Brussels Terrorist Attacks

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not only sharing information and intelligence with our European partners but encouraging European member states and others to share intelligence so we can build that collective picture. The terrorists know no boundaries and no borders. We need to work together to ensure we can deal with them.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

In issuing travel advice to the public, which they rely on to make an informed choice, will the Home Secretary ensure that we have safety first, but that we do not allow terrorists to close down our way of life and are mindful of the impact of that advice on partner nations? I am thinking in particular of north Africa in recent times and of the impact that advice has had on Tunisia, specifically.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right to point that out. The attack in Tunisia saw the murder of so many British holidaymakers. Action on travel advice was then taken, working with the Tunisian Government. If people do not travel, that will of course have an impact on a country’s economy. I assure him that, in looking at travel advice and in issuing guidance on travel, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office considers a range of issues, but of course what must come first is our desire to ensure the security and safety of British citizens.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

I am not doing that in any way, shape or form. It is wrong for the Home Secretary to stand there and imply that. What I am talking about is the grounds on which her Bill gives the police and the security services the ability to apply for warrants. [Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen: I am saying to the Home Secretary and to them that those grounds should be as tightly defined as possible, and I do not think it helps if she is proposing that they can be brought forward on grounds of “general economic well-being”. In the past, her party has taken a different view from ours, and this opens up a much wider range of potential activities that could be subject to the most intrusive warrants. That point is both fair and, if I may say so, well made.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

My question to the right hon. Gentleman is this: why did it not occur to him on 4 November? On that date, he stood there and said:

“Having listened carefully to what the Home Secretary has said today, I believe that she has responded to legitimate concerns and broadly got that…balance right.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 974.]

What has changed in the interim?

[Andy Burnham]

Has the hon. Gentleman been listening? I began by saying the very same thing and said that we would work with the Government to get it right, but surely I am entitled, am I not, to raise specific concerns about the wording in the Bill—in this case, wording about “economic well-being”, which I believe opens up a large range of activities that could fit under that banner. I am saying to Government Members that if they want my help, they should help us get that definition right to reassure the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Let me begin by thanking an enlightened and beneficent Whips Office for appointing me to the Joint Committee that considered the draft Bill. The Whips may have come to regret that, but I thank them nevertheless.

The Bill is largely an avowal of current practice. A blueprint for some “Nineteen Eighty-Four” dystopia it most certainly is not. However, it does improve transparency, oversight and authorisation. It does give our agencies the tools that they need to do their job, in an age when the number of terrorists may not be increasing in absolute terms, but the nature of that terrorism, and the number of tools available to the terrorists, most certainly are. Thanks to the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Joint Committee on which I had the privilege to serve, the Bill has been improved a great deal.

It is extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) should have flip-flopped since 4 November. I remember his speech well, and I remember thinking, “What a good speech! What a statesmanlike contribution!” Now, however, we have completely the reverse. The right hon. Gentleman is not in his place at the moment, but he is a decent man and I am sure that he will live to regret his abstention this evening. Since that time, we have had the introduction of the double lock, the nature and use of which have been clarified in Committee, certainly to my satisfaction. That would deal precisely with the sort of abuses that the right hon. Gentleman correctly cited in his speech.

Clause 222 will institute post-legislative scrutiny, which is extremely important. None of us can see what the situation five years hence is going to look like, although I think we can all guess that technology will occupy an entirely different space at that point. It is inevitable that we will have to review the legislation formally in five years’ time, and I am grateful that the Bill has been amended accordingly.

There has been much debate about internet connection records. Those who say we do not need them must understand what the consequences of that would be. I accept that hard cases make for bad law, but when the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children tells us that 862 of the 6,025 cases referred to it could not be progressed without a measure to retain ICRs, we have to think about that. Those who are saying that we do not need such a measure should reflect on what that would mean for all our constituents.

There has also been much talk about bulk powers—some of it informed, some of it rather less so. This is already covered by existing legislation, and the case for these provisions has been reinforced in an operational case that was recently published alongside the draft Bill and in the code of practice for bulk powers. I tried in Committee to get the Home Secretary to give me an idea of what she had in mind when she was talking about personal datasets. I failed completely. Indeed, the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee also appears to have failed to clarify the meaning of “operational purposes”. I admit my defeat, but this matter lies at the core of our discussions today and I hope that some clarity will be shed on it. For example, are we talking about Care.data or are we simply talking about telephone directories? It is important to know this.

I am satisfied that the Bill has been significantly improved through pre-legislative scrutiny. Few Bills that I can recall have had quite so much scrutiny. I look forward to the remaining rough edges being knocked off in Committee and in the other place, and I will most certainly be supporting it tonight.

Donald Trump

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

It is a significant day. Martin Luther King was a great man who left a great legacy behind. We should look at what we are doing in this case and what we are doing in pursuing a cause that would expel the—

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Flynn]

Yes, of course.

[Dr Murrison]

I appreciate the balanced way in which the hon. Gentleman is presenting his argument. The election of his party leader has shown that remarkable things happen in politics. We have to be alive to the possibility that this ridiculous individual—that is, Mr Trump—may be elected as President of the United States. In that event, would such a ban be overturned? Were it not, that would be one almighty snub to the American citizens to whom the hon. Gentleman has been referring.

[Paul Flynn]

I am sure that is absolutely right. Our great difficulty is that showing disrespect for Mr Trump might be interpreted by his supporters and others in America as showing disrespect to the American nation, but that is not what we are doing. One individual is involved. If we attack this one man, we are in danger of fixing on him a halo of victimhood. We give him the role of martyrdom, which can seem to be an advantage among those who support him. The line will go out: “Here are these foreigners interfering and telling us what to do.” It would be a grave error if we allowed that situation to arise and if our deliberations today seemed anti-American.

Various people have said we should not discuss this issue, but it is difficult to ignore a vox pop that is so thunderous and the signatures of 500,000 people. The purpose of the Petitions Committee is to say that it is not only MPs, parties, Governments and Opposition who decide the agenda here in Parliament, but the public, and the public are speaking in a very loud voice indeed. Our best plan is not to give Mr Trump the accolade of martyrdom. We may already be in error by giving him far too much attention by way of this petition, but he has said some remarkable things that have caused a great deal of upset.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Numbers of university applications continue to rise, and that underlines the effect of our crackdown on the abuses that we saw under the previous Labour Government, where people were coming to the country who could not speak English and who were going to bogus colleges.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

12. What steps she is taking to reduce the administrative costs of policing.

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

The Government have made it easier for the police to do their job by cutting red tape, scrapping bureaucracy, ending targets and giving officers the discretion of their professional judgment. In my hon. Friend’s constituency, the number of front-line officers has increased from 87% to 90% in the past 10 years.

[Dr Murrison]

The TaxPayers Alliance and HMRC have made clear that they consider Wiltshire to be both efficient and effective administratively in delivering first-class services, so good governance does not have to be taxing. Is the Minister confident that the existing legislative framework allows sufficient latitude for reforming police and crime commissioners, such as Wiltshire’s Angus Macpherson, to flatten and de-layer management structures and rationalise working practices in the interests of front-line policing?

[Mike Penning]

The Home Secretary has already announced that we will be bringing forward legislation in this Parliament to give police and crime commissioners the powers they need. Around the country, many PCCs are already collaborating. We are going to head that up here in government.

Paris Terrorist Attacks

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am sorry to hear of the sad case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. Our thoughts are with him and his family and friends. Obviously, we hope that he will make a recovery.

Consular support is available to families who wish to support members of their family who are in hospital in France. On a wider point, we have also been looking at what assistance the Department of Health and its experience can give to France, particularly with regard to those who have been traumatised by the event. Work is ongoing on those sorts of exchanges. As I have said, consular assistance is also available from the British embassy in Paris, and the Foreign Office has sent a team to Paris to help with that work.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Following the 2003 Casablanca bombings, Morocco set up the Mohammed VI Institute in Rabat to train foreign overseas imams and preachers, including women preachers, in the moderate Sunni-Sufi tradition that characterises that country. Last month, an agreement was reached with France in that respect. What can we learn from that experience? Would it be of benefit to the UK? Will the Home Secretary commend Morocco for its initiative?

Draft Investigatory Powers Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Yes I am, and I apologise because I think one or two Members have already raised that issue. It is important to introduce the extra element—the third element—of consultation with the Prime Minister, so that everybody in the House will be clear about requests to intercept the communications of a Member of this House, the House of Lords, or the other legislatures. We will discuss with the Scottish Government the process that will be introduced for warrants that are currently signed by Scottish Ministers. That third lock is the right way to go, and I hope that will give people confidence in the process.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, and the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on his remarks about the snoopers charter misnomer. The difficulty we often face is when the use and abuse of intelligence leads to poor policy decisions—I am thinking particularly of the September 2002 dodgy dossier from which I am afraid the reputation of the intelligence services has yet to fully recover. What can be done further to improve public understanding of the work that the intelligence services do on their behalf? I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her remarks about the double lock and the investigatory powers commissioner, and for the fact that her statement draws on the three reports to which she referred. That is a good first step although I am sure she feels that more could be done. What more can we do as the Bill passes through the House?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about highlighting to members of the public the nature of the work being done by the agencies and the way they do it. A number of steps have already been taken, and I am sure we will build on them to ensure that the public have that confidence. Recently, the agencies have been more willing to come forward and explain what they do to members of the public—the director general of MI5 gave a live interview on the “Today” programme, and that is the first time any of our agency heads have given such an interview. Anybody who has read The Times over the past couple of weeks will have seen a considerable amount of reporting on the operations of GCHQ. Such things are important because they help the public to understand what our agencies are doing.

Policing

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

My right hon. Friend rightly says that there is evidence that violent crime—knife crime and sexual assault–is on the increase and that the Metropolitan police have seen some reductions in numbers, particularly in her community. The big worry is that if the Government proceed with the spending plans they set out at the Budget, thousands of police officers could be taken off the streets of this country, particularly in London, where the change would be most keenly felt. That should concern Members on both sides of the House.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

I will make a little more progress and give way later on.

Last week, the shadow Policing Minister and I joined the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice at the police bravery awards. As I am sure we would all agree, it was a humbling evening. It was particularly poignant this year, with PC David Phillips in the minds of many. We think of David’s family today, and we hope that they take some comfort from the huge public response and outpouring of feeling that we have seen.

As I said when I started this job, when the Home Secretary gets it right, she will have my support—I have just offered that to her on the investigatory powers Bill—but where she and the Government get it wrong, I am not going to hold back from saying so, particularly where public and community safety is at risk. That brings me to my central point: this Government are about to cause serious damage to our police service and if they do not change course, they are about to put public safety at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

That is the point: we are already hearing that police services in England and Wales are overstretched and struggling to cover all their functions. That is because in the past five years 12,000 full-time officers have been lost—the total was about 17,000 police staff overall. Three weeks from now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be standing at that Dispatch Box announcing his spending review. If he follows through on what he said at the Budget, the country will soon have a very different police force, providing a much-reduced service than the one that has just been described. As it stands, the Home Office, like other unprotected Departments, is in line for a cut over the next five years of between 25% and 40%. If we assume that the Government are working to keep it to the lower end of that spectrum, it still represents a massive hit on resources. It will mean 22,000 fewer police officers than we have today. That is a massive number and the Government need to provide justification for cuts on that scale.

[Dr Murrison]

If things are as dire as the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, why is it that crime across the country is falling? In addition, why is a 10% cut in police funding, which he said was doable at his party conference, apparently now “dangerous”, as his motion puts it?

Wilson Doctrine

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I take my right hon. Friend’s point, but that is why I urged Members to read the transcript. What I said is very apparent from the transcript. He is, of course, right that there has been a huge transformation. Metadata, which I will come back to later, simply did not exist in their current form in Wilson’s day. Many of the things that are now available, including email, did not exist in his day. A whole series of things that we all assumed had been swept up in the Wilson doctrine have not been swept up in the Wilson doctrine. That is why the Home Secretary’s case that it is the same as what was enunciated by Harold Wilson all those years ago is simply not tenable. I will come back to that point, too.

Members will notice that the Press Gallery is nearly empty. Over the past week or so, the newspapers have been very derogatory about this case and the argument that we are putting. They say, “Why should MPs be treated any differently from anybody else?” Those, by the way, are the very same newspapers that were in an uproar of anger about the fact that somebody had checked out the metadata of one of their journalist’s telephones. Perhaps they were right in that, but it is an odd dichotomy.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

What does my right hon. Friend think the deputy leader of the Labour party will think about the stance that has been taken by the shadow Leader of the House, given that the deputy leader of the Labour party is making a career out of exposing the alleged wrongdoings of Members of this House and the other place? Presumably that would be made much more difficult were we exempted from the investigatory instruments that are available to the agencies.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend tempts me, but the inwardness of the Labour party is far above my pay grade. I will stick to the substance of the issue before us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on his initiative in applying for the debate, and I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on granting it. It is a timely and necessary debate, and it has been a good debate so far. If anything about it disappoints me, it is the fact that the House has been rather less full than I hoped. I suspect that if at the heart of the debate were a more specific suggestion that Members’ communications had been intercepted, the Benches would have overflowed. I am afraid that this really is not good enough. If I may borrow a phrase from another part of the political lexicon, we need to mend the roof while the sun is shining. It is at this moment, when we are not under the immediate pressure of allegations of that sort, that we should be considering this matter in the context of the broadest possible principles.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s clarification that she considers the Wilson doctrine to be a live doctrine which continues to operate, but I echo the concern expressed by others this evening about just how meaningful it is in 2015. As I said to the Home Secretary in my intervention, we now have a very different constitutional framework, a range of very different ways in which communication is undertaken, and a range of different matters in which Members of Parliament now routinely intervene, many of which had not even been envisaged in 1966.

I am a great fan of the flexibility of the British constitution when, through the operation of doctrines and conventions, it is capable of responding in a way that has common sense at its heart. Sometimes, however, those doctrines and conventions become overused, and, by virtue of the introduction of other legislative frameworks, of which RIPA is one of the most obvious examples, reach a point at which they no longer serve the purpose for which they were originally intended. That, I suggest, is the point that has now been reached.

A remarkable aspect of the debate is the existence of broad agreement. From the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) onwards, it has been clear that if we undertake this in the way in which we, as parliamentarians, ought to undertake it—openly, and accepting that we all act in good faith—it should be possible to construct a Wilson doctrine for the 21st century, which will, I fear, now have to be enshrined in statute. I hope that a draft regulation of interception Bill, at least, will give us an opportunity to consider how that might be done.

I think it is a matter of broad consensus—I have heard no one suggest otherwise tonight—that the people who stand to benefit from the operation of the doctrine are not Members of this House or, indeed, of the other place, but our constituents. That, I think, is a principle that has not changed since 1966, and one that should be at the heart of any statutory codification. There has also been universal agreement on the principle that Members of Parliament should not be above the law. However, when it comes to people not being above the law, that should of course include the Home Secretary, and anyone else who would be required to sign a warrant in respect of matters such as this. For that reason, I suggest that a degree of judicial oversight of some sort should be incorporated in our new measures.

[Dr Murrison]

I am listening to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say with a great deal of interest, and I agree with much of it. Does he agree with me, however, that it is slightly important for us to take the public along with us? They will see—and the press has been reflecting it recently—that this simply means parliamentarians putting themselves above the law. Can he define precisely what concerns him about MPs’ relationship with their constituents, and, perhaps, contrast it with what applies to those in other professions, such as healthcare workers, lawyers and journalists? Perhaps, as he comes from Scotland, I can press him further, and ask him whether he regards this as an argument for first past the post, given that we would have to examine the relationships of list MSPs compared with constituency MSPs. Is he concerned primarily about the relationship between a constituent and a constituency MSP or MP?

[Mr Carmichael]

Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s second question first, while I can still remember it. I must tell him that list MSPs have constituents as well, but over a much wider range of areas. As for the question of the description, it is a little like an elephant: it is difficult to describe, but you know it when you see it. That is the sort of work that needs to be done, and I believe that it can best be done on a cross-party basis. While we have the time and the space, we should be constructing a new system which is capable of maintaining and commanding the confidence of people across the House, whichever party happens to be on the Treasury Bench at any given moment.

My intervention on the Home Secretary’s speech was prompted by her interesting use of the term “the spirit of the Wilson doctrine” in relation to parliamentarians who are not here or in the other place, but in the devolved legislatures: the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Assembly. I think that there is a fairly simple principle at stake, namely that when we devolve power, we should also devolve the privilege that goes with power. The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) invited me to contrast our position with that of other professionals, such as lawyers, doctors and journalists. I would not contrast it, but I would say that, in many ways, we have the same reasons for such privilege. I say that as a former solicitor. The hon. Gentleman is a medical practitioner, and he understands that there are good and compelling reasons for the extension of privilege to those professions in the way in which it was extended to what is done in the House of Commons.

[Dr Murrison]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with both the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) that in the upcoming legislation it would be better for the professions that deal with people and their issues to be dealt with en bloc, so that the public do not see politicians as being in a particular group on their own, and are therefore more likely to understand the need for certain exchanges to be privileged?

[Mr Carmichael]

I caution the hon. Gentleman, without necessarily disagreeing with him, that we should not allow the best to be the enemy of the good. Ideally, that is the point that we should reach, but if we wait until the standing of the House of Commons, and that of politics in general, is so high that we will not be subject to public criticism for doing what remains the right thing to do, I am afraid that we shall end up waiting for a very long time.

I mentioned the devolved legislatures because it is apparent from reports in the Daily Record that there has been a change of policy. According to the Daily Record, before March 2015 the guidelines given to the security services stated:

“As a matter of policy, GCHQ applies the principles of the Wilson doctrine to Members of the House of Commons, Members of the House of Lords, UK MEPs, and members of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies”—

however inaccurately they may have been named there. In June, however, it was reported:

“The doctrine does not apply to…the interception of communications of Members of the European Parliament or devolved assemblies.”

If that is the correct statement of the advice, and I have not seen it challenged anywhere, clearly there has been a change. We are entitled to ask why that change was made and in principle why Members of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh or Northern Ireland Assemblies should be treated any differently from Members of this House. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) made the point that they have a democratic mandate and duties of democratic accountability in the same way we do. On that basis, there should be no reason for them being treated differently.

As I said at the start, the time for the ability to regulate these matters through adoption or convention is well and truly behind us. There is a clear need for a measure of judicial oversight. In that way, we can ensure confidence, and it is in the interests of the Treasury Bench that the decisions taken command confidence in this House, in other places and across the country with the public as a whole.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said that it would be suggested that if we have nothing to hide, we should have nothing to fear. The question is not about what we have to hide or fear, it is about our constituents.

Reports into Investigatory Powers

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Home Secretary for that reassurance that the Government agree that the old draft Bill was too wide ranging. We look forward to the replacement proposals and hope they will meet the assessment test set out by David Anderson, whose report is pretty comprehensive and well judged on these matters.

I also warmly welcome David Anderson’s recommendations for a fundamental overhaul of the commissioner system and the establishment of a new body, the independent surveillance and intelligence commission. The current commissioner system, although undoubtedly staffed by excellent people who have taken their roles forward, is too low profile and not substantial enough in performing a vital oversight role. It is hard for the public to assess where oversight properly lies. When one considers that we regulate our TV channels in a more high-profile and systematic way than our intelligence agencies, it is clear that reform is needed.

The new body would have supervisory responsibility and aim to build public trust. I would like it also to have a role in working with the Home Secretary on a suitable process for transparency, where that is possible in line with operational requirements, about both the law and our country’s capability. David Anderson’s report calls for greater public avowal and transparency about capabilities and legal powers. While everyone understands that many national security operations need to be secret to be effective, I know the Home Secretary will consider that recommendation closely, because sufficient transparency is of course needed if we in Parliament are to be able to take responsible decisions and get the legislation right.

The report recommends transforming the system of authorisation for interception warrants. The proposals on judicial authorisation are among the most significant reforms to the framework that David Anderson proposes. There is precedent: a system of judicial approval by commissioners exists for the police in relation to property interference, intrusive surveillance and long-term undercover operations. Also, as the report notes, the UK is an outlier among the “Five Eyes” states—the others are Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA—in not having prior judicial authorisation of interceptions of communications.

Importantly for the safety and security of our country, such a provision could go some way to solving one of the most significant challenges our agencies face: getting co-operation from communications companies based in the United States. In his report, David Anderson states:

“One major company went so far as to suggest that if the UK introduced judicial authorisation, more cooperation would be forthcoming, though I was not left with the impression that this was a universal view.”

He adds that

“US companies…find it difficult to understand why they should honour a warrant signed by the Secretary of State”

when the US has a system of judicial authorisation of warrants. So there are pragmatic considerations as well as constitutional considerations for us in determining what impact increasing judicial authorisation might have on that greater co-operation involving overseas companies.

Of course the detail must be right and reforms should not adversely affect the relationship between the Executive and the judiciary in relation to other aspects of Government powers. They should also recognise the importance of the Home Secretary’s role in determining what the threats are to national security, rather than leave such an important task to the judiciary. However, it should be possible to make those reforms, and I believe that now is the right time to introduce judicial authorisation into the process. Clearly, there are different ways of doing it—for example, it would be possible to have different frameworks for different kinds of warrant. David Anderson recognises that there would be differences in relation to sensitive missions that affect other countries and our relationships with them. Clearly, rather than leave such cases to a purely judicial process, such cases would require decisions to be made by the Foreign Secretary, who is accountable to Parliament for those sensitive relationships with other Governments.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

How does the right hon. Lady reconcile the need to take account of the wider political construct with the duty of the judiciary to act according to the law? Surely she is making a powerful argument for the status quo.

[Yvette Cooper]

No, I am not. I am part way through an argument that there are different kinds of warrant and different circumstances. In cases involving foreign affairs, where sensitive relationships with other Governments may be at stake, the Executive clearly have an important role to play; they cannot be seen simply as judicial matters. However, there are other kinds of warrant—for example, intercept warrants for the purposes of tackling serious and organised crime, where if the action was not intercept, but was instead knocking down someone’s door and breaking into their home, authorisation would be an entirely judicial process. There are significant questions about why intercept in the interests of pursuing serious and organised crime should have no judicial authorisation, whereas knocking down somebody’s door should have judicial authorisation.

That is why I think there is a strong case for introducing judicial authorisation to provide a clearer system of separation of Executive and judiciary and to introduce clearer checks and balances into the process. It does have to be done in the right way and there will be different considerations around crime and national security and foreign affairs, but I believe it is possible because other countries manage it. If we were the only country in the “Five Eyes” that did not have a process of judicial authorisation, even though we have similar intercept arrangements, that would pose a big question for us. Those who simply defend the status quo need to explain why they think the arrangements in all those other countries are inadequate and worse than ours, given the added legitimacy that some judicial authorisation processes should bring.

I recognise the complexity here; that is why it is wise that we hold this debate now, in advance of the Government making their final decisions on the issue and setting out their proposals. It is also wise that we have a period of consultation on the draft legislation, so that people can table amendments and have these debates. However, I do not see why judicial authorisation need threaten or jeopardise the work of the agencies—quite the reverse. If it is a way to provide greater legitimacy, and support from overseas, for this work, it could add strongly to the process, and to agencies’ work.

On the legislative process, I welcome the Home Secretary’s proposal for a period of proper reflection and discussion on the detail before final votes are taken in Parliament. That is the right approach. We are keen to continue discussions with her on this subject, and I welcome the briefing that she provided for me to enable us to do that. When the Snowden leaks first appeared in the media, there was a sense that Parliament was not debating these issues, that the Government were not responding, and that other countries were having a more informed and up-to-date debate about the response and the processes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I start by paying tribute to our security services, whose work I have seen at first hand over many years. They are superb professionals, who, unspoken and silently, keep us safe every day on the streets of Britain in a way that we want and is emulated across the world.

I pay tribute to David Anderson’s report. From its very wisely chosen title to annexe 18, 373 pages later, it is truly magisterial. If I had a criticism, it would be that there are too many acronyms, but stand fast in my view that it is a truly superb work. The Intelligence and Security Committee report, too, in its own way, is also worthy of very close attention and provides a backdrop for the consideration that this House will be engaged in as we run up to autumn and the much anticipated consideration of the draft legislation.

We heard today, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), about his daughter’s ballet. We have heard about the shadow Home Secretary’s child’s graduation. A feature of this point in the academic year is that we are concerned about our children and their achievements. At the weekend, I had the very great pleasure of being at my daughters’ sports day. What impressed me most, apart from the athletic prowess of my daughters, was the camera overhead, monitoring this business, with the full consent of the school, the children and—I think probably implicitly—the parents for posterity. At first glance, it looked a fairly benign exercise, but I do not think that I was the only one who felt slightly uneasy. In my recollection, it was the first time I had come across this particular piece of technology—a great cumbersome, burdensome thing, very obvious and very noisy. In 10 years’ time, it will be replaced—I have no doubt—by a thing the size of a small insect, and at that point, it will become far more sinister. If I had one plea, it would be this: as we consider the draft legislation towards the end of this year, we must make sure that we future-proof the Bill and the Act that eventually transpires. That measure must be good for many years to come, and at a time when we will be faced with technology that most of us can only imagine at the moment.

My interest in this matter stems from my experience as the Minister for international security strategy and a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, and as a Member of Parliament who represents a large number of people who are engaged, in one way or another, in the security services. Of course, all of us in this place are intimately involved with the product of the security services, since all our constituents are affected by it in one way or another.

I am very impressed by the National Crime Agency’s statistics on what it has done as a direct result of material that has been intercepted: the 750 kg of heroin and 2,000 kg of cocaine that were intercepted in 2012-14; the 2,200 arrests; the 140 firearms that were intercepted; and the £20 million of illicit loot that was seized. I note Operation Notarise and the resulting 600 arrests for suspected child abuse. All that represents a great well of human misery. Such things will not be dealt with unless we invest in our security services the powers they need to intercept material in a fast-evolving electronic space.

Clearly, the balance needs to be struck between our need to keep people safe in a complex world and privacy; between the extremes of Big Brother and the anarchy and lawlessness of laissez-faire. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary touched on that in her remarks. To be honest, I do not know where on that Likert scale between Big Brother and laissez-faire we need to pitch our legislation. That is a matter for debate in the months ahead.

I was alarmed that the Intelligence and Security Committee report from earlier this year reported that organisations such as Big Brother Watch, Justice, Liberty and Rights Watch UK felt that the security environment was having a “chilling effect” on society. I do not believe that that is the case. I think that my constituents would be “chilled”, however, if we were not able to interdict and intercept the sorts of villains who would do them down and create havoc on the streets of this country. My constituents would be “chilled” in the event that we accepted, as those organisations appear to do, atrocities on the streets of London like the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby. That is the consequence of not giving our security services the powers that that they need. It is as straight- forward as that, notwithstanding my remarks about balance.

There are many matters to be considered in the autumn. I welcome the opportunity this House will have for pre-legislative scrutiny. In the short time available to me, I would like to touch on one or two of those matters. Right hon. and hon. Members have commented on the need for public awareness and education to avoid confusion. I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) in so far as she suggested that there was widespread concern about snooping. There is not much evidence to sustain that. However, it is our duty, as we approach this legislation, to do our best to educate the people in whose name we act to ensure that they have the sort of understanding that is needed in a civil society to have confidence that the powers invested in the security services are appropriate, necessary, proportionate and legal. It is the job of Members of this House and, if I may say so ever so gently, the re-formed Intelligence and Security Committee to inculcate that understanding among the public, as far as is possible.

Snooping is a complete misnomer and, as we have heard this afternoon, there is nothing to sustain that description. That does not mean to say that we should not put in place the mechanisms that are necessary to ensure that our security services do not, wittingly or unwittingly, abuse the position of trust in which they are invested.

We need to be conscious that technology is proceeding apace. Quantum computing, probably in the next 10 years, will provide a double-edged sword, because it will increase the ability to encrypt data and thus the ability of villains to do bad stuff, but it will also improve the ability of our security services to survey bulk data, which brings significant implications for the legislation that we will consider in the autumn. As well as the requirements that the collection of material be necessary, proportionate and legal, the fourth hurdle is the impossibility of surveying the great bulk of the data. It is simply not possible for the security services to snoop in the way that has been suggested, because there is so much data and the technology does not exist to spy or snoop on people or invade their personal liberty in the way that some people seem to think is routinely possible. That may change, however, and we must ensure that the legislation we consider in the autumn is up to the task of dealing with this stuff as it evolves, as it surely will, over the next decade.

There are various things that we can do to mitigate that risk. We can insist on a time limit for the retention of data. We can be wary of allowing internet service providers to hold bulk data that are capable of being mined—so-called “big data”. I am persuaded that there is a distinct possibility that, in the near future, agencies will be able to profile people and predict not what they have done, but what they might do in the future on the basis of the profile that they have built up. That is extremely sinister.

Although it would be illegal to do that as things stand, if we could no longer rely on the fourth hurdle that I mentioned, namely the physical inability to tap the data because of their extent, it may just be possible with quantum computing and the changes in technology over the coming years, providing a sort of electronic version of Dixon of Dock Green that eyes up wrong ‘uns who might get involved in criminality or worse in the future. We need to future-proof the legislation to avoid that.

I am aware that other Members want to speak, so let me say very quickly that we need to be careful about the status of communications data—the who, where and when. Given the increasing importance of the data, the sophistication of them and the profiling that is capable of being built up on the basis of them, we need to look at the status of the designated person. I am not convinced that it is proper to vest those powers in a middle-grade person. We need to look at whether that needs to be changed in order to preserve the liberties that we have discussed today.

I want to comment briefly on who signs warrants for intrusive activities, because that is an important part of the material that we are discussing. Sir David Omand and the Home Secretary are quite clear on that point and I agree with them because of my ministerial experience, although I was at a far lower level than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I am less persuaded—indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend was not persuaded—by the immediacy argument. That seems to me to be superficial and easily dealt with. I am persuaded about the need to consider the wider political context. That is an important point. I am also persuaded on the point about accountability. We in this place are elected to represent real people. Nobody ever put a cross by the name of a member of the judiciary.

[Mr Grieve]

The accountability argument is, without doubt, the most powerful argument for Ministers doing the warrantry process. Of course, there remains the problem that, due to the nature of the work, accountability to this House can sometimes be difficult to achieve in practice because, inevitably, it is not made public. That is a tension that the House will have to debate and resolve.

[Dr Murrison]

As one would expect, my right hon. and learned Friend puts his finger on it. The mechanism that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster described so well may be a remedy for that, but nevertheless my opinion is that the power has to remain with Ministers. We need to guard jealously the power vested in our politicians, who are accountable to the House and the people for the extraordinarily important things that they do.

At the heart of the matter lies an improvement in public understanding. In the months before December next year, we have to do everything we can to inculcate in the public a far better understanding of these sensitive issues. Each of us has a job to do in that respect, and I hope that the Intelligence and Security Committee will play its part in improving public understanding. Our civil society will be in a much better place as a result.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Devolution and Growth across Britain

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland)? I am a sentimental sort of bloke, and I rather think we need to have the Liberal voice heard in this place. I observe that there is not a single Liberal in what used to be the Lib Dem heartland of the south-west, but I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has been returned and I look forward to his contributions in the months and years ahead.

It is a particular pleasure to follow the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), who spoke exceptionally well. He is the new James Arbuthnot, which are very big shoes to fill.

We have spoken a lot today about the northern powerhouse. We need also to speak about the west country powerhouse. I confess my interest as a rural rustic from the south-west. I note that in recent years the Government have invested heavily in infrastructure in my part of the world, and I look forward to their continuing to do so. I am thinking in particular of the upgrading of the A303, which is vital for prosperity in the west country, and of investment in superfast broadband, which is clearly necessary for the rural businesses that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is particularly keen to promote.

While considering the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, we should be a little careful. I know that it would not be the Government’s intention to disadvantage the shire counties in any way, but it is vital that we get the balance right and do not inadvertently disinvest in rural parts of our country because of our understandable enthusiasm for investing in our great cities.

We have heard today about local enterprise partnerships and regional development agencies. In my part of the world, the transformation following the introduction of LEPs and the abolition of RDAs has been huge.

We have to admire the Opposition’s nerve in tabling an amendment attacking the Government’s record on housing; never was there a better opportunity for a political party to draw a discreet veil. In supporting the aspiration for low-cost housing laid out in the Queen’s Speech, I make a plea for the integrity of the core planning process that lies at the heart of the Localism Act 2011. In Warminster, which I represent, residents feel with good cause that they are being taken for a ride; the Minister for Housing and Planning knows that very well, as I have been to see him about the issue recently. I do not want public money or my constituents’ time to be wasted on core strategies that turn out to be worthless. I do want the right housing to be in the right place with the right level of supporting infrastructure.

The late Charles Kennedy suggested that this Parliament would be about two Unions: the United Kingdom and the European Union. I very much welcome the inclusion of the European Union Referendum Bill in the Queen’s Speech, and I look forward to its Second Reading next week. Devolution and subsidiarity must mean removing powers from Brussels as well.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is an operator. I am sure he will return from Europe like Moses from Mount Sinai, with a prospectus that I can recommend to my constituents. They would expect a British exception that will exclude the UK from ever closer union, which has only one destination: union. They will expect parity of esteem among EU currencies and the reaffirmation of the trading and commercial deal that my constituents, their parents and grandparents thought that they were signing up to in 1975.

My constituency has a heavy defence interest. I declare my own interest as an ex-regular and current reservist. I welcome with due trepidation the inclusion of the strategic defence and security review in the Gracious Speech. During the general election campaign, many of my constituents expressed puzzlement at the fact that we have committed to statute the OECD 0.7% of GDP development target without having committed to NATO’s 2% defence target, notwithstanding the progress made last year at Celtic Manor. They are also puzzled at the licence given to our unequal partners who enjoy NATO’s fully comprehensive cover while paying a third-party premium.

There can be no development without economic prosperity, and there will be no prosperity without security. The engineers of that security—Britain’s soldiers, sailors and airmen—are a distinct force for good in a troubled world. Despite the progress made by the coalition Government, the link between outcome and input in Britain’s international development effort since 1997 has been far less clearcut. If a country’s military deploys to a country whose inhabitants pose little direct threat, it operates in a space between altruism and enlightened self-interest. Britain’s military contribution to making the world a better and safer place must be properly referenced in the upcoming SDSR and in our development returns.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the issue of aid versus defence. Does he share my concern about recent remarks from General Odierno, the head of the US army, and the US Secretary of Defence, Ash Carter, who are very concerned about Britain’s refusal to commit to 2% of GDP on defence?

[Dr Murrison]

We of course need to listen very carefully to our biggest and closest ally. Since the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent is now contained within the Ministry of Defence budget, we need to be particularly mindful of the fact that the room for manoeuvre is limited. My hon. Friend and I both welcome the commitment to maintaining headcount, which is important to my constituents and to the security of our country. That, however, means there is very little room for manoeuvre on other cost drivers in defence, which is very much a concern for our American allies.

I welcome the intention in the Queen’s Speech to improve GP access, which was definitely an issue on the doorstep throughout the election period. So much general practice is actually social care, and in my constituency, I see the consequences of two systems running in parallel, not in series. That political failure is hugely wasteful and demands fresh thinking on how we pay for and provide care for an ageing demographic.

I welcome the Queen’s Speech, which sets a powerful programme for Government, and I look forward to supporting it in the months and years ahead.