Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (Seventh sitting)

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Gavin Newlands]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again this morning, Mrs Main.

We have already had a wide-ranging debate on schedule 3, with more to come. Amendments 24 and 25 would delete provisions in the Bill that restrict access to a lawyer for those detained under schedule 3. Specifically, they would retain the right of an individual to be able to consult their legal representative in private, away from a relevant officer.

As I mentioned in my previous contribution, being able to speak with a legal representative in private is a fundamental human right that should not be infringed. In oral evidence, Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland spoke about the fundamental importance of this:

“If we want people to be in a position where they can freely discuss matters with their legal representatives, we have to preserve this value. It is key to the rule of law that people can discuss matters openly with their legal representatives so that the solicitor, advocate or barrister is in a position to advise properly on what avenues are open to the person. Clearly one would want to ensure that that was adequately protected.”—[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Public Bill Committee, 26 June 2018; c. 49, Q103.]

The Law Society of England and Wales also raised concerns, suggesting that the proposals risk the excellent reputation across the world of the UK justice systems—I add the plural to Richard Atkinson’s words. In oral evidence—an aspect of this quote has been raised before—he said:

“The cornerstone is legal professional privilege. That is not access to a lawyer; it is the confidential nature of discussions between a lawyer and their client. That is the cornerstone that has been in existence for hundreds of years and that is held out internationally as a gold standard that we have in this country. That is what is being undermined by this Bill saying that a police officer can stand and listen to the consultation that is going on between the client and the lawyer.”—[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Public Bill Committee, 26 June 2018; c. 28, Q63.]

For a full house of views on that, Abigail Bright of the Criminal Bar Association said:

“That is deeply concerning and wholly new. ‘Radical’ is a well-chosen word here; it is a radical departure from anything known to English law. My view, and the view of the specialist Bar associations, is that it is unnecessary and undue, and that it would not in any way be a serious improvement on the powers available to law enforcement agents.”—[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Public Bill Committee, 26 June 2018; c. 58, Q129.]

In my view, if the schedule is left unamended, it risks infringing a basic, fundamental right that has been in place for hundreds of years, as the legal profession says. It is unnecessary and undue, and it would not be a serious improvement on the powers available to law enforcement. Access to a lawyer—fundamental access to justice—is something we should not compromise on.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.

We had a wide-ranging debate on this issue in Committee last week. I want to raise the specific issues in amendments 42 and 43 and to support what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said about the importance of legal professional privilege. It is obviously a cornerstone of our criminal justice—indeed, our justice—system and is admired around the world as a gold standard, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out.

However, in the cases we are talking about, it is not as if we must have a trade-off between two purist positions. In my view, there is a simple, practical solution to the problem before us, which should satisfy the Government’s concerns about people who are detained passing on messages to others through a lawyer who either acts knowingly or is not in the know. I responded to the Minister on that point last week.

Legal professional privilege is circumscribed by the codes of conduct that govern lawyers in our country. No lawyer can be a party to an illegal act, and they have, of course, to be very mindful of money laundering regulations. The practical solution I suggest in amendment 43 is that the Law Society approve solicitors to provide advice to persons detained. Such solicitors would be subject to the professional code of conduct, which would plug the gap in the legislation as it stands, with people simply not having access to a lawyer at all.

I put that suggestion to Richard Atkinson, the co-chair of the Law Society’s criminal law committee, in the 26 June evidence session. I said:

“From what you are saying, there is a practical solution for any legitimate concerns there may be. There is also a situation—in a police station, for example—where you can have a duty solicitor or lawyer made available. That person could be someone of particular standing and reputation in whom we could all have faith and whom we would not have those concerns about.”

Richard Atkinson replied, “Absolutely. Again, code H”—he was referring to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—

“allows exactly for that. If there are specific concerns about a lawyer, the duty lawyer or solicitor can be called to come and advise. That maintains privilege and maintains the defendant’s access to advice at that point.”—[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Public Bill Committee, 26 June 2018; c. 27, Q56.]

This proposal would not involve a large number of cases. The Minister will recall his own questions to Richard Atkinson, when he asked whether a lawyer would be required every single time there was a stop, which clearly is not the point. The provisions apply only when we get to the questioning stage, as set out in the evidence.

The right to private legal advice can be maintained if we adopt the idea that solicitors approved by the Law Society can provide that advice. The arguments that the Minister made against the proposal last week—that those lawyers would somehow inadvertently hand on information—are incredible. These lawyers would be subject to training in this area and would have to act with the highest professional standards. Nor would it be a restriction on the right to confidential legal advice to have a limited number of, say, panel lawyers who are able to provide it.

I urge the Minister to go back and look at this proposal for Report stage. The Government’s concerns can be allayed if they put in place a practical scheme that would be limited only in terms of the number of people who would have to deal with it but that would have the crucial effect of maintaining the very important principle of legal professional privilege, upon which our criminal justice system is based.

[The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)]

Good morning, Mrs Main. I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship.

The challenge is that we are losing sight of what a schedule 7 or a schedule 3 stop is: it is to establish the purpose and intent of an individual travelling at our borders. The vast majority of the current stops under counter-terrorism measures are for people leaving the country and not returning. We do them in an environment in which the new challenge is the digital data that people are carrying with them.

If we were standing here in 1992, the limit of the examination would be what people had on them—what they had in their bag and pockets. Those things can currently be examined; the power to stop someone to do that, in public or in private, has been in existence for many years, whether it is a customs and border stop or simply an immigration stop. Some of that is purely screening and may take minutes, which was part of my questioning to the Law Society of England and Wales when it gave evidence.

The core of these schedules is to establish that purpose and intent. Because of the challenge of digital media, it is obviously harder to establish that in the shorter periods you might have been able to do it in in the past. That is why the last Labour Government introduced the power in 2000. If we magnify these things, 18 years on, when everyone has a smartphone—not just a mobile phone—which can carry gigabytes of data, we can understand the potential challenge our law enforcement agencies face at the border.

That, at its heart, is what this stop is about. It is not about an interview under caution at a police station, which can usually be an integral part of the investigation and evidence. The verbal evidence given in these stops is not admissible in court, so if I give up information in my interview, that cannot be used in itself as the basis of a prosecution. That is why that is there.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. All that he has said so far is perfectly fine. It is just that there is a specific provision in the Bill that allows for an examining officer to overhear what is said between lawyer and client. The Government’s justification for that is the concern that the lawyer would, somehow, inadvertently pass on information. I have suggested a practical solution—I put it to Richard Atkinson of the Law Society in the evidence panel—that would deal with all the concerns the Minister has put forward so far, but also maintain legal professional privilege. What is wrong with that suggestion?

[Mr Wallace]

I will come to that. I am setting the scene of why we need this power.

Then we come to the two amendments and the ancient right to access a lawyer and legal advice. First, on the right to a lawyer, if you are detained beyond an hour at these stops, you then have a right to a lawyer. I suspect that, in 2000, when this law was introduced by the last Labour Government, it was decided that an hour was a reasonable time for that type of screening examination, which is similar to the question, “Could I search your bag?” from a customs officer and so on. That was a reasonable time. When you go beyond that hour, you have the right to a lawyer.

Another part of that very old and dear right within the UK legal system is the right to have a lawyer of your choice. It is not just, “And here is a selection of vetted lawyers decided by the state.” There are two rights here. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North talks about the right to access a lawyer.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The last characterisation is simply so open to challenge: the idea that there are panels of lawyers for so many different things. My suggestion simply brings the law in line with what already exists in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and that was why the Law Society agreed with it. This idea of the state choosing the lawyer simply does not hold water, given the reality of the legal profession. In addition, in terms of what we are talking about—legal professional privilege—confidentiality is the key. It is not about the right of access, but the right of confidential discussion, and it is justification for taking that away that is the big concern.

[Mr Wallace]

I will get to that. Whether it is the Law Society or the state that defines the duty roster, the point is made that a detained individual should have a right to choose their own lawyer. The Law Society can produce a panel or a duty solicitors’ roster, but that does not impinge on someone detained in a police station tonight saying, “Thank you for that. I am going to pick my own lawyer.”

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful for that. Could the Minister indicate, then, whether it is the Government’s intention to repeal the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which already includes a provision like this one?

[Mr Wallace]

Let me get to the next bit, which is also about the right not to be overheard—for legal privilege to be protected—and the idea that that is somehow absolute. It has never been absolute. The justification for that not being absolute was that the last Labour Government introduced paragraph 9 of schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000, which says:

“A direction under this paragraph may provide that a detained person who wishes to exercise the right…may consult a solicitor only in the sight and hearing of a qualified officer.”

The principle of, effectively, allowing the law enforcement agencies to do that, subject to chief officer authorisation, is not a new precedent that we are setting, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North seems to suggest. It has existed for 18 years. The last Labour Government viewed that as important enough for it to happen when it applies to TACT offenders in a police station setting, never mind in a schedule setting. That is where that policy idea came from. It has not been rustled up in the last year. It has been around for 18 years.

If I was arrested tomorrow morning and taken to a police station, rather than the border, and I wanted to consult a solicitor, I would find that, if there were reasonable grounds—or stronger than that—and the chief officer gave permission, that discussion could, on a very few occasions, be listened to. It is not at all about “inadvertently”; it is about the few individuals, who, as I witnessed in the early ’90s, exploit that relationship for the simple purpose of tipping off or undermining or disposing of evidence. Under those circumstances, the power has already existed.

I bring the hon. Member for Torfaen back to the point of this schedule stop. What is this stop really about? The verbal evidence given is not admissible in court, and this is not the same as sitting in a police station. This is about effectively establishing the intent, the identity and the basic details at the time of a border stop.

Given that we are a free and open society, it is at our border that we are most vulnerable. Once someone is within our community, because of the way we live our lives, quite rightly, they have free movement and free everything. I am delighted that those are our values, but if we are to keep that special, and maintain that freedom within the United Kingdom, we have to be able to give that power for the simple purpose of establishing the intent—the who and the what—at our border.

The new schedule applies to hostile state activities and to people who come here to attack and undermine the very state that allows us to enjoy those freedoms. That does not put in peril the strength of our justice system and the right to a lawyer and to a fair trial—I am a Scot, and we take a slightly different philosophical view on the right to a jury, which is a very Norman thing in England and Wales. That is why I believe that these measures are proportionate and necessary to keep us safe, and I do not believe that going back on the principle established 18 years ago would keep us safe; in fact, we would be unpicking well-established law.

Funnily enough, in my two years as Security Minister, I have had lots of representations on the use of schedule 7 and whether people have a right to compensation, whether the schedule is abused, and whether we should be cleverer and faster in using it, so it does not impinge on people’s journeys. I have not yet had a representation in those two years to ask for paragraph 9 of schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 to be undone. Therefore, the Government will not accept these amendments and will leave the schedule to stand, for the purpose of screening the who, what, where and when at our border and of taking into account the large amounts of data some of these individuals carry on their way into this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

Amendment 48 relates to the new hostile state activities ports power in schedule 3. Paragraph 27 of schedule 4 already makes provision for persons detained under schedule 3 in England and Wales to be eligible for legal aid in order to pay for legal advice and assistance they obtain concerning their detention.

Amendment 48 makes analogous provision for Northern Ireland. It brings the provision of legal aid and assistance for individuals detained in Northern Ireland under schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 or schedule 3 to this Bill, in line with what is currently provided for when an individual is arrested and held under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Before the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North asks, “What about Scotland?” I can advise the Committee that the Scottish Government will bring forward any necessary secondary legislation to make equivalent provision in Scotland.

Amendment 49 is consequential on the changes we are making to the notification regime for terrorist offenders. Paragraph 40 of schedule 4 amends the notification requirements in respect of foreign travel so that a terrorist offender must inform the police of any intended foreign travel and not just, as now, any foreign travel lasting three days or more. Amendment 49 ensures that this change flows through to the requirement on a terrorist offender to notify the police of their return to the UK.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I rise simply to support the Minister’s position. They both seem sensible amendments in that context.

Amendment 48 agreed to.

Amendment made: 49, page 80, line 27, in Schedule 4, at end insert—

‘( ) in regulation 5 (notification of return), in paragraph (1), omit “for a period of three days or more”.’ —(Mr Wallace.)

Regulation 5 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (Foreign Travel Notification Requirements) Regulations 2009 requires a person to whom the notification requirements apply who leaves the United Kingdom for a period of three days or more to notify the police of the date of their return and the point of their arrival in the United Kingdom within three days of their return (if they did not notify this information before leaving the United Kingdom). This amendment would ensure that regulation 5 applies to a person who leaves the United Kingdom for any period of time instead of only for periods of three days or more.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22

Notification requirements: transitional provisions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Wallace]

Clause 22 is a very exciting clause. It makes transitional provisions in respect of the changes to the notification scheme for terrorist offenders made by clauses 11 and 12. The changes will apply to terrorist offenders who are made subject to the notification requirements after clauses 11 and 12 come into force, as well as those who are subject to such requirements when the changes take place. Generally, that means that a terrorist offender who is already subject to the existing notification requirements must provide the police with the additional information within three months of the provision coming into force—in effect, within five months of Royal Assent. The police will ensure that existing registered terrorist offenders are informed of the new requirements being placed upon them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Extent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Gift aid changes were designed to ensure even greater generosity from taxpayers with Treasury help, but it seems that JustGiving and other platforms also take their 5% revenue fees from the gift aid element of those donations, which was never the intent of the policy. I am aware that Her Majesty’s Treasury are reviewing how the policy has operated, but the new clause would not interfere with that wider developing approach from Government; it would simply prevent a profit being taken from the full donation following a terror attack. I hope the Government will signal their intent to act, and I hope to receive a concrete assurance that this obscene approach will be ended. I welcome the Minister’s response.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Let me briefly add my support to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I pay tribute to him for the work he has done on this issue and a number of others in light of the terrible events at London Bridge and Borough market in his constituency last year. I think he highlights an important issue that is of great concern to a number of people, and I am pleased to support the new clause he has put forward.

There is great concern about the issue. My hon. Friend was right to draw a distinction between the costs of administration and clear and excessive profits. I do not think anyone is suggesting that there is a problem with having an administration cost or that those organisations involved in raising money in what are often emotionally charged and difficult circumstances need to be able to cover the costs of administration. The concern is about excessive profits being made by those particular organisations, and that concern has been expressed by my constituents. People have no objection to giving money, and they want to give money. There is great charitable intent among the British public, particularly when coming together after terrible events, but there is great concern about giving money some of which is siphoned off for clear profit for another organisation in the most awful circumstances. I support what my hon. Friend said, and I hope that the Minister will give some reassurance on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7—Continued participation in Eurojust and Europol—

“It is an objective of the Government, in negotiating the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, to seek continued United Kingdom participation in Eurojust and Europol’s activities relating to preventing acts of terrorism.”

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

These new clauses make it an objective in the Brexit negotiations to continue participation in the European arrest warrant, which new clause 6 refers to, and in Europol and Eurojust, which new clause 7 refers to. They are not restrictively drafted; they simply ask for that continued participation as an objective.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the great advantages the European arrest warrant gives us with regard to law enforcement and protecting our security. European arrest warrants are of course valid in all member states of the EU. They can be used to ask a state to arrest and transfer a criminal suspect to be put on trial, or to ask for someone who is sentenced to custody to be transferred to the UK to complete that sentence.

I have visited the National Crime Agency on a number of occasions over the past year—I am grateful to the Minister for facilitating those visits—and I have looked carefully at the extent to which the UK uses the European arrest warrant. In the calendar years from 2010 to 2016, the UK issued 1,773 requests. It is not the case that the European arrest warrant is not relevant to how we enforce our anti-terror laws, because 11 of those requests related purely to terrorism and a significant number related to organised crime—55 requests related to human trafficking, 206 to child sex offences and 255 to drugs trafficking. The European arrest warrant is an important tool for keeping the public safe.

Extradition outside the European arrest warrant

“can cost four times as much and take three times as long. It would mean an end to the significant exchange of data and engagement through Europol. And it would mean the UK would no longer be able to secure evidence from European partners quickly through the European Investigation Order”.

Those are not my words but the words of the Prime Minister about the importance of the European arrest warrant. It is vital that we seek continued participation.

There is a concern about Europol, and the Minister would do well to provide reassurance by backing new clause 7. Denmark is a recent example of a country leaving membership of Europol but maintaining access. Its experience should give the Minister pause for thought. In a referendum in 2015, Danes rejected a proposal to end the country’s full opt-out on home and justice matters and convert it to a version that would have allowed opt-outs on a case-by-case basis. That meant Denmark’s full membership of Europol was brought to an end and it was left having to negotiate a more restrictive access agreement, which stated:

“Irrespective of any access restrictions, Europol shall notify Denmark of any information concerning it if this is absolutely necessary in the interest of preventing imminent threat to life.”

Denmark continues to pay an annual sum, accepts the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and has observer status at Europol board meetings. However, the UK will not be in the same position as Denmark, which remains an EU member. As a third country, the UK will be negotiating from a different position—a point the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, has made more than once. Europol co-operates with third countries, but the Minister would do well to consider why that will not work in the UK’s case. It is crucial that the UK maintains access to Europol’s data.

New clause 7 also deals with Eurojust and the general tools that are available. It is vital that we have judicial co-operation on criminal matters. That was created to improve the handling of serious cross-border and organised crime by stimulating investigation and prosecutorial co-operation.

Whether people voted remain or leave, and whatever shades of opinion there are about our future relationship with the European Union, organised crime knows no borders. To keep our country safe, we have to co-operate with the EU27 and other countries around the world. The Prime Minister herself has highlighted that. I suspect that people’s attention may have been elsewhere, but she spoke clearly in her statement yesterday about the idea of a security treaty.

New clauses 6 and 7 would simply make continued participation a negotiating objective; they would not tie anybody’s hands in negotiations. They are just a common-sense statement of the need for continued co-operation in order to keep our country safe. Keeping our country safe is far more important than any political divisions or any different shades of opinion about our future economic relationship. The Government should commit clearly to these two new clauses. After all, they are only in line with what the Prime Minister has said. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I had hoped that the Brexit word was never going to pass anyone’s lips in this Committee. On the penultimate new clause, I had hoped we would have had the chance of a long and healthy life. Unfortunately, the word has ventured into the Committee.

The aims of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Torfaen are exactly the aims of the Government’s negotiating position. We want access to the European arrest warrant. We want to play a full part in Eurojust in that way. We have made an unconditional offer to the European Commission on security. However, the difference between our position and the proposed primary legislation is that we want that to be the outcome. The drafting of the new clause is flawed, as it would have a limited practical impact on the new clause. It does not oblige the Government to secure an outcome or prescribe how negotiations are conducted but merely affirms that it is a negotiating objective of the Government to do so.

It is conceivable that the Commission is already well aware of our negotiating aims—in fact, I can tell you that it is. The inclusion of the new clauses could provide the Commission with more weight to leverage those tools in the negotiations.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am relieved to hear that the Commission is clear about our negotiating aims, but I would not be over-confident about that. On this crucial point, I am sure if I had been too prescriptive, the Minister would be jumping to his feet saying that I had not left enough flexibility for negotiation. Given that, so far, he has hardly disagreed with anything in the new clauses, I presume it is clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister’s Munich speech in February, in which she continued to make this point about security—it is not a competition and our offer is open. The only danger to our security would be a dismissal by the European Commission out of hand and refusal to give us any intelligence or data. That would be a danger to us and to it; it would cut off its nose to spite its face.

All the Commission’s professionals, and member states’ intelligence services and police forces, are telling them that. In all my meetings with member states’ Interior and Security Ministers, they agree and concur. It is time that the Commission reflects that, because it is in the interests of European citizens to continue this relationship. It is not purely in our interest; it is in their interests, too.

The Prime Minister is absolutely determined on this point: a safer Europe is a safer Britain; and a safer Britain is a safer Europe. I do not think that will change. My simple dispute with the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson is that I do not believe that this duty needs to sit in primary legislation.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am confused as to why the Minister is indicating that he will vote against the new clause, because he seems to agree with it wholeheartedly.

First, it would make a difference to put it in primary legislation. It would send a clear message to the European Commission, about which the Minister is worried; it would reassure the public; and it would also give Government Members the chance really to put country above party, by supporting the new clause. I will therefore press it to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

On a point of order, Mrs Main. Before we draw to a close, I would like, to conclude these proceedings in an orderly manner, to put on the record my thanks for your chairmanship and Ms Ryan’s chairmanship. I do not think that those on either the Government or the Opposition Benches disappointed the Chair—I hope not.

I also thank those on the Opposition Front Benches. I am always amiable to the hon. Members for Torfaen and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, and try to accommodate them. As I set out at the very beginning, I have sought, where possible, to concede. I have conceded on the suggested improvements to clause 3—the three clicks—and to the Scottish National party about clarifying that there will be no charging for public order and the right to protest.

I do not know about you, Mrs Main, but I sat for years on the Opposition and Government Back Benches listening to the valiant efforts of Opposition MPs, who get no recognition whatever. I always promised myself that I would never allow that to happen as a Minister.

I thank my officials, who have been very patient when I have said, “That makes sense. Why can’t we do it?” to which the whole Government says, “The Minister might actually change something!” The Bill manager, in particular, has been incredibly patient. I am still determined to improve the Bill before it gets on to the statute book.

I thank the Clerks, the Hansard writers and the Doorkeepers for keeping us on the record and safe. I thank the lawyers from the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Treasury, and our witnesses, who set out their clear positions at the beginning.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Further to that point of order, Mrs Main. I echo what the Minister said, and I thank him for taking a constructive approach to the Bill—he said on Second Reading that he would do that. I add my thanks to the Doorkeepers and the Hansard writers. I am very grateful to the Clerks, in particular, for dealing with the numerous amendments I emailed in.

I thank you, Mrs Main, and Ms Ryan for your excellent chairing of the Committee. I am very grateful to all the officials for their contribution to the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for working so constructively, and the witnesses for giving us very helpful evidence and cause for debate throughout the Committee.

[Gavin Newlands]

Further to that point of order, Mrs Main. This is for the hat-trick. Thank you for allowing us to sit without ties. I thank you and Ms Ryan for chairing the Committee and for being so patient with us at certain times. I thank the Clerks, the Doorkeepers and the various officials. I add my thanks to the witnesses who came to the oral evidence session and those who submitted written evidence and briefing papers, which helped Members to draw up amendments.

I thank the Minister for being open—not quite as open as I would have liked, but open none the less, compared with other Ministers I have sat opposite in previous Bill Committees. I also thank the other Front Benchers for their assistance and co-operation.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.