Money Laundering

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

When an unexplained wealth order is made, the National Crime Agency or the Serious Fraud Office, for example, goes to the court to apply for it. A judge can give a period of time for the person to respond to the charge that the law enforcement agencies have made. If they cannot, we move to seizure. Usually, at the same time as an unexplained wealth order is applied for, we also apply for a freezing order to make sure that the person does not move the money or the property when the order is made. We believe that it is a very important tool and there are many more in the pipeline. We used it within 14 days of it coming into law on 31 January.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Does the Minister share the concern voiced by some that online platforms are being used for the purposes of money laundering? Will he ensure that the regulatory bodies and agencies concerned in the UK have all the necessary resources and the agility to counter that problem?

[Mr Wallace]

The right hon. Gentleman makes some important points. The first is about the development of new technologies, such as platforms and cryptocurrencies, which all present a challenge for law enforcement agencies around the world. The Governor of the Bank of England recently commented on that, and it is something that we will all have to think through. There is no easy answer on some of them.

On the issue of regulation and supervision, we are obviously working closely with the Financial Conduct Authority and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—the tax authorities—to make sure that we spot when people move money without paying tax. It is also important to gather evidence from that movement. Of course, this country is bound by a number of directives on money laundering that we follow. We are currently subject to the Financial Action Task Force inspections on how we deal with money laundering. That leads to an independent international report that judges and ranks us. All hon. Members are welcome to comment on that and we will be held to account.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking to reduce dangerous journeys for unaccompanied child refugees with family in the UK.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking to reduce dangerous journeys for unaccompanied child refugees with family in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

Obviously, there are several gateway schemes, including the Dublin regulation and the Dubs scheme. As I have just outlined, our own immigration rules also contain a route that people can use, and I would encourage them to look at that.

[Mr Howarth]

I welcome the Minister’s response, but the generosity and decency of the British people is such that they want the Government to do more. The £50 million raised by the BBC’s Children in Need charity last week is testament to that generosity of spirit. Will the Minister match the welcome rhetoric with deeds that will break the logjam of children waiting to be reunited with their families in the UK?

[Brandon Lewis]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that that is a good example of the great generosity across this country. We see it not only at events such as Friday night’s, but in the community sponsorship programmes and in communities wanting to do what they can to help some of the most vulnerable people in the world. We should all be proud of what we do as a country and of what the Government are doing to bring over children who need support and help. We are doing that, and our rules do allow for family reunion as well.

Aggressive Antisocial Behaviour

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on a comprehensive analysis of the problems confronting many of our constituents.

I shall confine my remarks to the criminal, dangerous and antisocial use of motorcycles. Many Members of the House have raised concerns about that; indeed, the Prime Minister herself has acknowledged that it is a problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), on the Front Bench, has been campaigning alongside me and others on the issue.

It is a real problem in my constituency. The young people who ride the motorcycles often wear crash helmets, although they are unlicensed, or use some sort of head covering—a balaclava or scarf—to make it very difficult to recognise them. That poses challenges for the police. There is recognition on the part of Merseyside Police, to whom I am indebted for my briefing for this debate, that these scrambler bikes, as they are commonly called, although they are not necessarily scrambler bikes, are used in the pursuit of crime. We have heard examples of their being used in acid attacks and in ram-raids on shops, but more commonly in my constituency they are used to distribute drugs and, in some cases, firearms. Merseyside Police tell us that although there has been a sharp increase, in some parts of the Liverpool city region, in the discharge of firearms, the numbers of firearms have not necessarily gone up. The same firearms are being used repeatedly, and in some cases they are being ferried around by young people connected to so-called drug barons. They are almost like firearms for hire: the young people drive around, and whoever wants to hire a firearm for the day, that is how it is delivered to them.

There is real concern about this matter and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, at the same time as the problem is growing, police numbers have been reduced. On Merseyside, we have 1,000 fewer police officers than we had in 2010, and which creates challenges. This matter is covered by section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which gives the police the power to seize vehicles, including motorbikes, if they are used in a “careless and inconsiderate” manner. In most circumstances, a warning is required, but in exceptional circumstances one need not be used. The legislation is suitable for dealing with very low-level antisocial behaviour—for example, people using a scrambler bike in a field or on wasteland who will engage with the police when stopped and spoken to—but not for dealing with riders who are intent on riding along public roads in a dangerous manner and have no intention of stopping for the police. We therefore need to revisit the legislation, and I would like to refer to a couple of case studies that illustrate why that is important.

The first case study involves an incident on Merseyside in 2015 in which police officers came across a scrambler bike rider travelling at excessive speed in the city of Liverpool. Eventually, after a lot of problems, an officer managed to detain the rider of the bike, because he considered that he was a real danger to the public. The rider was arrested and charged with dangerous driving, and was eventually sentenced to six months in prison, but that was not the end of the story. The incident was referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and thirteen months later the police officer involved ended up in court, and was acquitted, for the actions that he had taken to detain the young person. Dealing with the matter took 18 months, during which time that police officer was under a lot of pressure and, indeed, the threat of losing his job and his liberty.

I have other case studies, but I realise that we are short of time, so I shall skip them and just say that the Police Federation has concerns about this matter. It believes that the law needs to be clarified so that police officers in the situation described have some kind of exemption from prosecution. Obviously, their need to protect the public should override the civil libertarian concerns about people who are using what are often unlicensed and uninsured vehicles for criminal purposes. I hope that the Minister, who nodded when I made that point, will acknowledge, when she winds up the debate, that that is a problem and it needs to be addressed urgently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Howarth]

It is reassuring that all that work is going on, but at the end of the day it does not alter the fact that, even where powers already exist, if the police do not have the resources—they say that they often do not have the resources—to exercise those powers, the problem cannot be tackled.

[Sarah Newton]

I have carefully listened to the point that the right hon. Gentleman and all other colleagues have made about the capacity of the police to respond effectively to antisocial behaviour. Of course, the Government and I recognise that it is crucial that police have the right resources and capabilities and the powers that they need to keep the public safe. That is why we ensured that in the 2015 spending review the overall funding for the police was protected in real terms.

In addition to that funding, of course, there is the police transformation funding. We have heard today about the way in which the nature of crime is changing and it is important that we invest in new skills and new tools to enable the police to recognise those changes, take them into account and to go after the criminals effectively. There is £175 million in the police transformation funding alone.

Let us look at the west midlands. Following a public consultation, the police and crime commissioner put forward a budget for 2017-18, which was approved by the police and crime panel in early February. That budget is enabling the recruitment of 800 new police officers, 150 more police community support officers and 200 specialist police staff; those are all being recruited as we speak. Across England and Wales, in the last six months, the overall number of police officers has risen, and the number of officers joining is up by 60%, compared with this time last year. So more police officers are being recruited.

Health, Social Care and Security

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the eloquence of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and an honour to be re-elected once again to represent the lovely New Forest East constituency.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I should have announced that there is now a time limit of six minutes, which I think he was aware of, in order to accommodate as many people who want to speak as possible. Dr Lewis, your six minutes start now.

[Dr Lewis]

I have at least benefited from a few extra seconds as a result.

There is plenty to welcome in this Queen’s Speech, from the prioritisation of mental health to the forthcoming visit of Their Majesties the King and Queen of Spain, which will give us all a chance to show that our friendship with that great country is as enduring and immovable as the Rock of Gibraltar. I will touch, however, on two other aspects of the Queen’s Speech, and they will not come as a surprise to colleagues who know of my areas of speciality.

The first is the reiteration of the Government’s pledge to continue to meet the NATO commitment to spend at least 2% of national income on defence. I am sorry to say that it is not enough. One of the things that the Select Committee on Defence managed to establish, through a great deal of hard work and original research by its professional and dedicated staff, was a comparison over the decades of what happened to defence with a graph showing something very different for other high-spending subjects. We found that in the early 1960s we spent similar sums—about 6% of GDP—on welfare and defence. Now we spend six times as much on welfare as we do on defence. In the mid-1980s we spent similar sums—about 5% of GDP—on education, health and defence. Now we spend two and a half times as much on education and nearly four times as much on health as we do on defence. In every year from 1981 until 1987, at the height of east-west confrontation, we spent between 4.3% and 5.1% of GDP on defence, yet even after the cold war had finished, even as late as the financial year 1995-96, we were spending 3% of GDP on defence—a total that does not include things such as war pensions and Ministry of Defence civil service pensions.

Calais Jungle

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point: if the camp is cleared, how do we know that a new one will not form immediately? That is what happened when the Sangatte camp was cleared. It was supposed to be the final clearance, but it was not, and a new camp formed. I am in conversation with my French counterparts to ensure that they take action to prevent that happening again, and I am sure that I will be able to fill my hon. Friend in when I have more information.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

With typical generosity, the British public and local authorities want to do something to help. The Home Secretary has made a personal commitment today to doing the right thing, and she is to be applauded for that, but what will happen if France does not meet its commitment to her over the next few days? Does she have a plan B?

[Amber Rudd]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that by the end of my two-hour meeting with Bernard Cazeneuve, we had arrived at a point at which we expect to reach an agreement. We have not reached one yet, but on the key subject of how the UK can contribute to the clearing of the camp, particularly in a way that supports the children, we have arrived at a point where we think we can reach agreement; I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a few more days, because I am confident that we will do so.

Investigatory Powers Bill

George Howarth Excerpts

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

[Mr Carmichael]

I do not need to take any lessons about working with other parties from the right hon. Gentleman. I did that for five years in a coalition Government when the Labour Front Bench could do nothing but tribally oppose.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Carmichael]

No, I am sorry. We have a shortage of time, so I am not taking any more interventions—[Interruption.] It will not be worth listening to; will the right hon. Gentleman just sit down, please?

We are told that a review is coming from David Anderson QC. We anticipate further amendments regarding the definition of internet connection records. We still await further detail on how the thorny issues of legal privilege and journalistic sources will be protected. That all adds up to a picture of massive doubt, and massive questions remain about the efficacy and necessity of the powers that the Government are bringing forward tonight. It would be an abdication of our responsibility as Opposition MPs to vote for it, and I will not be party to that abdication.

Investigatory Powers Bill

George Howarth Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, because what amendment 14 makes clear—the point is sometimes missed—is that these, or indeed any, investigatory powers affect an individual’s privacy. We have to be absolutely clear: the right to privacy is fundamental, but it is not absolute. The Bill gives the state a power to interfere with privacy—that is what it is about. The question then becomes: is there a case for the interference in the first place, and if there is, is that interference necessary and proportionate? Obviously it is for the Minister to respond to our amendment, but in a sense it is all of our duties to remind ourselves that this is all about an interference with privacy, and that is why the safeguards are so important.

The third reason the overarching privacy clause is important is that it is now linked to the test for judicial review of the Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary’s decision, so it has real application every day when one of the warrants is applied for.

Finally, let me say a few words about the appointment of judicial commissioners, an issue that has cropped up a number of times. Under clause 194, it is for the Prime Minister to appoint the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and

“such number of other Judicial Commissioners as the Prime Minister considers necessary for the carrying out of the functions of the Judicial Commissioners.”

Before doing that, he must consult the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, the Scottish Ministers and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland. Our amendment 298 would ensure that the Prime Minister acted on the recommendation of

“the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, in relation to Judicial Commissioners appointed from England and Wales,”

and likewise the recommendation of the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The reason is that it is envisaged that judicial commissioners will be appointed from among those who are already very experienced judges—High Court and above—either serving or retired. They will obviously have gained the qualifications to be judges and will be appropriately skilled and qualified to take these decisions, so in truth the exercise of appointing a judicial commissioner will be an exercise in deploying, from the pool of available judges, those who will sit as judicial commissioners.

That is an important consideration. Our amendment is tabled on the basis that it is not appropriate for the Prime Minister to decide that sort of deployment—he does not have the skills and experience to do it—nor, in a sense, should it be a political deployment. This is something routinely done by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. Our amendment would ensure that the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Lord President in Scotland and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland make a recommendation that binds the Prime Minister. The appointment is, of course, the Prime Minister’s, but that is the right way to carry out the appointment to this important judicial role, rather than the version in the Bill.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving way again. If the recommendation should be a judicial one and if, as I think I understood him to say, the Prime Minister would not have the ability to overturn it, I fail to understand what the point would be of involving the Prime Minister at all.

[Keir Starmer]

The answer to that is twofold, although I should say that if the decision was on the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice and so on, it would not be open to the Prime Minister not to follow that recommendation. We need a slight reality check. At the moment under clause 194, if the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales—or, I am sure, the equivalent in Scotland—was consulted and made his or her views clear, it would be highly unlikely that any Prime Minister would act in a way that was contrary to the advice they were receiving from the senior judge in those jurisdictions, but our amendment would bind the Prime Minister. The question is: what is the point of involving the Prime Minister? The answer to that—to some extent this is to the Minister—is that there is the question of accountability for making the appointment.

There is also the point, as the Lord Chief Justice has pointed out, that he—or she, as the case may be—is not in the business of making judicial appointments as such, and will therefore be reluctant to have that power. The Minister might want to confirm that, because he has been having those discussions, not me. I think the Lord Chief Justice and others are reasonably happy to help with the deployment exercise, but not with the business of appointing judges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

That is an excellent suggestion that the Government should consider carefully.

I also mentioned on Second Reading that the United Nations special rapporteur had expressed concern about the Bill’s provisions, especially the bulk powers. That is why it remains the SNP’s position that until such time as a case has been made for the necessity of bulk powers, they should be removed from the Bill.

I make no apology for tabling numerous amendments, because this is a constitutionally important Bill. Their purpose is to try to bring the Bill into line with international human rights norms and to make it properly lawful. If the Bill is passed in its current form, there is a real risk that it will be the subject of challenge. Many of the threads running through it, such as the retention of data and bulk powers, have already been the subject of successful challenges or are awaiting the outcome of decisions. We need to be careful about passing powers into law when their legality has already been questioned by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, and a court in England.

In reality, I know that our amendments will not be accepted because we are already running out of time. We simply have not had enough time to consider the Bill. We have two days for Report, which I know is unusual, but we have short periods of time to speak about important parts of the Bill. I am only at the stage of making some introductory remarks and will have to curtail what I say about part 8 in the interest of other Members getting the right to speak. That will happen as we go through each part of programme motion.

[Mr George Howarth]

I share the hon. and learned Lady’s concern that maybe there is not enough time to consider the Bill as fully as she or I would like, but I am a bit confused. If that is the case, why did she not oppose the programme motion?

[Joanna Cherry]

I knew that that was a pointless exercise that would have eaten into the time that we have, so not opposing it was a practical decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

Privacy is the right to be left alone. It was once proclaimed to be the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilised men, which is why the privacy provisions in the Bill are important. There are many such provisions interweaved in the Bill. To give three important examples, targeted and bulk inception can take place only in the interests of national security, of tackling serious crime and of the economic wellbeing of the UK. It can take place only with judicial authorisation, and communications data—who, where, when—obtained from service providers have to be justified on the basis of a necessary and proportionate test. The relevant clauses all ensure that any interference with privacy is kept to a minimum.

I am pleased to have served on the Bill Committee, where the issue of privacy was raised with some force by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). I am pleased that as a result of the points that he and other Members made the Bill will be amended with an overarching clause on privacy to further protect and ensure the privacy of individuals. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) said, new clause 5 provides for the public authority to have regard to the question of whether the action can be reasonably achieved by “less intrusive means”. It also provides a new requirement for the consideration of the public interest in the protection of privacy. New clause 6 provides for an overarching civil liability, adding to the extensive criminal penalties in the Bill.

Those safeguards strike the right balance between privacy and scrutiny. As the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras said, safety, security and privacy are not an either/or. That balance has been recognised in Europe, where the ECHR provides under article 8 respect for private and family life and also states that interference by a public authority is legitimate in some circumstances—in fact, the very circumstances outlined in the Bill, including the interests of national security, public safety, the economic wellbeing of the country and the prevention of crime and disorder.

The same balance has been recognised by the UN. In 2014, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated:

“Where there is a legitimate aim and appropriate safeguards are in place, a State might be allowed to engage in quite intrusive surveillance”

if

“it is both necessary and proportionate”.

That balance is recognised by the public. A TNS BMRB poll in 2014 stated that 71% of respondents prioritised the reduction of the threat posed by terrorists, even if that eroded people’s right to privacy. The Bill seeks to ensure that the balance is right, and in enacting it we ought to remember that interference with privacy is often too much until it is too little.

[Mr George Howarth]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer). She took the opportunity to highlight the big principles, and showed how they are included in UN documents and the ECHR. It is useful to be reminded of that.

I speak as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and support the amendments and new clauses tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and other members of the Committee, including me. I will not read them all out, because he dealt with them comprehensively. However, I wish to make some points about a couple of our proposals. Before doing so, however, I want to refer to the report that the ISC produced in the last Parliament after taking evidence on the provisions in the draft Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and I both served on that Committee. I want to highlight two things in that report. First—and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield covered this—the overriding principle of privacy, which the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire discussed, had to be made clearer in the Bill, and set out as unambiguously as possible.

Secondly, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield raised the issue of penalties. The measure does not exactly conform to what we wanted. We were concerned that the legislation was not consolidated into one measure. I shall deal with that more fully in a moment. Thirdly—if I do not take too much time dealing with the first and second concerns—I shall come on to the debate about judicial involvement in oversight. I hope to say a brief word about that.

I welcome new clause 5, which is helpful and goes much, if not all, of the way in meeting many concerns expressed by our Committee and by other parliamentary Committees, including Select Committees that have looked at the issue. However, in amendment 14—I know the Minister is going to refer to this, so I am not going to make a hard and fast principle out of it—we attempt to put privacy at the forefront of the Bill. If the Minister has found another way of doing that that would satisfy me I would be very pleased, but having read the Bill carefully, I do not think that there are sufficient safeguards to make it clear that that is the case.

The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield referred to new clause 4, and was rightly exercised by the issue of penalties. I want to approach that issue from a slightly different direction. The Bill relies on existing legislation, including the Data Protection Act 1998 for which, if memory serves, I had ministerial responsibility. No apologies there—I think that the measure has served us quite well, although there might be other legislation for which I would apologise, but I am not going to say what it is. The Bill also relies on the Wireless and Telegraphy Act 2006, the Computer Misuse Act 1990, common law, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said, and, finally, misfeasance in public office. It is important that we have more information about penalties because, with such a sprawling collection of existing legislation, if someone breaks the provisions in any of those measures there should be clear and unambiguous penalties. I think that the Minister is going to address that matter shortly.

New clause 2 was tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, other members of the ISC and me. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made the point—nobody seems to have noted it, including the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry)—that a commissioner’s functions are not in any sense judicial. I am not going to argue the case fully at the moment, but I could envisage constructing a system where the process is more administrative—indeed, it is an administrative process—so the skills needed to operate it do not necessarily need to be judicial.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Howarth]

Having mentioned lawyers, I guess I have to give way to one.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am no lawyer, but having sat at the table of a judge for many years, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that judges are well used to explaining their judgments. Indeed, if one reads their judgments, one will normally find an explanation so detailed that it would torture the mind, so I would not be at all surprised to hear that the commissioners will be very ready to give an explanation.

[Mr Howarth]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that that is not my experience. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, who chairs our Committee, gave a specific example of where someone was unwilling not only to explain themselves but even to engage with the Committee. That is why I support new clause 2, which gives the Intelligence and Security Committee the ability to refer a matter to the commissioner and to at least give them a nudge in the right direction in terms of concerns that need to be looked at.

I do not share the complete pessimism of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West. The Bill has moved an incredibly long distance since the original draft Bill. There is some way to go, but we may hear further concessions today or tomorrow. However, I would be grateful if the issues I have raised could be addressed by the Minister when he replies.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

I will keep my remarks short, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I appreciate that you want them to be short. I want to speak to new clause 16 and to amendments 189 to 195, but I will group them together.

I welcome new clause 5 because it puts privacy at the heart of the Bill. Although I found the draft Investigatory Powers Bill to be some kind of absolutely Orwellian nightmare that I would never have been able to support, this Bill goes some way towards being something that I would be able to support. It is horrible that we live in a society where this House, as a cross-party organisation, will have to legalise mass surveillance of every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom who has an electronic device, but sadly that is the society we live in, and we have to have a trade-off between what keeps us free from terrorism and what keeps us free in terms of privacy. I appreciate the Government’s efforts in trying to put privacy at the heart of the Bill.

On my new clause and my amendments, I want to look at possibly introducing into the Bill notification of surveillance against innocent people. I have tabled 63 amendments because I know there will be a review before the Bill gets to the upper House. The Government have been incredibly conciliatory and have provided concessions all the way through. I consider both the Ministers on the Front Bench friends, and I have been speaking to them about the Bill for many months—for well over a year, in fact. I have tried to be constructive in my disagreements with them; my amendments are probing amendments—they are there not to cause difficulty but to try to tease out more information.

The Bill fails to provide a viable system of notification of surveillance, particularly for those who have been wrongly surveilled. The current drafting covers only error reporting, and it places a higher importance on public interest—I understand that that is the source of the dispute about whether we should have new clause 5 or new clause 21, in terms of privacy and what is in the public interest. The concepts of public interest and serious error are difficult to define, and that leads to the problem of the judicial commissioners and others having to decide what those concepts are, and whether there are varying degrees of them. I want the Bill to state very clearly what we want them to be, so that we do not have that mission creep.

Adding notification to the Bill through a new clause would go some way towards ensuring that privacy is further enhanced as the backbone of the Bill. To put the issue into context, the countries that permit notification of surveillance include America, Canada, New Zealand, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Ireland, Switzerland, Slovenia, Montenegro and Hungary, so this is not something that will be specific to the United Kingdom, and we will not be leading the way; we will be trying to catch up with our partners. I appreciate that each of those countries offers a different threshold in terms of how people will be surveilled, but there is no possibility of notification in the Bill at the moment. The Ministers have been very conciliatory, and if they want to intervene on me to say that they will accept my new clause 16, I will happily sit down. No, I didn’t think so. Never mind—we will keep trying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those were people who were trying to protect their workmates and colleagues. An individual who protested outside Fiddler’s Ferry power station near us in the north-west was trying to safeguard people’s safety at work, but they were subjected to this outrageous abuse of their rights.

[Mr George Howarth]

My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. I do not know whether he is aware of this, but when the issue first arose during the last Parliament, I took it up with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to ask whether there was any involvement on the part of the Metropolitan police. I got a letter back not from the commissioner himself, but from a senior member of his staff, who now works for one of the agencies, flatly denying that there was any such involvement. Something was happening, as the excerpt my right hon. Friend has read out shows, yet even as recently as three or four years ago, the Metropolitan police utterly denied it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr George Howarth]

The difficulty with the hon. Gentleman’s argument is that he assumes that the Prime Minister of the day, regardless of which party he is in, would take such a decision in a vacuum, but it simply could not happen that way. He would have to be satisfied first with proper legal advice that it is in the interests of national security. Secondly, he would have to be satisfied that it is both necessary and proportionate. Passing all those tests requires a lot of advice, and I doubt that any Prime Minister would take the decision lightly. Bringing any Speaker into that decision-making process means that they must be linked to that legal and security advice to satisfy themselves in the same way as the Prime Minister would have to do. I therefore cannot see the difference.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I can see what the difference would be in a time of national crisis. The information will be clearly set out by the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. I do not believe that it would be beyond the abilities of any Speaker now or in future to take an informed decision and to be convinced by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary that the interception was not a political interference but a matter of national security.

All hon. Members agree on that—that the communications can be intercepted if it is a matter of national security—and we all agree that they should not be intercepted because it is politically expedient to do so. All I am asking is that the Speaker, who by the nature of his office does not consider political expediency, can say, “Yes. This is a matter of national security.” I do not believe that that is beyond his abilities. After all, he is ably assisted—is he not?—by the Clerk of the House and a band of parliamentary Clerks, most of whom have spent years accumulating knowledge, wisdom and experience of the ways of the House. They are not radicals or people who will take decisions lightly or wantonly. Together, they form a deposit of institutional memory, which the Prime Minister and No. 10, by the nature of their daily tasks of government and political management, can never be. They must always, necessarily, take a short-term view. That is not a criticism but the nature of the office.

Each of the privileges of this House, in addition to being daily fought for and won over the centuries, exists for a reason. Like many traditions and customs, we interfere with them at our peril. I appeal to the Minister of State, who is deeply aware of the importance of traditions and customs. We may wonder today why this or that one exists, but if we disregard them, we will soon find that the dangers they protect us from are very real.

We also may doubt the day will ever come when a Prime Minister would dare to authorise the monitoring of Members’ communications for politicised reasons, but it is therefore better to remove even the possibility of that temptation existing by simply requiring the Secretary of State to consult the Speaker. It has been said before but it is worth saying again. Nearly 375 years ago, William Lenthall reminded the sovereign that the Speaker had

“neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.”

All I am asking in amendment 1 is that that tradition be maintained. We would do well to continue to put our trust in that defender of our law and our liberties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr George Howarth]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Ms Harman]

I will, but I have a feeling that, sadly, I will disagree with my right hon. Friend, because I heard his intervention earlier and think that he too is barking up the wrong tree. To find myself barking up the same tree as the hon. Member for Gainsborough is a very sorry state of affairs, but I have the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) on my side.

[Mr Howarth]

It is typical of my right hon. and learned Friend to get her defence in before hearing the attack. She has been a Law Officer, and when she was Solicitor General I had every confidence in her to be able to sort out the legal advice she gave as Solicitor General from whatever political position she might have taken. Why would she doubt that a Prime Minister could do the same?

[Ms Harman]

Because the Prime Minister is the Executive, and we need the separation of powers and the balance of powers. I disagreed with the hon. Member for Gainsborough when he was talking about what a great guy the Prime Minister is, so it is not a problem with him, but it might be with the next one. I am on my fifth Prime Minister now and they all have something in common: they regard being held to account as a bit of a nuisance. They do not welcome scrutiny—it is just the nature of the beast. We have to take that into account and accept the fact that, for the rule of law, we have to protect lawyers; for freedom of speech and expression, we have to protect journalism; and for holding the Executive to account, we must protect our rights in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

I am grateful to the Minister, and I leave the matter there.

I turn now to amendments 19, 20 and 21, which deal with the renewal of warrants. They may appear somewhat complicated, but they deal with a very simple issue. Warrants for interception last for up to six months. Under clause 29, the warrant can be extended by a further six months at any time before the original warrant expires. That creates a loophole because it would theoretically allow for a warrant to be renewed immediately after it was issued, thereby permitting interception for 12 months. That is clearly not what the Bill intends. The Secretary of State might well argue—logically—that the commissioner would never approve such a renewal, and that she would not either, but this is nevertheless a loophole that can and should be closed, and these amendments would ensure that it is. I hope very much that the Government can accept them.

I should mention that the amendments in my name relate only to warrants for interception and bulk interception. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure the House that, if the Government accept my amendments, that acceptance will be extended to other consequential amendments of a like character, to ensure that the power cannot be abused elsewhere.

Amendment 16 relates to clause 45 and interception in accordance with overseas requests. The clause gives effect to the European Union’s convention on mutual assistance on criminal matters and permits an overseas authority to request the support of the United Kingdom in undertaking the interception of communications. Curiously, and probably accidentally, it does not repeat the protection that exists in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which ensures that requests can be made only where a person being intercepted will be outside the United Kingdom. That seems to us be another loophole that ought to be dealt with. Although the Government had indicated that it could be dealt with in secondary legislation, the Intelligence and Security Committee do not consider that to be satisfactory. It is far too important an issue to be left to secondary legislation; it should be dealt with in the Bill. If our amendment is accepted, the matter can be resolved without more ado.

Finally, may I touch on an issue that has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and others, namely economic wellbeing? When the Intelligence and Security Committee first came to consider the issue as a subset of national security in our initial evidence-taking sittings, we came to the conclusion that it ought to be possible to remove economic wellbeing as a criterion altogether. That is why we made the initial recommendation that economic wellbeing, so far as it is relevant to national security and relates to people outside the British islands, be removed from the Bill as grounds for interception. We took the view that it could all be safely contained in the subset of national security. After we published our report, the Government provided us, through the agencies, with additional evidence regarding their reasoning for including it as a separate ground. They also provided us with a number of examples of where it was being or might be used, which illustrated areas where it was useful to have it as a separate category.

[Mr George Howarth]

Although I am conscious that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not, for obvious reasons, be able to go into detail on all of the examples that were given, one thing that can be avowed under this particular rubric is critical national infrastructure, which is an obvious area where the public and the state need to be protected.

[Mr Grieve]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The consequence of damaging national infrastructure would be to cause a severe economic shock to the United Kingdom. At the end of the day, the most persuasive argument of the lot was that listing economic wellbeing separately added transparency as to the purposes for which an investigatory power was being sought. We came to the conclusion that it would probably assist the judicial commissioners in their consideration of the necessity and proportionality of the warrant, precisely because it highlighted that it fell within a category in which economic wellbeing was present; it was therefore in practice likely to be subject to very detailed scrutiny. For all those reasons, we did not table a further amendment on that point.

Hillsborough

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has recognised the particular role played by a single Member of this House. I might say that, over the years, a number of Members of this House have raised this issue. The fact that authority did not listen to the issue being raised is entirely separate.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

May I, too, add my thanks to the Home Secretary for the crucial role she has played in bringing this matter to a reasonable conclusion at this point? May I ask her, alongside others, to consider the extent to which the lazy, dishonest, inaccurate stereotyping of football fans, in collusion with some sections of the media, gave some credibility—wrongly—to the original failed inquest? I attended one day of the inquest. It was agony for the families to sit there and listen day after day to their loved ones who had died being denigrated in the way that the questions were put. Does she agree with me that many other failures result from the lazy assumption that football fans in general and the people of Liverpool in particular were in some way culpable in a matter that was completely beyond their control? When she asks the bishop and others to look at the implications of all this, will she ask him to look at this question: why is it that some sections of the media and some sections of the public services, including the police and the ambulance service, still feel that they can casually disregard the truth by accepting lazy stereotypes?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. He is absolutely right. There was an image of football fans that people held to regardless of what they saw going on in front of their very eyes. I was struck when I heard the commentary—I think on Radio 2 —that was taking place at the time, as the tragedy unfolded. Even at that time, some of the commentating and some of the assumptions being made were about unruly fans, rather than about people who were crying out for help as they were dying. To see the police actually being lined up to form a line against public order problems when there were people whose lives were being lost at the time shocks and appals us all now. He is right that we should never allow casual stereotypes to get in the way of the truth.

Brussels Terrorist Attacks

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As I indicated in my statement, Border Force has increased its checks at certain ports. However, I think there is a misunderstanding in my hon. Friend’s question, because we have checks at our borders and we are able to check people’s passports when they come through. That is an important part of our structure in the UK and our security, and we will retain it.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that groups such as Daesh no longer distinguish between the near enemy and the far enemy, and that the twisted ideology that she referred to considers European values such as religious freedom, human rights and democracy as an offence against God?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Daesh is indiscriminate in whom it chooses to attack. Its terrorist attacks have taken place not only in Europe and Turkey and the countries I referred to, but nearer to its base in Syria and Iraq, where many Muslims have died as a result. It is indiscriminate in the people it attacks, and it is attacking our fundamental values which, as he says, include those of democracy, freedom of religion, and law and order, and which underpin our society. That is why it is so important for our society to say once again that we will not let the terrorists defeat us, and I welcome all the comments made around the Chamber that go out from this House today.

Counter-terrorism

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend has raised an important issue. There has been considerable progress recently in looking at the exchange of information between intelligence services around the European Union. I am talking about not just the exchange of intelligence that takes place between intelligence services, but the role of Europol. I have been talking with my opposite numbers specifically about a better exchange of information on criminal records, including terrorism offence records, further to enhance our ability to identify people who may pose a threat and to take the appropriate action. As I said earlier in response to the shadow Home Secretary, we are also looking at how the SIS II system can be improved to ensure that maximum information is available and dealt with properly.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary is aware of the fact that Daesh is probably the most media-savvy terrorist group that ever existed. It is very welcome that, through a combination of the police and their partners in the industry, 1,000 pieces of content are taken down every week, but for that to happen those pieces of content must have been put up in the first place. Will she undertake to ask the internet providers to monitor more closely content going up so that it does not get on there in the first place?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. A number of initiatives are already taking place. In the UK, we hold a regular dialogue with the internet service providers. In December, the European Commission brought together EU Interior Ministers with representatives from some of the major internet service providers to discuss precisely those issues about how we can better prevent material from getting on to the internet in the first place and ensure that that material can be taken down. Here in the UK, we have had a long-standing view—across both the previous Labour Government and this Government—that we should work with the internet service providers to encourage them to use their terms and conditions as far as possible to remove material so that it is not available to promote that sort of propaganda.