National Security Bill Commons Amendments and Reasons 3.53pm Motion
A Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom That this House do not insist on
its Amendment 22, to which the Commons have disagreed for their
Reason 22A. 22A: Because the law already makes sufficient provision
in relation to donations to political parties. The Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, as well as Motion A, I will also speak...Request free trial
National Security
Bill
Commons Amendments and Reasons
3.53pm
Motion A
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 22, to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 22A.
22A: Because the law already makes sufficient provision in
relation to donations to political parties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, as well as Motion A, I will also speak to Motions B, C
and D.
It is a pleasure to bring the National Security Bill back to this
House. I thank noble Lords for their support so far. The vast
majority of this Bill has now been settled, and measures that are
vital to our national security will now be available to our
security and intelligence services and to law enforcement. This
new toolkit will facilitate the tackling of state actors who
threaten the safety and security of the UK. The Government are
busy working towards the implementation of this legislation, but
there is only so much that we can do without Royal Assent. I ask
noble Lords to bear this in mind through any votes that we may
have.
Starting with the amendment that has been tabled in lieu of
Amendment 122, the Government have listened to the concerns
raised by the noble Lord, , regarding the updating of the
ISC’s memorandum of understanding, or MoU. The concerns raised by
the noble Lord are that the Prime Minister has not attended a
session of the ISC since 2014 and that the MoU is out of date. As
I said the last time that this issue was debated, the ISC MoU is
under regular review and the ISC is always welcome to review and
suggest revision to it. The amendment tabled to force this
process is therefore unnecessary.
This amendment cannot compel the Prime Minister to attend a
session of the ISC, which I suspect is the amendment’s true
driver. However, the Security Minister recently met with the
chair of the ISC to better understand the committee’s concerns
and find an agreeable resolution to the issue. In that meeting,
he committed to attending an evidence session of the ISC to
discuss the powers taken in the National Security Bill in greater
detail and the plans for implementing the legislation. The
Minister also committed to giving the ISC further updates on the
progress of implementation through quarterly written updates.
I remind the House that, under the Justice and Security Act 2013,
there is already provision in place for the review and amendment
of the MoU where there is agreement between the Prime Minister
and the ISC. Therefore, although I understand the spirit behind
the amendment, it will not provide for anything new in practice.
I believe that the Security Minister’s offer of attendance at a
session and to provide regular written updates about the
implementation of the Bill shows that the Government take the
committee and its concerns seriously.
We have responded to the concerns raised about the ISC MoU in
respect of the Bill, but the Bill is not the mechanism to address
wider concerns. I ask noble Lords to recognise this. I also note
that the Home Secretary is giving evidence to the Iran hearing in
July and appreciates the ISC’s critical role in scrutiny of the
intelligence and security community.
I turn to Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to
propose an amendment in lieu of Amendment 22, which concerns
donations to UK political parties from foreign powers. I thank
the noble Lord for recently meeting with my noble friend Lady
Scott, the Minister with responsibility for elections. I turn to
the substance of the amendment: it creates a duty on political
parties to write an annual policy statement to ensure the
identification of donations from foreign powers and a duty on
political parties to provide the Electoral Commission with an
annual report on donations received by foreign powers. I will set
out the reasons why the Government oppose this amendment.
First, on the annual return to the Electoral Commission, as I
have said before, accepting a donation from a foreign power,
whether directly or indirectly, is already illegal. The amendment
does nothing to assist parties in identifying illegal donations.
Taken together, this renders the reporting of such activity to
the Electoral Commission as an annually submitted blank page.
This is not a helpful addition to the transparency framework
surrounding political donations and, on that principle, we oppose
its inclusion.
Secondly, the requirement to publish an annual policy statement
lacks utility. Political parties are already required by law to
take all reasonable steps to verify the identity of a donor and
whether they are permissible. To reiterate, foreign powers are
not permissible donors. The existing law also prohibits
impermissible donors seeking to direct money through permissible
proxies, and it is an offence knowingly to facilitate the making
of an impermissible donation. The legal framework is clear, and
requiring the publication of a policy statement adds nothing.
Thirdly, given that the amendment will not add value, we do not
think that it is reasonable or proportionate. It is worth
highlighting that political parties are not banks or security
services: they do not have the means to undertake sophisticated
forensic accounting. While these services can be obtained through
the private sector, they are likely to be cost prohibitive.
Political parties are not global corporations: there are over 380
parties currently registered with the Electoral Commission, many
of which are predominantly made up of volunteers. This amendment
would add burdens on political parties and could risk
disincentivising parties from accepting donations, which could,
in turn, harm our democracy.
There is also a point on convention here. As far as we are aware,
political parties have not been engaged on their views for this
proposed amendment. The Government do not unilaterally change
laws relating to political parties without such consultation
taking place. It could lead to inequitable outcomes and, as such,
is another reason why the Government oppose the amendment.
For all of these reasons, the Government’s position is that this
is the wrong way to go about preventing threats from foreign
powers to our political system, which I know that the noble Lord,
Lord Carlile, is concerned with.
During engagement with noble Lords and throughout previous
stages, concerns have been highlighted about donations from
companies and unincorporated associations. I would therefore like
to set out the framework that we are operating in. Only those
with a genuine interest in UK electoral events can make political
donations. To be a permissible donor, companies must be
registered in the UK, incorporated in the UK and carrying out
business in the UK.
4.00pm
Unincorporated associations must carry on business wholly or
mainly in the UK and have their main office here to be able to
make donations. I highlight that unincorporated associations
making political contributions are already subject to additional
controls compared with other types of donors. If they are making
political contributions or donations of more than £25,000 within
a year, they must notify the Electoral Commission and provide it
with information about how they are funded.
This is not to say that the Government do not recognise the risk
of foreign interference in our democracy, including foreign
powers that might seek to do that through political donations.
That is why the Government are already taking further action to
safeguard the integrity of the system. The Government’s reforms
to Companies House will deliver more reliably accurate
information on the companies register and will provide greater
powers for Companies House to query and challenge the information
it receives. The Government are also currently legislating via
the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill to enhance
data sharing between Companies House and public authorities,
including the Electoral Commission. This will indirectly support
the enforcement of the rules on donations by providing greater
confidence in the accuracy of the data held by Companies
House.
These reforms build on updates made to electoral law last year in
the Elections Act 2022, which closed loopholes on foreign
third-party campaign spending and included a number of other
measures which ensure that our democracy remains secure. I remind
the House that there are reforms in this Bill that seek to
increase the transparency of foreign political influence activity
through the foreign influence registration scheme and give our
agencies more tools to tackle foreign interference; these include
substantially higher maximum penalties where a foreign power is
involved in the commission of existing electoral offences,
including those related to the making of political donations. The
Bill also provides for a new offence of foreign interference,
which includes manipulating whether or how any person
participates in political processes.
I encourage your Lordships to take into consideration the
importance of finishing this Bill. The Bill was never meant to be
about political donations; it is about creating a more secure
environment for the UK. The longer we spend in this place
debating issues the Bill was not designed to cover, the further
away that additional safety and those additional tools are.
I turn to Amendments 26A and 26B to the serious crime amendment
which clarifies the application of the new defence. Under the
proposed government amendment, the defence will apply to the
proper exercise of a function of the Armed Forces only when
relating to intelligence. This is an alternative version of the
amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and I hope the
House will welcome this additional safeguard.
Finally, in the other place the Government tabled a minor
amendment to the foreign influence registration scheme. It is
designed to ensure parity across devolved Administrations in
relation to public officials covered within the meaning of
“political influence activity”.
The Bill will ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence
agencies have the power they need to combat the evolving nature
of state threats. That is why we are adopting a robust and
front-footed posture. The Bill will confront and tackle state
threat activity that may seek to undermine the democratic
principles of the United Kingdom and the security of its people.
As I have said before, I am grateful to your Lordships for the
progress and the improvements this House has given to this
landmark piece of legislation. The Bill will leave this House
more robust, more balanced and better equipped to tackle modern
threats to our national security. I now urge the House to agree
with the government Motions and amendments and grant our police
and intelligence services the powers they need to protect the
democratic principles of the United Kingdom and the security of
its people. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 22B in lieu—
22B: After Clause 14, insert the following new Clause—
“Foreign interference in elections: duties on political
parties
(1) A UK-registered political party must, within three months of
the passing of this Act, and annually thereafter, publish a
policy statement to ensure the identification of donations from a
foreign power (whether made directly or through an
intermediary).
(2) A UK-registered political party must provide the Electoral
Commission with an annual statement setting out individually the
details of all donations from a foreign power, including whether
made directly or through an intermediary (and identifying all
such intermediaries).
(3) In this section, “UK-registered political party” means a
political party registered under Part 2 of the Political Parties,
Elections and Referendums Act 2000.””
(CB)
My Lords, in moving Motion A1 as an amendment to Motion A and
proposing Amendment 22B in lieu, I should say that I shall
support, if it is necessary to do so, Amendment 122B, which will
be moved by the noble Lord, .
The Minister mentioned the very pleasant meeting I had with three
Ministers and a number of officials about my amendment, and I was
very grateful for that meeting. I was given a very simple
message—with which I do not agree—that the law goes far enough to
protect political parties and those who vote for them from the
intervention of foreign powers. My amendment would place no extra
burden on Ministers; I removed that from the original version.
What it does—rightly, in my view—is place a burden on political
parties to do what in the commercial world is routine and carry
out proper due diligence, as the term is, on the people who
contribute to them.
I listened with great care to what the Minister said a few
moments ago. If my noble friend Lord Kerr will forgive me for
quoting one of his many memorable sotto voce utterances, he
turned and said to me, “So that leaves it to the thief to report
the crime, doesn’t it?” I agree with him. Indeed, what the
Minister said suggested that when, say, a company is used, up
there in Companies House, if you make a complaint, there are
investigators who will carry out an investigation to see where
the money ultimately comes from—the ultimate donors, not those
nice nominees who are nominated directors of the company.
However, I do not know how many of your Lordships know this, but
Companies House has no investigators whatever—zilch, zero. If
noble Lords will take the trouble, during the boring parts of
what I hope will be a short speech, to look at GOV.UK, they will
see that it tells people that if they want an investigation done
into a company they should go to the Serious Fraud Office or
somewhere like that.
I accept that the Government want political parties to be
properly funded, not improperly funded, although some political
parties have accepted unusual sums of money from unusual places.
However, I hope that the Minister—and noble Lords if this comes
to a vote later—will agree that more due diligence is needed, and
that we cannot take at face value that the criminal should report
his own crime. We are dealing with bad people here, not good
people.
I thank the organisation Spotlight on Corruption for some
excellent research that it has done; I feel that it deserves that
namecheck. Donations from foreign powers are a significant threat
to the UK’s national security and undermine the integrity and
credibility of our democratic processes. There is plenty of
evidence to support that. A report in 2020 by the Intelligence
and Security Committee identified that members of the Russian
elite linked to Putin had donated to UK political parties.
Another bit of evidence is that in January 2022 the Security
Service warned that an alleged Chinese agent had sought to
influence UK parliamentarians on behalf of the Chinese Communist
Party and had donated to two major political parties that stand
in every seat in this country. In mid-April 2023 concerns were
raised in Parliament about alleged links between the Chinese
Communist Party and Conservative Party fundraising. The Minister
of State for Policing said that
“all political parties need to be alert to the danger of
representatives of hostile states seeking to infiltrate or
influence their activities”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/4/23;
col. 249.]
This amendment is just that alert.
The Home Office impact assessment for the Bill emphasises that
foreign interference is a direct attack on our sovereignty,
national institutions and values. The Bill will not prevent that
attack unless political parties are required to play a part. One
of the noblest things that this noble, unelected House does is to
protect democracy from itself, and that is what the amendment is
intended to do.
We turn to the safeguards that the Minister says are effective.
They are not. The rules that are supposed to prohibit foreign
donations in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act
2000 are absolutely riddled with loopholes. They enable foreign
money to be channelled to political parties and MPs through what
appear to be lawful donors, such as UK-registered businesses and
unincorporated associations. The Act requires UK political
parties only to check the status of donors; it does not require
them to have a risk-based approach to donations. The nominated
directors may look like ordinary nominees, but I think it was
yesterday that we heard from my noble friend Lord Vaux, in an
excellent speech, how names can appear in Companies House as
directors and bear no relationship to the control of a company.
We come to the same point twice in two days. While the UK’s
anti-money laundering framework has been progressively tightened
over the last decade, the minimal checks that parties are
required to perform are a glaring anomaly.
How effective are the sanctions? The Electoral Commission
referred eight cases to the Metropolitan Police in the period
2011 to 2021. I will give your Lordships one guess as to how many
prosecutions there have been—absolutely none, because it is
completely unreasonable to ask the police suddenly to move into
this complex area to carry out the detective work and do the due
diligence that any company, whether significant or relatively
insignificant, should carry out.
I do not accept for one moment that what I am proposing will
affect tiny political parties, because they will be taking their
funds from a small group of closely interested people who will,
effectively, be their close friends. What we are talking about
here is the bigger political parties.
There is consensus among independent experts that parties should
check the source of donations. In 2018, the Electoral Commission
argued that risk management principles adapted from anti-money
laundering undertaken by businesses could
“prevent foreign money being used in UK politics”.
It emphasised that political parties had a duty to do just that.
This was supported, in effect, in the July 2021 report Regulating
Election Finance by the Committee on Standards in Public
Life.
I was pleased to note that my original amendment, to which this
is in itself an amendment, was supported in the other place by
the Conservative chair of the Intelligence and Security
Committee, , who said that the need for political parties
to do more to determine the source of donations is “entirely
appropriate” and that the additional measures would not be
“over-onerous” and were “eminently reasonable”. The Government
said that the amendment would impose “huge administrative
burdens” on grass-roots political campaigning, but this is just
not the case. As the chair of the Electoral Commission has
highlighted, a requirement to determine the true source of
donations is proportionate and would not by design overburden
smaller parties with limited resources.
About 35 years ago, when I was an MP in the old Liberal Party, my
Whip and the Opposition Labour Whips asked me to go and sit on
the Reasons Committee in the other place. I think it was not
really a compliment. If your Lordships have ever been behind the
Speaker’s chair they will know that there is a little room, which
I thought until that night was private facilities for the
Speaker. In fact, it is the reasons room, though that is not on
the door, because visitors would assume that it was straight out
of “Alice in Wonderland”—and it is, a bit. The Government of the
time were privatising the railways and the opposition parties had
tried to avoid ping-pong happening twice in one night. I think
the reason I was chosen was that they thought I could keep a
debate on next to nothing going for an extremely long time.
Noble Lords
Oh!
(CB)
I am not sure how to take that laughter.
Interestingly, we debated for one and three-quarter hours who
should be the chair of the committee, until my pager pinged—we
had pagers in those days. It read: “You can go home now. Their
Lordships have gone to bed”.
4.15pm
I knew nothing about the Reasons Committee until that night, but
I discovered then that it is a cipher. The reasons brought to us
in this House do not bear intellectual analysis. What we are
doing, I hope, on my amendment is using our minds—our critical
faculties—to decide how best elections should be conducted in
this country. My submission to your Lordships is that the small
change I am suggesting would help just that aim. I beg to
move.
(Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my amendment in Motion C1. We very much
support the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord
Carlile. Should he wish to press it, we will certainly support
him in the Lobbies later.
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and for the
valiant effort he made to defend what the Government are not
doing about updating the memorandum of understanding. I thank him
for his attempt to gloss over and make the best of it.
I pay tribute to the work of our security services. As we know,
there is no difference among any of us here in our admiration for
their work and the way in which they keep us safe. We all wish to
see the National Security Bill become an Act as soon as possible.
However, that does not mean that we do not have a responsibility
to scrutinise and improve the Bill where we think change is
needed. My amendment is part of that ongoing process.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that I must be a veteran,
because I have been to the Reasons Committee a few times, not
just the once. I do not know whether I was particularly good at
it or just regarded as a toady who would do what anyone said. I
am not sure exactly where the room was but I remember going there
on a number of occasions.
On a serious point, that is something I now regret. The point the
noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was making was that Members of
Parliament—I was one of them; I am talking about myself—should
take more notice of the revisions that are sent down. Sometimes
the reasons given were simply spurious, such as, “We don’t agree
with it”. I would not say that they were made up, but they were
not far away from it. That is a source of great regret to me.
Personally, I should have done more and taken more notice of
them. That is partly why I understand that the reasons the
Government have given are totally inadequate. They have basically
dismissed what we said and what this House passed in my amendment
that the other place then disagreed with.
The Minister will note that I have taken seriously the
Government’s rejection of my original amendment. He will have
seen that the duty to update has been changed to a duty to
review. This is a significant, important change, as it would not
require the Government to update the memorandum of understanding;
it would simply require them look at the memorandum of
understanding, review it and see whether change is needed. The
Minister said that that is already included in the Bill. I submit
to your Lordships that the Government will not do this unless
something is put forward in the Bill to say that are required to
review it, rather than the Government saying, “It’s in a piece of
legislation that we have passed so we will do it anyway”. It will
not happen.
The Intelligence and Security Committee—I know my noble friend
Lord West will speak in a few minutes—is our voice. It was set up
by Parliament to hold the Executive to account on intelligence
and security matters. It is astonishingly and incredibly
important. All Select Committees and committees of this
Parliament are important, but the Intelligence and Security
Committee was set up in 1994 to fill a vacuum, and the MoU was
updated in 2013.
Some noble Lords have far more experience of that committee than
me and will know how it works, but the fundamental point is that
confidential and classified security-related matters can be
discussed and debated there on our behalf. I do not expect to
know what no doubt my noble friend Lord West and others discuss;
it is totally inappropriate and wrong for me to know that, and I
accept that. That is not what this is about. But it is important
that those who are selected, appointed or voted, in some
instances, to be members of that committee have access to all the
classified information across government, because it is across
government that they hold the Executive to account. That is how a
democratic system functions while keeping security material safe
and classified. It is a really important committee.
There can be no doubt that, as the Intelligence and Security
Committee said in its annual report in December last year, the
intelligence architecture has changed. The committee has asked
not for anything radical or for a complete rewriting of the
rules; it is simply saying to the Government, is it not
appropriate to update the memorandum of understanding to reflect
the changed security environment in which government operates?
This committee should do it on our behalf but, essentially, also
on behalf of the people of our country; it is totally reasonable
to ask for that.
The committee gives some examples of changes that should happen
in areas where it does not currently have the opportunity to
operate. One is BEIS and
“the activities of the Investment Security Unit”.
I would have thought there was a clue in the title. I do not know
what it does; I can guess, but I do not really know. Another is
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and
“the activities of the Telecoms Security and Resilience
Team”,
which is not accountable to the ISC. The report also mentions the
“Office of Communications” and the “Counter Disinformation Unit”,
which are not accountable to the ISC and do not come under its
remit. There is also the Department for Transport and
“the activities of the Transport Security, Resilience and
Response Group”,
which, again, is not accountable to the ISC. The report further
mentions the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and
“the activities of the Intelligence Policy Department”,
which, again, is not accountable to the ISC. It also mentions the
Department of Health and Social Care—we have heard a lot about
this—and
“the activities of the Joint Biosecurity Unit”.
None of these is accountable to the ISC, and the Government
should at least review that. Instead of updating this and saying,
“You have to do it”, all the amendment says is, “Perhaps review
whether the ISC should look at these”.
Noble Lords can see how ridiculous this is. The example that the
committee gives is BEIS and the activities of the investment
security unit, which the Government say the BEIS Select Committee
can look at. That is completely and utterly ridiculous, because
the point is that the ISC has security clearance to look at
classified information, in a way that the BEIS Select Committee,
as good as it is, cannot. So how on earth can the BEIS Select
Committee look at anything that may be classified in the
investment security unit, without the necessary security
clearance? It cannot be done.
My amendment does not actually require the Government to do
anything, but they have simply rejected it, saying that it is not
necessary, that they are not even going to look at it and that
various commitments have been made. I am sure the Security
Minister and the Minister opposite will agree that there should
be a review. Indeed, it appears that that is what the Security
Minister has said. But what about the Home Secretary, the Prime
Minister and the other people at the top of government? If the
Security Minister is making those noises to the committee, why
are the Government just going to say that this simple amendment,
requiring a review, is not needed and is inappropriate and wrong?
Just saying that we do not need it is not answering the point; it
is just an assertion, and that is not good enough.
The Minister in the last minute or so has just glibly, if I might
say so, pointed out that my amendment does not require the Prime
Minister to attend. No, it does not, but let me tell noble Lords
this from the Dispatch Box. It is an absolute disgrace that no
Prime Minister of our country has been to the ISC since 2014.
That is nine years. It is actually in the report—meeting with the
Prime Minister; I had to read it a couple of times. I spoke to
the Minister four or five months ago about this, and I asked him
to ask why on earth the current Prime Minister, despite being
invited, as I understand it, still has not responded to say when
he is going. That is despite my saying then that it was
completely unacceptable that no Prime Minister had been to the
ISC.
Perhaps the Minister could update the House on what has happened.
Who has the Minister made representations to and why has nobody
taken any notice? Why has the Home Secretary not gone to see the
Prime Minister about this? I say again—I could not believe it.
Apparently, for 20 years after 1994, the Prime Minister of the
day went once a year to the ISC; and then it stopped. The
committee has tried to get Prime Ministers to go, and they will
not. The Prime Minister of this country should go at least once a
year to the Intelligence and Security Committee of our country,
which is how this Parliament holds intelligence and security
agencies to account. Can the Minister take that back to the
Government? I speak for myself and for His Majesty’s Opposition,
and I shall let others speak for themselves, but I think it is
disgraceful that a Prime Minister has not been to speak to the
Intelligence and Security Committee. I hope that that is heard
loud and clear, that we can get something done about it and that
the next time this is raised, the Prime Minister has spoken to
the ISC with the Security Minister.
(Con)
Having been the chairman of the ISC for its first seven years,
may I just say that it is quite untrue to say that we called the
Prime Minister to report to the ISC? We used to report to the
Prime Minister when we were conducting various
investigations.
(Lab)
I take that point, and I apologise if I suggested it was the
other way around. The point I am making is that the Prime
Minister, according to the information here, used to go and speak
with the Intelligence and Security Committee, and there was that
two-way communication. My contention is that that is an important
thing for the Prime Minister of our country to do. I would have
hoped that the ISC had the opportunity to talk to the Prime
Minister at least once a year since 2014.
I finish where I started. The defence and security of our country
is the Government’s highest priority, and we all support them in
that. We welcome the work of the security services to keep us
safe. Mine is a simple amendment that seeks to update, through a
review, the memorandum of understanding under which the ISC
operates. It is a sensible thing for the Government to do and
when the time comes, I shall seek to test the opinion of the
House.
4.30pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I support Motion A1, having had my name on the original
amendment—I think it was Amendment 22 at the time—from the noble
Lord, Lord Carlile.
There are two reasons for being concerned about foreign influence
in UK politics. One is indeed the ISC Russia report, as it
highlighted what was going on and gave good evidence of malign
attempts to affect our politics and our elections—the same could
be said about China. The other reason is this Government’s
decision to give long-term expats the vote, no matter how long
they have lived abroad. By doing so, they enable those expats to
become permitted donors to UK political parties. Someone living
for, say, 40 years in Russia can be on our electoral roll—no
checks, no questions asked—and thereby be free to donate to a
political party, with no checks on the source of these fundings,
nor even whether they belong to that permitted donor. In fact,
there is no way to ascertain whether the said donor is in fact in
prison, whether they have properly earned income or whether such
money that they donate is actually their own or has been given on
behalf of a political power.
In the Guardian today, we read of a wealthy Chinese couple banned
from Britain after they were accused of donating to British
political figures on behalf the Chinese Communist Party. They
happen not to be permitted donors but were no doubt able to put
their money through somebody who was. Interestingly, that story
seems to have come to light following an immigration tribunal,
rather than by checks by a political party of the sort that would
be required if Motion A1 were agreed by this House.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, PPERA—the Political
Parties, Elections and Referendums Act—requires parties to check
only that the donors are permissible. The Minister said again
today—as all his predecessors did—“Oh, but we’ll check that the
donors are valid people”. That is not the point that we are
making. We are saying that, by being able to be on the electoral
register, they become donors and we do not check the source of
the money that they give. We are not asked as political parties
to carry out due diligence on donors, even those operating in
high-risk countries of the sorts that are listed in the 2022
money laundering and terrorist finance regulations 2022. As a
political party, we can take a donor from one of those countries
and are not required to do any checks—in fact, we are not
required to check anything other than that the donor is
legitimate. So overseas-domiciled citizens—who long ago gave up
paying taxes here, of course—can donate to a political party
without any questions about the money.
Motion A1 would effectively introduce a “know your donor” culture
and would make a political party responsible for showing how it
would identify and look at donations from a foreign party and for
sharing that information with the Electoral Commission. Back in
the summer—on the day that we debated this, I think—the Minister
wrote to me and said that
“it is in the national interest to have greater openness about
the influence on British politics by foreign powers”.
I could not agree with him more. Motion A1 would ensure that
foreign donations were properly scrutinised and openly made.
(Lab)
My Lords, I support Motion A1 from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile,
and Motion C2. On Motion A1, I spoke in favour of the previous
version of this amendment on Report on behalf of the Intelligence
and Security Committee. Our position in the committee remains
very much the same: we firmly support the introduction of this
clause. Indeed, I cannot really understand why the Government
continue to oppose the amendment. It is eminently sensible and
the previous version received widespread support across this
House. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it was
notable that, apart from the Government Front Bench, not a single
Peer across the House spoke against it.
The ISC’s Russia report in 2020 recognised that the UK, including
political parties, had welcomed money from Russian elites, and
the Government acknowledged that. They have, for example, as part
of the Bill increased the sentences for electoral offences
involving foreign powers. There is no doubt that protecting our
democratic institutions should be the very top priority for the
Government and parliamentarians, but the Government have adopted
a rather dismissive and worryingly complacent approach to this
risk. They claim that they oppose this amendment on the basis
that the existing protections within electoral law are
sufficient, that the amendment would not work in practice and
that it would place an undue burden on grass-roots political
organisations. These claims are patently not true.
Current protections within the electoral financing law are
demonstrably inadequate. As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, the
chairman of the Committee for Standards in Public Life, who is in
his place, noted on Report, his committee undertook a major
report into the regulation of electoral finance in 2021 and
provided a series of recommendations to close several loopholes
in this space, all of which were rejected by the Government. The
report stated that
“we consider the current rules are insufficient to guard against
foreign interference in UK elections”.
One of the many problems the committee identified was the ability
of a foreign corporation to create a UK subsidiary with the sole
function of receiving and channelling money to a UK political
party. Further, as extraordinary as it may seem, unlike charities
or companies, political parties do not have to examine the source
of funds they receive. This means that it is perfectly possible
for companies to make significant donations to political parties
despite clearly not making operating profits and therefore with
limited explanations of how they can afford such donations and
where the money comes from. These factors clearly increase the
threat of political parties being unduly influenced by a foreign
power.
The report also noted that, since 2018, the Electoral Commission
has supported the introduction to electoral finance of risk
management principles that are used in anti-money laundering
checks conducted by companies. As the noble Baroness, Lady
Hayter, suggested on Report, this amendment would introduce such
principles and ensure that political parties identify foreign
money and potential proceeds of crime, establishing a culture of
“know your donor” within parties similar to the “know your
customer” approach in the financial sector.
Contrary to the Government’s suggestion, this amendment would not
place a significant administrative burden on smaller political
organisations, and nor would it be too difficult for political
parties to implement in practice. As the shadow Security Minister
noted in the other place, the Electoral Commission has
stated:
“These requirements could be introduced in a way that recognises
the need for proportionality … with different requirements
depending on the size of a regulated entity’s financial
infrastructure, or the size of a donation”.—[Official Report,
Commons, 3/5/23; col. 129.]
Guidance would prevent this amendment, which increases
transparency and accountability, becoming a disproportionate
burden. The fact that due diligence measures are used in the
charity sector and not just by commercial enterprises
demonstrates that it would be entirely possible for similar
measures to be adopted by political parties.
I find it extraordinary that the political parties currently do
not have to check the source of their funding in the same way as
charities and businesses—it is extraordinary—and it is
inexplicable that our Government or any political party could
consider it appropriate to oppose such a sensible and
proportionate amendment. It is entirely necessary and it would go
a long way to strengthening our democratic institutions,
providing greater protection from foreign influence. I am sure
that the Government agree that we must protect our democratic
institutions from harmful interference and I am sure that, having
heard all these arguments, they will change their view—or I hope
they will
Moving on to Motion C1, on behalf of the Intelligence and
Security Committee—I have been given its approval to speak on
this—I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this amendment
and we fully support it. It is interesting to note that, when a
similar amendment was debated in the House, many Peers spoke in
favour but only one, on the Government Front Bench, spoke in
opposition. It seems to be a trend with these various amendments.
Strangely, the same was true in the other place, where many MPs
spoke in support and only the Minister opposed the amendment. The
Security Minister himself acknowledged the need for the amendment
when he stated that an update to the ISC’s memorandum of
understanding needed to be made.
Parliament is united in its support for independent oversight of
the intelligence agencies; it is only the Government who are
seeking to undermine the ability for oversight, for purposes
unknown. National security is too important to play party
politics with. Members from across both Houses have repeatedly
explained the need for this amendment throughout the passage of
the Bill, but to no avail.
I intend to do so again to demonstrate the absurdity of the
Government’s opposition to it. The ISC’s memorandum of
understanding, which sits underneath the Justice and Security Act
2013, outlines its remit and the organisations that it oversees.
Its remit encompasses the expenditure, administration, policy and
operation of the agencies and four other organisations that form
part of the UK intelligence community. As the ISC has made very
clear in its most recent annual reports, intelligence and
security activities are increasingly undertaken by a wider
assortment of policy departments, as the noble Lord, , mentioned, including those
that generally do not carry out national security-related
activity, such as BEIS—now the Department for Business and
Trade—DCMS and the Department for Transport.
Those teams are not currently listed in the ISC’s MoU. This is
solely because, when the MoU was drafted in 2013, they were not
responsible for intelligence and security matters. Had they been,
Parliament would have included them in the ISC’s remit.
Parliament was clear on the remit it wished the ISC to have and
the work it wished it to do on its behalf and that of the British
public.
Effective oversight of intelligence and security matters can be
undertaken only by the ISC. Only it has the security
infrastructure to scrutinise effectively those aspects where
classified material, such as intelligence, underpins decisions on
national security. This is not rocket science—perhaps sometimes
it is, but that is a different issue. Intelligence and security
matters deal primarily with highly classified information.
Parliament established the ISC, supported by security
infrastructure such as the appropriate computer systems, storage
facilities and vetted staff, to provide independent oversight of
classified matters precisely because Select Committees cannot
effectively undertake that role. They definitely cannot do it and
it is wrong for the Government to pretend that they can.
The sole purpose of the ISC, and the reason Parliament set it up,
is for it to hold the Executive to account on behalf of
Parliament and the public. Independent oversight in this space is
particularly important given the gravity of national security
decisions and the significant intrusive powers that the agencies
have at the Government’s disposal. The inability for Select
Committees to provide effective oversight of intelligence and
security matters has already been acknowledged by the Minister on
Report.
The ISC’s MoU, which sets out which government bodies it can
oversee, is woefully out of date. There is now intelligence and
security activity undertaken by government that is outside the
ISC’s independent oversight, which means that it is outside
Parliament’s democratic oversight. I am sure noble Lords agree
that that is unacceptable. In effect, it means that secret
activity is being carried out in our name that no one is
scrutinising. The ISC’s MoU needs to be updated so that
Parliament can ensure that the Government are acting
appropriately in the intelligence and security space at all
times.
I find it appalling that the Government continue to oppose this
amendment. It is hardly controversial. There is no reason to
oppose it unless one wants there to be less independent
oversight, less transparency and less accountability in relation
to classified intelligence and security. Is that really what the
Government want? Would they rather keep any problems behind
closed doors? If so, we should be very afraid. This is a matter
of grave concern. I therefore support this amendment.
(LD)
My Lords, the Commons reason given for disagreeing to Lords
Amendment 22 is:
“Because the law already makes sufficient provision in relation
to donations to political parties”.
Yet we have heard that the Committee on Standards in Public Life
and the Electoral Commission have made it quite clear that they
do not believe the current law makes sufficient provision for
that. I remind the noble Lord that the Committee on Standards in
Public Life and the Electoral Commission, like the Intelligence
and Security Committee, are part of the structure of
constitutional safeguards in our politics. They are there to
remind the Government how the rules need to be kept. A wise
Government should accept that advice. When they do not accept it,
Parliament should insist that they do.
4.45pm
There is plenty of evidence that there is a problem, that foreign
governments are actively engaged in attempts at interference: the
Russians, the Chinese and others. However, I remind the Minister
that the last time I raised this question in the House, he
accused me of spreading rumours. I thought it was ungracious of
him at the time and I hoped he might have the grace to withdraw
that accusation. He will, of course, recall that the Government
in Russia accuse of people of spreading rumours and send them to
prison for a long period, and so do the Governments in Turkey and
Pakistan. It is not the sort of language that should be used in a
democratic parliament such as ours.
There is a great deal of evidence that foreign Governments
attempt to influence all political parties, to a greater or
lesser extent, by various means, including donations. It is, of
course, natural that they concentrate their attacks very often on
the governing party, and there is evidence that there have been
attempts to push money indirectly from the Russian and Chinese
Governments on to the Conservative Party. They also, no doubt,
try other parties and there is evidence they have tried and, on
occasion, succeeded with other parties, not only opposition
parties but fringe movements on the right and left, and even
occasionally groups active in referendum campaigns. These are not
rumours; there is evidence. There is a problem; the Commons
reason is wrong.
The purpose of the Bill is to stiffen the safeguards against
foreign power interventions in Britain’s democratic politics. It
does so successfully in many other areas. Some of us thought that
the efforts it intended to make to interfere with interaction
between international companies, international policy
researchers, universities and other Governments were almost too
onerous. With political parties, it was too far in the opposite
direction. I do not understand how the Minister justifies leaving
this particular part of the stable doors open when the Bill
rightly moves to close so many other doors. There is a problem
here. It has been drawn to our attention by several of the
respected committees which advise us on the rules of politics,
and the Government should recognise and accept that. If they do
not, I hope this House will insist on supporting the
amendment.
(Lab)
My Lords, there is no doubt that a number of foreign Governments
seek to subvert our democracy and in many cases that means
seeking to influence political parties, particularly the
governing parties. All parties are looking for finance; the
temptation is to accept that money. I rise mainly to applaud the
colleagues who have spoken before, and particularly to adopt what
the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said so well about the inadequacy
of the current safeguards.
I congratulate the Government on organising the two-day
conference on the reconstruction of Ukraine. Understandably, it
is focusing mainly on financial reconstruction, but I have just
come from a parallel conference on restoring, or improving,
democracy in Ukraine, which involves looking particularly at the
political parties. What sort of example are we giving to Ukraine
if we allow these loopholes to continue? How do we inoculate
Ukraine against possible subversion from Russian oligarchs and
others? How do we inoculate ourselves and our own democracy from
similar attempts? I think of the phrase “sunlight is the best
disinfectant”, which is attributed mainly to the great American
jurist, Justice Brandeis, who was so towering in his intellect
and legal knowledge. If we are to have the sunlight, the onus
must surely be on the Government, or anyone else who seeks to
block that sunlight, to give good reasons why they should do so,
because we know that there are malign forces seeking to subvert
our democracy.
We need an active citizenry and a committed democracy to counter
these sorts of attempts. I believe the response of the
Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others have
shown so well, is inadequate to that task.
(Con)
My Lords, I will take just two minutes, because when I vote
against the Government, I generally listen to the debate and have
a clear view. Democracy is being bought. This is part of a very
difficult proposition that we have. I completely support the
noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but I am also concerned at the amount
of money that goes into political parties in Britain, because it
is just not true that people pay for nothing. We need to look at
the whole structure of party financing.
I have been many times to Ukraine, which has just been mentioned.
It is not just foreign financing; one of the curses of Ukraine
was oligarchs buying political parties and buying seats in the
Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian parliament. We have to look at what
we call democracy and how it functions if we are allowing so much
money to go into it from basically pretty covert sources.
I would like to see a very strict limit on donations. I am
delighted in some ways that the Labour Party is now reported as
getting millions every quarter—but this is not the way forward,
any more than it is for our party. We have to find a better way
of doing it. To all those people who deride state funding, I say
that at least it is in the open and is based on the number of
votes.
I will support the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but I see this as a
much wider thing. I will also support the Motion about the
Intelligence and Security Committee. The noble Lord, Lord West,
made an excellent speech outlining why we should, and I have
nothing to add to it. We need a fundamental look at the way we
fund democracy in this country.
(LD)
My Lords, these Benches will support Motion C1 in the name of the
noble Lord, , if he tests the opinion of the
House. He made the case very adequately, and I need not add
anything. These Benches will also support the noble Lord, Lord
Carlile, if he seeks to test the opinion of the House on Motion
A1.
The coming year is likely to be the most expensive year in
British politics—let us be honest about it—so the time to act is
now, rather than having regrets after the next election if there
are difficulties with some of the sources of the donations.
Therefore, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is right: it is no
longer good enough simply to verify the donor and not the source
of the funds.
I used to give tours of the House of Commons when I worked for
David Steel—and I also thought that was a toilet behind the
Speaker’s chair, after the Speaker no longer used the toilet
under his chair with the curtains around it—so I learned
something about the Reasons Committee. I do not think it would
have taken the committee an hour and 45 minutes to come up with
Reason 22A:
“Because the law already makes sufficient provision in relation
to donations to political parties”.
That was the reason given before the current situation for
reporting mechanisms was put in place. It is a reason that has
been given by the Government each time there has been a proposal
for change. The question is not whether we agree with that
reason—which, of course, we should not—but what the merits of the
case for seeking extra information about the sources of funding
are.
Like the noble Lord, , I thank the Minister for the
way he has engaged on the Bill. If he does not mind me saying so,
it has been a model of how Ministers can operate. But there are
these two outstanding issues on which he can use his good counsel
with his colleagues in the House of Commons.
I know the Minister made the point that this will potentially
delay the Bill a little longer. He will forgive me for saying so,
but the Bill was delayed because of the Government bringing
forward the foreign influence registration scheme without notice
in Committee in the Commons, dumping on us and then having to
bring 150 concession amendments. We have done our job and we
continue to do it—that is the point of us being here. The time to
act is now.
The Minister also mentioned that one of the deficiencies of the
amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is that political
parties had not been consulted. That is a bit rich. The
Government have not asked the Electoral Commission to ask
political parties for their view about it, but then they say that
is a problem with the amendment because there was no
consultation. That is not really relevant, if the Minister does
not mind me saying so.
We have to move to a situation in which we check not just the
status of the donor, as the noble Baroness said, but the status
of the source of funds. We would do it if a donor was buying
property and HMRC was uncertain about the source of the
funds—that is why we have unexplained wealth orders. It seems
odd, as it seems to be the Government’s and the Minister’s
position that the very same person who could be liable for an
unexplained wealth order from HMRC if they were buying a property
would be able to donate considerable funds to a political party
and there would be no questions asked. It does not match. We also
have a list of countries where extra checks have to be made by
law because of the list of countries in the anti-money laundering
and terrorism financing regulations that the Minister’s
department puts forward.
In that regard, I will ask a couple of questions of the Minister.
I hope he is able to answer them today but, if he is not, I will
be grateful if he writes to me. In support of my noble friend
, I note that we seem to
be in a position in which, over the last seven years, if you are
a Conservative treasurer and you donate more than £3 million, you
have a unique set of characteristics and skills that will mean
that you have a 100% chance of being elevated to this House. If
you donate more than £3 million and coincidentally then become
the treasurer of the governing party, that governing party
elevates you to be a Member of Parliament to hold that governing
party to account. This is Britain in the 21st century. I
understand that the current treasurer has given £600,000 through
Unatrac Ltd and that he has also given personal donations. He is
a joint national—I do not cast any aspersions on him whatever. I
would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that he does not
have a non-dom status. I would also be grateful if the Minister
could state where his permanent residency is: London or Cairo. I
would be grateful for a simple, straightforward
clarification.
I would also be grateful if the Minister could state when Unatrac
stopped trading with Russian oil and gas enterprises. Another
Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, is here—he and I have
debated Russian sanctions and trying to clamp down on economic
activities with Russia for a long time in this House. Apparently,
Unatrac has made a statement that over the last few weeks it has
suspended trading with Russian oil and gas. I would be grateful
if the Minister could tell me when that ceased permanently.
I ask that because, according to the accounts of Unatrac, its
immediate parent company is Unatrac Subco Ltd, which is
incorporated in Dubai. Unatrac’s ultimate parent undertaking is
Unatrac Holding Ltd, based in the UAE. The UAE is on the list of
the anti-money laundering and terrorism financing regulations;
extra requirements have to be made when businesses are carrying
out activities from the UAE. The Minister says that political
parties that receive millions of pounds in donations do not have
to do that. The context we are facing is that over the coming
year, as many noble Lords have said, money and politics will
affect all political parties. The time to act is now. We must
amend the Bill to make sure that we do not regret it in 2025.
5.00pm
(Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this
relatively short debate. It was remiss of me earlier not to
praise our security services, as the noble Lord, , did, so I will correct that
omission now. I also thank in particular the noble Lords, and Lord Carlile, for the
spirit in which they discussed and spoke to their Motions.
There is obviously a fundamental disagreement on the burden that
this Bill would place on political parties, and indeed on whether
the laws stand up to “intellectual analysis”; I believe that was
the phrase used. I think I have made a strong case already that
all of the matters under discussion are already illegal. However,
there are one or two points that perhaps deserve clarification,
so I will go into those briefly.
On overseas electors, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady
Hayter, it is a long-standing principle first introduced by the
Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1998 that if you are
eligible to vote for a party in an election then you are also
eligible to donate to that party.
On unincorporated associations being used to funnel donations to
political parties, there are a number of existing rules that make
sure that ineligible foreign money is prohibited from entering
through proxy donors. Permissible donors cannot give donations on
behalf of impermissible donors. It is right that unincorporated
associations that carry on business mainly in the UK and have
their main office here can donate to political campaigns. I have
already said this, but I will say it again: unincorporated
associations that are making political contributions are already
subject to additional controls compared with other types of
donors. If they make political contributions or donations over
£25,000 within a year, they must notify the Electoral Commission
and provide it with information about how they are funded.
On the questions raised about the Committee on Standards in
Public Life, the Government responded to the committee’s report
Regulating Election Finance in September 2021. The Elections Act
2022 contains measures that closely link to the recommendations
made in that report—for example, the new requirement on political
parties to declare their assets and liabilities over £500 on
registration, and a restriction of third-party campaigning to
UK-based or otherwise eligible campaigners. However, as the
Government’s response stated, the recommendations in the report
deserve full consideration. As noble Lords will be very well
aware, electoral law is complex, and more work is required to
consider the implications and practicalities of all the
committee’s recommendations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, also referred to a report in the
newspapers today. I obviously cannot comment on the details of
the individual case, but the Government absolutely recognise the
risk posed by those who wish to evade the rules on donations. I
think this story demonstrates just seriously the Government take
that risk.
I am not sure there is very much point in me saying anything
else. I say to the noble Lords, and Lord Anderson, that we are
not Ukraine. Self-evidently, there are very robust laws already
in place.
If I was ungracious to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in a
previous debate, I would like to apologise for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised a number of party-political
matters. Obviously, I am here to speak on behalf of the
Government so I will not address those, but I suggest that he
writes to the party.
I now move on to Motion C1 from the noble Lord, . I join him in praising the
work of the ISC, on which the noble Lord, Lord West, sits. Of
course, we agree with much of what has been said. However, His
Majesty’s Government consider the current MoU to be sufficient to
allow the ISC to discharge its statutory oversight duties of the
agencies and the wider intelligence community. The MoU is subject
to continuous review and His Majesty’s Government welcome the ISC
proposing changes that it would like the PM to consider.
The ISC has a broad remit over security and intelligence policy,
as set out in the Justice and Security Act and the accompanying
memorandum of understanding between the ISC and the Government.
Those documents also set limitations where, for example, there
would be a conflict with current operations or where it would be
duplicative of the work of other jurisdictions. We believe that
those guiding principles are working effectively and would seek
to maintain them but, as I just said, the Government would
welcome the ISC proposing changes it would like the PM to
consider. It also shows the respect the Government have for the
work of the ISC that the Security Minister has made the
commitments that he has.
I say to the noble Lord, , that I do not believe I was
glib in my remarks about the Prime Minister earlier. Obviously, I
am unable to comment on the PM’s diary, but I have said this
before and made the commitment at this Dispatch Box: I will make
sure that No. 10 is well aware of the discussions that we have
had in the Chamber today.
With that, I am afraid that I do not think there is much point in
me saying too much else. I beg to move.
(Lab)
We in the ISC have tried to get movement on the MoUs being
changed. There is no doubt—all ISC members feel this way—that we
are being thwarted in getting this to happen and we do not really
understand why. The Minister makes it sound as though this is a
nice process that is happening. It is not, I am afraid. It is not
happening, which is extremely worrying.
(Con)
Obviously, I will make sure that those concerns are reflected to
my right honourable friend the Security Minister, who will see
the committee fairly soon. As I have just said to the noble Lord,
, clearly I will make sure that
this debate is widely understood in the appropriate places.
(CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this
debate; I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his great
courtesy. I say to him, with great respect, that he has answered
mostly questions of his choice that were not directly relevant to
the points I made. In my experience over the years, the
repetition of a weak defence is capable of convincing only the
defendant and nobody else.
I thank those who spoke. It is worth mentioning their names for a
particular reason. The noble Lord, , was powerful, as ever. The
noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made some powerful additional
points. The noble Lord, Lord West, is always the right person to
have on the bridge with you if you can arrange it; he spoke
powerfully about the views of the ISC. The noble Lord, , speaks on matters of
the constitution with great political and academic knowledge, and
has done so for many years. I have always respected the noble
Lord, , whom I have
watched in the other place as well as here, for the wisdom of his
views. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has yet again made another
powerful speech in your Lordships’ House. Interestingly, the
noble Lord, , was the only Member on the
Conservative Back Benches to speak in this debate—a factor that I
take to be of significance.
Taking all that into account, it is my intention to invite the
House to agree to my Motion by expressing its opinion.
[Division 1
Division on Motion A1
Content
219
Not Content
172
Motion A1 agreed.
Held on 21 June 2023 at
5.07pm](/Lords/2023-06-21/division/FDEA1061-62D5-4FB5-BEE2-0E26823ACC06/LordsChamber?outputType=Names)
5.19pm
Motion B
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 26A
and 26B.
26A: In subsection (2), in inserted subsection (2)(b), at end
insert “relating to intelligence”
26B: In subsection (2), in inserted subsection (5), at end insert
“relating to intelligence”
Motion B agreed.
Motion C
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 122, to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 122A.
122A: Because section 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013
already makes sufficient provision in relation to memoranda of
understanding.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 122B in lieu—
122B: After Clause 89, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to review the Intelligence and Security Committee of
Parliament's memorandum of understanding
(1) The Prime Minister must ensure that the memorandum of
understanding between the Prime Minister and the Intelligence and
Security Committee of Parliament (the “ISC”) under section 2 of
the Justice and Security Act 2013 (the “MoU”) is reviewed in the
light of any changes to the intelligence or security activities
of His Majesty’s Government as a result of this Act.
(2) Any revisions to the MoU arising as a result of the review
under subsection (1) must be agreed between the Prime Minister
and the ISC in accordance with the process set out in section 2
of the Justice and Security Act 2013.
(3) Any engagement between the Prime Minister and the ISC
relating to revisions to the MoU arising as a result of the
review under subsection (1) must commence within the 6-month
period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.””
[Division 2
Division on Motion C1
Content
223
Not Content
165
Motion C1 agreed.
Held on 21 June 2023 at
5.20pm](/Lords/2023-06-21/division/EBFD2782-D005-4C1F-BE1D-4342642013A0/LordsChamber?outputType=Names)
5.31pm
Motion D
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment
153A.
153A: In paragraph 16(3), leave out from beginning to the second
“of” and insert “A special adviser within the meaning of section
1”
Motion D agreed.
|
