Rights of EU Nationals

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

I have been a remainer for a very long period of time. I have come to the Chamber and listened very intently to what the hon. and learned Lady is saying. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said that nobody disagrees with what she is saying, and no one in this House disagrees with protecting EU nationals as well as we protect our British citizens. From one remainer to another, may I just ask why—I would have voted for it—you did not put this in your motion?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

[Ben Howlett]

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not mean you.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman definitely, in everything he has just said, did not mean me. He has got the point without my saying anything further.

[Joanna Cherry]

The motion is as framed advisedly. If Conservative Members felt it could have been improved, it was open to them to bring forward an amendment. We would have looked at it carefully, as we always do. I am now going to make a little bit more progress. I am conscious that I have taken a lot of interventions and I want to wind up fairly soon.

I want to say a little bit about what the Scottish Government have been doing since the referendum. Members will recall that immediately after the referendum result the First Minister moved very quickly to give EU citizens in Scotland reassurance that

“the Scottish Government is pursuing every possible option to protect Scotland’s position in Europe and, by extension, the interests of the people from across the European Union who live here.”

Indeed, at an event unprecedented in my constituency in August, the First Minister held an open question and answer session with EU nationals. I can tell Conservative Members that it was extremely well attended by EU nationals living and working in my constituency and in other parts of Scotland. They had many concerns and questions for the First Minister about their status in the United Kingdom following the vote. At our conference last weekend, the SNP passed a motion condemning xenophobia and prejudice in all its forms, making it very clear, in no uncertain terms, that international citizens are welcome in Scotland. In her closing address to the SNP conference in Glasgow on Saturday, the First Minister talked of the “uniting vision” of

“an inclusive, prosperous, socially just, open, welcoming and outward-looking country”

and contrasted that with the xenophobic rhetoric of the UK Government. The difference between the SNP conference and the Tory conference could not be starker.

I am very well aware that the desire for inclusivity, openness and being welcome and outward-looking is not the preserve of the SNP and the Scots. It is shared by many people across these islands. It is about time that Conservative Members lived up to the good aspects of British tradition and the good aspects of our reputation abroad, and stopped undermining them by encouraging the sort of xenophobia we have seen in recent months as a result of some of their rhetoric. [Interruption.] I am absolutely delighted to get such a reaction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Time is limited and many Members wish to speak. I will impose an initial time limit of eight minutes, with the proviso that it might well have to be reduced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Comments are to be reflected upon and discussed; they are not be made from a sedentary position. If the hon. Member for Darlington wishes her comments to be noted, she should stand up and make them. If not, she should not make them.

[James Cleverly]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. This has been such a lively and excellent debate, with so many interventions that speeches have gone way over eight minutes. I am afraid that I therefore now have to reduce the official time limit to six minutes, but I am sure there will still be lively interventions.

Police Officer Safety

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Holly Lynch]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that staggering and depressing intervention. We have seen what he has described far too often, and the statistics are very serious. I hope that the Minister will respond with what could be easy and effective ways of dealing with sentencing to ensure that the greatest possible deterrents exist. We quite often see repeat offenders, and that cannot be allowed to continue. We must give police officers every protection that we can possibly provide.

What additional protections might officers need? Perhaps controversially, I want to refer to spit hoods. I am all for informed debate about the issue, but the truth is that if people are politically uncomfortable about spit hoods, I can promise them that somewhere, right now, there is a police officer who is being spat at and who is even more uncomfortable. As well as being thoroughly unpleasant, spitting blood and saliva at another human being can pose a real risk of transmission of a range of infectious diseases, some with life-changing or even lethal consequences. We have a duty of care to protect officers from that, whenever possible.

The Centre for Public Safety has published a briefing on the issue, and I thank it for the work that it has done in this regard. The briefing cited a recent occasion on which the Metropolitan police were called to a disturbance and arrested a 20-year-old woman on suspicion of a public order offence. The woman, who had hepatitis B, then bit her own lip and spat blood at three officers who had to be taken to hospital for anti-viral treatment. Anti-viral treatments are not guaranteed to prevent the transmission of infectious diseases, and an officer may have to endure a wait of over six months to find out whether the treatment has been successful.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, who has been very generous in giving way, but she might wish to be aware that if she would like a reply from the Minister, he has only until 7.42 to give her that reply.

[Holly Lynch]

I am getting there, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for that reminder.

As I was saying, I am open to a debate on spit hoods, but they might not be so necessary if sentencing was more effective and offered a tougher deterrent. However, the Sentencing Council’s 2011 guidelines removed spitting as a factor increasing seriousness. In the council’s assessment of the guidelines, published in 2015, sentencers attributed a shift towards less severe sentencing to that decision. A district judge went so far as to say that

“a spit in the face can’t be identified as a sustained or repeated assault for greater harm. Yet in my view it is one of the most serious ways of assaulting.”

I am asking the Minister to ensure that the Home Office is collecting accurate data about assaults on police officers—data that will give us a much greater insight into the scale of the problem and empower decision makers to respond accordingly. I am asking him to work with colleagues to explore options for much tougher sentencing. If an officer is the victim of a category 1 assault, I would expect to see a sentence that sends a strong message. Assaulting the police shows contempt for our collectively agreed laws and all those who uphold them, and it will not be tolerated. It worries me that the ever-growing demands on the police are undermining their ability to do some of the basics. I am calling on the Minister to recognise that officers are routinely deployed on their own, that when an officer calls for back-up, only boots on the ground will do, and that numbers matter.

Finally, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute, on behalf of all of us here, to the brave unarmed West Yorkshire police officers who apprehended the man who took Jo Cox from us on the streets of Batley and Spen earlier this year. Their actions demonstrated that we ask the police to walk towards some of the most dangerous situations, and we have a responsibility to offer them all the protection we can in doing so. We are grateful to them, and their courage is a testament to all our brave policemen and women across the country.

Scamming: Vulnerable Individuals

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman as worried as I am about the number of people who respond to communications? He mentioned the lottery. Once people have responded to one communication, they will receive many more. I heard of one person who received up to 10 or 20 a day. Moreover, the communications are coming from abroad, which means that they cannot be intercepted and stopped. It is causing a great deal of heartache to very vulnerable people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) responds to that intervention, let me point out that, while I appreciate that he is making some extremely important points and the House is very attentive, a great many other Members wish to speak, not just in the current debate but in the next. I am sure that he will conclude his speech very soon.

[Julian Knight]

I am actually on my last paragraph, Madam Deputy Speaker, but thank you for the reminder.

The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) is absolutely correct. If the Post Office is alerted to the position, it will stop mail and set up a separate “scam mail box”, which is a very good initiative.

Fraud is a detestable crime which preys on our worst fears and best instincts, and I hope that, together with the police and other organisations and across the Government, we can start to stamp it out.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before I call the co-sponsor of the motion, let me repeat that a great many Members wish to speak in both this debate and the next one. I must therefore impose a five-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. That does not apply to the next speaker, who is deemed to be the spokesman for her party.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

May I just say—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We will listen to Sir Alan Duncan.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

May I just say to the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends that there was no intention whatsoever to be patronising? If she wants to take it in that vein, may I apologise and do so graciously? Our view is simply that bulk interception and bulk powers involve a poor use of the word “bulk”. The intrusion on the individual compared with the collective gathering of information is misunderstood in many cases. That is our point, and I hope that she can accept it in that spirit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen McPartland]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 19—Local authority authorisations: notification of chief executive—

“Where, on an application under sections 66 to 69, the relevant judicial authority approves an authorisation (including a Judicial Commissioner approval by order under section 68), the designated senior officer must notify the chief executive of the local authority, or subscribing authority, of that approval, or those approvals as the case may be, prior to that authorisation taking effect.”

Amendment 320, in clause 53, page 42, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert

“Subsection (2) applies if a designated senior officer of a relevant public authority considers—

“(a) that a Judicial Commissioner may, on an application made by a designated senior officer at a relevant public authority, issue a communications data access authorisation where the Judicial Commissioner considers—”.

See amendment 327.

Amendment 321, page 42, line 21, leave out paragraph (b)(ii).

See amendment 327.

Amendment 322, page 42, line 26, leave out

“The designated senior officer may authorise any officer of the authority to”

and insert

“A communications data access authorisation may authorise the designated senior officer or a telecommunications operator to”.

See amendment 327.

Amendment 323, page 42, line 39, leave out “authorised officer” and insert “designated senior officer”.

See amendment 327.

Amendment 286, page 43, line 39, after “detecting”, insert “serious”.

This amendment inserts a higher threshold for accessing communications data.

Amendment 287, page 43, line 39, after second “preventing”, insert “serious”.

This amendment inserts a higher threshold for accessing communications data.

Amendment 324, page 43, line 41, leave out paragraphs (c) to (e).

See amendment 327.

Amendment 288, page 44, line 1, after first “or”, insert “serious”.

This amendment inserts a higher threshold for accessing communications data.

Amendment 289, page 44, line 1, after “any”, insert “serious”.

This amendment inserts a higher threshold for accessing communications data.

Amendment 290, page 44, line 2, after “any”, insert “serious”.

This amendment inserts a higher threshold for accessing communications data.

Amendment 291, page 44, line 2, after third “or”, insert “serious”.

This amendment inserts a higher threshold for accessing communications data.

Amendment 325, page 44, line 13, at end insert—

“(7A) An authorisation may be considered necessary as mentioned in subsection (7)(b) or (7)(f) only where there is a reasonable suspicion that a serious criminal offence has been or is likely to be committed.”

See amendment 327.

Amendment 292, page 44, line 18, at end insert—

“(9) Serious crime in subsection (7)(b) above means—

(a) any crime where a person guilty of the offence is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of imprisonment of [a maximum of] 6 months or more; or

(b) a crime which causes serious damage to a person’s physical or mental health.”

This amendment defines the higher threshold, inserted by other amendments to Clause 53, for accessing communications data.

Amendment 326, in clause 54, page 44, line 19, leave out clause 54.

See amendment 327.

Amendment 13,  page 44, line 28, leave out subsection (3)(b) and insert—

“(b) the investigation or operation concerned is one where there is an exceptional need, in the interests of national security, to keep knowledge of it to an absolute minimum,

(ba) there is an opportunity to obtain information where—

(i) the opportunity is rare,

(ii) the time to act is short, and

(iii) the need to obtain the information is significant and in the interests of national security, or”.

On behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, to amend the Bill to ensure that the exceptional national security-related circumstances under which there does not need to be a separation between those requesting and those authorising requests for communications data, is narrowly drawn.

Amendment 293, page 45, line 13, at end insert—

“(7) For the avoidance of doubt, an internet connection record does not include the content of any communication.”

An amendment to clarify the description of internet connection records.

Amendment 327, in clause 55, page 45, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment 4, page 46, line 40, leave out clause 58.

These amendments provide that in order to access communications data, a relevant public authority must seek a warrant from a Judicial Commissioner rather than undertake a system of internal authorisation. These amendments would require that there is reasonable suspicion of serious crime for a warrant authorising communications data acquisition.

Amendment 164, in clause 58, page 46, line 41, leave out “maintain”.

See amendment 163.

Amendment 165, page 46, line 41, leave out “operate”.

See amendment 163.

Amendment 166, page 47, line 1, after “officer” insert “in exceptional circumstances”.

This amendment restricts the use of the filter to exceptional circumstances. This will ensure that the use of the filter does not become routine practice or the default mechanism for obtaining communications data.

Amendment 161, page 47, line 7, leave out “arrangements” and insert “regulations”.

See amendment 163.

Amendment 167, page 47, line 18, at end insert—

“(c) obtaining the approval of a Judicial Commissioner to the filtering regulations in the same way as if the data was to be obtained by a targeted interception warrant as set out in this Act.”

This amendment requires use of the filtering arrangements to obtain data to be approved by a Judicial Commissioner. Filtering requires higher authorisation standard, as it has much greater powers to detect across many datasets and with high efficiency, being more akin to bulk acquisition than to individual requests for data.

Amendment 168, page 47, line 19, leave out subsection 3.

This amendment stops the user of the filter for general purposes - such as support, maintenance, oversight, operation or administration of the arrangements - not directly related to the core investigative functions of public bodies. It also removes the use of the filter to support the general oversight functions of the Investigatory Powers Commission.

Amendment 162, page 47, line 19, leave out “arrangements” and insert “regulations”.

See amendment 163.

Amendment 163, page 47, line 27, leave out “arrangements” and insert “regulations”.

These amendments would make the filtering arrangements to be governed by a statutory instrument subject to all normal transparency and processes of judicial review.

Amendment 169, page 47, line 32, leave out “must consult” and insert

“shall obtain the prior approval of”.

This amendment creates a duty to obtain prior approval from the Commissioner for the filtering system. By asking the Commissioner for prior approval of any plans, the assessment of necessity and proportionality would be much more likely to be robust. Any abuse and expansion of scope and abilities of data mining would be more likely to be restrained. The Commissioner would also have the ability to ensure that requirements they might seek are properly considered at the start.

Amendment 170, page 47, line 35, at end insert—

“(5A) Nothing in this section shall be used in respect of information which can be reasonably obtained by any other means under this Act.

(5B) Nothing in this section shall be used for the bulk collection of information.

(5C) The powers under this section shall only be used by the Secretary of State when no other power under this Act or other statute can achieve the same objective.”

This amendment restricts the use of the filter to those purposes the government has put forward. Given the lack of clarity on what the filtering arrangements are and whether they will become the normal way to acquire communications data of any type, this amendment seeks to restrain the power so that it is used as narrowly as possible.

Amendment 171, page 47, line 35, at end insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State shall at least once a year make a report to Parliament detailing the filtering arrangements made under this clause.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament explaining what the filtering arrangements consisted of and were being used for. This would improve public scrutiny and reinforce the provision in clause 58(4).

Amendment 5, page 47, line 36, leave out clause 59.

Amendment 6, page 48, line 16, leave out clause 60.

Amendment 172, in clause 60, page 49, line 29, at end insert—

“(10) All filtering arrangements under this Act shall not endure more than six months.

(11) The Secretary of State shall not use any power under Part 3 of this Act unless such power cannot be exercised under any other statutory provision.

(12) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the filtering arrangements are always used exceptionally and with regard to privacy rights.

(13) The Secretary of State shall from time to time consider the proportionality and necessity of all filtering arrangements in place.

(14) The Secretary of State shall terminate any filtering arrangements which are not proportionate or necessary.”

This amendment requires filtering arrangements to be renewed every six months; makes them a power of last resort; requires assessment of necessity and proportionality; requires termination of arrangements which are not truly needed.

Government amendments 49 and 50.

Amendment 143, in clause 68, page 54, line 14, leave out “not”.

Amendment 144, page 54, line 15, at end insert

“unless an application without such notice is required in order to avoid prejudice to the investigation.”

Amendment 145, page 54, line 15, at end insert—

“( ) Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 shall apply to an application for an order under this section as if it were an application for an order under that Schedule.”

This amendment seeks to ensure that the same level of protection is provided for journalists’ sources under the Bill as is currently provided in PACE.

Government amendments 51 and 52.

Amendment 300, in clause 73, page 58, line 33, at end insert—

“(4) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section in respect of any disclosure, it is a defence for the person to show that the disclosure was in the public interest.”

An amendment to introduce a public interest defence for disclosures regarding the obtaining of communications data.

Amendment 207, page 205, line 6, leave out schedule 4.

New clause 26—Retention of communications data—

“An operator who has not been designated as the operator of an electronic communications network or service according to section 34 of the Communications Act 2003; or whose service has fewer than 50,000 subscribers, shall not be required to comply with a retention notice under Clause 78.”

The new clause excludes the providers of rural or community access communications services and small service providers from the obligation to collect and retain data, in accordance with policy statements made by the Home Office.

Amendment 328, in clause 78, page 61, line 5, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”,

See amendment 350.

Amendment 329, page 61, line 5, after second ““notice”)” insert

“on an application made by a designated senior officer at a relevant public authority”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 330, page 61, line 7, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 331, page 61, line 9, at end insert—

“(1A) A notice may be considered necessary only where there is a reasonable suspicion that a serious criminal offence has been or is likely to be committed in relation to the grounds falling within section 53(7).”

See amendment 350.

Amendment 332, page 61, line 38, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 3, page 62, line 22, leave out “therefore includes, in particular” and insert “does not include”.

Amendment 294, page 62, line 23, at end insert—

“(10) A retention notice must not require any data which is, or can only be obtained by processing, an internet connection record to be retained for any purpose other than the purpose specified in section 54(4).”

An amendment to restrict the retention of internet connection records.

Amendment 333, in clause 79, page 62, line 26, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 334, page 62, line 35, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 336, in clause 80, page 62, line 40, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner” on both occasions.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 337, page 63, line 7, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 338, page 63, line 8, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 339, page 63, line 9, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 340, page 63, line 10, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 341, page 63, line 19, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “designated senior officer at a relevant public authority”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 342, page 63, line 24, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “designated senior officer at a relevant public authority”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 343, page 63, line 25, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 470, page 63, line 31, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 471, page 63, line 33, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 344, in clause 83, page 64, line 13, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 345, page 64, line 14, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 346, page 64, line 15, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 347, page 64, line 23, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 348, page 64, line 38, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

See amendment 350.

Amendment 350, page 64, line 40, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

These amendments provide that judicial authorisation is required for retention of communications data. These amendments would require that there is reasonable suspicion of serious crime for a warrant authorising retention of communications data.

Amendment 301, in clause 84, page 65, line 26, at end insert—

“(4A) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply to a disclosure made in the public interest.”

An amendment to introduce a public interest defence for disclosures regarding the retention of communications data.

New clause 15—Review of operational case for bulk powers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to review the operational case for the bulk powers contained in Parts 6 and 7 of this Act.

(2) The independent reviewer must, in particular, consider the justification for the powers in the Act relating to—

(a) bulk interception,

(b) bulk acquisition,

(c) bulk equipment interference, and

(d) bulk personal datasets.

(3) The independent reviewer must, so far as reasonably practicable, complete the review before 30 November 2016.

(4) The independent reviewer must send to the Prime Minister a report on the outcome of the review as soon as reasonably practicable after completing the review.

(5) On receiving a report under subsection (4), the Prime Minister must lay a copy of it before Parliament together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy under subsection (6).

(6) If it appears to the Prime Minister that the publication of any matter in a report under subsection (4) would be contrary to the public interest or prejudicial to national security, the Prime Minister may exclude the matter from the copy of the report laid before Parliament.

(7) The Secretary of State may pay to the independent reviewer—

(a) expenses incurred in carrying out the functions of the independent reviewer under this section, and

(b) such allowances as the Secretary of State determines.

(8) The independent reviewer shall complete further reviews on a five-yearly basis and the provisions of this section other than subsection (3) shall apply.

(9) In this section ‘the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation’ means the person appointed under section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 (and ‘independent reviewer’ is to be read accordingly).”

This amendment provides for an independent review of the operational case for the bulk powers in the Bill, and further periodic reviews, to be undertaken by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

New clause 17—Review of the Operation of this Act—

“(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint an Independent Reviewer to prepare the first report on the operation of this Act within a period of 6 months beginning with the end of the initial period.

(2) In subsection (1) ‘the initial period’ is the period of 1 years and 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(3) Subsequent reports will be prepared every 2 years after the first report in subsection (1).

(4) A copy of the report is to be laid before Parliament, with provision made for a debate on the floor of both Houses and then approved by resolution of each House.”

Because the Bill deals with National Security and changing technological capabilities, it should be subject to greater scrutiny by both Houses. This amendment will call for an Independent Review to take place and be approved by Parliament within 2 years of the Bill becoming law and then every two years.

New clause 22—Primacy of judicial commissioner’s approval—

“No authorisation sought for a warrant to intercept or obtain or examine primary or secondary communications data, whether targeted or in bulk, under this Act may be considered by a Minister unless it has first been approved by a Judicial Commissioner.”

New clause 25—Review of the Operation of this Act—

“(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint an Independent Reviewer to prepare the first report on the operation of this Act within a period of 6 months beginning with the end of the initial period.

(2) In subsection (1) ‘the initial period’ is the period of 4 years and 6 months beginning with the passage of this Act.

(3) Subsequent reports will be prepared every 5 years after the first report in subsection (1).

(4) Any report prepared by the Independent Reviewer must be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State as soon as the Secretary of State is satisfied it will not prejudice any criminal proceedings.

(5) The Secretary of State may, out of money provided by Parliament, pay a person appointed under subsection (1), both his expenses and also such allowances as the Secretary of State determines.”

This new clause provides that the review of the operation of the Act shall be carried out by an Independent Reviewer.

New clause 27—Protection for journalistic sources, materials and activities—

“(1) Save in the exceptional circumstances identified in subsection (2), the regimes provided for by Parts 2 to 7 may not be used to access, obtain, record, hold, consider, analyse, disclose or otherwise deal with information, material or data—

(a) of, or concerning the activities of, journalists, or

(b) if the purpose of so doing is to obtain information identifying a journalistic source.

(2) The exceptional circumstances referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) the case is one of great emergency,

(b) immediate action is necessary, and

(c) the relevant investigatory powers under the regimes provided by Parts 2 to 7 can be used lawfully having regard to the provisions thereof.

(3) In any case where the regimes provided for by Parts 2 to 7 are disapplied by subsection (1), any person who could otherwise have sought to use one of the investigatory powers specified therein may apply to a judge for an order allowing that person to access, obtain, record, hold, consider, analyse, disclose or otherwise deal with such information, material or data in a way provided for by Parts 2 to 7.

(4) An application for an order under subsection (3) shall be made on notice to the journalist or journalists affected unless the judge determines that an application without such notice is required in order to avoid prejudice to the investigation.

(5) Paragraphs 7 to 9 of Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 shall apply in relation to the service of a notice of application for an order under subsection (1) as if the application were for an order under Schedule 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

(6) Criminal Procedure Rules may make provision about proceedings under this section where the judge determines that an application without such notice is required.

(7) A judge may only make an order under subsection (3) if the person making the application has convincingly established that—

(a) the order is directed to one or more of the legitimate aims specified in Article 10.2 of the Convention,

(b) there is an overriding public interest necessitating the order,

(c) reasonable alternative measures to the order do not exist or have been exhausted, and

(d) the order is proportionate to the legitimate aim or aims being pursued.

(8) The costs of any application under subsection (3) and of anything done or to be done in pursuance of an order as a result of the application shall be in the discretion of the judge.

(9) In this section—

(a) ‘source’ means any person who provides information to a journalist;

(b) ‘information identifying a source’ includes—

(i) the name and personal data as well as voice and image of a source;

(ii) the factual circumstances of acquiring information from a source by a journalist;

(iii) the unpublished content of the information provided by a source to a journalist; and

(iv) personal data of journalists and their employers related to their professional work;

in so far as this is likely to lead to the identification of a source.

(c) ‘the Convention’ means the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and

(d) ‘judge’ means a circuit judge or judge of the High Court.”

Amendment 206, page 172, line 24, leave out clause 222.

See new clause 17.

Amendment 494, in clause 223, page 173, line 18, leave out paragraph (i) and insert—

“(i) is about an entity to which a telecommunications service is provided by that telecommunications operator and relates to the provision of that service,”.

This amendment clarifies that the definition of communications data should apply to the providers of the relevant telecommunication services, rather than allowing an organisation to be required to provide data about services it does not provide.

Amendment 496, in clause 225, page 177, line 27, at end insert—

“‘national security’” means the protection of the existence of the nation and its territorial integrity, or political independence against force or threat of force”.

This amendment would provide for a definition of national security under “General definitions”, to apply throughout the Bill.

Amendment 495, page 177, line 36, at end insert—

“‘professional legal adviser’ means a person who is—

(a) an Advocate

(b) a Barrister

(c) a Solicitor.”

This amendment provides a definition of a “professional legal Adviser” which is important for clarification in relation to Clauses 25, 100, 135 and 171.

[Stephen McPartland]

I speak in support of all the amendments that I have tabled in this group. First, new clause 18 and amendment 207 are designed to try to restrict the powers in the Bill to the intelligence agencies and law enforcement only. Schedule 4 currently includes the Food Standards Agency and the Gambling Commission, and I am not clear what evidence there is for including those organisations and granting them access to such intrusive powers when other organisations will not have that access.

The Bill gives incredibly wide-ranging powers and there is clear nervousness about that on both sides of the House. I completely respect the integrity of the security services and the police, but a lot of the fear seems to stem from the behaviour of some local authorities in the past and how they have used anti-terrorism powers to spy on people to see whether or not they have been recycling correctly and so on. As a result, those local authorities are not included in the Bill.

Let me give an example from Hertfordshire. The child protection unit of Hertfordshire County Council does not have access to communications data or the powers in the Bill in order to catch paedophiles, but the Gambling Commission and the Food Standards Agency would do so. I am unclear why a body that we would want to have access to such powers so that it can catch paedophiles and break up rings around the world cannot have access, when organisations such as the Gambling Commission or Food Standards Agency can have access.

I want to understand that difference. In the oral evidence sessions, when Ministers were questioning witnesses and when witnesses were providing evidence, there was a lot of talk about intelligence agencies, paedophilia and the problems in that regard. Ministers made it clear that a range of organisations had made robust cases to be included. The amendments are intended to tease out of Ministers why those cases were accepted when others were not. Frankly, I would much rather that Hertfordshire County Council’s child protection unit had access to some of the powers in the Bill than the Food Standards Agency, the Gambling Commission or some other organisation. The purpose of my amendment is to try to identify why we are where we are at the moment.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

There are dozens of Sikhs in the Public Gallery tonight. In honour of that, I will, if I may, say the Sikh incantation:

“Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh”.

Roughly translated, and I hope hon. Members will forgive my translation, that means: “Glory to the Khalsa”—the Sikh brotherhood and sisterhood—“Glory to God. The Khalsa belongs to God. God always prevails.”

I am the chair of the all-party group for British Sikhs, but I must stress that I speak in a purely personal capacity to the House tonight. The issues we are discussing are very serious; they are taken very seriously by UK citizens, including hundreds of thousands of Sikhs. They are serious issues for our security, but proscription is also a serious issue for our liberty—for freedom of association and freedom of speech—which is curtailed by proscription, and, on occasions, that must be the right thing to do.

The ban on the International Sikh Youth Federation in the UK in March 2001 led to the organisation being banned in India in December that year and in Canada in July 2003. If the Minister is not going to wind up, I hope he can reply in writing later to some of the questions I will be firing at him—it is a slightly strange procedure we have tonight, with all due respect, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The first question I would like to ask is: will the Government—assuming this statutory instrument goes through, as I am sure it will—formally notify the Governments of Canada and India of the UK’s decision to de-proscribe and of the reasons for it? To repeat a question that was asked earlier—it is an important question, and the Minister did answer it, but I am coming at it from a slightly different angle—have the Government had any communications with the Indian authorities on lifting the ban on the ISYF since the application to de-proscribe was made in February 2015? If there have been communications, when did they take place?

This issue touches on our freedoms, so I would like to ask the Minister how many organisations such as the ISYF, which are proscribed, do not currently meet the statutory definition of being concerned in terrorism, which is the core part of the test. In 2013, the Home Office identified 14 proscribed organisations that in its assessment did not meet the statutory test of being concerned in terrorism. I do not know whether the ISYF was one of those 14, but if it was, I hope the Minister can explain why the ban—the proscription—was not lifted, at the latest, when the application for de-proscription was made in February 2015. If the ISYF was one of the 14 organisations the Government were saying did not meet the test any more, the Government should have given in immediately in February 2015, when three applicants made the application to de-proscribe.

What about the other 13 organisations? If the Home Office decided nearly three years ago that 14 proscribed organisations should no longer be proscribed, that further underlines the case, made so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, for annual reviews of these proscriptions, because they are very serious—they are serious for our security, but they are also a serious infringement of our liberties.

It is for that reason that I am concerned that the statutory time limit for the Home Secretary to respond formally and legally to the application to de-proscribe is 90 days. It is regrettable that she appears to have taken almost twice as long to respond. That is not a technical point, because these statutory provisions exist to protect our hard-won liberties, yet the statutory provisions on the time limits, which I am sure would have been enforced had the applicants not met their 42-day time limit, appear to have been ignored with impunity by the Home Secretary. That is not just a technical matter because it relates to our freedoms.

To reinforce the point made very ably by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, I ask the Minister to explain what troubles many hon. Members and many of the large Sikh community: that is, why the Home Secretary thinks on 31 July 2015 that the ISYF did meet the criteria—as the Minister said, they are tough criteria, and that is good, because this is about our security—and should continue to be proscribed, but four and a half months later throws her hand in. In the first instance, she succeeds. She says, “This organisation should continue to be proscribed”, and she wins. The three applicants then put in an appeal. Leaving aside the fact that the Home Office took longer than it should have done to respond to that appeal, in mid-December—I think it was 14 December—the Home Secretary said, “I’m not going to fight this appeal any more—I’m offering no evidence.” Hence the measure before us tonight, because in the four-and-a-half month period between 31 July 2015 and 14 December 2015 the Home Secretary changed her mind.

In terms of our liberties and of respect for the large Sikh community, I think there should be an explanation for this. I appreciate that there are security concerns. If the Minister said, “I’m going to lay it all out before the House”, I would be the first in a queue with 649 other MPs saying, “No, don’t do that—this is about our security.” However, there is room for him to give a little more explanation to the three applicants, on the grounds of civility, if nothing else. As far as I know, they are all here tonight in the Public Gallery—Amrik Singh Gill, Narinderjit Singh Thandi, and Dabinderjit Singh Sidhu. They deserve the civility of that explanation, because this proscription has directly and indirectly affected them.

What concerns me is that the Home Office’s lifting of the proscription was awfully grudging. Somehow the balance tipped during the four-and-a-half year period in the second half of last year. This month the Home Office put out a press statement saying: “The British Government has always been clear that the ISYF was a brutal terrorist organisation.” That may be the case, but things seem to have changed very quickly in a short period. The explanatory memorandum on the statutory instrument says at paragraph 7.4:

“An application was made to the Secretary of State for the deproscription of the International Sikh Youth Federation. The Secretary of State has now decided that there is insufficient information to conclude that the group remains concerned in terrorism.”

It may have been involved in terrorism—I do not know. There are serious questions to be asked, and serious questions were asked in March 2001 when the proscription order went through this House. However, it was awfully grudging of the Home Office to say in December, “We’re not going to provide any more evidence. We’re just going to throw our hand in and not even fight it through the legal procedures any more.”

The three applicants from the leadership of the Sikh Federation UK legally challenged the Home Secretary, risking a whole load of costs, which, I have to say to the Minister, I understand that they may not get back even though they have won their case. They persuaded the Home Secretary by the force of their argument to withdraw her appeal, because apparently the evidence she had in July was no longer there in December. That is very strange for an organisation which, by then, had not existed for over 14 years—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is making a passionate speech and putting his points very well, but I urge him to be careful not to be repetitive.

[Rob Marris]

I thank you for that admonition, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As I was saying, the leadership of the Sikh Federation UK legally challenged the Home Secretary and persuaded her to withdraw the appeal. The federation is widely recognised as a large and prominent Sikh organisation the UK, building democratic political engagement for the UK Sikh community. Many of its members would like a bit more information as to what suddenly changed, because it mystifies us.

When I talked to the federation again today, as I often do, it told me that it had written to, I think, every MP—certainly to many MPs—saying that the key outcome that it wanted was not only the additional information and explanation that I urged the Minister to provide, within the bounds of our national security, but a renewed and open relationship with the community, based on issues of particular importance to Sikhs living in the United Kingdom, so that we can all move forward. I hope that on behalf of the Home Secretary, the Minister will tonight make a commitment to the Sikh community and promise a fresh start for this fresh new year for Sikhs.

Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the UK) Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Friday 11th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that what we must discuss this morning are matters in the Bill, not matters that are not in the Bill. The Bill is a short one, and I am well aware of what is in it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that sticking strictly to what is in the Bill is essential.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as ever, for your wise counsel and guidance.

I want to praise Her Majesty’s Government for the prisons initiative in Jamaica. We now come to No. 8 on the list, which is India.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a helpful suggestion. I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department takes note and will deal with that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Would the hon. Gentleman mind repeating the name of the case? I did not hear what he said.

[Philip Davies]

I apologise for not being clear. The case was from the Court of Appeal in 2011 and was that of R v. Mintchev. I appreciate your seeking clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I fear that my Twitter feed would not be enough. I have 12,000 followers, all of whom hate me, so I am not entirely that the message would get across to my target audience.

As for how effective we currently are in removing foreign national offenders, the Public Accounts Committee released a report in January 2015 called “Managing and removing foreign nationals” that considered the effectiveness and efficiency of managing foreign offenders in UK prisons. I must say that the Committee’s summary was damning. It said:

“It is eight years since this Committee last looked at this issue. We are dismayed to find so little progress has been made in removing foreign national offenders from the UK. This is despite firm commitments to improve and a ten-fold increase in resources devoted to this work. The public bodies involved are missing too many opportunities to remove foreign national offenders early and are wasting resources, through a combination of a lack of focus on early action at the border and police stations, poor joint working in prisons, and inefficient caseworking in the Home Office.”

I will not go through all of the conclusions, but it was a damning report. We can clearly see that the system is not working.

When we consider the success rate of the Home Office in removing foreign criminals, we can see that it falls short of its own figures. The number of removals is very low compared with the number of referrals to immigration enforcement. Of the 5,262 referrals to the immigration enforcement team up to September 2015, only 2,855 people —50%—were removed. The Department was handed these people on a plate, but only half of them were removed.

I will not go into the figures for foreign national offenders in prison, because my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering went through them very clearly. His figures match mine and also match those of the National Audit Office. It is interesting to see why these removals fail. In its 2014 report, the National Audit Office concluded that 523 removals failed because of issues deemed to be within the control of the Home Office, and 930 failed removals were due to factors outside the control of the Home Office.

In 2013-14, of those reasons deemed to be within the Department’s control, 159 removals failed because emergency travel documents, EU letters or other documentation needed to transport the offender were unavailable. In seven cases, they failed because the tickets for travel had not been booked. It is a farce that someone had forgotten to book the tickets—you couldn’t make it up. How on earth that can happen, Lord only knows.

According to the NAO, the largest reason for failed removals that were deemed to be outside the Department’s control was offenders making an appeal outside the 28-day deadline. They might have submitted an asylum claim, a leave to remain claim or human rights claim. There might have been an injunction, a judicial review or representations received from a medical professional, a Member of Parliament or another Government Department. In 2013-14, 323 removals failed due to those reasons.

We have a situation where the Home Office is trying to kick someone out of the country, and another Government Department is working hard to keep them in the country, which does not say a great deal for joined-up Government. Perhaps the Minister can explain that. The National Audit Office produces a list of all the various failures, the reasons and how many there were for each, and I encourage people to look at it.

One problem is litigation. Indeed, in 2014, in response to an urgent question on this very subject, the Home Secretary said:

“The main problem we face is the rise of litigation; we have seen a 28% increase in the number of appeals.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 905.]

With an estimated £81 million spent in legal aid costs for foreign national offenders, it is clear that the whole process is not only time-consuming, but very expensive. In effect, the Government are paying to thwart the Government in deporting people from the country.

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough mentioned the case of William Danga in his remarks, but let me explain that Danga was convicted of raping a 16-year-old girl. After completing his prison sentence, he challenged deportation on the grounds that he had a right to a family life. It was deemed that he could remain here because he had a girlfriend and a young child. This is someone who had raped what I would consider to be a child. Commenting on the case in 2011, a judge said that it was remarkable that he had not been deported for committing the rape. Clearly, there are some sensible judges around.

I raised this very issue with the Home Secretary in 2014, and suggested that, because we are not deporting people, we must ensure that we are tougher at the borders; and that we should take the DNA of foreign nationals who want to enter our country, which I thought was a small price to pay for keeping us safe.

Another concern is over foreign national offenders who are subject to deportation orders and who are then moved to open prisons—you couldn’t make it up. A foreign national has committed an offence and the Government clearly want to deport them, but the Ministry of Justice moves them into an open prison, where people can literally just walk out of the gates. Again, the Government have to do something about the scandal of foreign nationals subject to deportation orders doing that. In 2013 alone, 190 foreign national offenders absconded from our prisons. These are schoolboy mistakes in keeping tabs on people we want to deport.

Gangs and Serious Youth Violence

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am amazed to see that the Secretary of State for Wales is not in his place to respond to our next debate today, despite the fact that he made an extremely important announcement about fundamental changes to the draft Wales Bill on Monday, to journalists and not to this House, with the Wales Office tweeting at the time that hon. Members could wait until today to debate these changes. Have you been made aware that the Secretary of State plans to attend today’s debate to answer the important questions that Members have for him?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

As the hon. Lady knows well, Mr Speaker, or the occupant of the Chair, has no authority to require Ministers to be here for a debate such as this. Mr Speaker has said on many occasions, and I agree with him, that it is very important that this House of Commons is the body that holds Ministers to account and that speeches and announcements ought to be made here. I am not aware of what the Secretary of State said on Monday or of what he is doing today, but I am aware that a very capable Minister is here at the Dispatch Box. On behalf of the House, I trust that he will answer the questions that the hon. Lady and other colleagues will undoubtedly put to him and will draw to the attention of the Secretary of State anything that ought to be drawn to his attention, which will indeed be the whole debate. Mr Speaker has made it very clear, and I reiterate this, that Ministers making announcements should make them in this House and not anywhere else.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about not only the Secretary of State’s absence from this important debate, but the fact that he was absent at a St David’s day reception hosted in Lancaster House earlier today. Perhaps he has died or perhaps he has resigned and not told the House. Perhaps you could shed some light on this.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The Chair definitely has no responsibility whatsoever for receptions held outside this House.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can advise the House that the Secretary of State has parliamentary business elsewhere and I understand that he has spoken to the promoter of the debate to explain that that is the case. I should also say that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State hosted a very successful St David’s day reception on St David’s day at No. 10 earlier this week.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We will have no further discussion of this matter, as it is not my responsibility to explain where the Secretary of State is. The Minister has given an explanation and that is the end to the matter.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Is it a different point of order?

[Ian C. Lucas]

It specifically concerns a communication from the Wales Office. On Monday, when the Secretary of State made a closed announcement to journalists, I tweeted that I was surprised that the matter was not being made in a statement to the House of Commons. In response to that tweet, I received from the Wales Office a communication saying that I would be able to raise such matters with the Secretary of State in this debate today. It seems that it is entirely inappropriate for the Wales Office to communicate in that way—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is the same point of order. If the Secretary of State decides that the Minister should answer these questions today and respond to the points, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will in due course make, then that is up to the Secretary of State and the Minister. Now we will continue with the debate.

Police Funding, Crime and Community Safety

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Neil Coyle]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Members must allow the Home Secretary to conclude her speech.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) may well be able to catch the eye of the Chair if he wishes to speak later.

There is an important debate to be had on policing in this country. It is a debate on how best to keep individuals, communities and businesses safe from crime, how best to ensure that the police can adapt to changing crime and emerging threats, and how best to drive better collaboration, joint working and local accountability in law enforcement and wider public services. I urge the shadow Home Secretary to focus on those issues, rather than repeating the same discredited claims that his predecessors repeated throughout the last Parliament. Keeping communities safe from crime, and ensuring that the police can adapt to that changing crime and those emerging threats, are what the public care about and what this Government will deliver.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It will be obvious to the House that a great many Members wish to speak, and we have only an hour left. After the spokesman for the Scottish National party has made his contribution, there will be a three-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Poppi Worthington

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Sarah Newton.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), I should inform the House that as the coroner has now decided that the inquest into the death of Poppi Worthington should be resumed, the subject of this debate may, to some extent, be sub judice. Having carefully considered the matter and the public interest in it, Mr Speaker has decided to exercise the discretion allowed to the Chair to waive the usual restrictions on references to matters sub judice. However, I urge the hon. Gentleman and other Members present to be very careful in what they say and to take due account both of the resumed inquest and of the continuing possibility of a prosecution. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind in dealing with such a very sensitive subject, as will the rest of the House.

Sexual Exploitation: Protection of 16 and 17-year-olds

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. In his point of order, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) was a little generous in estimating that 10 minutes might be the correct amount of time that hon. Members can take to speak. If everyone who has indicated that they wish to speak is to have an opportunity to do so, I ask hon. Members to take no more than eight minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Allen]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The brilliant way in which you managed the debate meant that every single person who wanted to speak did speak, and they all kept to within 10 minutes. Can you work that magic again?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman very much indeed for his excellent point of order. I am pleased to have it noted that the debate ended precisely at 3.15, which is what I intended. The next debate will end at 5pm whether or not I intend it. I do hope that by the same courteous behaviour from Members—

[Mr Allen]

Including those on the Front Bench.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Yes, including those on the Front Bench. I hope to accommodate everyone without the need for a formal limit on speeches.