NATO: Member State Spending

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, with all his experience of NATO and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and to agree with every single word that he said. It is also always a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Touhig, who often reminds the House in debates of this nature that NATO was founded in many ways by a Labour Government and that over all the decades since then, whenever there has been a Labour Government there has been absolute support for NATO—as indeed there has been from every Conservative Government that we have had since the war as well.

My noble friend quite rightly reminded us that we live in troubled, turbulent and dangerous times, that the threat from Russia is a real one in many respects, and that these points were made a few weeks ago in a debate in this House led by my noble friend Lord Robertson. He also reminded us that the election of Mr Trump as the President of the United States of America has set us all thinking. I am no fan of President Trump but he quite rightly said that NATO members in Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, mentioned, are not pulling their weight in providing the necessary resources for the organisation.

Noble Lords will know that defence spending in NATO fell considerably during last year to this year and that the United States pays 70% of NATO’s spending. You can understand President Trump’s feelings when only the United States, ourselves, Poland, Estonia and Greece—unlikely countries some of them—met the 2% target set down in Newport in 2014 when NATO visited Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, quite rightly referred to some of the culprits in this regard—Spain, Canada, France, Belgium, Germany and others. In November last year the Secretary-General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, said that if all NATO countries were to meet the 2% target then tens of billions of pounds would be added to the NATO budget for its use.

It is interesting that we are speaking at a time when by now, I assume, the Brexit vote on triggering Article 50 has gone through the other place because that will have an effect on our relationship as a NATO member with non-EU allies. Eighty per cent of NATO spending when we leave the European Union will be the responsibility of non-EU countries, including ourselves. Moreover, three out of the four NATO battle groups in Poland and the Baltic states are currently from non-EU members.

I do not agree, as I have read somewhere, that our leaving the European Union means that we will no longer hold the position of second-in-command in NATO. I think that that is fanciful in terms of the importance of our Armed Forces. However, Brexit will affect spending in the Ministry of Defence, not least because of the fall in the value of the pound and the effect that will have on procurement. Defence cuts over the years will undoubtedly affect our capability as a leading NATO member. I also agree with my noble friend that 2% of GDP should be a minimum, not a target, and that more should be spent.

I want now to spend a few moments on the point made by my noble friend and others with regard to the legitimacy of the 2% figure, something that was touched on a few weeks ago and to which the Minister referred in his speech winding up that debate; no doubt he will do so again today. I reiterate: included in that figure of 2% is £820 million for war pensions, £400 million for UN peacekeeping missions, £200 million for Ministry of Defence civilian pensions, one-off spends that are unable to be carried over, and so on. I welcome the extra £5.7 billion that the Government have put into defence and of course I welcome the new joint security fund, but we have to be honest both with ourselves and with the country—the figures which now make up the 2% spend are very different from what they used to be. My noble friend referred to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, which has argued that 2% does not mean that we are adequately resourced. It also noted,

“that the NATO minimum would not have been fulfilled if UK accounting practices had not been modified”—

this is what the Minister will tell us later—

“albeit in ways permitted by NATO guidelines”.

The committee went on to say:

“We believe that this ‘redefinition’ of defence expenditure undermines, to some extent, the credibility of the Government’s assertion that the 2% figure represents a significant increase in defence expenditure”.


I have had a look at the Government’s response to the 28 recommendations made by the Select Committee and I have to say that it is a model of obfuscation. It really does not answer the points and totally ignores the fact that, if you are now putting into that 2% sums of money that were not included before and which have no direct impact at all on how an army, navy and air force operate, because those sums are mainly going on pensions, of course it means in effect that we are now putting in less than we used to before the 2% figure was arrived at. RUSI has said that under the old system it would in fact amount to 1.97%, not 2.1%, so it is effectively a reduction in what used to be counted towards that 2%. I am not saying that NATO disregards these things because it does not, but it is what we as a country and as a Government have been doing over the last years that matters most. My plea is for honesty in these things and not some rather spurious reasoning.

Despite all that, I do not doubt the Government’s commitment to NATO because it is the bedrock of our defence, of Europe’s defence, and indeed of the world’s defence. There is a need for the Government and all of us to exercise our influence on the other members of NATO to meet that 2% target but we have to be in such a position that, in arguing that other countries should meet the target, we are responsible about what goes into the 2%.

My noble friend and others have mentioned the US President, but I shall come back to him. Today in the House of Commons the Prime Minister was asked two questions about NATO, two questions about defence spending and two questions about the President of the United States and his commitment. She said that she had received assurances from the President that he was now in favour of NATO, even though he called it “obsolete” during the course of his election campaign. While I agree that NATO members must come up to the mark with regard to their NATO spend, I think that it is stretching it a bit in terms of what he said. All I could make out during the President’s press conference with the Prime Minister was, frankly, no more than a grunt and a nod because he said nothing. What the Prime Minister or perhaps the British ambassador must now do is press the point that the President should come out and say something about NATO which indicates that he is in favour of it. A second-hand account of what he said and the sight of a nod simply do not come up to the mark.

This is an extremely important debate being held late in the evening. The Minister knows that the Labour Party supports him and his Government in these matters. It is therefore important that when he and his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence are in the international forums, they should indicate to our fellow members of NATO that they simply have to come up to the mark.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 19th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

There is obviously going to be a desire to know how the Act is operating and the Bill does provide for a report from the Secretary of State, but it is, let us just say, some time after the day on which the Bill becomes an Act. Assuming that the Government do not accept the amendment, I hope that in responding they will set out, or give some indication, of the bodies and committees which will look at how the Act is operating, including whether it is doing so in line with the terms of the Bill. In that, I include the codes of practice and, particularly in light of the last discussion we had, the statements on the record from the Government in the two Hansards during the passage of the Bill.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall add some points to what my noble friend has just said. During our rather long deliberations this evening and afternoon, I went to the Library to look up the definition of “draconian”. It seems to me to be very harsh, very severe. Apparently, it goes back to ancient Greece, where Draco was the statesman who decided that every single crime would be dealt with by a death sentence. It is not a good description of the Bill and the shadow Home Secretary is unfair and, I think, mischievous in what she said, because the Bill is significant, extremely serious and very difficult. It tries to balance the importance of security in our country, which was discussed at some length today, and our liberties.

I have to say that in 30 years in Parliament I do not think I have seen a Bill which has been scrutinised quite as well as this—not just by the Joint Committee that we were on in November and December but by other committees as well and, indeed, what we have seen in this House and the House of Commons. Nevertheless, the Joint Committee, at the very end of its deliberations, knowing full well that there would be an enormous amount of scrutiny, looked at what could happen in terms of review of the Bill. The Information Commissioner, indeed, gave evidence to the Joint Committee indicating that he thought there should be a sunset clause. The then Home Secretary, who has gone on to greater things, indicated that this was not appropriate, but the committee believed that parliamentary review of the operation of what will then be an Act should take place within six months after five years. That has been incorporated into the Bill and it is the most important type of scrutiny that could happen, because that would be a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, one hopes, which could look at how the Bill has operated. The reason the Joint Committee said that was because of the hugely grave and serious nature of the Bill—not just because of the way it touches on the liberties of the subject, but protecting the subject as well.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we remain sympathetic to the desire for ongoing scrutiny of the Bill, and this is already provided for. In these circumstances we suggest that these amendments are not necessary. The Bill requires that the operation of the Act will be reviewed after five years, which is an entirely appropriate period. It is also consistent with the recommendation, as indicated, of the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill. We must ensure that, before a review takes place, all the Bill’s provisions have been in effect for a sufficient period that a review is justified and can be meaningful. A review after three years, as provided for by Amendments 258A and 258B, runs the risk that this would not be the case.

We also fully expect the review after five years to be informed by a report of a Joint Committee of Parliament, in line with the recommendation made by the Joint Committee. In addition, concurrent with such a review the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament would have the opportunity to assess the more sensitive aspects of the operation of the Act. Let us remember that, in addition, the exercise of the powers provided for under the Bill will of course be subject to the ongoing oversight of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who will be obliged to make an annual report to the Prime Minister.

The Government have listened to the previous debates in Parliament and amended the Bill to ensure that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must, in particular, keep under review and report on the operation of safeguards to protect privacy. Furthermore, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s reports must be published and laid before Parliament, providing Parliament with ongoing scrutiny of the operation of the Act. Accordingly, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Monday 17th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make reference to the amendment that we have in this group. Clause 205 provides for the appointment of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and judicial commissioners.

As currently drafted, Clause 205(5) requires the Prime Minister to consult Scottish Ministers and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland about the appointment of these commissioners. However, there appears to be currently no duty to consult Welsh Ministers about these appointments, with the result that Wales does not feel that it is being treated equally with the other devolved Administrations in this respect.

Under the Wales Bill before the House, Welsh devolution will take a constitutional form that is much closer to that for Scotland and Northern Ireland. The First Minister of Wales considers that the mutual respect between Administrations means that drawing unnecessary distinctions in legislation between devolved Administrations should be avoided unless strictly necessary. He regards the provision in this Bill—the Investigatory Powers Bill—as at the very least constitutionally discourteous to Wales. In speaking to this amendment, I invite the Government to take the necessary steps in relation to consultation under Clause 205 to address the concern raised by the First Minister on which I have just sought to reflect.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my voice to what my noble friend just said. Initially, in the list of government amendments the Minister seemed to be saying that it was no longer a requirement for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland to be consulted on the appointments of the IPC and the judicial commissioners. That is a retrograde step and I hope that the Government will rethink it. I will explain why in relation to my noble friend’s amendment with regard to the First Minister of Wales.

When the Joint Committee considered this part of the Bill, it added its own recommendations that when the Prime Minister looked at the appointment of the IPC and the judicial commissioners, he or she should consult the First Minister of Scotland and the First and Deputy First Ministers in Northern Ireland. Both jurisdictions of course are different from England, particularly in Scotland, and it seemed the right thing to do. There was unanimity among members of the Joint Committee on making that recommendation.

Since the Joint Committee met, as my noble friend said, a new Bill has been introduced to this House, the Wales Bill, that will considerably alter the constitutional relationship between Wales and the United Kingdom. For example, it will confer reserve powers on the Welsh Assembly, much of criminal law will be devolved, Wales will be a distinct jurisdiction and there is the possibility in years to come that even justice might be devolved to the Welsh Assembly. It is not at the moment, but certainly the Assembly is arguing that there may be a case in the future for that to happen.

This afternoon, I met with the First Minister for Wales on this very issue. As my noble friend said, the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly are very concerned that Wales should be part of the consultation process. No one is arguing that the First Minister of Wales, the First and Deputy First Ministers in Northern Ireland or the First Minister of Scotland should make the appointments: it is a question of courteous consultation. I speak as a former Welsh and Northern Ireland Secretary in saying that devolution has matured over the last dozen years. It is important to respect that maturity and respect the constitutional relationships. On a simple matter of consultation, the Government should rethink the position of the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland in this respect and should add the Welsh First Minister as a consultee in this important process. I support the amendment spoken to by my noble friend.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 234A takes us to Clause 232, which provides for a review of the operation of the Act. A lot of concern has been expressed during the course of the Bill about the speed of change of technology. Most recently, David Anderson, in his report on the operation of bulk powers, said, encapsulating this very neatly,

“nothing in this field stays still forever, or even for long”.

He also quoted Matt Tait, who told the review that,

“for the overwhelming majority of the time that the IP Bill will be law, it will be interpreted in secret by HMG lawyers, when seeking to authorise as-yet unknown operations in support of not-yet decided policy objectives, needing to relate the provisions of the IP Bill to technologies that do not exist yet, where technological norms may be markedly different to how they are today”.

In most fields, five years would seem a reasonable time, even though quite ordinary products such as washing machines become obsolete—they are even made for obsolescence—within a shorter period than that. However, in this field five years is almost a generation. Devices manufactured five years ago are apparently now obsolete, as I have just discovered with the desktop PC which I have been using, and are not supported by the manufacturers. Enormous advances are made every year, and as all noble Lords who have spoken about this have acknowledged, it is essential that the Government and the authorities that will be acting under the powers that will be given by the Act keep abreast of those changes. I appreciate that a great many attempts have been made to future-proof the Bill, but this is not an easy project, and we may find the day after tomorrow that something new comes along to undermine that future-proofing.

We believe that five years and six months is too far into the future before the legislation is formally reviewed. Of course, the Secretary of State can arrange for a review without the formal provision in the Bill, but this is the requirement and it should itself be fit for purpose. We are not wedded to two and a half years, but five and half is too long. Two and a half would enable a report well before the end of this Parliament, assuming that the next election is in 2020. Although we are not wedded to two and a half years, we would be interested to hear the Government’s justification for the period of five and a half years and, I hope, an acknowledgment that a shorter period would be appropriate in this instance. I beg to move.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

The purpose of the Liberal Democrats’ amendment seems to be that there is a speedier review of the legislation than was agreed in the passage of the Bill in the other place and was actually in the Bill. During the proceedings of the Joint Committee, a number of witnesses, including the Information Commissioner, argued for a sunset clause to be put into the Bill. The committee considered that; it did not agree, but at the end of the day believed that there should be,

“some form of review after five years”,

and that it should be “detailed post-legislative scrutiny”. The proposal that the Joint Committee came up with, to which I believe the Government have agreed, is that a Joint Committee of both Houses should be established within six months of the end of the fifth year after the Bill is enacted.

The difficulty with the amendment is that it refers specifically to the Secretary of State reviewing the Bill, whereas the Joint Committee was arguing that both Houses of Parliament should review it. The argument that technological change can be swifter than was thought by those of us who believe that five years was the answer is what lies behind the amendment. However, this is not simply about technology; it is also about the impact of the Act, as it will then be, upon the liberties of the people and about the nature of the various powers that we are enacting in the course of our proceedings. We therefore need some clarification: is it about the Government reviewing, or is it about Parliament reviewing? What precisely are we reviewing? I think everyone agrees with the principle, but we have to look carefully at the way in which Parliament reviews. If the amendment is eventually accepted then, frankly, it has to be secondary to parliamentary scrutiny.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the questions that have been asked are interesting. Times are changing, as is the nature of the threats. Who would have thought 30 years ago that we would be sitting here worrying about online grooming, ISIS terrorism and kidnapping or sophisticated cybercrime and money laundering? Who would have known that they were the challenges that would face us? Who would have talked 30 years ago about apps, internal emails—which we can get on our phones, according to some of my friends—and similar matters?

We will come back to issues of encryption. Technology is changing all the time, as is the modus operandi of those who wish us harm. Added to that, as I think my noble friend was alluding to, are the new powers in the Bill and the very welcome safeguards—the privacy measures and the double lock. These are new measures and we will want to see whether they achieve what the Government hope for them.

There are therefore two issues: first, how are the Government themselves going to monitor whether the Bill is achieving what they want; and, secondly, as alluded to by my noble friend, how will we then have formal post-legislative scrutiny to see whether they are what Parliament wants, and what is the correct time for that? The issues raised about reviewing these important powers and about the rapid change both in the technology and in the threats are ones that we want to be assured will be monitored and reported back on.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment, which he very ably moved. As he said, it is the only amendment recommended by David Anderson QC with regard to his latest report.

The issue of bulk powers is enormously important and this is the first time that the Committee has had an opportunity to discuss the report on the whole question. It was discussed at some length by the Joint Committee, which I was privileged to chair. The committee took both oral and written evidence and finally came to and made 23 conclusions and recommendations on bulk powers in its report to both Houses of Parliament. We asked the Government to give a fuller justification for bulk powers, which they did. We were worried about the need to ensure that Article 8 of the European convention would be complied with. We said that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner should report within two years on proper safeguards around these powers, that a proper code of practice on equipment interference and indeed on bulk personal databases should be established, and that the ISC should look at the issue of bulk personal databases.

I think that the other place took a wise decision in asking the distinguished Mr Anderson to look in enormous detail at bulk powers, and it seems that he has made an overwhelming case for bulk interception, bulk acquisition and bulk personal databases. The case for bulk equipment interference was less strong, but nevertheless still there. As I say, the operational case for bulk powers was impressive and the report sets out the need for these powers to deal with terrorists, child abuse, cyberattacks on companies, rescuing hostages in Afghanistan and organised crime. What particularly impressed me is the importance of speed in these operations and of the powers to deal with all these problems being used quickly to ensure that proper information can be given to the appropriate agencies.

Mr Anderson inevitably looked at the alternatives to bulk powers, but said that they,

“would often be less effective, more dangerous, more resource-intensive, more intrusive or slower”.

Having said all that, there still needs to be a proper regime of safeguards if Parliament finally agrees with the Government about the bulk powers provided for in the Bill. We should look at those proper safeguards. Clearly the use of both a judge and the Secretary of State is important. I believe too that the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament should look very carefully indeed at the use of bulk powers in the months and years ahead.

Finally, my noble friend referred specifically to the single recommendation for the setting up of a technical advisory panel. It is worth reflecting on the fact that in his report, David Anderson said that the panel would deal not only with technological changes but with how MI5, MI6 and GCHQ could reduce the privacy footprint of their activities. That is why I support the recommendations and the conclusions of the Anderson report and I urge the Government to ensure that in implementing it there are proper safeguards as we go forward in these hugely changeable technological times.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)]

My Lords, other noble Lords have taken the opportunity in addressing this amendment to make some general comments about David Anderson’s excellent report on bulk powers, so I shall do the same in what I hope will be just a few words. In my view, Mr Anderson has made a powerful case for the need for the bulk powers that he describes. They are very much a part of the fight against terrorism. Similar powers have been used well by the security services and authorities in this country and—touching wood and crossing fingers—that is the reason why we have not experienced, for example, what happened in Nice. I agree entirely with what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, who as we know has considerable experience in dealing with and judging these matters, and I share his view that the safeguards should be as strong in every way as has been recommended by Mr Anderson.

Turning to the question of the technology advisory panel, I have complete sympathy with Mr Anderson’s menu but not necessarily with the recipe. With respect to him, I think that we might do rather better than his suggestion of the way in which a technology advisory panel is established. I suspect that he would be the first to agree that what he is concerned with is not the form of the panel, nor to whom it is accountable, but the substance: what it does and what it sets out to achieve.

My suggestion to the Government is that we could broaden the technology advisory panel’s scope and make it more acceptably accountable. The suggestion by Mr Anderson is an unusual one, in that the panel should be appointed by, and be accountable and report directly to, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. That suggests that it has a pretty narrow scope. In my view—obviously, I use my now rather historical experience as the previous Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation—a technology advisory panel would indeed be valuable, but not just to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. My suggestion is therefore that this panel should exist but that it should be appointed by the Secretary of State and, through them, should be accountable to Parliament, at least in a general sense.

The advice given by the technology advisory panel would of course be available to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, but he is not the only commissioner. It would also be available, if appointed by the Secretary of State and accountable in that normal way, to parliamentary committees and other commissioners, to which it could give advice. Indeed, my hope is that a technology advisory panel, or something with a similar name and that intent, should, like the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, publish not only annual reports but tasked reports on specific issues raised —of which the Anderson report we are discussing is a very good example.

The technology advisory panel, if appointed on a broader basis with that greater accountability, would help considerably without placing undue burdens on the security services, the police or GCHQ. Indeed, they, too, would be able to turn to it if they wished to; it would be a matter for their chiefs. We have some experience present in this House as we speak.

I hope that we can adopt the spirit of this part of Mr Anderson’s remarkable report, but perhaps look at ways of making it even more useful than he had in mind, and with forms of accountability that we in this House and the other place understand more readily.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I also support the two amendments in this group, the first from the Government and the second on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The amendments are very sensible. It does not seem to me at all right that the IPC should not say why an investigation should not be pursued.

Let me say very briefly how important it is that the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee is acknowledged in this House as part of this Bill. Indeed, scattered throughout the Bill and the Joint Committee’s report on the Bill are references to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I had the great privilege of chairing that committee for about two years and I believe that, since then, there has been enormous change in its powers and its membership—we have two distinguished members here today. That is so important to give confidence, not just to Members of this House and the House of Commons but to the public in general, that whatever happens—and which cannot be revealed, inevitably, because of the nature of this business—there is a committee of Parliament charged, as it is, with a highly distinguished membership, a very eminent chair and an expert staff. It is so important that that is recognised and that the Government support the amendment from the ISC.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

As has been said, government Amendment 193 places a statutory duty on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to inform the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament of his or her decision as to whether to carry out an investigation, inspection or audit in cases where the Intelligence and Security Committee has referred a matter to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner with a view to the commissioner carrying out such an investigation, inspection or audit. Amendment 194, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, is very similar to the government amendment, except it also requires the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with the outcome of any investigation, inspection or audit carried out under the terms of the government amendment. I do not know whether the Government are going to accept Amendment 194—we shall find out shortly—or, alternatively, give reasons why it is not acceptable. They may simply say that this will happen anyway and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary.

However, I have one other, I think very minor, point to raise. I accept before I start that it may display a degree of confusion about another part of the Bill. Clause 206(1) enables the Prime Minister to give direction to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, provided that it,

“does not apply in relation to anything which is required to be kept under review by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner under section 205”.

Clause 206(3) states that:

“The Prime Minister may give a direction under this section at the request of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament”.

Where the direction under subsection (3) has been given by the Prime Minister to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner at the request of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, will the terms of government Amendment 193 and Amendment 194, if accepted, apply in respect of the commissioner informing the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament of his or her decision and the outcome of any investigation, inspection or audit? If not, why not?

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

I am grateful for the chance to clarify my position. That is my position: we disagree with the conclusions of the Joint Committee. We believe, on balance, that the retention of internet connection records is disproportionate and unnecessary.

Technology experts recommend that companies should plan on the basis of their security measures having been breached, not just plan for the security of their databases. This makes highly intrusive personal data potentially available to criminals and hostile foreign powers. If a criminal establishes that a married man is accessing gay websites, or a hostile foreign Government establish that an intelligence officer is accessing lonely hearts websites, that could increase the risk of blackmail or entrapment. Knowing from ICRs when someone is not at home can increase the risk of burglary.

Internet connection records are hugely expensive to analyse and store. Based on estimates from Denmark, where the storage of internet connection records has already been explored extensively, the set-up costs alone in the UK could be around £1 billion. As in the UK, the cost estimates provided by the Government and telecommunications providers in Denmark varied widely. The Government therefore asked independent management consultants to establish the true cost, which confirmed that the telecommunications service providers’ estimates were the correct ones. Extrapolating from the independently verified Danish costs using the relative populations of both countries would take the set-up costs alone for internet connection records in the UK to more than £1 billion.

For those who think that this cannot be right, I should say that 80% of all the data ever created since the beginning of time has been created in the last two years. That is the rate of increase, and, with more and more devices being connected to the internet, such as those controlling our central heating, and with even refrigerators and ovens being connected to the so-called internet of things, the number of internet connection records is set to increase exponentially. Apart from not being able to see communications in among all these other internet connections, the storage costs alone will be enormous.

Taking all these arguments together, the storage of the internet connection records of everyone in the UK for 12 months, whether they are suspected of wrongdoing or not, fails the proportionality test. I quote the RUSI report again, this time on proportionality. It states:

“Intrusion must be judged as proportionate to the advantages gained, not just in cost or resource terms but also through a judgement that the degree of intrusion is matched by the seriousness of the harm to be prevented”.

The advantages gained through the storage of internet connection records are limited, the costs are prohibitive, the degree of intrusion is huge and serious harm can be prevented through other means.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord King, touched on the issue of the Joint Committee. It may be useful for your Lordships to hear what it said about ICRs. The noble Lord, Lord King, was quite right in that regard. The Joint Committee said:

“While we recognise that ICRs could prove a desirable tool for law enforcement agencies, the Government must address the significant concerns outlined by our witnesses if their inclusion within the Bill is to command the necessary support”.

The Joint Committee also said:

“We recommend that the definition of Internet Connection Records should be made consistent throughout the Bill and that the Government should give consideration to defining terms such as ‘internet service’ and ‘internet communications service’. We recommend that more effort should be made to reflect not only the policy aims but also the practical realities of how the internet works on a technical level”.

The Joint Committee also recommended that,

“the Government should publish in a Code of Practice alongside the Bill advice on how data controllers should seek to minimise the privacy risks of subject access requests for ICRs under the Data Protection Act 1998”.

The Government accepted the recommendation on a code of practice—and, indeed, on the definitions. However, in general, the majority of members of the committee believed that ICRs are absolutely necessary to protect our citizens and give the security agencies and the law enforcement agencies the tools they need.

[Lord Strasburger]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 156A and cite the simple facts about internet connection records. They do not currently exist, would be very difficult and costly to manufacture, have very limited usefulness and collecting and storing them, far from making us safer, would expose everyone in Britain who uses the internet to new and serious risks. In addition, they are highly intrusive into everyone’s private lives and cannot be stored securely by service providers. So it is little wonder, then, that no other western democracy is collecting internet connection records, including the four other members of the “Five Eyes” partnership, the long-standing security alliance between the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In fact, the new Australian data retention law specifically excludes the retention of web browsing histories. As for the USA and Canada, David Anderson pointed out in his report that in both countries,

“there would be constitutional difficulties in such a proposal”.

As my noble friend Lord Paddick has already pointed out, Denmark is the only country known to have tried to collect internet connection records—session logs, as they called them. That project was abandoned after a review by the Danish ministry of justice found that it had been of almost no use to the police. The Home Office claims, with some justification, that the proposal in the Bill has some differences from the Danish system but this year the Danish Government came up with a revised scheme that is almost identical to the internet connection records provisions in the Bill. That was promptly abandoned when the prohibitively expensive cost estimates of the Danish service providers were confirmed as accurate by independent accountants. We must ask ourselves: what is it about our country that makes the Government believe that we should be in a stubborn minority of one on this important matter? I hope the Minister will be able to explain it to the Committee.

It is important to understand that internet connection records—ICRs—do not currently exist. Unlike itemised phone bills, which phone companies keep for billing purposes and are the basis of the current communications data regime, communications service providers—CSPs—have no need whatever for ICRs so they do not create or keep them. The Joint Committee heard from many technical and industry experts, including the committee’s two excellent technical advisers, that it would be very far from simple for CSPs to start intercepting these data as they pass through their networks. Each company would have to devise a method suitable for their own systems. They would need to install expensive and complex equipment to carry out “deep packet inspection”, which copies data packets as they fly past on fibre-optic cables. They would then need to process the collected data to find and discard the very large amount of internal housekeeping signals that keep the network healthy but have absolutely no intelligence value. The warnings the committee heard from the service providers about the difficulties of making ICRs happen and their negligible intelligence value echoed what Danish service providers told their Government before they embarked on their ill-fated and wasteful scheme.

However, if some British service providers could do better than their Danish counterparts and succeed in creating internet connection records, it would not make Britons safer; it would make us less safe. I will explain why. The very existence of internet connection records would create more hazards and dangers for the British public than they currently face, and these risks are as good as impossible to mitigate. The first rule of digital security is to not keep any data you do not need because they are all vulnerable. Yet here, we are talking about storing everything that we all do on the internet for 12 months. We should bear in mind that this information would be gold dust to those who would do us harm and would attract the efforts of hackers, blackmailers, criminals and rogue states from around the world. The prize for them would be the details of the private lives of millions of UK citizens: all our personal secrets, including our banking and credit card details; our problems with addiction; our mental and physical health; our sexual proclivities; our financial struggles; our political leanings; our hopes, our worries, our plans—just about everything about our lives.

If the Government attempt to convince themselves and this House that service providers will be able to keep these data safe, they will be deluding themselves and the British public. It is a matter of when, not if, these sensitive data get into the wrong hands. I will explain why. Our service providers make their money from transmitting our data on their way to and from our devices. They are not in the business of storing it securely. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, who is the chief executive of TalkTalk could, if she were in her place, recount how 156,000 of her company’s customers had their data accessed by hackers last year. In February this year, SWIFT, the interbank financial transaction network, which presumably needs and has much stronger security than service providers, had $81 million stolen in one set of transactions. It would have been much more, but for a simple spelling mistake by the culprits. Canadian police reported in August last year that two clients of the infidelity website Ashley Madison had taken their own lives, following the theft of the personal data of 33 million Ashley Madison customers. Also last year, Chinese hackers stole the details of 4 million US Government employees, including their security clearances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Amendment 169AA would ensure that applications for targeted equipment interference or targeted examination warrants were granted only on application to a judicial commissioner, removing the role of the Secretary of State. It also applies additional safeguards to the correspondence of parliamentarians when a warrant for hacking is sought. I have held my tongue this afternoon despite listening to some astonishing statements. I will keep my remarks now quite brief. This is not to say that I do not feel a lot of passion for this debate, because I do, but I value your Lordships’ time and so I will be brief.

I feel very strongly that politicians and journalists are not above the law, but politicians have a unique constitutional role, not least in holding the Executive to account. There should be a strong legislative presumption against their surveillance, which should be rebutted only in clear and specific circumstances, overseen only by judicial commissioners, without political involvement, which could have bias. A single process of judicial authorisation ought to exist across the Bill, but in relation to politicians being under surveillance it is imperative to remove any political involvement.

It is illogical to suggest that an adequate replacement for an almost complete prohibition on surveillance of politicians—the Wilson doctrine—is to expressly allow it, needing only the Secretary of State to consult with the Prime Minister prior to authorising interception or hacking. In fact, instead of securing an independent authorisation process, involving two politicians rather than just one makes the process even more political, not less. It is inherent in our democracy that members of the public can correspond with their representatives in private. It is vital that anyone contacting their Member of Parliament and any material that they provide will be handled with confidentiality and sensitivity. This also applies to journalists, of course.

Keir Starmer MP QC raised the issue of communications sent by or intended for Members of Parliament and journalists in Committee in the Commons, saying that,

“the protection is not for the benefit of the journalist or the Member of Parliament but for the wider public good”—[Official Report, Commons, Investigatory Powers Bill Committee, 12/4/16; col. 191.]

People have to know that they have privacy and confidentiality. Of course, it is also essential that the protections granted to elected representatives are consistent across the different methods of surveillance. John Hayes, who was a Minister quite recently—I am not sure where he is now—said that the Government would consider the issue of consistency across the different methods of surveillance. I beg to move.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen]

My Lords, I do not support the amendment, I fear. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness with regard to the correspondence of Members of Parliament. But the Joint Committee looked at whether Members of Parliament should be under surveillance and it agreed with the recommendations before it; that is, that there should be a double lock at that stage. That is consistent with the whole Bill: it should be not only the Secretary of State who signs a warrant but a judicial commissioner.

During the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons, that was made into a triple lock so that the Prime Minister, who originally was only to be informed of the warrant, now had to approve it as well. That seems to be an extremely wise thing to do. As a Member of Parliament—or a Member of this House or any of the devolved Parliaments and legislatures—who was going to have their communications intercepted, it would be important to know that it went as far as having the Prime Minister, the head of government, involved. Having just a judge doing it goes completely against the spirit of the Bill. The double-lock system is what everybody has said is absolutely the right thing to do. This is now a triple lock and I fear that I cannot support the amendment.

[Lord Beith]

My Lords, I am very glad the noble Baroness has tabled this amendment because it enables us to clarify the extension of the things we were discussing on telephone interception into this area, which the Government are now seeking to ensure is covered in other respects and that the same principles should apply. Having said that, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, that what is now in the Bill is probably about the best set of safeguards that we could reasonably construct from the very important principle—I agree with the noble Baroness on this—that we should protect the ability of constituents and whistleblowers to contact elected Members to raise matters of concern. They may be matters which affect the very organisations, whether it is the intelligence services or the police, that might seek the power to initiate interception.

The noble Baroness mentioned the Wilson doctrine, which came up earlier. That adds no clarity whatever to the situation but simply obscures it. It is even further complicated now by the fact that the last Prime Minister to make a Statement on the subject is no longer the Prime Minister. It is not even clear that his successor will consider herself bound in any way by what Mr Cameron said on the subject. As I think we teased out in the previous discussion, the Wilson doctrine does not really mean anything now. There is now a statutory basis for considering how to deal with a situation where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a Member of a legislature is involved in very serious crime or associated with terrorism. That is the procedure set out in the clause that the amendment addresses.

That there should be a bizarre principle now that the Government generally have a policy of not using these sorts of powers but will come along to Parliament some day and say, “We’ve changed our minds and now we want to use these powers very widely indeed” just does not make any sense at all. Since no Prime Minister has ever come to the House to satisfy the requirements of the Wilson doctrine—that if government policy changes, you should make such a Statement—the whole thing has become absurd. We should give it a decent burial and satisfy ourselves that the provisions we put in place for governing interceptions of any kind of the communications of a legislator are satisfactory. I am of the view that the clause we have now, following the various interventions that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, described, is a good basis for doing so.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak until I had listened to the debate, especially what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. During the 50-odd years that I have been at the Bar, one the great developments has been that of public law. When I began at the Bar, there was virtually no judicial interference in or control of ministerial decisions. One of the great developments brought about by judges and judges alone has been the notion that, although Ministers take decisions, they must do so in accordance with the rule of law. Judges are extremely careful to make sure that they do not decide the merits of cases that should be decided by Ministers, but they also say that, although Ministers take decisions, they must do so in accordance with the principles of legal certainty, reasonableness and proportionality. Over the years, a partnership has developed between the judicial branch of government and Ministers and Parliament. I agree with my noble friend Lord Carlile that the principles of judicial review are sufficiently flexible and practical to provide adequate safeguards against abuse. I do not believe that judges in any way usurp the functions of the Executive, nor do I believe that they should. I know of no case in which our judges have done so. For those reasons, I hope I have reassured at least the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that there is no undue usurpation of the role of Governments or Ministers, nor is any intended.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

The whole purpose of this legislation, whether we agree with it or not, is that there should be a double lock. When I was signing warrants for intercept, it was left to me entirely as Secretary of State. There was no involvement of the judiciary or anybody else, other than the security services providing you with a great deal of information on why you should take a particular decision. The principle behind the Bill is that a judge should look at and review the decision of the Secretary of State. The argument both in the Joint Committee and in the other place has been about whether the judge should take into account necessity and proportionality—which would have been taken into account by the Secretary of State in taking the decision in the first place—in the same way as the Secretary of State, or whether they should look at it simply through the eyes of a judge.

One of the most interesting sessions of the Joint Committee was in the Committee Room upstairs where we interviewed a judge from New Zealand—it was 5.10 am when the judge very happily came to address the committee. That is obviously a very different sort of country. With a couple of million people, they obviously do not have the same number of warrants to deal with as we do in this country. It seemed, however, from what the New Zealand judge was saying, that there was a happy relationship between him and the appropriate government Minister in New Zealand, in that when they looked at a warrant, they did so with the same eyes.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is saying that if you take into account modern judicial review principles, you also take into account proportionality and necessity. But that has to be made clear. I understand that the Government made some changes in the other place with regard to this matter, but the precise role of the judge needs to be made clear. Does he or she look at a warrant simply as a judge or as a human being, and is it in the same way as the Secretary of State does?

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I begin with some of the observations made in your Lordships’ House regarding judicial oversight. On the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, I have a double lock on my front door. The two locks work differently but they are equally effective. That really is the point of the double lock in the context of this legislation: the locks do indeed work differently but they are equally effective at the end of the day. I would adopt the observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, that judicial oversight as it has developed provides us with a flexible standard of oversight, which in many senses is wide-ranging, as has been observed. But, of course, it is judicial oversight, and that is what we have to emphasise.

Turning to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on working days a week, we consider that the present provision is appropriate. As to the calculation of the working day, the third working day will be calculated from the day after the warrant is issued. For example, if a warrant is issued on a Monday, it must be authorised by the commissioner by the close of Thursday. So it is the date of issue plus three working days.

Amendments 39 to 42, 165A, 167 and 168A would significantly change the so-called double-lock safeguard, such that the judicial commissioner would be taking their own decision rather than reviewing the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to whether the warrant is necessary and proportionate. The Committee will appreciate that the issue of authorisation has been a central feature in the debate on the Bill. Perhaps I might just give a brief potted history of its development.

The three reviews that shaped the draft Bill—by David Anderson QC, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament and the Royal United Services Institute surveillance panel—made different recommendations in respect of authorisation. One called for full Secretary of State authorisation and the other two called for a hybrid judicial/executive model. It is noteworthy that none of them called for full judicial authorisation for all warrants. The Joint Committee that undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill supported the double-lock approach set out in the Bill, including the use of the well-established principles of judicial review. At Second Reading in the other place, there was very strong cross-party support for a government amendment that preserved the double lock and the role of the judicial commissioner, while linking the judicial commissioner’s scrutiny to the new privacy clause, to put beyond doubt, if it needed to be, that the judicial commissioner would need to apply a sufficient degree of care to ensure that he or she had complied with duties imposed by the new protection of privacy clause in Part 1 of the Bill. So we are on well-trodden ground, and it is clear that there is strong support—including from senior members of the judiciary—for the approach set out in the Bill.

These amendments would confuse the distinct roles of the Executive and the judiciary and undermine democratic accountability—a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. It is surely right that a Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the public, should be making the decision as to whether a warrant for the most intrusive powers is necessary and proportionate. Equally, it is entirely appropriate that a judicial commissioner should be carefully reviewing that decision. While the commissioner’s role is to review the original decision, your Lordships should be clear that this is a robust safeguard. Also, the judicial commissioners will have held or will be holding high judicial office and will be familiar with the principles of judicial review.

As amended in the other place, Clause 23 makes it clear that the commissioners’ review must involve careful consideration and ultimately if the Investigatory Powers Commissioner does not approve the decision to issue the warrant, it cannot come into force. The amendments I have referred to would also require the judicial commissioner to consider the reasons given for the decision to issue the warrant. The amendment is based on a misunderstanding of how warrants operate. The Secretary of State will receive a detailed application setting out the necessity and proportionality considerations. If they agree, they will issue the warrant. They do not have to give reasons for the decision beyond confirming that they personally consider that the warrant is necessary and proportionate. The judicial commissioner will review the decision of the Secretary of State based on the evidence provided to the Secretary of State in the application. If the commissioner thinks that the evidence in the application is not a sufficient basis for the decision that has been made, the commissioner will refuse to approve the decision. We would submit that it is in these circumstances that the double-lock mechanism is appropriate in this context, and accordingly I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

On Amendments 16 and 19, I have already touched on the reference to removing the term “working days”. Our position is that that is an appropriate way forward with these provisions, and I again invite the noble Baroness not to press these amendments.

Amendments 97 to 99 would significantly alter the double-lock safeguard for notices, such that the judicial commissioner would be taking their own decision rather than reviewing the conclusions of the Secretary of State as to whether the notice under Part 9 of the Bill is necessary and proportionate. The amendments would accordingly also remove the requirement for the judicial commissioner to apply the same principles as would be applied by a court in an application for judicial review. As discussed during scrutiny by this House of similar clauses in Part 2 of the Bill, these amendments would confuse the distinct roles of the Executive and the judiciary, as I mentioned earlier. It is right that a Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament and ultimately the public, should make the decision whether it is necessary and proportionate to impose obligations on operators through the giving of a notice. Equally, it is entirely appropriate that a judicial commissioner should be carefully reviewing that decision. As I stated previously, the commissioner’s role is to review the original decision, and your Lordships should be clear that this is a robust safeguard.

One of the amendments would also require the judicial commissioner to consider the reasons given for the decision to give a notice, and again as I indicated before, this amendment appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the process of giving a notice because the reasons are not provided. In other words, under the Bill there is no need to give written reasons over and above those set out in the application itself. Again, in that context I would invite the noble Baroness not to press the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Perhaps the Minister can convince the House on these issues since the Government appear to have failed to convince the Delegated Powers Committee.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen]

My Lords, this part of the Bill concerning Members of Parliament is a hugely important and grave issue, but I think it is probably about right now. As the House and the Minister will know, when the legislation went through the other place, there was a change. Instead of the Prime Minister being informed about a Member of Parliament or of this House having a warrant against them, now the Prime Minister must approve such a warrant. I think that is absolutely right.

There are a couple of points worth making. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, that the idea of the Speaker of the House of Commons being involved is a very difficult precedent to set, not only because it puts a great burden on the Speaker but because this part of the Bill refers not just to the British Parliament—both this House and the other place—but to the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and, for the time being at least, the European Parliament. If the Speaker was to be involved, surely it would be necessary for the Presiding Officers of those parliaments and assemblies also to be. Frankly, that is something that they would not particularly welcome.

With regard to the point made about the First Minister of Scotland, that same argument applies. If you say that the First Minister of Scotland ought to be involved, surely the First Minister of Wales would have to be involved and, presumably, the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland as well—not to mention, for the time being, the President of the European Parliament. I am not sure that would work. Nevertheless, it is important that such matters are raised.

Finally, is the Wilson doctrine obsolete as a consequence of the legislation? Will it be replaced by what is now in the Bill, or does the Wilson doctrine still stand in the sense that it has always referred to a change of policy, rather than to individual people— Members of the House of Commons or whoever—who might be subject to interception? I would be grateful to the Minister if he said, when he responds, whether the Wilson doctrine is now finally dead and buried.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Perhaps I may make a brief comment about Amendments 85A and 85B in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We, too, want to hear the Government’s response to the views expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I will not go over those views, since the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has already set them out. In brief, the first is the fact that paragraph 33 of Schedule 8 includes a power to amend the provisions of Schedule 8 itself. The committee said that it needed “a very convincing explanation” of why that was necessary; otherwise, it would find the power inappropriate. The other, as the noble Lord said, concerns the fact that the powers conferred by paragraph 33 of Schedule 8 include a power to amend future enactments whenever passed or made. The committee commented that it felt that such powers were inappropriate. In view of the comments made by the committee, we, like the noble Lord, wish to hear the Government’s response to the committee’s points.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I support the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Black, on this amendment. I was unable to speak at Second Reading but I have spent a lifetime in the print media, so I have particular concerns on this matter.

To enable the state to access and shadow every aspect of the work of journalists and media organisations and their sources undermines press freedom, the role of the media in a free society and their ability to hold the powerful to account. I think all noble Lords would accept that that is a major concern. Such powers chill freedom of expression, inhibit sources coming forward in future for fear of potential exposure to the state, and effectively curb the press. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, the key issue here is the protection of sources; that is critical to the work of a free press. There is also the aspect that by not providing protection you expose journalists to danger; both reporters and photographers will become targets if it is feared that the police or other state organisations have wide access to their material.

The noble Lord, Lord Black, said in particular that there is strong evidence that the RIPA powers, which we had concerns about when that legislation went through, show the need for extra vigilance. I hope that the Government will address that in their response to this amendment. I was quite surprised to see the statistics on the number of journalists who have been subject to this legislation’s powers. We are asking for one particular power, that there should be a right not only for the judicial commissioner to authorise these inquiries but that the media organisation should be informed that those powers are being sought; otherwise, those sources have no idea what the state is up to and no concept of having the power to challenge its interpretation of the public interest. There is clearly a public interest, as regards the media organisation as well, to ensure freedom of the press.

We therefore believe that these well-established legal procedures should be provided in the Bill as safeguards for the protection of journalistic activity, while we recognise that both the courts and the UK Parliament have long recognised the necessity for proper protection of non-confidential and confidential journalistic material and sources. That is why we asked the Government to look very carefully at this stage at the legislation. We welcome the efforts that they have made so far, but in view of what has happened with the use of the RIPA powers and the need for these additional safeguards, we hope that the Minister will respond favourably to the amendment.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, the Joint Committee on the Bill—four Members other than myself, who chaired the committee, are present this evening—met journalists in evidence sessions. The Society of Editors and the National Union of Journalists met with the committee on 14 December last year, and of course many strong representations were made in writing to the Joint Committee on this very subject. The committee eventually recommended that,

“the Home Office should reconsider the level of protection which the Bill affords to journalistic material and sources”.

We recommended that it should be at least equivalent to that afforded by the Terrorism Act 2000 and by PACE, and that the Home Office should take into account the various aspects of the European Convention on Human Rights which affect this aspect of the Bill. I know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has also made representations to the Government on this matter.

I support the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. His proposed new clause deals with wider protection from state surveillance, not just sources—for example, a politically sensitive investigation—in that it covers areas other than simply communications data; for example, equipment interference, and that orders should be sought from a judge, as with PACE. I congratulate the Government, as in Committee in the other place, Clause 73 was introduced, which made welcome changes to the Bill as it then stood. However, I agree with noble Lords who have already spoken that that is not quite sufficient and more needs to be done.

The issue the Joint Committee had to deal with was how precisely you define a journalist these days. It is very different from when I was a young man. With the advanced technology, what or who is a journalist? PACE defines it in some senses in that it at least refers to “journalistic material”. A journalist is,

“any natural or legal person who is regularly or professionally engaged in the collection and dissemination of information to the public via any means of mass communication”.

Therefore we can overcome these issues.

All the speakers so far have indicated that we are grateful to the Government for what they have done, but more could be done. I do not say that the precise wording of the proposed new clause in the amendment is the precise answer to where we are going, but Ministers—both here and in the other place—have indicated to me over the last couple of months that the Government are willing to look very carefully at how to ensure that journalists are properly protected under this legislation. It is certain that there should be no lessening of protection from what already exists under PACE. I fear that it is possible that that might be the case, unless we go a little further in protecting both the sources of journalists and their investigations.

I therefore hope that, when the Minister winds up, he will give us some joy and will indicate that, by the time we reach Report, the Government will have reconsidered some of these aspects and we will be able to ensure that this particularly important part of the Bill is dealt with properly.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, my name is to this amendment and I very much support it. As a former police officer, I feel I have to speak on both aspects of this. The noble Lord, Lord Black, spoke clearly and in detail about the need for very specific safeguards because of the experience that we have had with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Police have clearly not used legislation in the way that Parliament intended it to be used—that is, to establish who confidential journalistic sources are. I also support what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said about the danger to journalists, particularly camera operators in serious, spontaneous public order situations. This is an area where I have some expertise. At the moment there is a balance as experience has shown that media footage has, in certain circumstances, been useful to demonstrators in terms of misuse or excess use of force by police officers. If this were to change, and the demonstrators felt that material gathered by media operators was under the control only of the police, because of inadequate provisions in the Bill, it could tip the balance and journalists would become a target for violence in such situations.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, for the last two and a half months I have had the privilege of chairing the Joint Committee on the Investigatory Powers Bill. It reported four and a half hours ago and it has meant, as my noble friend Lord Hart will tell us, a great deal of work. This has meant that I have been unable to make a maiden speech. I am delighted to do so this afternoon and I thank my noble friend Lady Taylor for her very kind words an hour or so ago. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, in her very fine speech, I make reference to the courtesy and helpfulness that I have received from Members on all sides of the House over the last couple of months and from the officers and staff of the House of Lords. It is a very different place from the House of Commons, but it is certainly a friendly place—more friendly, in fact, than parts of the other House.

I also thank my two supporters on introduction. My noble friend Lord Touhig, who coincidentally is winding up for my party in today’s debate, has been a noble friend of mine—although not always noble—for 66 years. I thank him for what he has done for me over all those decades. My other supporter, my noble friend Lord McFall, is a great and long-standing friend who served in the House of Commons with me for nearly a quarter of a century.

I made my other maiden speech 29 and a half years ago. I spoke then, as is inevitably the case, about my own constituency of Torfaen in the eastern valley of Gwent in south Wales, which is a very diverse constituency. It includes the industrial heritage town of Blaenavon, the great valley town of Pontypool and the new town of Cwmbran, but it also includes my home town, and that of my noble friend Lord Touhig, the small village of Abersychan. That small village has produced seven Members of Parliament since the Second World War, including my very fine successor, Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds, the great and fine biographer of the grandfather of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and of Aneurin Bevan. Of those seven Members of Parliament, four became Members of your Lordships’ House: myself and my noble friend Lord Touhig as well as Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and Lord Granville-West, who was one of the very first life Peers. In addition, of course, Lord Chalfont, of Llantarnam, came from the eastern valley of Gwent as well.

I am very happy to support the Bill. I do not have the expertise or experience of many of those who have spoken already and, indeed, will speak after me. A long time ago, in the late 1990s, I was the shadow Defence Minister responsible for personnel matters in the Armed Forces and it is so interesting to hear from the Minister and others how the world has changed in those 20 years. The Bill is worthy of support because it recognises that important change. I also served as the Secretary of State for Wales and, of course, for Northern Ireland. When I held that post the great value of our Armed Forces was so obvious to behold. I worked with them at all levels and the dangers that they faced and the work they did for our country was immeasurable.

I will also say that I have enormous admiration for the Armed Forces throughout our country. I am told that every parliamentary constituency has within it at least 20,000 people who, in some way or another, are linked to our Armed Forces. They are either members of the Armed Forces themselves or relatives; they may work in the defence industry or whatever. That is almost a third of the average electorate, certainly of a Welsh constituency, and any political party which decides to ignore that reality does so at its peril. Any political party which does not have a credible defence policy does so at its peril. I will not digress any further, other than to say than I am old enough to remember the general election of 1983, when my party suffered an enormous defeat partly because it did not have a credible defence policy.

I return in my maiden speech—I beg the indulgence of your Lordships—to the substance of the debate: the Armed Forces Bill itself. I will refer briefly to Clause 15 on the veterans and pensions committee, which will have an enhanced statutory remit, and to which the Minister has already referred. I think all of us would agree that veterans—by whom we mean young and old veterans—play a wonderful role in our national life and our communities. Certainly, in my former constituency, the Royal British Legion—I know that we will hear more on that later—the Cwmbran and District Ex-Servicemen’s Association and the Royal Regiment of Wales Association, of which I am president and declare an interest, all play a pivotal role in the life of my valley. That shows how important veterans are to our national life and to our local life as well.

Every January, in my home village of Llantarnam—which is also the home village of my noble friend Lord Touhig—a military parade is held, and a service in the graveyard of the parish church. Buried there is Private John Williams, who won the Victoria Cross at the great battle of Rorke’s Drift in the Zulu wars in 1879. That was a long time ago, noble Lords may think. But it was not; my father knew a survivor of that great battle. My family proudly became members of the South Wales Borderers, who fought at Rorke’s Drift in 1879. That small personal story with which I have regaled your Lordships is replicated throughout the whole of our country—and rightly so. This debate has given me the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who serve, and have served, in our Armed Forces. It gives the opportunity to your Lordships’ House to do exactly the same.