National Security Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Maria Eagle

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

Why not include the UK company? I do not understand why there are different levels in the two schemes.

I support the measure—when we did the Russia report, the right hon. Member for Dundee East and I were very clear that there was a gap, where international partners had provisions and we did not, so this is welcome. I just think that the Government are making it unnecessarily complicated.

I press a final point about secondary legislation. More information about how the measures are going to work in practice before the Bill gains Royal Assent would help the process.

[Maria Eagle]

I endorse what my right hon. Friend has just said about the complexity of the proposed scheme, which concerns me as well. I very much favour our having a scheme, and I think we should have had one sooner. It is a shame that we were not able to see on Second Reading what was being proposed, because we could have had some of these debates at an earlier stage, when there was still a chance to make changes.

I have a concern about the two tiers being different. It is confusing and complex—much more confusing and complex than it needs be. It might have been more effective to have one tier applying to all countries, and a broader range of covert activity specified as having to be registrable. That might have then meant we would have needed more exclusions, but it would have had the benefit of being simple, straightforward, transparent, all on a level and more obvious, both to those to whom it applies and to those who wish to see the benefit of being able to consult the publicly available information, from a transparency point of view.

It is hard to understand the need for this level of complexity, particularly when it comes to the second tier. Why is the registration of harmful activity outside political influencing, some of which is worse than political influencing, only registrable when a foreign power is set out in the secondary legislation? What we are doing is putting an additional burden on the Government. The Security Minister might always be up for registering the right companies and organisations and countries, but he has got to persuade the whole Government. Other Departments have their own interests and their own work to pursue, which could be made much more difficult by designating in this manner. We seem to be setting ourselves a barrier that might be quite hard to overcome. The eventual outcome of the discussions within Government might not be in accordance with the best security interests. I am not talking about this particular Minister or this particular Government, but there are always competing issues and concerns.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Miss Sarah Dines.)

National Security Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Maria Eagle

Committee stage
Thursday 8th September 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Maria Eagle]

I endorse what my hon. Friend has just said from the Front Bench regarding the breadth of some of these provisions, but before the Minister replies I want to put another point to him. There is going to be a question about the necessity of the provisions, and whether or not they give a court any real, additional power beyond what it already inherently has.

There is a general requirement that judges would apply in any case to those coming before the court and seeking redress, which is that they have to come with clean hands. If any court has a case before it where some ne’er do well is trying to take advantage of court proceedings to get damages for something that they then intend to use for nefarious purposes, it is perfectly normal for that court, under its inherent jurisdiction and the rules of equity, to take into account, when deciding damages, whether or not the applicant has come to the court with clean hands.

[Mr Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what tends to get the headlines in newspapers is when people bring claims in these kinds of cases? Some of the cases seem quite horrific and brazen, but what never gets reported is that they are usually thrown out, because, as my hon. Friend has outlined, the courts already have powers to do so. The fact that someone has the ability to bring a case does not necessarily mean that it is going to be successful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

Indeed. Certainly, my experience of the courts is that judges are not daft: if they have somebody arguing a case before them and seeking damages who has been a very badly behaved individual, that person is less likely to get damages in the first place, and to the extent that they get any damages, they are likely to be exceedingly small—probably not enough to cover the costs they have incurred in bringing the case. Where those cases have been legally aided, zero damages would certainly be an option in most of them.

As such, I wonder whether any of these provisions are actually necessary. They are setting out requirements for judges, telling them what they must do in all cases and creating extra procedures, but they do not go an awful lot further than the inherent jurisdiction of the court under the general rules of equity. As I say, judges are not daft: they know what their powers are, and they tend to apply them.

My other concern regarding these provisions is that, if they stay in the Bill and ossify into court procedures that have to be undertaken in each case, there will be a slippery slope. This legislation addresses instances where especially badly behaved people are coming before a court, seeking damages that they intend to use for nefarious purposes. In this particular case, it is terrorism-related offences, but what about gangsters? What about murderers? We can all think of other dodgy characters who could go to court without clean hands, seeking damages to further their nefarious behaviours.

Once all these procedures are set in aspic, in statute, it is very easy for draftsmen—well, I am not having a go at parliamentary draftsmen, who work very hard. It is easy for the next outraged junior Minister, clearly not from the Home Office but from some other Department, to say at some point in the next couple of years, “We will use those provisions that were in the National Security Bill.” We may see a slippery slope, where these provisions are extended to other nefarious characters who might decide to go before the courts seeking damages. All the while, judges have an inherent jurisdiction and can make their own decisions. I am really not sure that the measures are at all necessary, and while the Minister is looking at some of these things, I invite him to think about removing them entirely. In any event, even if he decides that these unnecessary measures will remain in the Bill, they are certainly too broad.

[Mr Jones]

There is lots in the Bill on which there is cross-party agreement. We want to achieve a situation whereby law enforcement, our agencies and others have maximum powers to stop the real threat out there from those who wish to do us harm. Clause 57, and the ones on legal aid, which we will come to next, seem to have been plonked into the Bill as headline-grabbing measures—“We will do this because it will look as though we’re tough on terrorists.” I do not think they add anything to the ability of our security services to do their work; nor do they ensure that our courts deal with such cases effectively, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood has outlined.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley mentioned a case. I will not refer to it in detail—my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood and I are members of the ISC, which has looked at it in detail—but it comes back to the checks and balances point that I made this morning, and not just in terms of security. When the state does something that leads to a wrong being committed against a citizen, there needs to be a redress mechanism, and I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood that the provision will be extended to other areas. The measures will get a nice headline for the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton, who clearly wants to be seen as tough on terrorism, but I am not sure that, in practice, they represent anything of the sort.

Increasingly—and this is a slippery slope of which politicians need to be wary— we in this country react to newspaper headlines about what the courts do, such as “They have got X, Y or Z wrong.” Is the justice system or the jury system perfect? No, they are not, but they are robust. As my hon. Friend has just said, judges know in most cases when someone is pursuing a claim that is not grounded—they are experienced. I believe that we should leave that to courts and judges to decide.

When a newspaper rings up to say, “This judge has just done X, Y and Z. Isn’t this terrible?”, I always urge colleagues to dig into it because in most cases, the headline is completely different from the facts of the case. Without hearing the facts of the case in detail, making an instant judgment is difficult. I do not accept that our judges and judiciary are somehow woolly liberals who are prepared to turn a blind eye to justice; they are robust individuals who want not only to uphold the law, but to ensure that they get the right balance between the rights of the state and the rights of the citizen, as I mentioned earlier.

I accept that the Minister cannot accept the amendments today and that he perhaps does not want to carve out this piece of the Bill now, but discussion needs to be had on this—we will come to the next bit in a minute. If it does not get carved out here, when it goes to the other place, which is full of legal experts and people with a lifetime and huge experience in this area, it will get sliced to pieces. It is not just bad drafting; it is Ministers trying to put provisions in Bills for political purposes, rather than because they make common sense. As I said the other day, what irritates me is that, if we are going to take the provision out, we should do so in this House rather than allow it to go to the House of Lords. It will not survive that process, and we need to be honest about that. It is far better that we do it, and actually do our job, which is scrutinising legislation.

I said the other day, when the Minister was not here, that there is something that has built up over the last 21 years that I have been in the House: Ministers take it as a slight if a provision gets dropped when a Bill goes through the Commons, as though that is a weakness of the system. No, it is not: it is proper scrutiny. With a certain amount of co-operation, much of the Bill could go straight through, but measures such as this cannot, unfortunately.

National Security Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Maria Eagle

Committee stage
Thursday 8th September 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Ms Ali. I bring good news to the Committee: yesterday, I met the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), who is alive and well. We asked why he did not attend the Committee, but we have not yet had an explanation from the Government. From what he told me, I understand that the reason why he was told to stay away was that he would not move part 3 of the Bill.

Related to that, however, we also raised the issue of losing a day last Tuesday because the Government insisted on adjourning the Committee. Has any thought been given to an extra day next week—if we need it—to complete the Bill’s proper scrutiny?

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Ms Ali. On both occasions that the Committee met on Tuesday, although only for a short time and without being able to make any progress on the Bill, I asked the Minister in charge, the Government Whip, for an explanation of why the former Minister had not turned up to the Committee. Had he engaged in dereliction of his duty—he said he would stay in post until the new appointment and then did not turn up—or had he been asked to stay away? My right hon. Friend put forward—we would call this hearsay in the courts—an explanation that he heard from the hon. Gentleman in question, but I had asked the Whip to tell us. I think the Committee deserves to hear why that happened. Will one of the Ministers tell us what the Government’s explanation is? It has been requested since Tuesday.

National Security Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Maria Eagle

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

Quill pens, yes. Now it is about resigning by tweet. The Minister was clear in his tweet that he was resigning—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood has helpfully passed me her smartphone—again, using new technology, which is not the usual way I operate. The Minister made things quite clear in the last paragraph, when he said:

“I will continue to serve until a new Security Minister is appointed and look forward to supporting our new Prime Minister.”

The Minister is therefore still in post, so we need an explanation as to why he is not here to continue discussion of the Bill.

I asked that question this morning, and the Government Whip, the hon. Member for North Cornwall, did the usual by just ignoring it. I thought I would try again because persistence pays off and I quite like the hon. Gentleman, as he knows. We—not just the Opposition, but the House—deserve an explanation as to why today’s sittings are being adjourned when a Security Minister is in place.

In her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, Madam Deputy Speaker said that this is the normal process until a new Minister has been appointed. I then raised a supplementary point of order to point out that we still have a Minister; it is just that he seems to have disappeared or is being kept away from the Committee. We need an explanation for this unique event, whereby the Minister has been kidnapped or is being kept away from the Committee, and the Government want to fold the Committee today.

I have one last point about the timings of these things. As I said this morning, there is quite a lot of consensus on the Bill. We—me and my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench—want to get the Bill into statute and provide our security services with the best weapons and ammunition for the difficult job that they do on our behalf. That has not been helped by the rather messy and squalid way in which the Committee has been dealt with today. Will the Whip consider giving the Committee an extra day to pursue the Bill through Committee, to make up for the day that we have lost—not through our lack of willingness—and to give the Bill the proper scrutiny that it clearly deserves?

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I will speak briefly, as I do not wish to labour the point. I would not be making this point at all if it had not been for the terms of the Minister’s resignation letter, which we have all seen and which has been quoted to the Committee:

“I will continue to serve until a new Security Minister is appointed”.

The new Prime Minister, who is now in post, will no doubt appoint a new Security Minister in the next few days—possibly this evening or tomorrow. That is good; it means that we ought to be able to get back to consideration as planned on Thursday. However, there is no reason that would have stopped the resigning Minister, who is continuing in post until he is replaced, from coming to this Committee today and doing the work on the Bill that he has prepared for, because he has had the whole of August to do it.

The new Minister, no matter how excellent he or she ends up being as a Minister—no matter how knowledgeable in matters defence and national security—is not going to be as familiar with the Bill as the hon. Member for Stevenage. I just cannot see why the hon. Gentleman could not have come here, which is why I asked that question of the Whip, the hon. Member for North Cornwall, this morning. I understand that he has been put in an awkward position, but I did ask him whether he could seek some advice from his Whip colleagues about why the Minister did not come this morning when he had specifically said he was going to continue until he was replaced. Did he decide himself not to come, or was he asked to stay away? The Committee and the House deserve an answer to that question. I live in hope that the hon. Member for North Cornwall has that answer; if he does, it would be excellent if he put it on the record when he replies.

[Mr Jones]

Would it not also be interesting to know whether the hon. Member for Stevenage—unless, let us say, he has been kidnapped and put in a box or sent on a foreign trip somewhere—is still Security Minister? Not only does he have to appear before us today in that post, but there are obviously ongoing issues in that department that he will have to deal with. Some clarity would be helpful.

[Maria Eagle]

That is an important point. I was looking at this merely in terms of courtesy to the Committee, proper scrutiny and the way in which Bill Committees ought to and do work, but of course the Security Minister has other duties outside this House. One would not want a discontinuity between one Security Minister and the next, which I expect is why, when the Minister sent his letter to the previous Prime Minister, he said in his last sentence that he would continue until his successor was appointed. However, we now seem to be in a position where he has not continued until his successor is appointed.

When I was a Minister, Mr Gray—no doubt you will recall your own experience of these things—duties in the House took precedence over all other duties that one might have as a Minister, as stated in the ministerial code. As such, if the hon. Member for Stevenage is still the Security Minister, it is extraordinary that he is not here. There are two explanations: either he has decided to stay away himself, in which case it is a dereliction of duty, or he has been asked to stay away by the business managers, in which case this Committee and the House deserve an explanation.

I do not wish to put too much pressure on the hon. Member for North Cornwall, because I realise that he is doing his job and may or may not have had an answer in the time between this morning’s adjournment and the resumption at 2 pm, but we do require an answer. I hope he will be able to give it now, but if he cannot I hope he will undertake to ensure that all members of the Committee get that answer.

National Security Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Maria Eagle

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I am surprised by the difficulties caused for the Committee by what has happened. I have before me the letter by the Minister for Security, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), which he has kindly placed on Twitter. After all the niceties, and saying that he will not carry on, he signs off his letter by saying quite clearly:

“I will continue to serve until a new Security Minister is appointed and look forward to supporting our new Prime Minister.”

So where is the Minister? A new Security Minister—if one is to be appointed—has not been appointed. The hon. Member for Stevenage is still the Minister, and in his letter indicating his wish to resign in due course, he has undertaken to continue to serve until a new Security Minister is appointed. We have business this morning on one of the most important Bills before the House in the current Session—one that has been delayed for years because the Government had not got on with producing it.

Not only that, but we started Committee stage in chaos, when a former Minister suddenly resigned. The poor old Whip, to whom I extend my greatest sympathies —it is not his fault; he is just doing his job—has now been placed in an utterly invidious position on two occasions in one Bill Committee. We started out with a Minister resigning, and now this Minister has indicated his intention to resign but has made it quite clear in that letter that he intends to continue in post until a new appointment is made by the new Prime Minister. Let me remind the Committee that that appointment has not yet been made, although we expect that to happen later today.

So where is the Minister? Has he been asked not to turn up by the Government, or has he chosen not to turn up? If the latter is true, he is not doing as he undertook to do—continue in post until a replacement is appointed. It is an important part of any Minister’s job to take a Bill through the House and answer the questions of the Opposition and their own Back Benchers. This Minister has been working on that; I have no doubt he will have spent the whole of August reading through the Bill and getting his head around it in a way that he had perhaps not quite managed in July, when he was quite honest about being new to it. He will be an absolute expert on it by now. He could have been here this morning, and this afternoon, for us to make progress on it.

I would like the Whip, because he is a Minister, to explain to us in replying, which I hope he will, whether the Minister for Security was asked not to turn up today or whether he chose not to. If the latter, it is a dereliction of duty; if the former, Opposition Members would like to know why. I for one deplore the way in which the Committee has been treated by the Government. We are trying to consider a very important Bill, which is about the future security of this country, and we have been treated shabbily. Government Back Benchers have been treated shabbily, the Committee has been treated shabbily, and the House has been treated appallingly. The Government should resign en masse and let us have a new Government. Then we might be able to make some progress on the Bill.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

This is not just an ordinary Bill. Although every Bill should be important, the idea that we are again delaying a Bill on our national security troubles me, as does the way in which the Bill has been dealt with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood said, we are now on to four Ministers, including the Whip, who have been involved in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax said, there is a degree of consensus on the Bill, in the sense that we want to support national security—certainly I do, as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee—and ensure that we give our security services all the tools that they need to combat those people who would do ourselves and our nation harm.

Certainly when I was in Government, this would have been one of those situations where we would work very closely with the Opposition to see what we could agree on, what we disagreed on, and whether there were things that needed to be tweaked, as there are with all Bills. The present Government have continually presented Bills as though they are the finished item. Well, they are not. The drafting of Bills since I have been here has frankly got worse, in terms of not only mistakes but points being missing completely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

It is important that we have time to do that. We lose two sittings today and are supposed to finish next Tuesday. That also depends on when a new Minister is appointed. I assume the Cabinet will be done tomorrow, and I understand that there is a debate about whether the post of Security Minister will be a Cabinet appointment, so it might be made today or tomorrow. However, if it is not done by late tomorrow, that basically means Thursday for the Minister—whoever he or she is—to read themselves into the Bill. As I say, it is not just a small Bill, so it will be quite a task. I suspect, therefore, that we will get to Thursday and Thursday will be lost, which leaves us with one day next week.

There are some major issues about ensuring not only proper scrutiny of the Bill, but time for certain of the amendments tabled by me and others to be heard. One day next week will not be sufficient. I am looking to the Whip for an indication of whether the Government, if we lose today and potentially Thursday, will add an extra day next week. That would at least ensure that we have the number of sittings we were promised, although if we lose Thursday as well, we would need two extra days.

Again, I do not understand why the Minister is not present. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halesowen said—

[Maria Eagle]

Halewood!

[Mr Jones]

Halewood, sorry; I am getting mixed up. I do not know who I have insulted most—Members for the west midlands or Members for Merseyside.

The Minister is still in post, so why is he not here this morning? To be fair to him, the hon. Member for Stevenage picked the Bill up at a difficult time and worked hard to master the detail. His civil servants must have been pulling their hair out about some of the questions. I have known him for many years: he will not take everything as fed in front of him, but will ask questions. The civil servants might be relieved to get rid of him. But that is not the point. If he is still in post, as we are led to believe, why is he not in Committee this morning?

It is important for us to consider this Bill. I just hope that we will get back on track, because the other thing that is needed quickly—whoever the new Minister is—is early engagement on this type of Bill with the Opposition, to see what we can get through uncontroversially and what areas need changing. Lo and behold, some parts of the Bill might then need changing yet again. The Government will have to do something that I do not ever agree with, which happened when we were in government and increasingly with this Government: leave major changes to the Lords.

The Lords has somehow become the great oracle that listens to everything and changes things that we cannot spot; the only reason why things are not changed here is that successive Governments have got into the habit of railroading things through here and making concessions there. That diminishes the House of Commons and does not lead to proper and good scrutiny. It is not a failure of a Government to admit in a House of Commons Committee that there are problems in a Bill and to change them. Unfortunately, it is seen as such, so it is left to their lordships’ House to change things. With that, I shall resume my seat.

National Security Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Maria Eagle

Committee stage
Thursday 14th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

It is about both. I will come to liability, because I do not think that individual officers are liable due to existing legislation. As for what I mean by oversight, I am clear that the structures we have for the authorisation of things that are not pleasant should include oversight—whether from the ISC, the tribunal or the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. We do not live in a society—thank God—where Ministers and the Executive can just say to the security services, “Do x, y and z.” That would be wrong. That is why it is important to have oversight and checks and balances in the system, which were not always there. This morning, I referred to a very sad time in our history—I was a Minister at the time. It was not a good time for our security services, and we should have been ashamed of some of the things that were done.

I want to see an example of what Sir Alex Younger and Sir David Omand were talking about last week. If there is a specific problem, I would be sympathetic and say, “Right, we need to get that sorted.” It may be a broad notion. We are talking about principles and morals, and it is very difficult to legislate on morals—certainly the Conservative party gets into difficulty when we talk about morals—but I would like to know specific examples that would lead to a liability.

Let me turn to the existing protections. Schedule 4 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 includes the offence of encouraging, assisting or commissioning an offence abroad. Clause 23 amends schedule 4 of the Serious Crime Act to disapply that offence when the activity is deemed necessary for the proper exercise of a function of an intelligence agency or the armed forces. The Government are basically asking for a carve-out, which I find extremely rare.

[Maria Eagle]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that putting in legislation a carve-out from an entire class of offences—in this case, the inchoate offences of crimes committed abroad—engenders more suspicion among those who worry about the intelligence services than would be the case if the law applied properly to them with appropriate defences?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

That is very welcome, but we do not just want that in writing—we want to have the agency heads actually come and speak. I think we have a meeting with them scheduled for some time in October. We would like to get them to come and argue why they need these changes. We need that as well.

The Minister might need to give it a bit more thought, too. I accept that he is new to his post, and he obviously has time to look at this over the summer—depending on what happens at the beginning of September. I know that I have poked fun at the Minister, but we get on well, we have worked closely on other Committees and I even got him promoted on a Committee once, which he was eternally grateful for. Can he just look at the oversight, too? If the Bill does go through, what are the oversight mechanisms for it?

[Maria Eagle]

I will not go through all the points that have already been made, although I do feel quite strongly about some of this. I generally endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham—my fellow member of the ISC. Like him, I do not think it is true to say that anybody on this Committee or any of our parliamentary colleagues are intent on trying to stop the intelligence and security services doing their job. They do a very important job and they do it very well. It is dangerous work and we want to support them as much as we can.

But we are a democracy. One of the things that concerns me about clause 23 is its wholesale disapplication of an area of the law that applies to all the rest of us. If we are going to do that for the intelligence services, it is important that we are very clear that it is necessary. It applies only for a certain type of offence in a certain place—overseas—but it is a wholesale carve-out. The clause says that an entire schedule to the Serious Crime Act 2007, which sets out inchoate offences abroad, does not apply if “any relevant behaviour” was necessary for

“the proper exercise of any function”

of the relevant services. That is a wholesale carve-out. I cannot think of too many other examples of that. I do not know if the Minister has a list of examples of other wholesale carve-outs from liability from the criminal law for particular officers of state organisations, but I think it is quite rare.

In those circumstances, I could tell from the evidence we were given that the Government have been asked for this by the relevant services. It did not seem to me that it was coming from the Government—that the Government were saying, “You must have these extra powers.” I accept that they are responding to requests, but because this is a wholesale carve-out from liability for criminal acts, it is important that it is properly justified. We all know about the difficulties of properly justifying it, because a lot cannot be brought into the public domain, but what we have had in the public domain has not been very convincing.

I expect that many people in their day-to-day life would like to have impunity from criminal liability for something that they might do, but it is not something we should be granting easily. The arguments for it need to be very strong. There are already defences that make it harder for people working in the intelligence community to be found guilty of some offences. They have defences that others do not. By the way, it is probably philosophically right that the law should apply to those people but that they should have extra defences. In legislative terms and for the good of society as a whole, it is probably better to do it that way round than to disapply the law to a particular type of person.

I would expect to hear why the current arrangements do not work, but I have not heard that. I did not hear it in the evidence we took from Sir Alex Younger and Sir David Omand. If I can characterise the issue in this way, they both said, “We would rather have this. We feel very strongly that we would rather have this,” but they were unable to give us any examples of why the current arrangements did not work. In fact, I asked Sir Alex whether some of the current arrangements worked. I asked him about the ministerial authorisation, and he just told me that he was not a lawyer, which is not a convincing answer when someone is asking for a whole area of the criminal law to be disapplied. Sir Alex obviously felt strongly about the matter—I could see that. That is perfectly legitimate, but as a scrutiny Committee and as parliamentarians, we need to hear a little bit more.

I hope the Minister will understand—I do not particularly like the fact that he refused to take interventions, but that is his choice—that everybody on this Committee is seeking to do the right thing. We do not want to make a change to the law that opens up our intelligence and security services and our armed forces to accusations that they can act with impunity abroad. Based on some of the evidence that has been sent to the Committee from those who campaign on these issues, some people think that the clause does precisely that. I do not agree with some of what is in the submission from Reprieve that we received recently, but that submission contains quite a representative sample of what people in our society would probably think if they were to take a look at this clause.

A wholesale carve-out from liability under an area of the criminal law is a very serious step to take. I am not saying it is not the right thing to do, because we should take requests from the agencies and armed forces seriously—as the Minister is clearly doing—but I remain unconvinced. Such a carve-out could have unintended consequences, such as making it much less likely that thoughts will be focused on making sure that activity is lawful. We need to make sure these proposals are the right way forward, and that their advantages outweigh their disadvantages. We have been told that reasonableness is a vague concept, but it is vague only in the sense that it is very flexible and can, and does, apply in many areas of the law; its meaning is relatively well known. To my mind, if the agencies and armed forces are concerned that their conduct might not be considered reasonable, it is difficult to see how it could be necessary for the proper exercise of their functions.

[Mr Jones]

The other safeguard in this area is surely that if there were to be any prosecution of an agency staff member or a member of the armed forces, the Attorney General would also have to agree to that prosecution. That would be a pretty high bar to get over.

[Maria Eagle]

It would be a very high bar to get over. If we are being told—there was an element of this in the evidence we heard—that there is a chilling effect on individuals trying to do their jobs, those individuals may need to be a bit better trained in what the law says, what it means and what they are able to do. In any event, whatever the law ends up being—whether it is this Bill, or what we already have—it is not a bad thing for those who operate at its margins to know precisely what they can and cannot do. I worry slightly that having a complete carve-out from liability might swing activities a bit too far in the other direction.

There are pros and cons to any way of doing this. I do not want the Minister to think I am being hostile; I am certainly not. I just want us, as the House of Commons, to be sure, when we consider this further, that this way is right and will work better than what we already have. I, for one, cannot see how this will be better than what we already have; I think that in many ways it will be worse.