Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 10th December 2020 Lords Chamber

I have a great deal of sympathy for the noble Lord’s amendment because it highlights the unworkability of granting immunity in advance through a criminal conduct authorisation. However, our position is that the police should not be allowed to grant legal immunity to commit crime or, indeed, to say that something that clearly is a crime is no longer a crime—whether in advance or, as the amendment suggests, after the event. For that reason, we cannot support the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, seeks to amend the Bill to allow for a criminal conduct organisation to retrospectively authorise action if it was to save someone from harm. Clearly, the noble Lord speaks with considerable knowledge and experience from his time as a serving police officer. I have great respect for the work that he has done in the past, and I pay tribute to those brave officers whom the noble Lord referred to, who every day put themselves at risk of considerable harm to protect us and keep us safe, and who also work to turn people so that they become informants. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, the whole question of child CHISs has been discussed, and we will return to it on Report. These are very serious issues.

So I see the point that the noble Lord is making, but we should not use this Bill, when it becomes law, to retrospectively authorise conduct. That would not be right. I see the point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made, but on previous conduct we have a position now, and that must be the position going forward. I do not see this Bill being used for what the noble Lord seeks to do. I hope that the Minister when he responds will set out the Government’s thinking on this. I hope he will say that they do not support the amendment as it stands, because it would not be the right thing to do, but will set out carefully how the Government will address this issue in the future

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Davies has called for the Bill to enable an authorising officer retrospectively to authorise conduct in certain situations. The noble Lord referred to his experiences in the field, as it were, and it will have been obvious to all noble Lords that he drew on a considerable wealth of practical wisdom which informed his thoughtful contribution to this debate.

We on this side thank him also for his thoughtful engagement with the Minister in the other place on this matter. However, while I understand the concerns behind this amendment, it is not the intention of the Bill to allow any retrospective authorisations. All criminal conduct authorisations are granted by an experienced authorising officer, who will scrutinise each authorisation to ensure that it has strict parameters, that it is necessary and proportionate to the threat it seeks to disrupt and that the criminality authorised is at the lowest level possible to achieve the aims of the operation.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and other noble Lords asked for an outline of the Government’s position. It is clear that this must be a matter of balancing. We consider that, by allowing retrospective authorisations, we remove the ability of the authorising officer to scrutinise the criminal conduct before it takes place, or we remove from the centre of our consideration that advance consideration. While I share the sentiment that we would not want undercover operatives to be placed in difficult positions simply for acting in the public interest, none the less, one of the key components in the present arrangement is control. The authorising officer must have confidence that proper thought has been given to the consequences of the authorisation, and we do not believe that an after-the-fact analysis, when the activities were not under the control of the public authority, should be retrospectively authorised where an authorisation has such an important legal effect.

As now, in the rare situation described here, authorities will make their assessment of the public interest in relation to the actions of the CHIS, the undercover operative, and rely upon prosecutorial—and, ultimately, judicial—discretion, which is no small thing, if I may draw on my own experience and set it against the experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, proposing this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and others who have spoken. I repeat that it is a matter of balance of important considerations. We consider it important—indeed, essential—to emphasise that illegal criminal conduct should be authorised in advance of any actions.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, sought to explore two questions in particular: how likely a situation is to arise where conduct would be sought to be justified retrospectively, and how often has it arisen in practice? To address those matters, it is appropriate to refer again to the code of practice, which has been a matter of discussion before your Lordships earlier in Committee. Referring to the code of practice, which has the force of law, your Lordships will see that while criminal conduct authorisations must be specific in nature and contain clear parameters, they will not be granted in terms that are too narrow. I refer your Lordships to chapter 7 of the code of conduct in that regard. As to how often these matters have been raised in the past, I cannot provide the noble and learned Lord with specifics on the matter, but I will undertake to explore the matter with him in writing.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, presented a highly specific example, drawn no doubt from his experience in the field, in the same way that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, drew on his. There is a sense that such a very specific example itself allows us to emphasise the need for discretion in the matter, to acknowledge that the situations in which CHISs will be exposed to danger are very broad and to allow me to reply with a degree of confidence that the very breadth of the situations which may possibly be encountered is such as to necessitate the anticipatory use of the authorisations we seek to put in place.

I say further that, in the course of preparation of the Bill, the matter was discussed with operational partners who would control and handle the operation of such persons in the field. They have told us that they are content that the approach which we seek to take is the correct one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord King, whose experience I respect and whom it is a pleasure to follow, I have no objection in principle to the issue of criminal conduct authorisations by bodies, other than the police and agencies, that are engaged in the investigation of serious crime. That, I would suggest, should, however, be on three conditions: that those bodies have demonstrated a real need for that power; that they are properly trained to use it; and that there are sufficient safeguards against its unnecessary or heavy-handed use.

Before coming to those conditions, may I make two practical points in favour of granting these powers to those whose investigations make them necessary? First, if such bodies are already running CHIS, there is a strong argument for continuity of control. I have made in other contexts the point that the decision to issue a criminal conduct authorisation is very much part and parcel of the CHIS tasking exercise, and best taken in the knowledge that only prolonged contact can bring of the nature of the investigation and the personalities and risks involved. Yes, one could require the police to be brought in to grant the authorisation, but the involvement of a second authorising body risks a dilution of that experience and is no guarantee of better decision-making.

Secondly—this point arises from contact I have had with those whose job it is to inspect the use of the powers on the ground—it might be rash to assume that a request to the police to issue an authorisation on behalf of, let us say, the Food Standards Agency or the Gambling Commission would necessarily be allocated the resources or progressed with the urgency that might be required. That would be regrettable, but questions of priorities do arise when one organisation is asked, effectively, to do a favour for another.

Turning to my conditions, the first is that each of these bodies should have demonstrated a real need. I shall listen with great interest to the Minister, but I do understand the difficulties in explaining that sensitive topic in a public forum. Accordingly, it seems to me that this is one of the questions that might usefully be the subject of an independent classified review by some respected person such as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, whose conclusions could be presented to Parliament.

That is a procedure for which there are precedents in the national security field. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and I have each proposed it in previous debates on this Bill, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has written to Ministers about it in some detail. If, as I assume, this Bill may not reach Report stage until the new year, it may still not be too late for this to happen; perhaps the Minister could comment. Today’s offer of meetings with major users of the power is welcome, but not, I think, a substitute.

The second condition relates to training. There is plainly a need to mitigate any risk that bodies that use these powers only rarely will tend not to use them wisely, or in accordance with accepted current practice. So I assume that those designated as handlers, controllers and authorising officers in the other authorising bodies will be trained alongside their police equivalents. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that this is the case, and confirm also that they will not be excluded from elements of that training that could at least arguably be relevant to the exercise of their functions. This was an issue that I encountered in another context during my investigatory powers review A Question of Trust.

The third condition relates to safeguards. I have been left in no doubt by Ministers that the Government have set themselves firmly against prior independent authorisation, for reasons that I have myself described as understandable. In that context, I am grateful to the Minister for her indication last Tuesday that the Government are open to discussions on the concept of real-time notification of CCAs to judicial commissioners. The real-time element is crucial, because it is clear in this field that prevention of abuse, where possible, is always going to be easier than cure.

I hope that in the Minister’s response today, or at any rate as part of those welcome discussions, we will be assured that less frequent users, in particular, will be required where possible to pre-consult with a judicial commissioner. There is a precedent for this under the Investigatory Powers Act in the power to submit proposed novel or contentious uses of other covert powers to IPCO for guidance. Such a requirement would help ensure that any uncertainties are resolved, and that any authorisation that may subsequently be issued by those bodies is consistent with best practice.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, Amendment 63, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and other amendments in this group seek to draw attention to the range of organisations that will be given powers to grant criminal conduct authorisations to individuals involved in criminal conduct. There is a list of organisations on page 4 of the Bill, and I found it surprisingly long. Perhaps I just did not know how many organisations were involved in this activity.

Could the Minister tell the House how many organisations are currently involved in intelligence and providing authorisations after the event, and also set out for us why they in particular need those powers? Some colleagues have argued that these should be matters just for the police and the security services—that they should have the powers and other organisations should come to them for approval and authorisation. On the face of it, that could seem quite a sensible way forward.

For example, why do the Gambling Commission and the Environment Agency need these powers? There may well be very obvious and sensible reasons why they do, but it is important that those reasons are set out clearly. Initially, restricting the list could appear attractive, because these are serious powers, and we want to ensure that people are exercising them properly.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, expressed views held across the whole House about the concern here. We need to take on board, whatever the House decides in the end, that there is concern about the use of these powers, and they must only ever be used proportionately and by a minimum number of organisations.

My noble friend Lord Sikka drew the attention of the House to another point, and other noble Lords mentioned it as well. It is not due to this Minister, or to this or any other Government, but the risk that we run when we grant powers is that they are given to Governments of the future as well. Things can change. We might like the Minister who is in position today, or whoever has a particular position, but they will not always be in that position. We are granting powers to a potential range of Governments in future—and why are they necessary?

Then there is the whole question of statutory instruments. I have regularly attended debates on them, and it is quite frustrating the limited amount of power that we have as a Parliament, or as the House of Lords, to deal with them. There are many times when you want to vote them down, but you do not because you recognise that the fatal Motion is not often the way to do things. So you are limited as to what you can do—that is a fair point.

We need a very detailed response from the Minister, explaining why these organisations in particular need these powers, whether there are others, and why the Government need the power to extend that further under the limited provision of a statutory instrument, and not through primary legislation.

I accept the point that the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, makes: people need to be kept safe in this country and lots of organisations are doing very difficult and dangerous things. No one is against that. Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, made the point about the real need for training and safeguards. That seems sensible to me; if any organisation is to have these powers, you have to be confident that it will use them properly, proportionately and effectively.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. There are a number of areas to cover here for the House.