Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor agree that investor confidence in the United Kingdom will be increased only if we bring forward the overdue reforms to the law of corporate criminal liability? If so, will he and the Treasury support further amendments to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, including those that would implement the Law Commission’s recommendations to create further “failure to prevent” offences?

[Victoria Atkins]

My right hon. and learned Friend is one of the people who knows most about corporate criminal liability. I would be happy to take his question away and discuss it with him, because it is critical that the justice system addresses not just individuals who have criminal liability, but companies; indeed, I have prosecuted many companies across a range of offences. We understand that they can commit crimes too, so I am very happy to take his question away.

Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Robert Buckland

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions. I take issue with her description of the evacuation of 15,000 human beings from Afghanistan in the incredibly dangerous circumstances that we all saw on our television screens in August as “shambolic”. That is not a word that I would have used to the brave soldiers and armed forces personnel who arrived in this House only a month ago, and whom we all thanked for their very significant and brave efforts.

Flights started in June and the ARAP scheme started in April last year. To give an idea of the scale of it, we have received more than 99,000 applications to the scheme since April. We are working at pace to assess them on a case-by-case basis. As this House has heard before, we have to be very careful about the security situation. There are sadly some who claim to be eligible for the schemes who are not. I remember particularly an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), in a previous statement, setting out the circumstances of an individual who was claiming to be someone they were not. We therefore need to ensure that security checks are conducted and that the right people, accurately identified as having been eligible under ARAP, are brought over and helped. We have a dedicated team working seven days a week to process and bring eligible Afghans to the UK. We completely reject the accusation that the ARAP programme has been ineffective. The work of the Ministry of Defence and others continues to identify those who are eligible under ARAP.

I am very happy to clarify the situation for British nationals and their families. British nationals are still being supported. Ordinarily, British nationals arriving in the United Kingdom would not receive the level of support that they receive at the moment, but we have been realistic. We have understood that their needs are such that, if they have been assisted by the Government to come to the United Kingdom before the launch of the scheme, they should be treated in parity with those who flew next to them in planes across from Kabul and so on. Non-British families—Afghan families—are being included in the ACRS, because the scheme is about helping those who are at risk. People have been evacuated because they are at risk, and we want to give them that support. Helping their families, as well as British nationals, is a very generous offer to residents. That is why we were able to exceed our initial, very ambitious, intention to rehome 5,000 people in the first year.

There were comments about trading people. I do not think that that is appropriate phrasing for officials who are working very hard across Government to try to bring to this country human beings whose safety we understand is at very grave risk. As I have said throughout, this is very difficult. We will have to make some very difficult decisions. There is a population of approximately 40 million people in Afghanistan, and very many of them are very scared. We must apply the principles, and do so knowing that there will be some people whom we cannot help, very sadly.

In terms of the UNHCR, we are hoping that we can begin to bring people forward from the spring. We have been working with the UNHCR and other international organisations throughout the process to stand the scheme up.

We agree with the right hon. Lady’s very understandable concerns about illegal migration—the flimsy boats across the channel, people in desperate need of help, the plight of those who are in the hands of people traffickers. That is why we introduced the Nationality and Borders Bill and would love the Labour party to accept it.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I commend not only my hon. Friend’s statement, but the deep commitment that she shows to the task; I am grateful, as we should all be, that she is here at this time. May I press her on the plight of Afghan judges? There is continuing concern about the safety of many judges who are frankly now a target for the new regime because of the decisions that they made under the previous regime. Will my hon. Friend update the House on the safe progress of judges to the United Kingdom and on the work of the UK Government in helping to signpost judges to third countries as part of an international effort to safeguard their interests?

[Victoria Atkins]

May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his further elevation? I am delighted that his skills and experience have been recognised.

The care of Afghan judges, particularly female judges, is a matter that I know interests many colleagues across the House. We have already offered a home to more than 20 senior Afghan judges and prosecutors and their dependants; sadly, we cannot offer a home to all Afghan judges, but we look to others in the international community to play their part in supporting those who have upheld the rule of law. We really must work together across the international community to support such people. I would be delighted to meet my right hon. and learned Friend and others to further discuss how we can signpost judges to third countries, as well as our own, to ensure that they are safe.

Prisons Strategy

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will do my best.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on bringing forward the White Paper, which has been long in the gestation. I am grateful for her commitment to it. Two things: first, when prisoners come into the estate, the importance of understanding neurodiversity and autism needs is very clear. I urge her to visit HMP Parc, where the unit on autism is breathtaking. Secondly, can she outline how, when prisoners leave, resettlement passports and the community accommodation service will make a transformational difference to cutting crime?

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for all the work he has done on this issue. We are very appreciative of his commitment to it and of his particular commitment to neurodiverse prisoners. We are considering and learning from the joint inspectorate’s call for evidence, and we will very much take those findings into account when we are designing new prisons. The need for continuity of treatment is also central to the White Paper. We want to ensure that treatment that is given in prison continues beyond the prison gates, so that people have the best chance possible of leading lives that are free from crime and safe for the rest of the community.

Investigatory Powers Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Robert Buckland

Committee Debate: 15th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

This is a general point. Although we are examining this Bill in detail, there will of course be an ongoing debate, particularly as the technical companies tussle with the public, about what the public find acceptable. Those companies should not think that the debate ends here; they will have to justify their actions to the public in future.

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The code of practice has been drafted in that real-life context. It will no doubt be amended and looked at—it will be a living document—as this technology develops and as we move forward. With this clause, we are trying—I do not like this phrase, but I have to use it—to future-proof the legislation to make it resilient so that it lasts and to ensure that this House does not have to return to it time and again to respond to the challenges that increased and enhanced IT present.

Investigatory Powers Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Robert Buckland

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 14th April 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Solicitor General]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work she did with other colleagues on that important Committee. Of course, the context is that applications will be made on the basis of a warrant that has itself already gone through the double-lock procedure and that has already passed the tests that we know will be applied—that it is necessary and proportionate in the particular context of the case that is being dealt with.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I wanted to emphasise that point. If a warrant has in the first instance been granted, it has met the tests of necessity and proportionality, and if a telephone number attributed to a person is added, it seems to me that the purpose of the warrant that was originally granted by the Home Secretary and the judicial commissioner does not change. Am I correct in my understanding of that?

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and to try to manipulate this process to undermine that important procedure would be immediately spotted as a misuse of the processes and the safeguards that we are incorporating into this Bill.

I want to deal with the practicalities because, tempting though it is to impose a requirement on a judicial commissioner to authorise the day-to-day or sometimes minute-by-minute tactical operation of a warrant, it would be unnecessary and operationally damaging. There must be an element of agility when operating the system of investigation and there is real concern that we would fail to do the job of detecting crime and making sure the interests of everyone we represent are protected.

Ordinarily, such modifications will be made by a senior official in the warrant-granting Department, but when, for example, the identity of a gang member becomes apparent only in the middle of the night, it is right that the intercepting agency should be able to make the modification. That deals with the point about the fast-moving threat and the immediacy of the situation.

I will deal with as many as possible of the points the hon. and learned Gentleman raised, starting with the minor rather than major modifications in amendment 69. The amendment would prevent either the head of an agency or a senior official within that agency from making a minor amendment. We are dealing with minor modifications relating to adding a new communication address for warranted targets. An example is MI5 discovering a new mobile telephone number for a warranted target who is plotting to kill someone. The Bill enables the intercepting agency—MI5 in this case—to make the minor modification to the warrant, which will have been through the double-lock procedure, and to add that new mobile number. The danger of the amendment is that it would remove the ability to act swiftly to get coverage of the new subject’s communications. With respect, I do not think it is necessary because the Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner will already have considered the necessity and proportionality of targeting interception against the individual. I will not repeat the point, but it is important for public safety.

On parliamentary and legal privilege, I have already indicated that a major modification would not be sought to a warrant against a Member of Parliament or in relation to any warrant that names a specific individual. The code of practice makes it crystal clear that major modifications can be made only to warrants that apply to a group of persons or an organisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

Am I correct in understanding that there is also a further oversight provision, namely the general oversight provisions of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the other commissioners under part 8 of the Bill? They have main oversight functions to look at how the powers are being exercised generally, as well as in every single double lock instance.

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend is quite right about that, and I think commissioners would be concerned if for some reason there was an inappropriate overuse of mechanisms such as the one in question, which might appear in future evidence. I believe that we are getting the balance right and therefore the review will, I think, be a useful backstop, but nothing more, I hope.

Investigatory Powers Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Robert Buckland

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th April 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Solicitor General]

I am always happy to discuss matters with the Bar Council. As one of the leaders of the Bar, the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I go to regular Bar Council meetings. I was with it on Saturday, and I listen carefully to what my friends and colleagues at the Bar have to say.

However, the example I am giving explains the situation. There might be information that is entirely innocuous to the lawyer. Let us say that there is a consultation happening. The lawyer might ask a few questions about the address and associates of the person that do not, to him or her, disclose an offence being committed, but which might, in the wider context, provide the security and intelligence authorities with evidential leads that build a wider picture of which the lawyer will be unaware. That is not the furtherance of a crime; it is innocent. What would be innocuous information to the lawyer might mean something more, because a wider context might give the appropriate agency the grounds upon which it could then make its application for warrantry.

There is a distinction. I am not saying that it will be commonplace—far from it. That is why we have worded the terms of the clause very carefully. We talk about “exceptional and compelling circumstances”. I cannot imagine a higher threshold for an applicant to meet than those words.

An additional attraction is that, for the purposes of this legislation, we do not try to define what is meant by legal professional privilege. It is a bit like the argument about parliamentary privilege—the more we try to modernise and define it, the more it ceases to exist as a meaningful concept. One has to be careful about using vehicles like the Bill to define what is a very wide-ranging principle that applies to myriad circumstances involving lawyers and their clients. Although I am in the spirit of dialogue, that is why I would strongly hesitate before adopting the amendments.

[Victoria Atkins]

I have listened, with great care, to the submissions made by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, and I have some sympathy with the position that he has put forward. One of the issues that has consoled me is that any such warrants that are proposed will have to meet the threshold of the double lock, namely the Home Secretary and the judicial commissioner, who, I imagine, will be very careful to protect legal professional privilege. Is my understanding correct?

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend sums it up admirably. We have taken a different approach from RIPA, and rightly so. We have listened to the concerns expressed by the wider community, not just members of the profession, and are fully cognisant of the importance of legal professional privilege. It was part of my daily professional life for nearly 20 years so, as a Minister and as a lawyer, I fully understand its importance. Therefore, I hope that the example I have given gives an important insight into what we regard as “exceptional and compelling circumstances”. For those reasons, I urge the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras to withdraw the amendment.

Investigatory Powers Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Robert Buckland

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th April 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I have heard Opposition Members’ arguments. Some thought has been given to this point and clause 49 puts a duty not only on people who work in public services but on postal operators, telecommunications operators and any person employed therein to not make unauthorised disclosures in relation to intercept warrants. That might help.

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who served with distinction on the Joint Committee. That provision relates to creating a statutory duty, which, with respect to her, is slightly different from some of the arguments we are having about criminal sanctions. However, it is important to pray that in aid, bearing in mind the mixed approach we need to take in order to hold public office holders and public authorities to account when dealing with this sensitive area.

The Bill provides a great opportunity for us to put into statute a new offence, which will, together with the other agencies, provide a robust regime that will add to the checks and balances needed in this area in order to ensure that our rights to privacy are maintained wherever possible, consistent with the Government’s duty towards the protection of our national security and the detection and prevention of crime.