issue is of huge importance. Almost no issue that we deal with affects people as directly as their personal communications, and, therefore, is as sensitive. That is why it is so negative that we have given the impression that we simply do not care what people think. The public are pretty disengaged from MPs and Parliament, and do not have much respect for what goes on in this place. Today was an opportunity to begin to build bridges with them and to demonstrate that we can take these issues and their concerns seriously, and I feel so sad about the fact that Parliament seems to have flunked it. We have decided not to build bridges and have given the public the impression that we do not take ourselves seriously, so why should they take what we do in this place seriously?

Many arguments have been advanced on why it is not necessary to pass the Bill in such a short time. There is no serious argument that this is an emergency. If there were, it would have been dealt with three months ago. People can see through that. Their concerns and disillusionment with this Parliament will be redoubled by this process, instead of being addressed by it.

One reason why I support amendment 2 to the sunset clause is that it would rescue something from this unhappy state. If we at least said that over the coming months, we will do this piece of work properly and a review will happen, we could build some confidence among the public. As it is, I regret to say that we have lost yet more public confidence today, at a time when we can least afford to do so.

[James Brokenshire]

I will speak to Government amendments 7 and 8 and new clause 7, which were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I will also address the provisions that have been tabled by Opposition Front Benchers before turning to the issues with the timetable and the sunset clause.

The Government amendments provide for a review of the powers and capabilities. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) for his comments about Opposition new clause 1, which relates to the same topic and sets out the terms of a review of the legislation. There is no difference of principle here. [Interruption.]

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

Order. I can hear murmuring. I have a wee bit of industrial deafness from a previous life, but even I can hear it. I notice that a lot of conversations are taking place. We have had a long debate. The Minister is summing it up and I hope that Members will give him the best of order.

[James Brokenshire]

Thank you, Mr Hood.

New clause 1 shows that there is overlapping ground on the review. There is no difference of principle in that regard. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in her statement last week that we would review the interception and communications data powers that we need, as well as the way in which those powers and capabilities are regulated, in the full context of the threats that we face. I am pleased that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, QC, has agreed to conduct the first phase of that work. Our amendments give that work proper statutory footing, and set out the issues that the review will need to cover. It will deal with the powers that are required in the light of the threats we face and how they are regulated, and it will require the independent reviewer to report before the next election. Crucially, it will require the review to take account not only of the threats we face, but also of the safeguards required to protect privacy, and the impact of changing technology on the work of the agencies to keep us safe.

On that basis the Government have tabled amendments that achieve what I believe the Opposition were seeking to do in their amendments on this matter. The amendments make that explicit and address the points that the right hon. Member for Delyn set out in his initial contribution. I think he said that he may be warming to new clause 7—sufficiently warmed, I hope, to withdraw new clause 1.

The periodic review of the legislation is important in assuring the House and the public that appropriate safeguards are being ensured, and that operations of communications data and lawful intercept are being conducted properly and appropriately. Should the Bill pass through the House, it will not extend the reach and remit of such measures, as some who have made earlier contributions have perhaps feared. I agree with the Opposition that while this legislation remains in statute until the sunset clause kicks in—in our view at the end of 2016, and I will come on to the specifics of that—and while reviews are being conducted, the provision of information from the interception of communications commissioner on a more frequent basis might help inform those making observations on the operation of and any deficiencies in the law on interception and communications data capabilities.

The right hon. Member for Delyn and those on the Opposition Front Bench have tabled a number of alternatives and amendments, and the Government are happy to accept new clause 6 and related technical amendments 4 and 5, alongside amendment 6, which adds to the long title of the Bill. Indeed, I think I should also formally move those amendments to ensure that they do not fall outside any timeline we may have. As I said, the Government are content to accept those amendments, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw new clause 2 and amendment 3, which would have dealt with the same issues.

A great part of this debate in Committee has focused on amendment 2, which would bring forward the date at which the Bill ceases to have effect to 31 December this year, rather than the current date of 31 December 2016. With the greatest respect, and acknowledging the points that have been made, I do not believe that that is the most effective way to proceed and give the House the information to assess the broad issues of communications data effectively. We have set in train and committed to have an independent review from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation on the broad area of communications data. If that review is concluded, the House will be better informed in assessing the balance of privacy and capabilities that exist, and considering how technology has changed and may impact on what is necessary. The independent review will be instrumental in providing that information, and in informing the next Government after the general election as to how to proceed on that basis.

The Prime Minister has said that he thinks that a Joint Committee should be established to take that review forward and have that additional scrutiny. We therefore have the long-stop date, which is a termination date in 2016. That does not get renewed; the legislation ends at that point to give this House and the other place appropriate time to legislate in the context of those reviews, as well as for further scrutiny or consideration by the Joint Committee.

[Mr Davis]

The Minister is conflating two issues that amendment 2 seeks to deal with. First, this House has not had the time to research, consult and debate this issue. Secondly, the technology underlying the problems we face is changing. It is not mutually exclusive to address the first issue—lack of debate, consultation, research and knowledge—through, in proper, slow time, a consultative process in September and a proper Bill procedure in the autumn, and later, if he thinks it fit, to come back to the House with another review. That would at least allow the House to make its decision on a proper basis. If he allowed that, I would be happy to vote for Third Reading today. If he does not allow it, I am afraid that this is an undemocratic process that none of us can support.

[James Brokenshire]

We are going back over ground addressed on Second Reading and in the programme motion debate, but it is worth restating the fact that the Bill does not extend powers that this House has already granted through RIPA. It effectively restates what is already existing law. The legislation does not, therefore, seek to create something new, but simply restates what is already being operated, giving it clear legal underpinning in the context of the ECJ decision and the pressures from industry and others in terms of challenge.

On the need to act now, I say again that no Government embark on emergency legislation lightly. No Government seek to use fast-track legislation unless they judge that it is necessary. Our real concerns are that we have reached a tipping point regarding co-operation on lawful intercept and the risk that our essential powers on communications data, which are used day in, day out by law enforcement and the security agencies that protect this country, will simply not be available. That could occur at any time between now and the long-stop date that the right hon. Gentleman and others are suggesting in relation to December 2014. That is why the Government have judged that emergency legislation is appropriate and why we think it necessary to have a review: to ensure that this House is properly informed of all the issues to legislate carefully in a sensible way by no later than 31 December 2016, when this legislation would cease to have affect.

These are complicated matters. We need to act swiftly to deal with the particular challenge we face and to avoid the damaging loss of capability that confronts us. However, I do believe a longer-term considered approach is appropriate, hence the reason for having the review and for providing assurance in relation to the commissioner for the interception of communications and his reports on operation. There are already a number of reviews in the system. The Intelligence and Security Committee is conducting an inquiry, as is the Royal United Services Institute.

There is also the further review, which is to be led by David Anderson, of the communications data and interception powers we need, and how they are regulated in the light of the threats we face. As I have indicated, the Bill will set this out in legislation in terms, but he needs to be given some time to conduct this work. New clause 7 asks him to complete his work by 1 May 2015. That being so, I can see no point in requiring Parliament to return to these issues almost as soon as we return from the summer recess, without the benefit of the work we have set in train. Any such legislation would also inevitably require an accelerated timetable. Rather, we believe that Parliament needs to consider these issues properly after the election, drawing on the outcome of the reviews that are in train and with the ability to consider everything at a normal parliamentary pace. Accordingly, I invite the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) to withdraw amendment 2, so that we can have this process recognising the needs now and recognising the need for further review and for the House to return to these matters in the light of that informed basis.

[Mr Hanson]

We have had a useful debate on the amendments. The Opposition had two objectives in tabling our amendments and new clauses today: first, to secure a review of this Act, if passed by this House and by the House of Lords, within six months and then every six months following that; and secondly, to put it on the record that we need to have a wider examination of the whole of the intercept evidence-data collection issue. I think we have had a meeting of minds on that issue. With that in mind, I am happy to withdraw amendment 3 and to support new clause 6, and to ask the Government to accept that as they have indicated they will. We will then support Government new clause 7, which meets our objectives. There are other consequential amendments but, for clarity, that is my objective. It would be helpful, given what the Minister said, if we proceeded on that basis.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 4, page 7, line 1, leave out “5” and insert

“(Half-yearly reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner)”. —(Mr Hanson.)

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

I call the Minister to move amendment 7 formally.

[James Brokenshire]

On a point of order, Mr. Hood. I believe that amendment 5 is a technical amendment that may also be required. I do not know whether that will be dealt with now or later.

[(The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

That is not a point of order. I can tell the Minister that we will take amendment 5 after we deal with amendment 7.

Amendment made: 7, page 7, line 1, after “5” insert

“and (Review of investigatory powers and their regulation)” —(James Brokenshire.)

This amendment is consequential on NC7

Amendment made: 5, page 7, line 2, leave out “5” and insert

“(Half-yearly reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner)” —(Mr Hanson.)

Amendment proposed: 2, page 7, line 2, leave out “2016” and insert “2014”—(Mr Watson.)

Question put, That the amendment be made

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Unfortunately, the approach taken for, I believe, many decades has been not to tell people. We have always been told, “We can’t tell you what’s being done at the moment, but we need more.” If we were told and there were transparency, the public could make a much more sensible judgment about what was needed.

New clause 3 highlights what I would expect to see as part of new transparency reporting. It contains requirements to ensure that information is available about the offence being investigated, so that we can find out if it is about children applying to the wrong school or speeding offences, as opposed to national security matters, how long the data have been requested, so that we can work out how long they should be kept for—is it usually used after a week or a year?—and what sort of data they are, so that we know whether we are talking about reverse directory look-ups or rather more personal information. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me that that is his intention.

I should say that both my new clauses were inspired by Big Brother Watch, which I have been working with on this whole Bill and which particularly wanted to make these points clear. New clause 4 deals with the problem that a number of organisations feel they cannot publish their transparency reports and say what they have been asked to do for fear of violating the legislation against tipping off. I understand why there is a concern. The Government do not want companies to say, “The following things we are reporting to the Government, but these things are perfectly safe; we will not tell the Government about them.” We want companies to be able to publish that anonymised information, so I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that companies can safely publish it as part of their transparency reports without fear of being prosecuted.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reassurances on both those aspects.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for tabling these new clauses to enable a debate about transparency and the information provided in the exercise of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. He will know that the Government—the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—announced last week that we intend to introduce annual transparency reports relating to the exercise of powers under RIPA. That report will provide as much detail as possible, but without undermining the effectiveness of the agencies or posing a risk to national security.

The point I would make to my hon. Friend is that if we had individual companies giving details, that might give an indication to those who would do us harm, who might ask themselves, “Well, which ones aren’t doing that and which direction should we go in?” This therefore has to be done with care, given the nature of transparency, but I endorse his point about the need for more information to be provided, so that the public and this House can have confidence in the utilisation of the powers set out in the legislation.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Will my hon. Friend take on board the point I made in my intervention a few moments ago? Although one fully accepts that one cannot give full statistical data about these sorts of activities as they relate to national security, the point that the hon. Member for Cambridge made—that the majority are about serious crime rather than national security—ought to give us the opportunity to set out many case studies that would improve the public’s understanding of why it is so important that we have these data.

[James Brokenshire]

I know that my hon. Friend understands the importance of communications data in the fight against organised crime, as 95% of the organised crime cases that have been brought before the courts have relied on those data. He will also be aware of some of the surveys that have been run to indicate the proportions of communications data that are used and how they are broken down. For example, a survey in 2012 showed that 51% of communications data used to investigate sexual offences were older than six months. It is that type of information that, if we had further detail, would give that sense of how communications data are used to reassure the public and others in respect of the utility of the powers that are there. That certainly touches on one of my hon. Friend’s points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

The Minister talked about that two-week snapshot from 2012. Is that the most recent survey that looked at the age of the data? Does he agree that it would be really helpful to have more up-to-date information about the age of the data are that used?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend argues for a different approach. He talks about a limited period and then about the need to safeguard that information following an event. I do not agree with him on that, as that is a separate debate. However, I agree that where we can see accurate data being provided, we seek to surface that as much as possible as part of the approach on transparency.

As the commissioner made clear in his report, the Home Office was working with him to improve the statistics collected by public authorities. He identified a number of further elements in his report, including the total number of applications submitted, the total number of items of data requested, the total items of data broken down by statutory purpose for which they were required and the total items of data broken down by crime type or other purpose for which they were required, which is the point that my hon. Friend has just made.

We are working with public authorities to ensure that most of these statistics are already being collected by them, and are progressing work to agree on the relevant practicalities such as agreed nomenclature that would enable those that had not already been collected to be collected. Transparency is important in ensuring continued public trust in the agencies and police forces that have been granted intrusive powers. However, transparency does have limits. We should not commit to such transparency that would publicise police and other sensitive investigative methodology, because explaining exactly how our investigators do their job will naturally lead to terrorists, criminals and others who wish us harm knowing how to avoid detection. We must also be careful not to weigh down investigators with too much bureaucracy such that they cannot perform the important function of preventing and detecting crimes and keeping us safe.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I appreciate that my hon. Friend is mainly talking about the gathering and publication of statistical data, but it would not involve much effort for police forces to collate even half a dozen or a dozen cases per year that are reported in the press to show how these communications data are used in individual cases. A few good examples that have already been published would go a long way to help the public understand how important this methodology is.

[James Brokenshire]

In highlighting case studies, my hon. Friend makes an important point. A number of case studies involving serious murders have already been referenced in the debate this evening. Indeed, the shadow Home Secretary highlighted a case in which a young person who was safeguarded was effectively prevented from killing themselves. Such examples highlight the absolute import and value of communications data and the way in which our emergency services, police and others rely on them, not just to solve crime and to protect the public from those very real threats that we understand from a criminal law and a counter-terrorism perspective, but to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm. The ability to identify where someone may be through tracking the communications data can literally be a matter of life and death. My hon. Friend is therefore right to suggest we can draw on case studies to provide greater explanation. In the appalling Soham murders, for example, communications data were instrumental in bringing those responsible to justice. Such cases highlight the significance of the use of the powers.

I recognise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, but I am unable to accept his new clause tonight. I can make it clear, however, that I do not resist increased transparency; indeed, it is the reason we have agreed to bring forward annual transparency reports. Such a level of detail can be considered in different ways, and in amending the code of practice on the acquisition and disclosure of communications data later this year, we can ensure that the appropriate text is included in statutory guidance, for example. Parliament will have a chance to return to the issue soon in that context. There are perhaps other ways in which we can reflect further on getting the balance right.

My hon. Friend made another point that may in fact relate to section 19 of RIPA, rather than to the section he suggested, concerning the illegality of disclosing the existence of a warrant under that section. To do so would risk exposing the existence of an interception capability and, crucially, the potential lack of such a capability, which would indicate to criminals and terrorists, who may wish to exploit such a gap, which communication services they may be able to use to conduct their illicit activities without detection. I believe that my hon. Friend seeks to ensure that where such a disclosure is made as part of an annual transparency report issued by the major service providers, a defence will be available to them in any subsequent legal proceedings.

The Government believe that, as at present, it is for the interception of communications commissioner to publish the total number of interception warrants. The commissioner has expressed his concern about the nature of the transparency reports, particularly with reference to requests for communications data. In his annual report for 2013, the commissioner is clear that statistics from transparency reports should “be treated with caution” as they may “lead to misleading comparisons”. Indeed, it would not be helpful to the public for there to be numerous sources of information on the number of requests or warrants when there is a lack of clarity and consistency as between each source. We are doing everything that we can, working with the independent commissioner, to improve the transparency of how such powers are used, but the additional provision would not help to give the public greater clarity, so I invite my hon. Friend to withdraw new clause 3.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for his comments. The move towards greater transparency will benefit us all, including the Home Office. I do not quite agree with some of the points that he made towards the end of his speech. Many companies are doing well publishing transparency reports, which is helping to move the agenda forwards, but in the interests of time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Effect and justiciability of this Act

‘For the avoidance of doubt and notwithstanding sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, this Act shall have effect and shall be construed as having effect and shall be justiciable by the courts of the United Kingdom.’—(Sir William Cash.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Sir William Cash]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am grateful to be called at this late hour. This new clause is important. I look to the Home Secretary; she knows exactly where I am coming from and where I am going. She may believe that we will be defeated on this new clause, but nothing will prevent me from making the point, which is that the Bill could become pointless. The difficulty, which she understands—I am sure that her advisers have already explained it—is simply that clauses 1 and 2 will enable the Home Secretary to serve a data retention notice on public telecommunications operators and to make secondary legislation governing such notices. However, there is a real possibility that the precise meaning of the European Court of Justice’s Digital Rights Ireland judgment has the effect of potentially eviscerating the Bill.

Professor Peers of Essex university draws attention to the objection by the Court to the requirement to retain all communications data. The fact that the directive required all data to be retained from all subscribers was indeed the first of the considerations taken into account by the Court in arriving at the conclusion that the directive was disproportionate. The problem is that it is within the framework of European law. This Bill is within the scope of EU law and so is the charter of fundamental rights, and the general principle of EU law will continue to apply. What that means in practice is very simple: sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 have the effect of ensuring that the retention directive, its replacements and all that follows from it are and have to be implemented in UK law. The United Kingdom also has an obligation under the voluntarily enacted 1972 Act to accept the jurisdiction of the European Court.

The European Court has already adjudicated on this matter, but the problem is that within the framework of this Bill there are grave uncertainties that have already been expressed by myself and others during these proceedings. The bottom line is therefore whether we are to make uncertainty more uncertain by providing for a situation in which we enact a Bill that might be challenged by the European Court through arrangements that some people who do not like its provisions might decide to entertain. If they do so, it will go back through the Court of First Instance and then the Court of Appeal before going to our own Supreme Court and being referred to the European Court of Justice. As with the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which was struck down by our own High Court in pursuance of the European Communities Act 1972, which is a voluntary Act, the net result if the European Court of Justice makes such a determination will be that the United Kingdom will be faced with this Bill being struck down as enacted.

I do not need to say any more, because I have made the point throughout our proceedings. I implore the Government to take note of the new clause, which has been carefully considered by some very senior lawyers, both academics and practising lawyers. They are convinced that the Bill is at risk and so, as I did with the enactment of the Lisbon treaty, I tabled a provision that said that notwithstanding the European Communities Act the charter of fundamental rights would not apply. The Home Secretary might smile now, but I have to say to her that that is now a serious choice for the Government. Either they except the charter of fundamental rights or, through amendment of the 1972 Act, they should ensure that the charter of fundamental rights does not apply. That also applies to these provisions and I need say no more for the moment. I sincerely trust that the Minister will give a positive response.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has raised these points during the course of the debate and I note the points that he makes, but I restate my previous points. The Bill is intended to give greater legal certainty through the statutory underpinning it provides rather than by relying on secondary legislation with the challenges and risks that might face in the future. We have framed the legislation in the context of the ECJ judgment. We have reflected on it carefully and believe that it is robust in its construction. I note that my hon. Friend will continue rightly to challenge on these European issues, but I hope that in the context of today’s debate, he will be minded to withdraw his new clause.

[Sir William Cash]

I wish to press my new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Immigration Rules

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.

These changes will implement restrictions on the ability of those already present in the UK as a tier 4 (student) or tier 1 (post study work) migrant to make an in-country application for an extension of stay as a tier 1 (entrepreneur).

The tier 1 (entrepreneur) category is for those who wish to establish a genuine business which will generate jobs in the UK. It has, however, become clear that the majority of those applying in-country for leave in the category are those who have come here for the purpose of study and are making speculative or fraudulent applications simply to extend their stay in the UK.

Checks against the tax records of those who have been granted leave as entrepreneurs suggest that few have gone on to engage in genuine entrepreneurial activity, and that a significant proportion have taken employment in breach of their conditions, typically at low skill levels.

This shows that a robust response is required to protect the integrity of the immigration system and to make clear that systematic abuse will not be tolerated. The new restrictions on switching into the tier 1 (entrepreneur) category will apply while we carry out further investigations into these abuses and review the route to ensure that it delivers its proper purpose, which is to help foster growth and innovation. The changes will come into force tomorrow, to guard against the possibility of any further intake of speculative or fraudulent applications.

The tier 1 (entrepreneur) remains open. Those who already have leave in the category will continue to be able to extend their stay. The new restrictions will not apply to those qualifying on the basis of seed funding or funding provided by another government department, nor, in the case of those switching from the tier 1 (post study work) route, will they apply to those who have already established a genuine business. Those who graduate here will continue to be able to apply to extend their stay under the tier 1 (graduate entrepreneur) category, which is significantly undersubscribed. Those who have a genuine intention of establishing a business here will also continue to be able to apply from overseas.

In addition, this statement of changes to the immigration rules will remove all tests provided by Cambridge International Examinations (CIE), and specific tests provided by Cambridge English and Trinity College London from the list of approved English tests. These changes are being made at the providers’ requests.

The changes also add a new 12 month “mathematics teacher exchange” scheme to the tier 5 (Government authorised exchange) route. This scheme is aimed at sharing best practice in the teaching of mathematics in schools across England and China, and supports the objectives of the Department for Education who will administer and fund the scheme.

This statement of changes also contains amendments to align the immigration rules on family and private life in Appendix FM and paragraphs 276ADE-276DH with the public interest considerations in section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 which apply to decisions engaging the qualified right to respect for private and family life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The changes also align the immigration rules on family and private life in part 13, which relate to foreign criminals, with the public interest considerations in sections 117B and 117C of the 2002 Act. These considerations are inserted by section 19 of the Immigration Act 2014.

Section 19 gives the weight of primary legislation to Parliament’s view of what the public interest under article 8 requires, in particular in respect of controlling immigration to safeguard the UK’s economic well-being and in respect of preventing disorder or crime.

The statement of changes also contains amendments facilitating the use of the non-suspensive appeals provision, inserted by section 17(3) of the Immigration Act 2014. This provision allows the Secretary of State to certify an appeal where an individual is liable to deportation when, despite the appeals process not having been begun or not having been exhausted, removal of a person to the country or territory to which they are proposed to be removed, pending the outcome of an appeal in relation to their claim, would not be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, for example the individual would not face a real risk of serious irreversible harm if removed.

Home Department

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from a speech given by the Minister for Security and Immigration, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) during the debate on Passport Office (Delays) on 10 June 2014.

[James Brokenshire]

Between 1 January and 31 May 2014, HMPO received 3.3 million applications—350,000 more than the same period last year, and the highest volume of applications received for this period over the last 12 years. Indeed, in both March and May this year, HMPO recorded the highest level of applications received in any month over the last 12 years.

[Official Report, 10 June 2014, Vol. 582, c. 523.]

Letter of correction from James Brokenshire:

An error has been identified in part of the speech I gave during the debate on Passport Office (Delays).

The correct response should have been:

[James Brokenshire]

Between 1 January and 31 May 2014, HMPO received 3.3 million applications—350,000 more than the same period last year, and the highest volume of applications received for this period over the last 12 years. Indeed, in both March and May this year, HMPO recorded the highest level of applications received in any month over the last eight years.

Passport Applications

The following are extracts from speeches made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the Minister for Security and Immigration, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) during the debate on Passport Applications on 18 June 2014.

[Mrs May]

I have explained that HMPO is dealing with an unprecedented surge in demand for passports. HMPO has issued 3.3 million passports in the first five months of this year, compared with 2.95 million in the same period last year.

[Official Report, 18 June 2014, Vol. 582, c. 1136.]

[Mrs May]

Her Majesty’s Passport Office has issued 3.3 million passports in the first five months of this year, compared with 2.95 million in the same period last year.

[Official Report, 18 June 2014, Vol. 582, c. 1145.]

[James Brokenshire]

Her Majesty’s Passport Office issued 3.3 million passports in the first five months of the year, compared with 2.95 million in the same period last year.

[Official Report, 18 June 2014, Vol. 582, c. 1175.]

Letters of correction from Theresa May and James Brokenshire:

Errors have been identified in part of the speeches given during the debate on Passport Applications.

The correct response should have been:

Her Majesty’s Passport Office has received 3.3 million applications for passports in the first five months of this year, compared with 2.95 million in the same period last year.

Student Visas

The following is an extract from the Statement given by the Minister for Security and Immigration, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) on Student Visas on 24 June 2014.

[James Brokenshire]

Overseas students at privately funded further education colleges are not allowed to work at all, yet one college—the London School of Business and Finance—has 290 foreign students who worked and paid tax last year.

[Official Report, 24 June 2014, Vol. 583, c. 207.]

Letter of correction from James Brokenshire:

An error has been identified in the statement given on 24 June 2014.

The correct statement should have been:

[James Brokenshire]

Overseas students at privately funded further education colleges are not allowed to work at all, yet one college—the London School of Business and Finance—has over 290 foreign students who worked and paid tax last year.