National Security Bill

Debate between Holly Lynch and Nigel Evans

Report stage
Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We have already had four points of order, and we have limited time, so I ask Members to please be mindful of the length of their contributions so that we can get as many people in as we possibly can.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be back in the Chamber at the Report stage of this hugely important piece of legislation. Bill Committee colleagues will join me in saying that it was not straightforward, for all the reasons that were highlighted in the multiple points of order. The Committee had no less than four Ministers and three Government Whips, and was forced to adjourn twice. Since Second Reading, the Bill has been the responsibility of three different Home Secretaries in—remarkably—the Governments of three different Prime Ministers.

We got off to a shaky start on the first day of the Bill Committee when the Whip, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who I am pleased has joined us this afternoon, was asked to act up as a Minister only minutes before the start. On one day, the Committee had to be adjourned because the second Minister was missing in action—the circumstances are still a mystery to this day. It was something of a relief, then, when the current Minister took office and we could turn to the serious detail of scrutinising and delivering long overdue and incredibly necessary national security legislation.

As we have said before, many of the new measures in the Bill have been born out of recommendations in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s 2020 Russia report and in the Law Commission’s “Protection of Official Data” report. With those solid foundations, we have been keen to work with Government to move the legislation forward and close the gaps in our defences. That could not be more timely in the light of stark warnings given by the director general of MI5 today, including about the fact that there have been at least 10 attempts to kidnap or even kill UK-based critics of the Iranian regime since January of this year.

That is not to say that we do not have some outstanding concerns about the detail of the provisions. In speaking to all the amendments grouped with new clause 9, I turn first to amendment 14, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). I will spend some time discussing the detail of this amendment, because it is so important.

The original clause 23—now clause 27—was a big focus for hon. Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading. Crucially, it did not have the support of Opposition members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has statutory responsibility for oversight of the UK intelligence community. We will always look to work with the intelligence services to find solutions to any barriers they face in undertaking their invaluable work to keep the UK safe. As things stand, however, we have been unable to get an operational understanding of why the clause is necessary.

The security services have told me directly why they believe that they need clause 27. They say that schedule 4 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 allows for a risk of liability to individuals conducting their proper functions on behalf of the UK intelligence community, and that an offence can arise when support—for example, intelligence shared in good faith—later makes a small or indirect contribution to unlawful activity by an international partner. The security services are keen to convey that their caution in this regard is having an operational impact, which requires resolution. We are sympathetic to that view; we recognise that for perhaps quite junior members of staff to face that burden of potential liability when carrying out their proper functions under instruction does not feel quite right. However, we have sought throughout the process to find a way through that does not involve what feels like gold-plating of exemptions for the security services, which could erode entirely appropriate safeguards and due diligence when considering the risks and consequences of sharing information with partners.

As the Minister knows, there is a reasonableness defence under section 50 of the Serious Crime Act, which recognises that there may be occasions when it can be shown that an individual’s actions were justified in the circumstances. Of course, a prosecution would also have to be deemed to be in the public interest. On further probing of these defences, it seems that it is not the case that the reasonableness defence is not strong enough; rather, it is untested, as no such case has been brought. We do not believe that the fact that an apparently robust defence is untested makes a strong enough case for the proposals in clause 27. We hope that properly authorised activity to protect national security should and would be interpreted as reasonable.

We have sought legal advice, including from a King’s counsel who undertakes a great deal of work in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, and engaged with a range of stakeholders who feel genuinely involved in this space. Given that we already have section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which allows the Secretary of State to give immunity from civil or criminal liability for pre-authorised crimes abroad, why do we need the changes proposed in clause 27? Crucially, the existing scheme requires the UK intelligence community to secure permission in advance from the Secretary of State, requiring the Secretary of State’s personal approval, with safeguards in the decision-making process and oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who is a senior judge. None of those safeguards are present in clause 27; it simply removes the relevant criminal liability. There would be no need to go to a Minister for approval; there would be no warrant for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to consider.

Thirdly—the Minister and I have debated this—the Bill as drafted diminishes the role of a Minister in decision-making and accountability structures. Ministers will no longer need to make the difficult judgement, reviewed by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, of whether to grant an authorisation under section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act. The Government have been keen to stress their commitment to the Fulford principles—“The Principles relating to the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas and the passing and receipt of intelligence relating to detainees”, making it clear that:

“The UK Government does not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone unlawful killing, the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment…or extraordinary rendition. In no circumstance will UK personnel ever take action amounting to torture, unlawful killing, extraordinary rendition, or CIDT.”

However, those commitments are not on the face of the Bill.

With the understanding that there will be operational elements to these provisions, the details of which have not been and cannot be shared, we have pushed for engagement with the ISC, which is entirely the right place for those operational examples to be considered further. Were ISC members to be convinced of the case for clause 27, we might be in a different place. On that basis, we cannot support clause 27 and will vote for it to be deleted by amendment 14.

On a similar point, although we welcome much of the Bill, it is right that any provisions that include new and substantial powers are constantly evaluated for their efficacy and proportionality. Clause 53 recognises that.

Tackling Short-term and Long-term Cost of Living Increases

Debate between Holly Lynch and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

In the time I have, I will focus on two groups who have been in touch with me on the cost of living crisis. Many colleagues have outlined the scale of the problem facing the country. The latest Bank of England forecast is that inflation will peak at 10.2% in the fourth quarter of 2022. Alongside that, domestic gas prices have increased by 28% and electricity prices by 19%. The OBR expects that household incomes will not begin to recover until the second half of 2024. The devastating combination of increases amounts to such a battering on household incomes that the Resolution Foundation estimates an extra 1.3 million people will fall into absolute poverty in 2023, including half a million children.

There is one group in particular who I know have felt particularly vulnerable to the increase in costs: those living with disabilities and families caring for loved ones with disabilities. I want to pay tribute to my constituents Nadia Clarke and her mum Katie, who are both inspirational and tireless campaigners. Nadia had to spend months challenging her care payments when they went up from £15 to £68 per week. Nadia is not alone. Too many are having to make substantial contributions to financing essential care, while also facing price increases across the board. The latest data from Citizens Advice is that 60% of those who contacted them with fuel poverty concerns in 2021 were disabled people. Research undertaken by the charity Scope demonstrated that the extra costs faced by disabled people add up to £583 a month on average. It stated:

“Energy for powering essential equipment, such as hoists, beds, breathing equipment, powered chairs and monitors was already expensive.”

It stressed that

“these are not optional extras that can be cut back. This is vital, often life-saving, equipment.”

In an online video that Nadia shared, she says:

“it is not acceptable for disabled people to be forced to pay care charges and choose between the support they need and food on the table.”

She is absolutely right.

Similarly, last week I was contacted by a gentleman who raised concerns for his sister-in-law, who lives in Halifax. She is on oxygen for 16 hours every day. Her husband is her main carer, but he is also recovering from cancer. Faced with unavoidable additional electricity bills and heating costs, they were feeling desperate about their situation. Thankfully, they have been able to arrive at an arrangement on their electricity bill with the company that supplies the oxygen, but it is just one more example of how the cost of living is proving unbearable for those who have additional needs.

Coming from a policing family, in my time here I have often sought to be an advocate for the men and women on the frontline keeping our communities safe. We hear just how badly the cost of living crisis is impacting even those working in our emergency services and on our frontline. That feels all the more shameful when we consider what we ask of them. In a recent Police Federation survey of its members in my area of West Yorkshire, 43% of respondents reported worrying about their personal finances every day or almost every day, and 12% reported never or almost never having enough money to cover all their essentials. A chief superintendent recently told me that PCs, and new recruits in particular, were increasingly seeking permission to work a second job on their rest days. One new recruit on a starting salary sought permission to work as a carer. It is perhaps no surprise that 94% of respondents said that they do not feel respected by the Government. The Government must do better.

The windfall tax would be a straightforward, fair and appropriate intervention for the Government to make. BP and Shell alone are on course to make a combined profit of almost £40 billion this year, and there is widespread public support for a windfall tax. Even the Conservative Chair of the Treasury Committee—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry, but we will have to leave it there.