National Security Bill

Steve Baker Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

As we go about our often quite routine duties as Members of Parliament dealing with some quite bread-and-butter issues, it is easy to forget that we may sometimes be the object of attention of foreign intelligence services. Is there more that could be done to bring to the attention of Members of Parliament the realities of the threat we face as individuals?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Other hon. Members who intervened earlier in this debate spoke about the role of Parliament and the security directorate here, with which we are working closely, as are our intelligence and law enforcement colleagues.

I am afraid that I think this is where reality bites for all of us. Look at the changing world in which we live and the threats coming our way. I think we have to have even more curiosity about some of the approaches made to us. I say this because we of course want to go about our lives as freely as possible. We love our democracy, and our democracy and our free society must continue to flourish along with free speech. Of course, free speech is not necessarily a value universally held by those who want to target us and seek to do us harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, that is the whole purpose of legislation. As I said in the first part of my remarks, we cannot remain static; we must have the agility to respond. Since February this year, with Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, techniques and tactics have changed. Yes, we are responding to them differently, but some legislative underpinning is absolutely required, as is having the flexibility and agility to respond. Hack and leak is only one example. There are so many other examples, as he will know from his time as Security Minister and from his time on the Intelligence and Security Committee. The landscape is shifting and, frankly, it is shifting fast.

We cannot wait for terrible atrocities to happen before we intervene. The Bill criminalises people who prepare to commit acts that constitute state threat offences and other harmful activity that constitutes a serious threat to life or public safety. They will face the prospect of life behind bars. When it comes to state threats, an aggravating factor will ensure that sentences for state-linked criminality recognise the seriousness of hostile activity conducted for or on behalf of foreign states. This applies to all offences not in the Bill where the foreign power condition is met.

In July 2021, the US Department of Justice announced that a New York court had unsealed an indictment against four people resident in Iran for their involvement in a plot to kidnap an unnamed Iranian-American journalist. The indictment also detailed four other individuals under surveillance by the network, including one based in the United Kingdom. Prosecutors said that one of the conspirators was an Iranian intelligence official, while the other three were assets of Iranian intelligence. Again, that speaks to the aggravating factors and the type of activity that takes place, as well as the cross-collaboration when it comes to dealing with some of those hostile state threats.

The people who engage in such nefarious behaviour are often highly skilled at keeping their activities hidden and we should never lose sight of that. Let us be under no illusion about the scale of the threat we face. In February last year, a Belgian court sentenced an accredited Iranian diplomat based in Vienna to 20 years in prison for his role in a plot to bomb a conference in Paris hosted by Iranian dissidents. The Belgian state security service stated:

“the plan for the attack was conceived in the name of Iran and under its leadership.”

Russian dissident Alexei Navalny was poisoned by Putin’s thugs and could easily have lost his life. In response, our Government enforced asset freezes and travel bans against 13 individuals and a Russian research centre.

It is vital, when creating a suite of new offences, to ensure that the police and the security and intelligence agencies have the powers effectively to investigate the threats this Bill seeks to address. I am bringing forward search and seizure powers to replace the existing investigative tool to counter complex state threats investigations. A new power of arrest for state threats activity, a new state threats detention scheme, and longer retention periods for biometric data will give the police further powers effectively to investigate these cases.

There will be some cases where it will not be possible to bring a prosecution. As is the case with counter-terrorism law, where similar challenges arise, we need a way of protecting our country. New state threat prevention and investigation measures will allow the Home Secretary to impose targeted restrictions, such as where an individual works, lives or studies, to prevent the most serious forms of harm. This is a tool of last resort. It will be used when intelligence confirms that highly damaging threat activity is planned or being undertaken, but prosecution is not realistic. These measures will be proportionate to the threat posed by an individual, and they will be subject to rigorous checks and balances, including by the courts. The Bill improves schedule 3 powers in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.

[Mr Steve Baker]

When my right hon. Friend and I were first elected, she will remember that terrorism prevention and investigation measures were highly controversial. Would she say something about the journey from that degree of controversy to the position today in which, until my intervention, we could move swiftly past TPIMs?

[Priti Patel]

I look forward to many debates with my hon. Friend on this issue. When it comes to TPIMs, there has been a considerable journey. Based on the work of our intelligence and security services—I am privileged to see, I am afraid, too much of the threats and insights, right down to the reconnaissance on certain individuals and their characteristics and the behaviours in which they participate—as I have said, this is a tool of last resort, which will be used only when intelligence confirms that highly damaging threat activity is under way. That will mean restricting the liberty of individuals if they pose a threat to the British people, to a local community and to our country.

It is important, as I have said, that these measures are proportionate to the threat posed by an individual and are subject to rigorous checks and balances, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) will provide, and by the courts. We should never negate or ignore that, because the courts have a significant role to play.

Changes to schedule 3 powers in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 will give police officers the ability to stop individuals at ports to ascertain their involvement in hostile activity by foreign states. The authorisation process enabling officers to retain confidential information is being streamlined to match the process using counter-terrorism laws. There are other measures, not currently in the Bill, on which we have touched. We will introduce a foreign influence registration scheme that requires individuals to register certain arrangements with foreign Governments, to deter and disrupt state-threat activity in the UK. It will bring our country into line with similar schemes run by allies, but we clearly need to ensure that that is workable here. The scheme will be included in a Government amendment, as I have highlighted.

A consistent message from respondents to our public consultation last year was that any scheme of this nature must strike the right balance between highlighting foreign influence in the UK and protecting those involved in legitimate activity from disproportionate compliance and regulatory matters. The scheme will follow precedents from the US and our Australian allies, requiring registration of certain arrangements with foreign Governments. It will strengthen our efforts to deter and disrupt state-threat activity through greater transparency and the scrutiny that it requires, with penalties for those who seek to obfuscate and hide such arrangements. It will increase the risk to those engaging in covert or malign activities for or on behalf of any country, including those identified by the UK intelligence community, such as Russia, China and Iran.

That includes the type of activity described by the Intelligence and Security Committee in its Russia report, where individuals with access to UK political institutions and public officials covertly exert influence at the behest of foreign intelligence services. It also includes the activity represented by the deeply concerning case of an individual engaged in political interference on behalf of the Chinese Communist party, as touched on earlier.

The scheme will make the UK more resilient to threats. Those who work covertly will face a choice between registering with the scheme, thus exposing their activity, and risking prosecution for not doing so. Both options present risk to state-threat actors. There is no intention, however, to create unnecessary barriers or to discourage those engaged in legitimate activity in the UK. Foreign Governments routinely engage in efforts to influence UK domestic and foreign policy. Where undertaken in an open, transparent way, this will continue to be welcome.

As I have mentioned already, we intend to bring the scheme forward before the Bill leaves the Commons. Following feedback received during the Home Office’s public consultation on this issue, and following Russian attempts to undermine European stability, it is right—we welcome all views and considerations on this—that we take the time to ensure that it is an effective and proportionate tool to counter state threats activity and to protect the UK’s interest.

On measures not in the Bill, I have already touched on the Official Secrets Act 1989 and the work that needs to be undertaken. To confirm, I will look at reform of the OSA, along with other work that the Government are doing to strengthen whistleblowing practices and transparency. In the context of Russia’s terrible invasion of Ukraine, it is essential that we prioritise measures that strengthen our defences against state threats, which this Bill does. Likewise, the Government have been considering reform of the treason laws, but right now we do not have plans to do so through this Bill.

The House passed the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill in a day, because we recognised the severity of the situation, and we recognise that at a time of crisis, we must act collectively in the national interest. However, good legislation in such complex areas must be undertaken effectively as well as efficiently to achieve the desired outcome of bolstering our agencies and protecting our nation.

The National Security Bill restricts convicted terrorists from access to civil legal aid and will enable the courts to freeze civil damages awarded to terrorists where there is a risk those funds might be used for terrorism purposes. Where that risk is ongoing, the courts will be empowered to permanently withhold those funds. When an individual commits an act of terrorism, they are rejecting the democratic state that provides the benefit of civil legal aid, and it cannot be right that the same individual can then go on to receive civil legal aid funded by that very state. These changes will end that abuse of our legal aid system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. and learned Lady makes a really important point. In its consideration of these issues, the Law Commission made proposals on not only strengthening some of the measures in the Official Secrets Act 1989 but how to have proper safeguards to protect whistleblowers and the public interest. I recognise that there are complex issues in respect of how to draw up the legislation and shall make further points about that.

We have just spent the past four days celebrating our Queen’s historic platinum jubilee and celebrating our shared values and traditions, which are what we defend when we defend our national security. At a time when we have seen an illegal invasion of a fellow European democracy by Russia—an act that threatens and that has attacked and undermined the national security of a fellow European nation—there could be no greater reminder to us all of the need to be resilient and vigilant in the face of threats.

The threats to our national security, democratic values and way of life have inevitably evolved over the decades. The ending of the cold war in the 1990s and the major international terror attacks, particularly by Islamist extremists from al-Qaeda and then from ISIS, alongside growing domestic far-right terror threats, have meant that the national security focus—the top priority of our intelligence and security agencies—has for several decades been on terrorist threats to our way of life but, as the Government’s integrated review made clear, the threats from hostile states have not gone away and in recent years we have seen them grow and become more complex.

As the Government concluded in 2018, the attempt on the lives of Sergei Skripal and his daughter was, in the words of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May),

“almost certainly…approved”

both by the GRU and

“at a senior level of the Russian state.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2018; Vol. 646, c. 168.]

We face different threats from other countries, too. MI5 recently warned publicly about the activities of an individual knowingly engaged in political interference activities on behalf of the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist party. The MI5 director general Ken McCallum has warned that

“the activity MI5 encounters day-by-day predominantly comes, in quite varying ways, from state or state-backed organisations in Russia, China and Iran.”

Alongside persistent hard power methods of attack, the advent of technology has also allowed soft power methods to flourish, with electoral interference, disinformation, propaganda, cyber operations and intellectual property theft used to foster instability and interfere in the strength and resilience of the state. The Home Secretary referred to the SolarWinds attack and the interference with major UK energy companies. As the Law Commission warned in its report, the Official Secrets Acts between 1911 and 1939 were enacted long before the digital age and include references to

“a sketch, plan, model, note”—

the pencil notings that are a far cry from the cyber and online data interventions that modern espionage might involve.

The words of the MI5 director general are perhaps startling, when he said:

“Today, it is not a criminal offence to be an undeclared foreign intelligence agent in the UK. Likewise, it is not currently illegal to be in a key position of influence in the UK and be secretly in the pay of a foreign state. That can’t be right. To tackle modern interference, we need modern powers.”

He is right, and we agree. That is why reforms and legislation are needed to address the new threats from hostile states. That is why many of the measures in the legislation are important, for example making it possible to take action against those who are operating in the pay of a foreign intelligence agency to do Britain harm; to make it possible to defend the trade secrets of British businesses, including taking action against those who may be paid by foreign intelligence agencies or a state to leak intellectual property or trade secrets that are then used to undermine our industry and our economy; to make it possible to have stronger action against incredibly damaging cyber attacks on our critical infrastructure; and to enable early intervention to prevent damaging attacks, not just to prosecute once the damage is done.

We have questions that we want to put, points that we want to probe and amendments that we will draft because we want to work constructively with the Government to get the legislation right. I shall make some of those points now and I look forward to further discussion with the Home Secretary and the security Minister during the passage of the Bill. The first gaping hole that we see is the promised foreign agents registration scheme that the Home Secretary has said she will bring forward. We had understood that this would be the central part and purpose of the Bill, but it is currently missing. I do recognise that drafting in those areas is complex, and we need to learn from what other countries have done, but that also makes it the more important to have proper scrutiny. I urge the Home Secretary to ensure that the scheme is not brought forward at the last minute so that we do not have time to give it proper consideration in Committee or to take evidence on it beforehand.

[Mr Steve Baker]

The right hon. Lady makes an important point about the foreign agents registration scheme. Will she join me in encouraging my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider possibly amending the programme motion so that we can have a day in Committee of the whole House to consider it? It will be a large part of the Bill and doing it through amendments in Committee may be inappropriate.

[Yvette Cooper]

I would certainly be happy to have further discussions through the usual channels about the way in which the Bill needs to be scrutinised. In the early evidence stage of the scrutiny, particularly for a Bill like this, it is important for the Committee to be able to hear evidence on this issue, in order to make sure that we get it right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

I am receiving indications that I may hear something in the summing-up speech, so I shall live in hope.

As I wish to leave scope for other members of the ISC to drill down into the detail of all three areas on which the Bill ought to be focusing, I shall confine myself to just a few comments on each. First—as we have said—we warmly welcome the repeal of the Official Secrets Acts of 1911 to 1939, with their references to century-old concepts of data targets, such as “sketches” and “plans”, which have long been superseded in the digital age. The new espionage offence created by clause 1 should enable the intelligence and security agencies more effectively to combat hostile state action in a world that has undergone a technological revolution in the modern era.

Clause 2 is a worthwhile attempt to protect valuable trade secrets, although we feel that there are issues of complexity and breadth of definition which will require simplification if this new system is to succeed. Clause 3 is strongly to be supported, both for criminalising the giving of assistance to a foreign intelligence service and for empowering the agencies and the police legitimately to unravel the hostile networks involved. Clause 12 creates a new offence of sabotage, at home or overseas: causing damage to vital UK assets or infrastructure, whether intentionally or recklessly. Clause 13 introduces an offence of foreign interference, but only for conduct that involves an intention to have a negative impact on the UK, for or on behalf of the foreign power in question. We suggest that it be broadened to cover those who behave recklessly, even if an intention to aid a foreign adversary cannot be proven.

Secondly, the failure radically to reform the Official Secrets Act 1989 leaves in place a requirement to demonstrate that actual harm has been caused by a civil servant or someone outside Government service when publishing classified information. However, the act of disclosing and specifying what harm has been done will often compound the problem and increase the damage; some prosecutions thus have to be dropped in order to prevent such further harm. Although the Law Commission has offered recommendations to cater for disclosures made genuinely in the public interest, those recommendations cannot even be considered other than in the context of the repeal, replacement or at least root-and-branch reform of the 1989 Act.

[Mr Steve Baker]

I absolutely support what my right hon. Friend says about the 1989 Act, section 1(1) of which states:

“A person who is or has been…a member of the security and intelligence services; or…a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection…is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information”.

There is no caveat about “damaging”. Is not the fundamental problem that a distinction is drawn between categories of person in how they are treated?

[Dr Lewis]

There is such a distinction. One could certainly argue that it is a graver offence for someone entrusted officially with secrets to breach that trust than for a journalist who thinks he has a scoop but knows that he might be harming the national interest to proceed nevertheless, recklessly or with deliberate intent to do harm. However, we are not talking about a spy rifling through a filing cabinet and taking pictures with his Minox camera; we are now in an age when a technician can download a gigabyte of information in a short period and have it published worldwide, unread even by the people who have published it. That is where there are huge gaps in the legislation, and closing them will require revisiting the 1989 Act.

The third leg is that there will be many practical issues with the contents and the proper parliamentary scrutiny of any amendment to the Bill to initiate a foreign influence registration scheme. Careful drafting will be required to catch those who are consciously and deliberately, or unreasonably and recklessly, acting on behalf of another state and its interests, without criminalising every parliamentarian who runs a bilateral international friendship group, for example. High on the agenda must be the issue of dodgy donations from questionable sources to political parties and campaigns—another good reason for the closest possible examination of the provisions that the Government eventually bring forward. Nevertheless, as has been pointed out, our Australian friends enacted their foreign influence transparency scheme as recently as 2018, while our US allies introduced their own legislation as long ago as 1938, so there is no shortage of precedents on which we can draw to get the legislation right and close at least one more gap in our national security arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), and I congratulate him on his recent inclusion in the Queen’s honours list.

This Bill has been long coming; we have been waiting for several years now. The Government have made some improvements in it, but overall it is disappointing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) said, it is not the comprehensive legislation we were promised and, as has already been mentioned, it does not include the reform of the Official Secrets Act 1989.

The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I have the privilege of being a member of, said that the Committee has called for nearly the past 20 years for the reform of the 1989 Act. I am one of the two remaining members of the Committee who were on it when we considered our Russia report. We made very clear in the recommendations of the report, published in 2020, that there was an urgent need for reform of that Act, which we described as not being fit for purpose. More importantly, we took evidence from the agencies, which all said that the Act was in need of reform. We recommended that it should be reformed, and said that without any major reform the security services would continue to have their hands tied when trying to tackle the job that we give them.

It is surprising that reform of the 1989 Act has not been brought forward in this Bill, because it has not just been raised by the ISC and the security services; the Government themselves have repeatedly said that the Act needs to be changed and reformed. In a 2020 report, the Law Commission also concluded that the Act was “outdated” and in “urgent need of reform”. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood, I am at a loss as to why this reform is not in the Bill.

The 1911 to 1939 Official Secrets Acts are clearly repealed through the Bill, but if we do not change the 1989 Act, the current problems will persist. As has been mentioned, the requirement to prove damage from unauthorised disclosures is in most cases a real barrier to prosecution, and in some instances leads to more sensitive information having to be produced in court. That is a deterrent; it is a weakness that explains why the Act is not being used. Also, as I mentioned in an intervention on the Home Secretary, the maximum sentence under the 1989 Act is two years. In the Bill, we are introducing life sentences. I do not know what deterrent two years would be, even with the hurdles we have to get over, so I am at a real loss as to why these reforms have not been included in the Bill.

I am not clear from what the Home Secretary said when that reform will be brought forward. We all know how tight legislative time is. I would have thought that once the Government had a large Bill such as this one, they would want to do everything at once. Could it be that there is a lack of time? No, I do not think so, because the changes being put forward have been considered over many years. We need an explanation from the Government as to why this reform is not being done.

[Mr Steve Baker]

The right hon. Gentleman is making some very good points. I rather imagine that the damage that could be caused by an unlawful disclosure could include people losing their lives, and that one problem is that proving that damage could lead to yet further people losing their lives. I do not wish to tempt him where he must not go, but can he give those of us without access to classified information any indication of whether my worst imaginings are in any way accurate? If they are, it seems to me that a life sentence might be appropriate.

[Mr Jones]

I would not want to go anywhere near what is in the hon. Gentleman’s imagination. All I can say is: yes, we are talking about information that will have an impact not only on our general security, but on the security of individual agents and others. That is why I support the Law Commission’s recommendations to introduce a public interest defence and to create an independent statutory commissioner to investigate wrongdoing or criminality where disclosure would otherwise constitute an offence under the 1989 Act.

The absence of reform means that if we pass the Bill as it is now, there will be nothing in it to guard against large, mass disclosures of sensitive information; we will still rely on the 1989 Act. Even if somebody indirectly helped foreign powers, I cannot see how we could bring them to book under this Bill. We should support the introduction of a public interest defence, because it would make it easier to bring prosecutions. I have heard some people say, “This would really give journalists and others an opportunity to throw secrets out there.” No, it would not; it would put the onus on them to argue in court that it is in the public interest that the information is disclosed. It would be welcome, as it would ensure that people thought about what they did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a wonderful birthday present to rise to support the Government on this important and interesting legislation, which I am grateful to have had the opportunity to study and read around. In fact, it has been interesting to discover just how much one can learn about the work of the security and intelligence services.

Before going any further, it is worth taking this opportunity to say that, as a Member of this House and, indeed, as a former member of the armed forces, I have always believed our default position should be to stand with the police, the armed forces and the defence and intelligence services, which seek to secure our freedoms, to keep us safe and to work in the public interest.

When thinking of where I might find words to praise them, I went back to the 2016 report from the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Mark Waller. It was his final report before the institution was superseded, and he said in the executive summary, on page 5:

“I would like to record that the United Kingdom is extremely fortunate with its intelligence agencies. They combine an extremely high level of operational competence with a collaborative approach and a respect for the law which makes them trusted and respected internationally.

The UK Intelligence Community’s attitude to ethics in general, and legal compliance specifically, is impressive and reassuring. While there is some legal debate about certain powers, I have never seen any evidence that the agencies institutionally would knowingly break the law… In terms of my inspections, I have found that the substantial compliance teams in each organisation and the relevant departments of state think deeply about the application of executive power and the intrusion into the privacy of its citizens. Everyone I inspect approaches the process in an open manner. Indeed, rather than hiding problems, they are often proactive in raising the most difficult issues with me.”

I was very reassured to read those words from the former Intelligence Services Commissioner, who was responsible in Government for supervising the intelligence services. Indeed, I think all of Government could learn from that culture of compliance.

The point that I am trying to make is this. In this Bill, once again we are handing very significant powers to agents of the state that they will then use with some degree of discretion; I will come to specific examples later. That is why it is vital that from the top to the bottom, the entirety of Government is led with a spirit of compliance with the law—a compliance culture. The document—admittedly, a 2016 report—goes on to talk about some of the risks inherent in the security and intelligence services, and some of the safeguards that are in place. It is all very reassuring. Indeed, the later Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s most recent report also includes a number of important points about safeguards.

Let me turn to some specific points. We have already had a pretty good canter around clause 23, but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) said, it is worth pointing out that it is a widely drawn clause. We all have to be sensible and mature in recognising that our work overseas through the Secret Intelligence Service is bound to seek to procure just some of those things in the explanatory notes that we are making criminal offences in the UK. We have to be realistic that when we are furthering our own interests—sometimes against hostile powers—we need to give people this waiver in relation to seeking to procure offences overseas.

Of course, the security services must be able to encourage and assist offences overseas, particularly when it is deemed necessary, but deemed necessary by whom? The particular point I want to make about clause 23 that has not been made is that when one goes through the commissioner’s various reports, one can see there is a fairly widespread use of so-called section 7 thematic warrants, within which SIS in particular can operate with a fairly wide degree of discretion and with internal controls on what is done. That means that a person like me, who is always instinctively wary of powers given to the state, must trust that institutions not open to all of us to scrutinise have processes in place; and, as I have said, we can be reassured that they do have very robust and important processes, and a great culture of compliance with the law.

But what would happen if, God forbid, one day this country was led by somebody at the very top who did not have a strict culture of compliance with the law? I think I have made it clear how I voted tonight. And what if, after a period, that culture of non-compliance in No. 10 Downing Street were to permeate throughout the whole apparatus of the state? What if the machinery of government was changed so that supervision of the intelligence and security services was moved within No. 10—just for example, since that is proposed; or has it happened? It is certainly on the cards.

I am extremely wary of a clause drawn this widely in the context of thematic warrants. I should also say, with great respect to SIS, that there is within the commissioners’ documents—the most recent and the 2016 document—evidence of, shall we say, sparse record-keeping, which has not always served the institution well, particularly in relation to rendition, to which I will come. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Security Minister will not mind my saying that there are extremely good reasons for drawing clause 23 a bit tighter, including defending the integrity of the institutions, and our brave men and women within them who defend us. There seems to be a general consensus that that should be done, so I hope that he will look carefully at clause 23.

The next point I wanted to make was about the 1989 Act, but we have cantered around that, so I refer to my earlier remarks; the issue of damage needs to be dealt with.

Let me turn to STPIMs. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I remember when TPIMs were very controversial in this place. I think the principle involved in TPIMs and STPIMs is now water under the bridge: the point has been conceded and we have all moved on. I do not like fuzzy justice—to me, the idea of restraining somebody’s liberties without a conviction undermines the rule of law as it is generally understood—but okay, we have plenty of safeguards, so now the devil is in the detail. It will require minds more learned than mine to propose amendments to STPIMs to ensure adequate safeguards.

The reason why I am so interested in the Bill relates to the general assault on liberty that we saw after 9/11. As a former member of the armed forces, I thought that there were certain ultimate values that we were willing to fight and die to defend, and that we were compromising those values by giving the state the power to restrict liberty without a conviction—that is one of the reasons I came here. Well, I have to admit that I have lost that argument. It is water under the bridge, but it is a pretty important argument to have lost, so as part of reversing that assault on liberty post 9/11, I look to the Government and learned minds outside to ensure adequate safeguards in relation to STPIMs.

[Bob Seely]

I understand that my hon. Friend is talking about STPIMs, but more generally, does he see the Bill as beneficial to liberty overall? I do, because by doing something about covert and malign lobbying, we will increase transparency and integrity in our decision-making apparatus in this country. Does he share that opinion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well, but I hope he will not mind if I say that I do not want to be diverted to that subject, not least because I want to foreshorten my speech a little.

My other point about STPIMs relates to the introduction of polygraphs, which is an area that I have not had the chance to research as much as I might have liked. Can my right hon. Friend the Minister let us know whether this is the first time that we have legislated for their use or whether a new principle is being introduced into our law? Polygraphs are not perfectly reliable. I have read the explanatory notes, but I wonder whether their introduction is an innovation.

I am really concerned about the development of certain trends in the rule of law, as evidenced in arguments that I have made. As a result of the Online Safety Bill, we now have the concept that some speech is legal but harmful, which seems to me a fuzzy concept of what is and is not allowed in law. That is not where I want our country to be, but I accept that I am not a learned mind in this place—I am only a humble aerospace and software engineer, and an MSc in computer science does not always cover such difficult matters of fuzzy logic.

The main issue that I want to address is about extraordinary rendition. Schedule 3, “Detention under section 21”, in part 1, “Treatment of persons detained under section 21”, under the cross-heading “Place of detention”, states:

“(1) The Secretary of State may designate places at which persons may be detained under section 21.

(2) In this Schedule a reference to a police station includes a reference to any place which the Secretary of State has designated under sub-paragraph (1) as a place where a person may be detained under section 21.”

Putting it in plain English, the Secretary of State may make provision to detain people other than at police stations, and constables must take those people to those places. Colloquially, when we were looking at extraordinary rendition, those places were known as secret prisons. I would very much like to know from the Minister why we need to nominate other places to detain people. Will they be detained to the same standard as in a police station? I would very much expect so. What are these places? I am aware of some of them, but where are they, and for what reason can people not be detained at a police station?

That point brings me on to extraordinary rendition. Look at what happened to us after 9/11—the wars we waged, the principles of civilisation and freedom that had kept us free and given us something to be proud of and to fight for, and which we undermined. “The Principles relating to the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas and the passing and receipt of intelligence relating to detainees”—a Government document that is freely available—makes it absolutely 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 (‘CIDT’), or extraordinary rendition. In no circumstance will UK personnel ever take action amounting to torture, unlawful killing, extraordinary rendition, or CIDT. The UK takes suggested incidents of this kind very seriously: these allegations against UK personnel are investigated and complaints in this context are brought to the attention of authorities in other countries”.

Having bumped into some relevant officials, I am extremely satisfied that we take this very seriously.

Going back to the earlier commissioner’s report that I read out, I am absolutely not casting aspersions on our brave and honourable staff, every one of whom, on the few occasions I have met them, I have been incredibly impressed by. I believe that they are seeking to uphold the very highest standards. That is why I put it to my right hon. Friend the Minister that this Bill would be a great moment to put these principles on a statutory footing. In that way, in future, when there is another panic over terrorism and security under another Government who are perhaps not as strongly principled as this one—perhaps with not quite the same culture at the top of adherence to and compliance with the law—we can all be reassured that we will not allow ourselves to come on to conduct that I will touch on in a moment.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Since the issue of rendition, we have had the consolidated guidance and now we have the principles where the warrants are overseen by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Having reviewed the principles in terms of the ISC, it is clear that they are quite robust not only in the safeguards they give but in training people throughout the organisation to ensure that they adhere to them.

[Mr Baker]

I have read enough of the various documents to know that the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am glad to agree with him.

I do not want to open up too many old wounds, but I have read the excellent book, “Account Rendered”, by the now Lord Tyrie, which includes some purportedly declassified top secret documents on how the CIA conducted their interrogation techniques. I very much hope that Ministers responsible have read those documents, because I found it quite nauseating. I am ex-forces. If you are ex-forces, then at some time in your life you are actually committed to killing our enemies, but even so I found it nauseating to see just how degrading authorised American interrogation techniques could be. The list of what they would do includes the attention grasp, or grasp by collars; walling, or slamming people against a false flexible wall; the wall standing stress position; the facial hold; facial slap stress positions; waterboarding—I think we can pretty clearly be disgusted by that—and cramped confinement, including putting insects in a box with a person who you know has a phobia. Imagine combining all these things using nudity, control of diet and restraint, putting them all in sequence deliberately for prolonged periods. That is what the declassified documents in “Account Rendered” give an account of.

I completely agree with the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that these principles are absolutely robust, and I am 100% certain in my own mind that our brave officials—men and women good and true, noble and decent—would never want, in any sense, however distant, to be complicit in extraordinary rendition for the purpose of degrading treatment. I am absolutely clear about that. But our job in this House is not to simply trust the great and good people that we have today; it is to put in place a law that makes sure that in future everyone can understand that we do not do these things, not least because showing that we are on the right side of the argument will help us to recruit agents overseas.

I am dead serious about this. It is no reflection on my very high estimation of the people who serve us and keep us safe; it is about worries about the future when there is another panic about another terrorist attack. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister: if public-spirited lawyers draw up clauses that can put these excellent, robust principles on a statutory footing, I will certainly seek to maximise support for it, because in future we must make sure that no Government of any colour can ever discredit our great people by raising even the slightest suspicion that we might have been even distantly complicit in cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

Prosecuting authorities have to make judgments. The Bill is specifically about national security, but within that it is about countering state threats. It gives us a whole new set of tools and weapons to add to our arsenal, and, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman’s body language, I think that that is much to be welcomed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) asked a specific question about police stations. Because of the new arrest power in the Bill that can last up to 14 days, the Secretary of State may be required to designate specialist sites to meet the operational need, but I want to reassure my hon. Friend that this has nothing to do with extraordinary rendition. The provision mirrors those in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Terrorism Acts to ensure that appropriate facilities are available. However, it is not possible to designate such a place outside the United Kingdom. The Government are clear about the fact that torture, mistreatment and arbitrary detention are contrary to human rights law.

[Mr Steve Baker]

Will my right hon. Friend give way? I did ask another question on this point.

[Damian Hinds]

I have not finished my speech, but go on.

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The other question was, where are these sites, and why are they necessary? What is the standard of the places in which people are being detained? I could name some forts and other secure places owned by the Army. Is that what we are talking about, and if so, why?

[Damian Hinds]

I do not think that this is an appropriate forum in which to discuss the detail of such measures, but I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend on that particular point. As I have said, this is to allow for cases in which such capacity is required owing to operational need, and it cannot be outside the United Kingdom.

A number of Members on both sides of the House have referred to the so-called STPIMs. These are a tool of last resort to prevent, restrict and disrupt an individual’s involvement in state threats activity. In the most serious cases, that could include restricting where an individual can reside, whom they can associate with, and where they can work and study. An STPIM will be used when intelligence exists to confirm that highly damaging threat activity is planned or being undertaken but prosecution is not realistic. As my hon. Friend said, with such measures it is extremely important to have the appropriate safeguards.

I want to reassure the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) that STPIMs will not be imposed through ministerial decision making alone. There will be a process through the courts. A decision by the Secretary of State to impose an STPIM, once they are satisfied that the five conditions set out have been met, will be referred to a judge, and the court’s permission will be sought before an order can be made. The court is specifically tasked with checking that the ministerial decision is not flawed.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) and others spoke about civil legal aid for terrorists. Through the Bill, we will take action to restrict access to civil legal aid in England and Wales for individuals convicted of terrorism or terrorism-connected offences since 2001. However, I can assure my right hon. and learned Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and others who have spoken about this that the restriction of access of civil legal aid applies only to offences involving a sentence of more than two years. In any event, all individuals subject to the restriction can apply for exceptional case funding, and applications will be assessed according to the legislative framework of whether an individual’s human rights may be breached without legal aid. The type of terrorism offence that had been committed would not have bearing on the exceptional case funding decision.

I need to spend a couple of minutes going through the amendments to the Serious Crime Act 2007, an important subject that a number of colleagues have brought up, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. The context, of course, is that our intelligence and security services and armed forces do and must work in close partnership with international partners to maximise UK capabilities and their ability to protect national security on our behalf. A key part of that is sharing intelligence and data to support joint objectives.

However, it is possible that such intelligence, when shared in good faith and in accordance with all domestic and international law, could still be capable of contributing, even in a very small or indirect way that was not intended at the time it was shared, to an international partner’s engaging in activity that the UK would not support. The Serious Crime Act 2007 creates an offence where an act is done that is

“capable of encouraging or assisting…an offence”.

That means that in this scenario there is a risk of individuals facing criminal liability, even when they have operated in good faith and in accordance with the guidance and proper authorisation.

Put simply, the Government believe it is not fair to expect the liability for that unforeseen eventuality to sit with an individual officer of our intelligence services or member of the armed forces who is acting with wholly legitimate intentions. Instead, the liability should sit with the UK intelligence community and the military at an institutional level, where they are subject to executive, judicial and parliamentary oversight. The amendment at clause 23 therefore removes that liability for individuals, but specifically only where the activity is necessary for the proper exercise of the functions of the security and intelligence services or the armed forces. It does not remove liability at an institutional level for any activity.

Computer Misuse Act 1990

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am absolutely delighted to speak in this extremely important debate—it is perhaps not pressingly urgent, but very important. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) on securing this debate and on his speech. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), who wrote an excellent foreword in the report from CyberUp and techUK, “Time for Reform? Understanding the UK cyber security industry’s views of the Computer Misuse Act”. It is an excellent paper with sensible suggestions.

If I may say so, we are blessed to have this Security Minister here in his place. As far as I understand it, being Security Minister is not for someone who showboats or campaigns; it is for somebody who is extremely thoughtful and reliable and can really get to the heart of matters, so I am grateful that my right hon. Friend is the Minister replying today. He might not be able to respond to all the points today, but I know he will certainly think about them. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who showed his command of the subject.

I approach this debate with great humility, deeply aware of my own inadequacy at rising to the most difficult technical problems involved. I say that not because I do not know anything about the subject, but because I do. I have an MSc in computer science from Oxford, which I gained in 2000. I was once upon a time—at least, I think so—a reasonably competent Unix system administrator. I have done a network intrusion course as a software engineer, and I like to think that I might be considered as once being above average as a software engineer.

Having read books such as “The Art of Computer Programming” and Bruce Schneier’s book on cryp-tography—he is one of the world’s great experts—I am well aware that the subject of cyber-security is fabulously complex and difficult and not well understood. Without naming the organisation, I once went to a major public body to talk about cyber-security. It had put a large TV up on the wall and on it was a NORAD-style display of cyber-attacks going to and fro across the world, and there was a little software engineer’s rolling league table of which attacks were in progress. I asked what it all meant, and the public body did not know. It could not tell me what the attacks going to and fro meant, which put the meeting in context. So my first point is that no one following this debate or this subject should be under any illusion whatever about the complexity involved. It is a problem for the top 1% of software engineers—the sort of people who might be employed at GCHQ at the very cutting edge of understanding computers, how they work and how things can be dealt with.

Secondly, I think reform of the Computer Misuse Act would be a very good thing. My goodness!—what we have learned and how things have changed since that Act was put in place. Even since I joined Parliament in 2010, software engineering has changed tremendously. We all find that we go out of date very quickly, and the law has to keep pace with how things have changed.

The point was made earlier that some things that happen in the real world have parallels online. When I look at the range of things that software engineers have to do to counter network intrusion and cyber-attacks, at the moment we seem to be in a position akin to saying to a householder, “You may not defend against burglars,” or to someone attacked in the street, “You may not commit acts of self-defence.” That parallel might be flawed, but we have to look extremely carefully at whether software engineers and other professionals are adequately defended in law, so that they can do what is necessary to defend against criminal attack. That is what we are talking about.

The paper from CyberUp and techUK is excellent. I read it only over the weekend, but it all seems to be very sensible and well thought through, and I certainly commend it to the Minister and his officials. They should have a really good look at it to see whether the case has been made, in particular for a statutory defence for professionals in the field, making sure that we have taken into account everything we now know about cyber-security.

I am not actually in favour of an official register of professionals, which is recommended in the paper. There are two reasons for that. First, insert here all the arguments about the state running registers of professionals—the anti-competitive practice it can encourage and so on—which do not need rehearsing. It would also become something of a honeypot for criminals. If we were to create a privileged list of registered actors who are, in some sense, allowed or better facilitated to conduct cyber-security operations, for want of a better term, that would create an enormous incentive for criminals to get their people on that list, or to corrupt individuals on the list in order to get what they want from them. I remain opposed to having a state-sponsored list of professionals with some kind of privilege to conduct these operations, outside of employees of the state themselves—obviously, we employ people to do this sort of thing. I think that would be a mistake.

Those are the three points that I wanted to make. First, we need humility as we approach these things. This issue is not susceptible to loose pub chat; it needs real expertise. Secondly, reform of the CMA seems to me to be a jolly good idea. Thirdly, there should be no official register. Once again, thank you very much, Sir Mark. I am really looking forward to hearing the response of my right hon. Friend the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Mark. We do not always have such a knowledgeable Chair in relation to such technical matters.

[Mr Steve Baker]

He will answer questions later!

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Indeed.

I thank the hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) for securing the debate and for his expert introduction of the topic. He rightly highlighted events in Ukraine, and, indeed, today’s reports of attacks on No. 10 as providing a stark backdrop to this discussion. He and all hon. Members made a strong case for revisiting and revising the 1990 Act.

The point I agree with most fundamentally was made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who highlighted the complexity of these issues. I feel rather underqualified at the moment, particularly given the CVs on display today. Nevertheless, I approach this topic with an open mind and am open to persuasion by the experts. I welcome the Home Office’s call for information last year. The recent cyber strategy hints at this legislation being looked at again. If the Government proceed with reforms, the Minister will have our support and we will play as constructive a part as we can to ensure that they are the right ones.

As we heard, the 1990 Act was pretty much rushed into effect via a private Member’s Bill when it seemed to be established that hacking—shoulder surfing in one particular case—was not against the law. Obviously, that had to change, so the legislation put criminal offences on the statute book for unauthorised access, unauthorised access with intent to commit other crimes and unauthorised modification of computer material, but things have changed significantly since then. The hon. Member for Bridgend said he was a toddler back when the legislation was passed. I certainly was not; I would have been sitting, as a teenager, with my BBC Micro computer taking 20 minutes to load “Football Manager”. He is right to point out that, back then, a tiny percentage of the population had access to computers. The internet was something for the future. Technology has changed in unbelievable ways, with computer use now absolutely ubiquitous. People are also using a large number of smart internet-connected devices. That all radically alters the threat landscape from when the legislation came into force.

As the Act explicitly mentions computers and not other internet of things devices that can connect to the internet and be hacked, things such as smart fridges or nanny cams must be argued to be computers to fall under scope of the legislation. We had reference to the submission by the NCA to the House of Commons Russia inquiry, highlighting the widespread use of mobile phones as a reason for urgently updating and reforming the CMA. The legislation does not appear to be effective: one report I read recently suggested that less than 1% of reports of hacking led to prosecutions. There are issues about whether it even works in bringing criminals into the court system for justice.

It is right to acknowledge that it is not the case that the Act has not been updated at all. Changes have been made: punishments have increased and, significantly, the offences of impairing the use of a computer and provision of articles to facilitate misuse have been added. The Government have also started to address the problem of securing smart devices through the Product Security and Telecoms Infrastructure Bill 2022, but revisiting and broadening the scope of the CMA would improve on that and complete the move to address the internet of things security dilemma.

Perhaps a more pressing issue, which Members have rightly focused on, is that the Act does not attempt to differentiate between the motives of hackers: malign cyber criminals who intend to exploit or harm other users or their systems are treated the same as those identifying weaknesses and flagging them up for altruistic reasons. Often, ethical hackers test a company’s systems accurately by using the tools that hackers themselves would use. Those concerns have led to the CyberUp campaign and the idea of a statute of defence to protect cyber researchers identifying vulnerabilities in computer systems and company networks not to exploit them but to help fix them. I pay tribute to that campaign for helping me try to understand what this is about.

As the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) put it, all this is holding us back. While US IT security companies can offer whole-of-supply-chain vulnerability scanning to identify weaknesses that could compromise systems, UK companies cannot offer those services for fear of prosecution under the CMA. He pointed out that that has a knock-on effect on our ability to grow our expertise and talent base. If those working legitimately to uncover vulnerabilities or using hacking tools to simulate attacks are left at risk of prosecution for doing their jobs, that leaves companies, organisations and our key infrastructure more vulnerable to attack.

Adding a defence to the Act seems a sensible way to proceed. I accept that the scope of any such defence has to be judged carefully. This is not a straightforward. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) was right to raise the difficulties. While a defence should protect those engaging in legitimate vulnerability scanning or ethical hacking, the defence must be defined in a way that does not encourage vigilante activity or any sort of free-for-all. He suggested as an alternative the idea of using guidance. I must say that, as a lawyer, I slightly shy away from using guidance when the alternative is to put something on the face of a Bill; from a rule of law perspective, that is always more desirable but, again, it is something that I am open to persuasion on.

All these concerns have been recognised by the CyberUp campaign through inclusion in its proposals for various tests, including a competency element, to ensure that only a person engaged in activities covered by the Act who is competent to do so and who has good intent is protected. While it is complicated, I believe that it can be done and should be done.

I finish by again welcoming the debate and the chance to put on record our support for reviewing, revising and updating the 1990 legislation. As I said, we will work constructively on any proposals to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your expert chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) for securing today’s debate and bringing this important issue to Westminster Hall. I am also grateful to all colleagues who have taken part. It strikes me that this is a good example of bringing to bear on Parliament not just opinions or political points but real depths of expertise from the outside world. I think it has been a very good debate.

I thank the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), for the constructive way that they engaged with the important discussion. I reassure everybody that it will feed into the review, which I will come back to later. I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend that I would be pleased to meet with him and a group of colleagues to discuss the issue further—I look forward to it.

As the Minister for Security and Borders, I am keenly aware of the scale of the cyber-crime threat facing our citizens and businesses. Keeping them safe is a key priority for the Government and our operational agencies and I take this opportunity to thank all those who work tirelessly to protect the public.

The threat from cyber-crime has intensified over the last couple of years. As the hon. Member for Halifax said, the pandemic meant that even more of our lives were spent online, and, inevitably, criminals have sought to exploit that shift. The statistics bear out the scale of the threat, with computer misuse now accounting for an estimated 15% of all crime. That opportunism is despicable and underlines how crucial it is that we have a robust and effective response. The Computer Misuse Act is primarily about hacking into someone else’s computer, but clearly there are more crimes that involve misusing computers for criminal means—most fraud, for example. Later today we have the Second Reading of the Online Safety Bill, which is an ambitious and forward-looking piece of legislation that will tackle online harms around fraud and fraudulent advertising.

I turn to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about protecting individuals and small businesses. I reassure him that comprehensive advice is available from Cyber Aware. We encourage everybody to act on that, starting with three key things: protecting email security with a password made up of three random words; using two-factor authentication where that is available; and keeping operating systems up to date—often when an update comes around it is to see off some weakness that has been found.

I want to note important steps taken by industry that can make what hacking yields of less utility—things such as the banking sector’s deployment of the confirmation of payee system. We have sector charters in place with key industries, including retail banking. While Northern Ireland has a different policing arrangement, in this part of the UK we have the regional and national cyber-resilience centres, supported by policing, to help give extra support and guidance to small businesses that may have less wherewithal to invest in cyber-security expertise.

I also want to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) about skills; he is absolutely right that although the issue is about machines, it is ultimately about people. It is people who improve our defences. There are key pathways and standards in the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education system, including under the cyber-security technologist umbrella and more broadly with the introduction of T-levels. Indeed, the critical T-level is digital business services, which includes a minimum of nine weeks of industry placement. I strongly encourage firms operating in the area—in cyber-security and in-house digital technology—to support that to make sure we all work together to bring on that next generation of experts who will help keep us all safer.

[Mr Steve Baker]

The Minister has prompted me to recommend a book called “Peopleware”. It is a classic in software engineering and is all about people and how they develop software. One of its points is the orders of magnitude difference between different categories of competence in software engineering. It raises some interesting issues that I am sure he and his officials would find helpful.

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall add that to my bedtime reading list, which is not uncrowded at present. I will look forward to getting to that.

In the last year, we saw a number of high-profile ransomware attacks around the world, including attacks on local authorities and schools in the UK. The National Cyber Security Centre has reported that in just the first four months of 2021, it handled the same number of ransomware incidents as for the whole of 2020. The National Cyber Security Centre has improved our understanding of the threat and provides a unified source of advice and support to Government and business.

I am afraid that the threat posed by cyber-attacks continues to grow in scale and complexity. That is why the national cyber strategy, mentioned by a number of colleagues and published in December, sets out how the Government will invest £2.6 billion over the next three years to develop a whole-of-society approach to increasing national cyber-security and resilience, including reducing the risk and opportunity for cyber-crimes and disrupting cyber-criminals. As part of that funding, we will continue to invest in the law enforcement cyber-crime network at national, regional and local level. In the face of such a broad and complex threat picture, law enforcement agencies must have the powers they need to investigate online criminality. It is also essential that we have robust legislation in place to enable action to be taken against the perpetrators.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) was right about how much has changed since 1990, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness pointed out that the world is more interconnected than ever. Next year, it will be even more interconnected again. All that is correct and we must make sure we are up to date and up to pace. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) pointed out, it is also the case that over the last 30 years, the Computer Misuse Act has generally proven to be a far-sighted piece of legislation for tackling unauthorised access to systems. As the threat has changed, so too has the Act, which has been updated a number of times—most recently in 2015, where the offence of unauthorised acts causing, or creating risk of, serious damage was introduced.

We are firmly and fully committed to ensuring the legislative framework that underpins our efforts to address cyber-crime remains relevant and effective. That is why last May the Home Secretary announced a review of the Computer Misuse Act. The Home Office subsequently launched a call for information, which marked the first step in that process. The purpose of the call for information was to seek views of interested stakeholders across the piece, including in industry, academia and the agencies, on the Act and the associated investigative powers available to law enforcement. The Home Office has received responses covering a range of interesting and complex issues and we are grateful to those who have sent in their views. We are considering the feedback submitted and continue to engage with partners to determine whether changes are needed. We will provide an update on the initial findings of the review shortly.

I want to touch on a couple of key points directly relating to the Act that will influence the approach we take on defences. First, the Act is based on the principle that the owner of the computer and computer data has the right to say who can access it. I want to stress that point, which was made repeatedly during the development of the Act. Authorisation to access a system is the prerogative of the owner. It is that person who is responsible for the operation of the system and bears the cost of securing it.

Equally, the Government are rightly seeking to ensure that system owners take more responsibility for the security of their systems and the content held on them. Therefore it is right that the system owner has the protection of the law from those who obtain or attempt to obtain unauthorised access to computers and their data. We encourage firms to agree to having their systems tested for vulnerabilities by third parties but the fundamental point is that it is the choice of the legal property owner to determine that.

Secondly, we need to ensure that the Act continues to criminalise those who take unauthorised action against computer systems and provides the legal basis for relevant legal authorities to act.

In launching the review, we have been clear that we are open to changes to the Act that enhance our approach to that threat. However, I must also emphasise that any such changes should be well-considered and well-evidenced. We must guard against taking any action that would undermine the ability of law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to investigate criminals and prosecute them.

I have heard the views of Members on defences. My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness identified the nuance very well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe did the nuance of the registration of industry professionals. We are still considering the question of defences, but I am sure that Members would agree with me that we cannot put in place measures that would act as a mechanism for criminals and state actors to hide behind. That is why we need to tread cautiously. An ill-conceived defence could leave prosecutors with the burden of trying to prove a negative, for example, in needing to prove that cyber-attacker X was not, in fact, intending to protect a computer system when they attempted to access it without permission.

It is also worth pointing out that there are already defences in the Act that apply to cyber-security activity. If a person has the authorisation of the system owner to access the system, no offence is committed. In addition, any decision on prosecution is a matter for independent law enforcement and prosecuting agencies who take into account all relevant facts of the case. We must also ensure that any changes to the Act do not permit or encourage retaliatory cyber-activity, sometimes known as “hack back”. There is a danger that such a defence could embolden so-called hacktivists, or commercial entities who wish to offer such services, if they believe their actions could be protected under the law. The UK does not condone unlawful cyber-attacks of any kind.

Some responses to the call for information set out proposals for a review of sentences, and we have also had suggestions for new powers for law enforcement agencies to take action against criminals online. We are considering them as part of the review, including whether sentencing guidelines are needed to ensure that the harms caused by those committing Computer Misuse Act offences are appropriately considered during sentencing.

The hon. Member for Halifax asked a direct question and yes, state threats in this area are absolutely a prevalent and growing issue. I know she would not expect me to give a commentary on a specific security matter, but I want to reassure her and the House that the Government take extremely seriously the question about state capability in this area.

There is absolutely no doubt that the UK needs a Computer Misuse Act that is fit for purpose and can rise to the challenges of the present day. As colleagues know, the Home Office is engaged in a review that is charged specifically with ensuring exactly that.

The context of the war in Ukraine makes that work more important than ever, as the shadow Minister said quite rightly. I am acutely conscious of that, but we cannot rush this. That would only serve to help our adversaries. We are, therefore, approaching the exercise with the careful consideration that the public would expect and which these sometimes complex issues demand. Through the review, and as part of business as usual, we are listening attentively to law enforcement agencies and National Cyber Security Centre experts on what is most likely to enhance our national cybersecurity. Of course, we are also studying the approaches of other countries.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend for securing the debate, which has been interesting and insightful. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to outline our activity in the space and, as I said at the start of my remarks, I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend and colleagues to discuss it further.

Refugees from Ukraine

Steve Baker Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

Exactly, the laws do need to change. We will look at every single aspect of prosecutions and how we can ensure that we all achieve the right outcome.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend said about the number of appointments there will be, and I am grateful to the visa application centre staff for working so hard, but I understand that the Warsaw centre closes at 5 pm and at weekends. Could she do something to extend the opening hours?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The opening hours are because of labour laws in Poland. There have been extensive discussions with the Government, the Foreign Office and the Home Office on extensions. We would love the centres to work much longer hours, including at weekends. Believe me, we have been pursuing this. As I said, every country in the region has a different response and different laws that we have to respect and work with. We are doing everything we possibly can to get those extensions.

HMICFRS Recommendations

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

It is a pleasure to respond to the Chair of the Select Committee. The rape review is a cross-Government effort led by the deputy Prime Minister. A number of Ministers are involved in it, most notably myself and the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). We work together to make sure that our two Departments co-ordinate on these very important issues. We will be coming forward in due course with our response to the report that was published last Friday, and we will be happy to come back to the House or answer questions in the usual way.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I welcome this statement very strongly. May I highlight to my hon. Friend the case of the rape and murder of Libby Squire? Her parents still live in my constituency; the case of course took place in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). The case particularly highlights how behaviours can escalate from non-contact sexual offences to, as I say, rape and murder. What will my hon. Friend do to make sure that those patterns of escalation are effectively dealt with so that tragedies like that can be avoided in future?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this atrocious case to the House’s attention again and for all his work on behalf of the victim’s family. He is right to highlight the trends of escalating offences, which are an integral part of our Operation Soteria work and which we are dealing with through the rape review. The academics reviewing cases in which things have gone wrong, or have not progressed as fast as they should, have come forward with recommendations that are being implemented in forces at pace. We are rolling out the model of best practice in investigations to a further 14 forces and will stand it up nationally to forces across the country, because we need these patterns to be recognised and tackled as soon as they occur.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

Strong local policing is absolutely in the DNA of neighbourhood policing. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that this Government are not only funding but backing the police, with almost £15.9 billion in this financial year, and increasing police numbers to 20,000. He will also know that his local police recruitment numbers have gone up and that his local force has already recruited 138 police officers.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I was very pleased to see Thames Valley police launch a new recruitment campaign for PCSOs. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking PCSOs for all they do to support the people in Wycombe and across Thames valley and the whole country? Will she also join me in welcoming that campaign and encouraging people to apply?

[Priti Patel]

I agree and congratulate Thames Valley police force; it has exceptional leadership and all officers there and across the country are doing great work. That recruitment campaign is vital and is going incredibly well. We have just over 11,000 new police recruits and officers on the streets of England and Wales and the numbers will grow and grow. Of course, this is all about keeping our communities safe.

English Channel Small Boats Incident

Steve Baker Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman has made a reasonable point about the language that is being used. We see a lot and we hear a lot, and even during the Afghanistan operations, such as Operation Pitting, I heard a great deal of what seemed to me to be inappropriate language about people who were fleeing. So yes, I will do that.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I think that people in Wycombe would expect the Government to act with absolute resolve to get a grip on this problem, and also with compassion to save lives and look after people. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that that is her policy—to look after people, but to get a grip on the problem?

[Priti Patel]

I can absolutely reassure my hon. Friend, but I think that the approach we are taking is more than “grip”. We have just been speaking about language, and “grip” is quite a simplistic word given the complexity of this issue. It is a very complicated issue, and it requires action in a plethora of areas. Humanity and decency are crucial, however, and while I will not labour the point, this brings us back to the question of how people are treated when they come to our country, how we accommodate them and how we support them. This is what we want to change with the Nationality and Borders Bill, because we can do things better. Our system is broken, and it is incumbent on us to apply a range of skills, experience and knowledge to provide a better system.

Nightclub Safety

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I welcome today’s extremely important debate. I agree overwhelmingly with what other Members have said.

I came to speak in this debate because I was contacted this morning by a concerned parent about what was, to me, a new horror: spiking by injection. It is fair to say that when I was young enough to go to nightclubs—a very long time ago—we may have feared that people would spike our drinks with spirits. The idea that today, people—overwhelmingly young women, I understand—might be spiked by injection is a grave horror. I want to use the word “grave” a few times.

To inject a person against their will should be regarded as a grave assault—one of the most serious assaults. They are injected not only against their will, but with a substance unknown, with the purpose of intoxicating them and, presumably, with a view towards raping them. That is the most extraordinary horror. Yet, as we heard earlier, the police do not always take it as seriously as they might. I want to know what my hon. Friend the Minister is going to do to make sure that what is the most exceptionally serious assault is treated as such. This kind of crime should attract the most serious penalties, and no one should be in any doubt about how serious it is. That includes security staff at nightclubs and police officers, though I do not wish to assign blame to any of those groups. Ambulance crews should also be aware that while somebody they pick up may seem to be intoxicated, they might in fact have been injected with a drug.

This morning, after hearing such an alarming account, I called Michael Kill, the chief executive of the Night Time Industries Association, and asked him about it. I will not repeat the remarks that the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) made about his comments, but I will add an extra quote:

“Our industry has been deeply concerned by the rise in reported spiking incidents across the country, and have been extremely proactive in our reaction so that everyone can enjoy a night out free from fear of being spiked, as it should be.”

He goes on to refer to the Home Office inquiry sought by the association and to which the hon. Lady has referred.

I strongly endorse the call for action on spiking by injection. Of course, I care about spiking through drinks as well, but we should draw the distinction that injecting somebody with a substance unknown ought to be treated as among the most grievous assaults that could be carried out, partly because of its motivation, which is probably that of rape. I am so horrified that I find it difficult to put it in words, so I do not wish to labour the point.

My final point is a difficult one to make. It is about the hon. Lady’s point about men as a class. I do not doubt for a moment that men as a class conduct most of the violence that is conducted against others and against women. I am very much inclined to take the position that she set out that men should do this or that. However, one of the women in my team, who has worked in the past with abused men, asked me not to do that, because the vast majority of men are decent, civilised and law-abiding people who want women to be treated with respect and do not perpetrate violence. I have been asked, despite a mistaken chivalry on my part, not to blame men as a class.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I totally respect the hon. Member’s comments about men. It is just that the victims in this case tend to be women and the perpetrators tend to be men, but I completely respect that my comments may have come across like that. We do have an issue that we need to address—let us work together and not make it an issue of sex, but of how we can keep people safe.

[Mr Baker]

I absolutely welcome what the hon. Lady says, and I am grateful to her for it.

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Baker]

Suddenly we are having a debate.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I totally respect what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course, we should not undo the fact that many men behave well and are decent towards women. However, we have a culture where women are not treated with respect where, through banter and all sorts of things, it goes into more horrible and violent behaviour. It is the underlying and, unfortunately, still prevalent culture of disrespect to women that we need to address.

[Mr Baker]

As I have said, my instinct is with the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Gower, but I have been asked to swallow my pride and to not demand that fellow men as a class change their behaviour; it is men who commit wicked acts who need to change. It is men whose attitudes towards women are appalling who need to change. It is people who do wicked things who need to change, and we need to be a bit careful about painting all men as some kind of criminals.

[Geraint Davies]

The basic point is that 5.2% of sexual assaults involve drugging people. Of those, 5% are against women and 0.2% against men. In other words, the incidence is twenty-fivefold for women, so we have to put this in context. Men and women are victims, but it is basically about men attacking women, so let us not pretend that it is not.

[Mr Baker]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind me saying that any fair-minded person listening to my remarks will not suggest for a moment that I have pretended what he suggested. What we need to do is carry all men with us. All men need to understand that we have a duty towards women and to treat women equally, but we also must be careful to not do what I have perhaps done in the past, which is to have a chivalry, which is seen as misplaced these days.

I do not think my wife would mind me saying that I am married to a retired Royal Air Force wing commander who has been on operational service a number of times, and I think I can fairly claim to be capable of treating women equally. Indeed, I recognise that my military service was not anything like my wife’s military service. I yield to no one in my willingness to treat women with respect and equally, but I recognise the statistical reality the hon. Gentleman gave. We need to recognise that we need to carry men with us if we are going to solve the problem of violence against women and girls.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but I hope he will agree that we have to educate our young boys so that they become men who will righty treat women with the respect they deserve. It starts from school. Those young boys will grow up to become the men who will stand up and protect women and girls, and carry society with them.

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the issue of schools. Every time I listen to teachers, particularly headteachers, I hear inspiring messages about how we should behave and the values we should have. Indeed, I wish those messages were heard far more often among the adult population, not least Members of Parliament—excluding, of course, everyone present at this debate.

I agree with the hon. Lady on schools and education. We must ask ourselves, however, how can it be that, even though headteachers and teachers articulate values of which we can all be proud, somehow people who make it through the system end up conducting violence against women and girls. Sometimes that begins with relatively minor behaviours, which then escalate out of all proportion into the most heinous crimes. We have to challenge ourselves on all of these matters.

To conclude, we ought to be taking much more seriously the problem of spiking people by injection, which is part of an escalation of abuse directed overwhelmingly towards women. It is among the most grievous crimes that one could conceive. It seems to lead overwhelmingly towards an intention to rape women, and it must be treated with the gravity that those implications deserve. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure us all that spiking by injection will be dealt with in the proper manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Going out and having fun is an important part of everyone’s life. We need it for our general wellbeing, to switch off from our busy working lives, and for our social lives. Nobody should be excluded from it, or live in fear that their night out will turn into a nightmare. Why should so many women live with that fear when most men do not?

I am fully behind the many women, including those in my constituency in Bath, who have taken to the streets or boycotted nightclubs to campaign against the rise of spiking incidents. Just imagine the fear and trauma of suddenly losing control of your body on a night out: your vision becomes blurry; you feel dizzy or sick; your memory disappears. You wake up in the morning with no recollection of how you got home, or with a fear that something really bad happened that you cannot even remember.

Spiking is predominantly an attack on women, and happens primarily to young women. One of my constituents wrote to me to say,

“not only have I been spiked myself—so have two of my close friends and nameless other girls I know”.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council has reported almost 200 confirmed incidents of drink spiking across the UK in the past two months alone. Reports of spiking by needle have added an extra layer of fear, and I completely agree with the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) that those reports need to be treated with much more severity, because they represent another level of crime. Those recent reports are not isolated incidents: data shows that drink spiking has been a growing problem in the UK for several years. Over 2,600 reports of spiking have been made to the police in England and Wales between 2015 and 2019, and that number may just be the tip of the iceberg, as many who have been spiked do not come forward.

Some have called for increased police presence in venues, or searches upon entry to night-time venues, but I am not sure that that is the right approach to stamping out spiking once and for all. As we have seen with stop and search policies under the Government’s hostile environment policy, increased police presence and searches often end up disproportionately affecting marginalised communities. We need a solution that considers the impact on all groups within our society. However, the Government should act urgently to make night-time venues safer for everybody. Spiking test strips should be made freely available at every venue; if necessary, that should be backed by Government funding. Police and venue staff should be given specific training to spot the signs of spiking so that they can give proper support when incidents occur. I urge the Minister to convene a conference of senior police officers from forces across the country as soon as possible. We need to get a complete picture of what is happening and draw up a national action plan on spiking, particularly the urgent issue of spiking by injection.

There is an epidemic of violence against women, and the rise in spiking incidents is simply the latest manifestation of that. We need to get to the root causes of why so many women are still regarded as inferior or, worse, a target for hate. Again, I agree with the hon. Member for Gower—

[Mr Steve Baker]

Wycombe!

[Wera Hobhouse]

I mean the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)—I am terrible with names. We need to bring everybody with us in order to achieve behavioural change—I do get it—but we also need to call out what needs to be called out, which is that this behaviour is increasing, and it is predominantly a crime committed by men against women. We cannot paint that fact out of the picture, but we absolutely need to have men on our side, and we need men to find this behaviour despicable. I know that many men, particularly in this Chamber, find it despicable and are on our side as women to stamp it out.

I repeat my call to the Minister to make misogyny a hate crime. The culture that allows crimes such as spiking to continue without sanction must change. Women must be given confidence that the system is not stacked against them, and must feel confident that those who are perpetrators of disrespect and hate against women are being brought to justice. That starts by making misogyny a hate crime, but today we are talking about spiking, so I look for leadership and urgent action from the Government. They should call a conference of all senior police officers across the country in order to get a proper picture, and listen to what the young women who have been affected by this despicable crime are asking for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the night-time economy is vital. It is very important that we have thriving local economies. It is a vital to our financial prosperity, and it is part of our building back better agenda.

Turning to the issue and petition at hand, there are, of course, growing concerns about safety in the night-time economy. The specific focus on searches in nightclubs comes as no surprise. We know that over 172,000 people have added their name to the petition. I am sure that that is driven by concern over the rise of media reports on spiking. It is perhaps not a completely new issue, but there has been a focus on the needle aspect as something that is new. It is certainly receiving a lot more attention than it has done in the past. However, Members have rightly said that the spiking of drinks is something we have seen for some time.

Reports of spiking, whether that is adding substances to drinks or injecting people with needles, are extremely concerning. I have every sympathy with victims and anyone who might feel unable to go out and enjoy a night out without fear. The fear factor is very serious, and no one should feel frightened or vulnerable when they go out. We utterly condemn the people who perpetrated those attacks, and they should be brought to justice. I want to begin by saying very clearly that I want to reassure Members that this is something that we are taking seriously. The day on which we heard the first accounts—I think it was a few weeks ago—the Home Secretary wasted no time in getting reports, requiring additional data and convening police chiefs at the highest level.

Let me be clear: any spiking constitutes criminal conduct. The necessary offences are on the statute book. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), where a drink is spiked and where there is sexual motivation, administering a substance with intent is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and could carry a 10-year sentence. Depending on the specific nature of the assault and offence, it could also be classed as common assault, which includes grievous bodily harm, and could carry a sentence of five years up to a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment. I want to reassure him that this is a serious criminal offence. As with any crime, it falls to the police to investigate it and ensure that those responsible are dealt with in accordance with the law.

I want to update the Chamber on the fact that there is no doubt that police are taking this seriously and are working at pace to gather intelligence and identify perpetrators. It is a changing and evolving picture. We have been gathering reports from forces across the country, and at the time of my making these remarks, we have 218 reports of needle assaults and injections since September. Over the same period, the police are aware of 250 drink spikings. Those numbers broadly chime with what Members have reported to me. Those numbers are subject to change as the police continue to gather information. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley is right in saying that this is a crime in which not all instances are reported. I strongly encourage anyone who has been a victim to report it to the police. It is difficult to make comparisons with the past, and I have stressed to my team that we need to understand more about this crime, and that is absolutely what we will do.

Members may be pleased to know that there have been at least three recent arrests for this and a number of active police investigations are under way. I very much hope that we will be able to bring more perpetrators to justice in the coming weeks.

[Mr Steve Baker]

I am very grateful for what the Minister has said. Will she undertake to carry out some kind of public information activity to make sure that potential perpetrators are aware of the gravity of the offences that they are considering? We need to make sure that people are dissuaded from what, I think we all agree, is a very serious set of crimes.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Steve Baker Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

We have had a lively debate, and I want to pay tribute to the many excellent speeches made on this side of the House. On the issue of the broken asylum system, I want to thank colleagues including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), who all spoke about the length of time it takes to process claims.

On the need for safe routes, I want to thank colleagues including my right hon. Friends the Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for pointing out the need for those routes.

On the issue of the two-tier system, which penalises asylum seekers in breach of the 1951 refugee convention, I want to thank colleagues including my hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), for Newport West (Ruth Jones), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who also spoke about Einstein’s experience during the 1930s when he was a refugee here.

On the issue of strong support from the community for refugees, I want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who spoke about their cities of sanctuary and their community groups that are ensuring that there is support for refugees in their communities.

As many hon. Members have mentioned, next week marks the 70th anniversary of the refugee convention. I am proud of the leading role that the UK played in coming together with our international partners in the aftermath of the second world war to offer refuge to people seeking sanctuary here and across Europe, and to help to rebuild a shattered Europe. That legacy goes hand in hand with the British values of fair play, decency and respect for international law, but this Bill steps back from that agreement and once again further diminishes the UK’s international standing in the world. It is a dangerous, draconian, dog-whistling piece of legislation. It threatens those values, it is ill conceived and it is being rushed through for media headlines rather than getting to grips with our broken asylum system.

The basis of the Bill was the Government’s consultation, the “New Plan for Immigration”. The consultation was meant to inform the Government and help to shape policy, but as yet we have not been told what the responses to the consultation said and we have not seen the Government’s response to the consultation. Instead, we have this rushed Bill. Like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, the Bill is a case of sentence first, verdict afterwards. That is how the Government want to treat asylum seekers: criminalising them first and checking their claims later.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has said twice that the Bill was rushed, but we are now at the end of the second day of debate on Second Reading. This is extremely rare, in my short experience in this House. How many days of debate would he want before he would say that it was not rushed?

[Bambos Charalambous]

The hon. Member misunderstands me. It is the process of the Bill getting here that has been rushed, not the debate we have had today.

There is also no impact assessment accompanying the Bill. We have no idea how much it will cost or what the overall impact will be.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Steve Baker Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

This Bill delivers on our promise to the British people to keep them safe and to crack down on criminals. This Bill backs the police, recognising the unique and enormous sacrifices they and their families make to protect us all. This Bill imposes a legal duty on local councils, the police, health services, schools and prisons to work together to prevent serious violence in their neighbourhoods.

This Bill balances the rights of protestors to demonstrate with the rights of residents to access hospitals, to go to work, to let their children sleep at night. And, despite some of the claims from the Opposition, this Bill includes measures that will help to protect women and girls, but that go further than that and protect the whole of society from some of the most dangerous offenders that are sentenced. This includes managing sex offenders before and after conviction and, importantly, providing clarity on the extraction of data from victims’ phones, in line with the rape review that the Government published only a few weeks ago.

Let me briefly address the Government amendments in this group. In Committee, I undertook to consider further whether the reporting duty in respect of the police covenant should be extended to apply to the British Transport police, the Ministry of Defence police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. Having reflected further, we agree. We want the wider policing family to be included in the covenant, and amendment 34 does exactly that, covering not only these three forces but the National Crime Agency. They do essential work for us, and we want them and their families to be looked after.

Government amendments 35 to 45 standardise the traffic offences in clauses 4 and 5, and clauses in relation to serious violence reduction orders, for the British Transport police—again, consistency in how we deal with these important matters.

Let me turn to the non-Government amendments. I will not be able to deal with them all, but I will pick out the ones that have been talked about most frequently. First, I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and many other Members across the House for raising the issue of sexual harassment, not just in the context of this Bill but in our wider work.

The murders that, sadly, we have heard so much about in this Chamber—the murders of Nicole Smallman, Bibaa Henry, Sarah Everard and PCSO Julia James—have caused millions of women and girls to share their own experiences and fears of walking in our towns and cities. We have also heard girls’ stories about their experiences at school through the social media platform Everyone’s Invited.

We are listening to women and girls. In March, we reopened the survey on violence against women and girls and received more than 180,000 responses in terms of the survey as a whole. Each of those responses is helping to shape our work developing this vital strategy. We therefore recognise the shocking extent of street harassment and the strength of feeling concerning the need for a new offence.

While it is the case that there are already offences available to address sexual harassment behaviour, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham, whom I have met recently to discuss this, can rest assured that we remain open-minded on this issue and are continuing to examine the case for a bespoke offence. As part of the commitment, the new strategy on tackling violence against women and girls will focus on the need to educate and to change cultural attitudes. A new offence can do so much, but we need to go further than that, and that is our intention.

As I announced in Committee, I am pleased that as part of the cross-government work and work across agencies, the College of Policing intends to develop advice for police forces to assist them to use existing offences in the most effective way to address reports of sexual harassment, and the CPS will be updating its guidance to include specific material on sexual harassment.

Moving on, new clauses 26 and 27 have been tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson)—indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) has spoken to me about this—and they come out of the very tragic circumstances of the rape and murder of Libby Squire. As a constituency MP near the Humber, I very much join both the right hon. Lady and my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Libby and her family.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me and my constituent Lisa Squire that it is vitally important that non-contact sexual offences are promptly reported so that the provisions can work?

[Victoria Atkins]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend and, indeed, his constituent, Mrs Squire. We need please to get the message out from this Chamber to encourage victims, where non-contact sexual offences are being committed, and where they are able to and where they feel able to, to report those offences to the police, so that these escalating behaviours can create a pattern that the police can review. That is why I have great sympathy with the new clauses that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North has tabled. I am pleased to reassure her that we are very much taking the point on board when it comes to developing the strategy.

In terms of other matters relating to sex offenders, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke have pressed upon me the need for a review of how registered sex offenders can change their name without the police’s knowledge. We have some of the toughest rules in the world for the management of sex offenders, but we recognise those concerns.

We do not want any loopholes that can be exploited by sex offenders to enable offending and to evade detection by the changing of names. Indeed, only last week I met the Master of the Rolls and my counterpart Lord Wolfson in the Ministry of Justice to discuss this critical issue. I am pleased to advise the House that we are conducting a time-limited review of the enrolled and unenrolled processes for changing names to better understand the scale and nature of the issue, whether current processes are being or could be exploited to facilitate further offending and, if so, how that can be addressed.

Colleagues have expressed understandable concern regarding the treatment of key workers, particularly those who keep our shops and supermarkets open and stocked, those who keep our buses and trains running, and key workers such as refuse collectors, park staff, teachers and others who perform a vital duty at any time, but particularly in the very difficult 18 months we have all experienced. We are very conscious that when our constituents are serving the public and delivering key services, they must feel safe doing so. No one should feel unsafe in their workplace. We therefore all feel anguish about some of the stories we have heard in relation to retail and other workers over the past year.

The Lord Chancellor and, indeed, the Government, completely understand the sentiments behind the new clauses tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers), and I hope that Members have heard the indication that we gave earlier in the debate. There is a range of existing laws, with significant penalties, that cover assaults and abuse of all public-facing workers. Sentencing guidelines already require the courts to consider as an aggravating factor, meriting an increased sentence, an offence that has been committed against a person serving the public. However, I make it clear that we want to assure my hon. Friend and Members of all parties that we are not complacent about the matter and that we are actively considering tabling an amendment, if appropriate, in the Lords.

Our genuine concerns about the new clauses relate to technical issues with some of the drafting. There is vagueness about the nature of the assault offence. It overlaps with existing offences and there seems to be reference to Scottish provisions, which we believe to be unnecessary. I say to the House in an open-hearted, open-handed way that we are looking at the matter and that we want to work not only with hon. Members with but the retail sector to improve the reporting of those offences and the police response.

I turn now to the public order provisions. There has been much debate about those measures. Some of it has been informed by fact, but some has been informed by misunderstanding. The measures have been developed in consultation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Metropolitan police to improve the police’s ability to better manage highly disruptive protests. Such protests have brought parts of London in particular, but also elsewhere, to a standstill. There have been instances of ambulances being obstructed. Protesters have disrupted the distribution of national newspapers and, given that we are discussing freedom of expression and freedom of speech, I hope that colleagues will understand why we are so concerned to ensure that newspapers can be produced.

Protests have prevented hard-working people from getting to work and drawn thousands of police officers away from the local communities they serve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), particularly as he referred to my new clauses—although not all of them, it has to be said. He referred to one of them, but there are two more. The new clauses are very clear, and I shall speak to them this evening. New clause 14 would require the cash sale of pets to be banned so that the only way for people to do those sales would be by cheque or bank transfer. That would mean that pet sellers could be tracked and the owners identified. This has become too easy a business.

New clause 15 would make it compulsory for pets that have to be microchipped to be scanned as well by vets, to check that the microchip number is registered on an approved database and that it confirms the correct registered keeper. New clause 16 would make the offence of pet theft a specific category of crime, as the right hon. Member for Tottenham said, carrying a much more significant set of fines and even incarceration.

[Mr Steve Baker]

Of course I share my right hon. Friend’s sentiment, but I was a bit concerned when I read his new clause about microchips. Is it really going to end up creating offences for vets? I would have thought they already had enough on their plates in often difficult and emotional circumstances.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

That may be the case, but the reality is that, by law, dogs must be microchipped. It makes no sense to microchip a dog, only for some vets not to scan them. That would mean that people who had stolen dogs could simply take them to the vet of their choice, knowing that they would not be scanned. The point is that if we have an offence, we must follow it through. Those pets must be scanned; otherwise, they will get stolen and sold without redress.

Those were the three areas that were raised with me, and many of my colleagues and friends who have signed these new clauses have also faced the same concerns. There has been a staggering welling up of anger, concern and worry about what might happen to people’s pets. There are some who will not go on walks with their dogs at the moment for fear of what might happen. It is important for the Government to recognise that this is a major concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

Other hon. Members have spoken eloquently about some of the amendments and new clauses that I strongly support: to protect shop workers from abuse; to protect people from harassment outside abortion clinics, as has happened in my constituency; and to protect the ability to meaningfully protest. I therefore want to confine my brief remarks to new clause 30, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). It is the same as a new clause that was tabled in Committee in her name and my own. I do not need to speak for long because she covered the issues very well in her excellent speech.

I want to pay tribute to my constituent Julia Cooper, who first approached me a few months ago to tell me about her experience at Sale Water Park, which is adjacent to my constituency. She had been out with a friend and was breastfeeding her baby when a stranger put on a telephoto lens and started taking photographs of her in the park without permission. She confronted the individual, but he refused to delete the pictures. She complained to the park authorities and then to the police, and was told that there was nothing that they could do. I was shocked for two reasons. First, I was shocked that a stranger would actually take long lens photos of someone breastfeeding without their consent. Secondly, I was equally shocked that the police said that there was nothing in the law that they could do to tackle the issue.

When I raised this issue previously in Women and Equalities questions in the Chamber, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), said:

“This is unacceptable and we will deal with it.”—[Official Report, 26 May 2021; Vol. 696, c. 364.]

It is therefore disappointing, having raised the issue in Committee and tabling the new clause today, that the Government seem to be kicking this into the long grass with a review by the Law Commission. This is a pretty simple issue that could be dealt with quickly and effectively today through new clause 30. We should accept the new clause, because the number of people who have contacted Julia, other campaigners and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow are testament to the number of times that this has happened around the country. It is now happening every week.

We ought to be taking action now. We should not be kicking this issue into the long grass. If this new clause is pushed to a vote this evening, and I hope that it may be, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to support it. If not, I do hope that the Lords will look at this issue and perhaps bring forward something similar when it is dealt with there. It is shocking and disgraceful behaviour, and we could take action today—now—to stop it.

[Mr Steve Baker]

I want to address new clause 76, which offers the Government an opportunity to save lives. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is not in his place, but I have let him know that I will mention him. On this occasion, he has been a bit soft. I think that is probably the first time that I have said that and it will probably be the last time that I do. The reason that I say it is that in his new clause 76, he proposes increasing the penalty for dangerous driving from two years’ to five years’ imprisonment. I have only had a cursory search and the Justice Secretary will probably correct me if I am wrong, but the problem with my hon. Friend’s suggestion is that the maximum penalty for possession of class A drugs is seven years and for possession of firearms 10 years.

I will touch on this matter briefly, because I am not sure whether it has been through the courts. I had occasion, through very nearly becoming a victim of a dangerous driver evading the police, to have various conversations with police drivers, and they seem to be of the opinion that miscreants know the various penalties for dangerous driving, possession of drugs and the possession of firearms, and they will evade the police and drive at enormous speed simply to make sure that they are not caught with firearms or drugs in the car, so there is a problem with the structure of incentives around dangerous driving. Elsewhere, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley tabled an amendment relating to a requirement to turn off the engine, but the point is that if police officers seek to stop someone who knows they are in possession of firearms or drugs, which would earn them a sentence greater than that for dangerous driving, then off they might well go. That can be a very dangerous thing indeed. I should not mention the speeds involved, but I know that people will find ways, with very high-performance cars, of outrunning the police.

My suggestion to the Government is to take advantage of this Bill and the section relating to driving offences, inspired by new clause 76, and do something to make sure that an offence is introduced for which the penalty, if someone refuses to stop for the police and then drives in an evasive manner, committing dangerous driving offences, is sufficient to deter even people who might have firearms or class A drugs in the vehicle. I encourage Ministers to consult police officers who drive with that in mind. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise this issue with my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s recognition that we are facing a crisis in policing, the criminal justice system and the courts, because even before the pandemic, their austerity cuts over the past decade have brought the justice system to its knees, with the Ministry of Justice losing a quarter of its budget. I support new clauses 89, 97, 28, 31 and 32.

The Government voted against Labour’s proposals to increase minimum sentences for rapists and against toughening sentences for domestic abusers and murderers, but this Bill is full of divisive nonsense such as locking up protesters who cause annoyance or damage statues of slave owners for longer than those who rape women. This should have been a watershed moment to change the criminal justice system so that it works for women, not to try to divide the country.

The Conservatives’ Bill is not tough on crime. It is tough on the freedoms, rights and civil liberties that we all enjoy. The tragic death of Sarah Everard instigated a national demand for action to tackle violence against women. The last thing that the Government should be doing is rushing through poorly thought-out measures to impose disproportionate controls on freedoms of expression and the right to protest. Now is the time to unite the country and put in place long overdue protections for women against unacceptable violence, including action against domestic homicide, rape and street harassment, as well as tackling the misogynistic attitudes that underpin the abuse of women.

Just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister was forced to apologise to rape victims for the record low conviction and prosecution rates under his watch. That is a stain on our country, and I hope that all Members across the House agree that action must be taken to make it easier for rape victims from the moment they report the crime through to the conclusion of their case and beyond. I urge all Ministers to support Labour’s amendment that would help to make it easier for victims of rape and sexual assault to give evidence.

The Crown court backlog is now at a record high of 60,000 cases. Victims face wait times of up to four years, and many give up before the process has begun because they cannot face the extensive distress and trauma. Nearly 300 courts across England and Wales have been closed during the past decade of Tory rule, and there are 27,000 fewer sitting days than in 2016. According to Citizens Advice, the backlog of individual tribunal cases is likely to reach more than half a million by spring unless swift action is taken and serious funding committed.

The Bill is an opportunity to rebalance the scales of justice to ensure access for ordinary people and to tackle the systemic barriers and record backlog in our creaking and hollowed-out justice system. I call on Members across the House to support the amendments that the Labour party has tabled to help tackle some of the most difficult challenges faced by our criminal justice system.

Windrush Day 2021

Steve Baker Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I begin by referring to my unremunerated interest as chairman of the advisory board of Conservatives Against Racism For Equality. I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), and I think it is time that we embrace the truth that she spoke: I certainly hope to do so. I do not think anybody could fail to be moved by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley)—I was particularly taken and moved by what he said—and I hope that both of us live long enough to see the day when skin colour matters no more or less than the colour of our eyes.

I am very glad to have co-sponsored this debate, and I am delighted to speak in it. I want to do three things: celebrate the Windrush generation, put a lament before the Minister, and then make some suggestions about what can be done. I really do celebrate the Windrush generation. About 5% of my constituents are black. They are overwhelmingly people connected to St Vincent and the Grenadines. They make a wonderful contribution to our community. No one who has listened to Wycombe Steel Orchestra could fail to enjoy it and no one could fail to notice the wonderful range of people involved in it—black and white together, enjoying themselves, celebrating their music and contributing to our community. The Windrush generation saved, rebuilt and contributed to our country, and have shared in our prosperity, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West said, all too often they have not been well treated. That brings me to my second point.

When I look back at that time, I do really lament the way that people were treated. The Windrush generation came off the boat, as it was, and can clearly be seen in the footage and photographs to be wearing their very best clothes, putting their best foot forward, and coming—in a spirit of good will, hope and optimism—to contribute to this country. But when I listen to the stories that people tell me, very plainly they were not welcomed as they should have been; very plainly, the United Kingdom was not prepared to welcome people as it should have done. People were not treated as I would wish. I am very sorry about that, but it is not an injustice that I think we can put right today. We can put right, though, the things that people suffer in this age.

I recently met a young woman and was surprised to hear her story, which she has given me permission to mention. She was schooled in Wycombe. She is not very much younger than me—perhaps in her 30s; I flatter myself, having just turned 50. She told me that when she went through school in Wycombe, a teacher actually put her, as a young black girl, in a separate room with Asian children and did not teach them. What unspeakable racism such a thing would be.

I am happy to say that it must surely be unthinkable that such a thing would be tolerated today. If it were to happen, surely children, on speaking to their parents, would find that their parents were today empowered to complain immediately; and all of us would move swiftly to condemn it. Yet the woman who told me this story was not that much younger than me and it happened in my town. Let me be very clear that it is not happening today. If it was, it would be rooted out. I am very proud of all our schools, which are diverse and brilliant, and give children the best possible opportunities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have been sitting here listening to the contributions, including the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). As the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) will know, in Northern Ireland we have had 30 years of conflict. That conflict is over. We have an opportunity to build a future where we can have a shared society and a shared history, and there are many good things in Northern Ireland that I believe could be used for the betterment of people in this House and in England. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that we can all learn lessons from Northern Ireland, as our society has moved forward constructively?

[Mr Baker]

There certainly are lessons from Northern Ireland, yes. I have occasionally visited Belfast to hear from people there. The hon. Gentleman reminds me that humanity’s capacity to find reasons for hatred is almost unbounded, and it is sorrowful, particularly in Northern Ireland, that people have hated one another on the grounds of theological matters, which should be matters of academic interest and certainly not things over which anyone should hate.

I want to touch on the Windrush Day celebration that we had this year. Somebody on the call complained, actually, that the first item we watched was a film—I think from the ’80s; perhaps the late ’80s—that related to a moment of tension in Wycombe, when some young black men and some young white men had come into conflict over football and an event going on somewhere else. When I watched the film, there were young black men in Wycombe complaining about how they had been treated, and one of the things I noticed was how justified they were. They were clearly intelligent, articulate and well-meaning, and completely dumbfounded and bewildered that anyone had so misconstrued their intentions and misrepresented the actions that had taken place. For example, the film covered an allegation that petrol bombs had been used, when no such thing had happened. It was a fiction, an invention targeted at these men—again, racism. I can see why black people would really resent being treated in such a way. People have long memories; they remember today how others were treated in the past, and they expect us to behave differently and to show some contrition, apology and humility, and I hope that I am doing so.



To turn to the Windrush scandal, I think the scheme is working. I have had a limited number of cases and I therefore cannot go into them, but it worked very well in one particular case that I hold in mind. I think that was perhaps because we were involved and that should not be necessary, but clearly the scheme is being improved. I am conscious that I should probably allow the Minister to describe later how the scheme is being improved, but I note in particular that the minimum award has gone from £250 to £10,000, and the maximum award from £10,000 to £100,000. I welcome those improvements.

However, I just want to say to my hon. Friend the Minister—he is my hon. Friend and a great man—that it is only by engaging with people and really listening to what they say and how they experience things that we can improve matters. For example, on a recent call to raise awareness of the Windrush compensation scheme in my community in Wycombe, I listened with horror and shame to somebody explaining that their mother had had to go through multiple hoops to prove that she was entitled to be here after decades of living comfortably in the United Kingdom, quite rightly, as a British person. Worse, her British-born children with British passports were worrying and anxious about their right to remain in the United Kingdom.

Why should such a thing happen? Inevitably, schemes have rules. What I would say to my hon. Friend the Minister and to officials listening is that I have great faith in him and I have great faith in officials. They are doing the very best they can in the spirit of good will. Yet the experience of the public engaging with the scheme is hurdles and bureaucracy and proof. For it to have provoked—in our age, today—the anxiety in British-born people with British passports for whom this is home, is itself, while inadvertent, shaming. I do not wish to spring this on my hon. Friend. I would not expect him to apologise apropos of nothing without looking into it, but I certainly want to apologise to those people. I will certainly always stand up for people who have felt like that and raise their case with Ministers. However they vote, it is my duty to make sure that—very much a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West—we stand up for people, those of us who are, if I may say so, privileged to be middle class, in full-time employment, white and not facing these difficulties.

Awareness, empathy, contrition and humility—they should be our watchwords. As we go forward, as chairman of Conservatives against Racism for Equality, I really want our whole society to choose, in a radically moderate way, to be much more positively anti-racist; for all of us to be living out a life that says, “I accept the moral equality of every person and the legal equality of people in all our institutions”. That speaks to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West. Of course, everybody is politically equal. From that follows equality before the law and equality of opportunity, and embracing one another, so that we can go forward in hope to live in a world in which our skin colour matters no more or less than our eye colour.

I really do celebrate the Wycombe Windrush generation. The community is a wonderful, gentle loving community and I am very proud that they are in Wycombe. I am very proud of them. I just say to my hon. Friend the Minister—I can see he has listened very carefully; he is a great and good man—that in time, perhaps very swiftly, we might see institutions that make sure that people never again feel undervalued.