London Attack

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Chris Bryant

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has been exemplary in this instance, as, indeed, she was in relation to Hillsborough, in my view. I congratulate her on that.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) was absolutely right when he said that Keith was one of us. One of the things that we saw yesterday was that the parliamentary family is a very big family: it includes cooks, cleaners, Clerks, Doorkeepers, and all sorts of people who make our democracy function and who are, in many ways, far more important than we are.

When a Member of Parliament dies in action or is killed in a terrorist incident, as Ian Gow and Airey Neave were, a shield is put up in the Chamber, and I hope that—sadly—there will soon be one for Jo Cox. Surely, whatever other tributes and medals there may be in the future, it is time for Keith to have a shield here, because he was our shield and defender yesterday.

[The Prime Minister]

The bravery shown by PC Keith Palmer and his act of sacrifice should be recognised in an appropriate way, but as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, what that should be is a matter for the House authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Of course, we condemn assaults on anybody and any violence that takes place. The Secretary of State for Health has heard the case that my hon. Friend has put and will be happy to look into that issue.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Q12. When the Prime Minister introduces a UK agricultural policy because we have left the common agricultural policy, will the Duke of Westminster still receive £407,000 a year, will the Duke of Northumberland still receive £475,000 a year, and will the Earl of Iveagh still receive £915,000 a year from the British taxpayer?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman seems to know a lot about these ducal matters; it is most interesting. I am fascinated by the reply, so let’s hear it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Q3. If she will visit the Rhondda.

[The Prime Minister]

I always enjoy my visits to Wales, and I hope to visit Wales in the future.

[Chris Bryant]

That is not quite an answer to whether she will visit the Rhondda. I hope she will; I am happy to accommodate her—I can do bacon and eggs. More importantly, I could take her to see the best brass band in the world, the Cory band, or, for that matter, I could take her to the local food bank, based in the closed-down Conservative club. Since 2010, the Government have closed the local courts, tax office, Department for Work and Pensions office and driving centre, and now they intend to close all the tax offices in Wales and centralise them in Cardiff. We in the valleys feel ignored by the Government. May I beg her to change direction and start putting Government offices in the small towns, villages and valleys of this country?

[The Prime Minister]

The last time I looked, Cardiff was actually in Wales—the hon. Gentleman says we are taking offices out of Wales and putting them in Cardiff. The whole point of what Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is doing is to move from outdated offices to large, modern regional centres, which will make it possible to modernise its ways of working, make tax collection more efficient and actually improve its customer service.

Engagements

European Council 2016

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Chris Bryant

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to tell my hon. Friend that when I have been meeting leaders bilaterally, they have been very keen to express their desire to continue to trade and have a good trading relationship with the United Kingdom.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

What has happened in Aleppo has not just been a tragedy—it has also been a series of acts of deliberate brutality by Putin and his regime. The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that those responsible must be held to account, but there is something she could do immediately: she could sign up to the amendment to the Criminal Finances Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), which would take the assets of those who have been involved in human rights abuses and in these war crimes off them.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, but we already have legislative capacity in relation to such matters. That is why the amendment has been considered not to be necessary and not to take us forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue which matters both to her and me. I think the phrase that was used by the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship was “the jealously guarded principle” of that ability to speak freely, as she says, respectfully and responsibly about one’s religion. I am happy to welcome the publication of this report and its findings. Of course, we are now into the season of Advent. We have a very strong tradition in this country of religious tolerance and freedom of speech, and our Christian heritage is something we can all be proud of. I am sure we would all want to ensure that people at work do feel able to speak about their faith, and also feel able to speak quite freely about Christmas.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Q3. Thirty years ago, I conducted my first funeral as a young curate. It was for a young teenage boy who was an enormous fan of Paul Simon, so, as the crematorium curtains closed, we listened to “The Sound of Silence”, and many people cried. The average cost of a child’s funeral today is £3,675. Some councils do not charge anything, but some charge a lot, and the social fund is means-tested. I ask again: will the Prime Minister please listen to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), sign up to her campaign and put an end to both the means-testing and the postcode lottery, so that no parents who lose a child have to deal with the fear of hardship as well as their grief?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. I know that the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) spoke very movingly from personal experience in the debate that she called on this issue. I do not think that anybody who has not been through the death of a child can possibly understand the pain that that brings, not just immediately but thereafter, as parents see others grow up while their child will not.

I recognise the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised about the cost of children’s funerals. As he has said, there are measures in place for families who have particular hardship cases, where money can be given. It is open to local authorities to waive fees, and some local authorities do that. We have left this as a decision for local authorities, and some do, indeed, waive those fees.

European Council

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Chris Bryant

Monday 24th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is very perceptive because in fact I will be visiting India in early November, and I am pleased to say I will be taking a trade delegation with me, but it will be focusing on small and medium-sized enterprises to try to ensure we boost the relationships between SMEs here in the UK with the important Indian market.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Russia’s behaviour in Syria has already been utterly despicable, but it was particularly worrying to see the Admiral Kuznetsov sailing through the English channel this weekend probably on its way to smash what is left of Aleppo into smithereens. I am delighted the Prime Minister wants to have a strong position with European colleagues in relation to Russia, but there is one thing we in this country can do ourselves, which the Americans have done as well: to say that anybody involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky or the corruption he unveiled is not welcome in this country and will not come to this country. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister is being advised by others and will end up going back to the old Cameron position, but may I suggest to her that this is something we could do and it would make a difference?

Wilson Doctrine

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Chris Bryant

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I recognise that there has been much lively interest from Members of this House on the matter of the Wilson doctrine, and I welcome the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing it.

It is right that the House should be debating this important issue, touching as it does on the ability of hon. Members to do their duty as Members of Parliament, the need to protect civil liberties and, just as important, the need to protect national security and to keep our constituents safe from harm. As the hon. Gentleman set out, and as the House is aware, the doctrine refers to the general policy outlined on 17 November 1966 in this House by the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. The policy has become known as the Wilson doctrine.

It is important to quote exactly what Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, as he was to become, stated. In the opening section of his speech, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) quoted only the beginning of the statement. Harold Wilson said

“that I should give this instruction that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament. That was our decision and that is our policy. But if there was any development of a kind which required a change in the general policy, I would, at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on my own initiative make a statement in the House about it.”—[Official Report, 17 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 639.]

Since that time successive Prime Ministers have been asked questions in this House in relation to the Wilson doctrine, and successive Prime Ministers have confirmed that the doctrine continues to apply. That position remains unchanged, as the Prime Minister himself has confirmed in this House on a number of occasions.

Although it is clear that the Wilson doctrine continues to apply, I understand the significant interest of the House following the judgment given last week by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in the case brought by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), her noble Friend, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, and a former Member of this House, George Galloway. I hope it will be helpful if I set out for the benefit of the House the Government’s position in relation to that judgment. Indeed, I believe there have been a number of misconceptions about the judgment that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has made and I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight.

Let me begin by saying that it is important to note that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal found against the claimants in all respects. It agreed with the Government’s interpretation of the Wilson doctrine. The position therefore remains unchanged and—I stress this—the protection for MPs’ communications which the doctrine offers remains unchanged. However, it seems that there has been an element of confusion about what the Wilson doctrine actually means. On that, let me say first that it cannot be the case that MPs can never be the subject of interception. Members of this House are not above the law or beyond the scope of investigatory powers. I hope that the whole House will understand this important point. From the nods from a sedentary position, I understand that hon. Members accept that.

[Chris Bryant]

I said that.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of that, but he also interpreted the Wilson doctrine as meaning that there would never be any interception of Members of Parliaments’ communications. That was not what the Wilson doctrine said, and it has not been the position. Indeed, last week’s judgment from the IPT quoted a statement that I made last year in response to an intervention from the current deputy Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). It might be helpful if, for the benefit of the House, I repeat what I said:

“Obviously, the Wilson doctrine applies to parliamentarians. It does not absolutely exclude the use of these powers against parliamentarians, but it sets certain requirements for those powers to be used in relation to a parliamentarian. It is not the case that parliamentarians are excluded and nobody else in the country is, but there is a certain set of rules and protocols that have to be met if there is a requirement to use any of these powers against a parliamentarian”.—[Official Report, 15 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 713.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, all three reviews of investigatory powers that have taken place came out with a different solution on the oversight and decisions authorisation process for warrants. This is still under consideration, but when the draft Bill is published he will be able to see what the Government have decided.

[Chris Bryant]

At the beginning of her speech, the Home Secretary chastised me for not reading out the whole of Harold Wilson’s comments and read out the lines where he continued that

“if there was any development of a kind which required a change in the general policy, I would, at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on my own initiative make a statement in the House about it.”—[Official Report, 17 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 639.]

She seemed to be suggesting that there has been a change but she does not want to tell us about it because it is not compatible with national security. Is that really what she is saying?

[Mrs May]

The point I am making is about the interpretation of the Wilson doctrine that the hon. Gentleman set out at the beginning of his speech—that is, that there absolutely would not be, and never could be, any interception of communications of Members of Parliament. That is not the correct interpretation of the Wilson doctrine, as the statement from Lord Wilson of Rievaulx makes very clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady has identified a conundrum, which perhaps makes it all the more significant that we look at the issue in due course.

I reiterate that the protection offered by the doctrine remains in force and nothing in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruling changes that position. These are serious matters that touch on the wider debate about the right balance between privacy and national security.

[Chris Bryant]

I am terribly sorry to be so irritating to the Home Secretary, but she said that the protection still applies to parliamentarians. Precisely what is the protection afforded to parliamentarians by the Wilson doctrine?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman himself made reference to the Wilson doctrine and I have read out what Lord Wilson said. I am perfectly happy to do so again. He said that

“I should give this instruction that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament. That was our decision and that is our policy. But if there was any development of a kind which required a change in the general policy, I would, at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on my own initiative make a statement in the House about it.”—[Official Report, 17 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 639.]

I have also alluded to other safeguards as a result of the change—

[Chris Bryant]

The change?

[Mrs May]

Yes, I am going to use the word “change”. The legislative framework in which these matters are dealt with has changed over the years—more than once, I suspect, but most recently in 2000, with the introduction of RIPA, which contained a number of safeguards in relation to these matters. As I have indicated, and as the IPT repeated, the draft code, which was published in February 2015, makes very clear that particular care has to be taken if it is proposed that certain communications of certain categories of people should be intercepted.

These matters touch on the wider debate about the balance between privacy and national security, and the first duty of a Government is to protect their citizens. I have repeatedly stated my determination to ensure that the police and security agencies have the powers, support and capabilities they need to keep us safe.

In recent years, however, we have seen many wild and inaccurate allegations about the extent of surveillance carried out by the agencies, the legality of the intelligence agencies’ actions and the effectiveness of the oversight of their actions. Recently, three independent reviews have considered the investigatory powers used by the police and security agencies.

In March, the Intelligence and Security Committee published its “Privacy and Security” report, which set out a comprehensive review of the intelligence agencies’ capabilities and the legal and privacy frameworks that govern their use. In June, David Anderson published his report on the operation and regulation of law enforcement and agency investigatory powers, with specific reference to the interception of communications and the separate issue of communications data. This summer, a panel co-ordinated by the Royal United Services Institute and established by the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), reported on the legality, effectiveness and privacy implications of the UK’s surveillance programmes and assessed how law enforcement and intelligence capability can be maintained in the face of technological change.