Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Lord Beith and Mark Field

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Gentleman has a strange desire, which he has expressed during a previous speech, to extend the debate beyond the bounds of clause 17 and the amendments to it. I do not think we should be drawn into that at the moment, except to make the general point that all processes involving intrusion into people’s private communications should have high levels of justification before they are used at all, and protections should be provided by various safeguards and authorisations. Finding the right balance for different levels of communication is a difficult task, and I expect a great deal of work will need to be done. Most of us in this House, and certainly most in my party, do not want, either by design or accidental discovery, a great deal of personal information about people to get in the hands of the state and its employees without any reasonable justification. On a matter that will be raised when the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) speaks, nor do we want the processes of investigation by journalists to be impaired by a fear that sources will be compromised from the beginning. There are very good reasons for extreme caution in this area, but I believe the Government have exercised that caution and sought to devise a process to deal with a particular and recognisable difficulty.

[Mark Field]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly valid point. In the midst of the more hyperbolic phrases that get used, such as “snooper’s charter”, does he recognise that legislation such as this—and further legislation, which will inevitably be required whoever is in government in the years to come—should also be designed to protect the individual? It is not just about the state getting more powers; it is about codifying the rules and protections for the individual. It is very important that we have that in mind when looking at any new legislation that comes into play.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s observation, which points to part of the purpose of the process, of which this is only a part. The clauses we are talking about in RIPA—or DRIPA, as it has become known—are the subject of a sunset provision, because significant further review is to take place and new legislation will be required on the outcome of that review. So those who think that detailed discussion of matters that often feel technically beyond us is just an occasional thing in this House will have to recognise that we are going to be coming back to this issue. That does not apply to me, because I do not anticipate being a Member in the next Parliament, having announced that I am going to retire, but Members in the next Parliament will certainly be engaging with these issues.

I simply wished to place on the record that my view—and, I hope, that of my right hon. and hon. Friends—is that the Government have striven hard to find a sensible way to identify the instrument or apparatus that has been the point of communication. In many cases, that will enable them to identify the individual, but I stress that it does not guarantee that, any more than knowing a telephone number guarantees that the person who used the telephone—that instrument from that number—is the person who engaged in the criminal activity. It is more complicated than that, but this provision is a necessary aid to investigations ranging from the activities of paedophiles through to the serious threats we now face.

Crown Dependencies

Debate between Lord Beith and Mark Field

Thursday 16th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Beith]

That is an interesting point, which the Committee did not consider. The hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in the affairs of the Crown dependencies. The term “Crown dependency” is an important way of distinguishing the territories I have described and the United Kingdom’s overseas territories, with which they should not be confused. The constitutional relationship is different and in every case they have a high level of compliance with international, financial and other regulations, which they are keen to emphasise. The Crown dependency territories are a distinct group with a special relationship to the Crown. Any regular traveller to any dependency will know that loyalty and that link to the Crown runs strongly in all of them.

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

For the past three years, I have been an adviser to the Isle of Man law firm, Cains. Referring to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), I want to put on the record the fact that there is terrific cross-fertilisation between the Crown dependencies and particularly the City of London. A huge amount of trade from China, India and so on would not come to this country if it did not come via our Crown dependencies.

I know that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) takes a great interest in these matters. It is fair to say that Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man submit themselves to the highest level of regulation—higher than in many EU states—so we can be confident that the money that comes via the Crown dependencies to the City of London is of the highest quality.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Gentleman is rightly representing his constituency and the City of London by emphasising the fact that significant benefit arises from investment via the City from the Crown dependencies and that that brings in money from many parts of the world. Clearly, from time to time, issues arise that have to be resolved in discussion between the UK and dependency Governments, and sometimes statements are made that do not accurately reflect the islands’ degree of conformity with international and other regulation. In all these things, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) indicated, communication is important and necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) made the wise decision to appoint Lord McNally to take responsibility within the Department. Our report and the evidence we have seen are powerful testimony to the fact that that job was done well. We found a higher level of respect for the Ministry than we found in 2010, when we first engaged in this process.

Internationally, in general, two things happen: the UK Government represent the interests of the dependencies, and in many matters enable them to represent themselves by letters of entrustment and other processes. We indicate in our report that when there is real conflict of interest, there could be better ways of ensuring that the islands’ views are properly included.

Significant changes in the constitutional relationship—I suppose the ability to join the Commonwealth might be considered part of that—should be mooted only after careful consultation, and probably at the request of the dependencies themselves. We have an evolving but rather well balanced constitutional relationship. The Committee’s view, which is fairly widespread among people in the dependencies who study these matters, is that we treat that constitutional relationship with care and do our best to make it work effectively, but there is always scope for improvement.

[Mark Field]

May I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Romford that I know from my dealings with the First Ministers of both Guernsey and the Isle of Man that the Crown dependencies believe that they are better looked after under the Ministry of Justice than they would be as just a small state within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s ambit? It is to the great credit of the Select Committee that the report recognises the breadth of areas that need to be discussed.

May I put on the record the fact that, although we recognise that the Crown dependencies have a strong name for financial services, that is by no means all they do? That applies particularly to the Isle of Man, which believes that it is important that in the context of its location it embeds itself with the north-west. Its representatives have met many Members of Parliament for the north-west, particularly Opposition Members, and believe that that is a fruitful relationship to ensure that the Isle of Man is not regarded as just a tax haven, but as having a significant economy in its own right in a variety of areas.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Gentleman enables me to make two points about the Isle of Man. First, it has a significant high-technology, space-related engineering industry, which is a significant part of its economy. Secondly, like other Crown dependencies, it has offered assistance both in the Commonwealth and to other dependencies, most recently to the Turks and Caicos Islands. That illustrates the international presence of the dependencies, which is extremely beneficial.