Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Third Reading
Scottish Legislative Consent sought
3.20pm
Motion
Moved by
That the Bill be now read a third time
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, throughout the preparation and passage of the Bill, we
have been working closely with each of the devolved
Administrations. Most of the provisions are UK-wide and are
reserved, as national security is a reserved matter. A small
number of measures in Part 2 of the Bill, on oversight, engage
the legislative consent process in the Scottish Parliament.
Currently, the Scottish Parliament has not granted a legislative
consent Motion, although I can confirm to noble Lords that the
Scottish Government have lodged one. We are engaging
constructively with officials, and I reassure noble Lords that
the Government will continue with this engagement as the Bill is
introduced into the House of Commons. I beg to move that this
Bill be read a third time.
3.21pm
Motion
Moved by
That the Bill do now pass.
(Con)
My Lords, I extend my gratitude to all noble Lords who have
contributed to the Bill, both on the Floor of the House and
outside. We all agree that this piece of legislation is both
important and necessary. The targeted amendments that it will
make to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 will ensure that the
UK’s intelligence services and law enforcement will continue to
have the tools at their disposal to keep this country safe, while
ensuring that these are used in a proportionate way which places
privacy at its heart. As the Bill passed through this House, the
valuable debate has shaped it into what it is now. I am pleased
that the House was able to reach agreement on several areas of
potential divergence and that we send the Bill to the other place
in exceptional shape and with cross-party support.
I first correct the record on one small point I made in my speech
on the second group of amendments in last Tuesday’s debate on
Report. His Majesty’s Treasury is not an example of a public
authority that already has the power to acquire communications
data using a Part 3 request. Examples of public authorities which
do have these powers include His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
and the Financial Conduct Authority, both of which perform a
range of vital statutory functions using communications data.
Once more, I extend thanks particularly to the noble Lord, , who has been
crucial in shaping the Bill through his independent review of the
Investigatory Powers Act and his contributions during the Bill’s
passage. My thanks go also to the noble Lord, , and his colleagues
on the Intelligence and Security Committee. The input from him
and his fellow committee members has been valuable and intended
to improve the Bill. He has been ably and knowledgeably supported
by the erstwhile chair of the committee, the noble Lord, .
Similarly, I have valued the collaborative and serious way in
which the Opposition Front Benches have engaged on matters of
such importance, so I offer my thanks to the noble Lords, , and , for their desire to scrutinise
the Bill carefully and constructively.
I am much obliged to the support of other noble Lords who have
contributed with such eloquence and expertise as the Bill has
passed through this House. In particular, the noble Baroness,
Lady , and the noble Lords,
and , have all provided an
invaluable perspective from their professional backgrounds. The
noble Lord, , and the noble and
learned Lord, of Craighead, both made a number
of important and insightful interventions to help shape the
debates and work towards practical solutions, for which I am
grateful. My thanks go also to my noble friend and his team in the Whips’
Office for their support as the Bill passed through this
House.
I ask noble Lords to join me as I thank the policy officials and
lawyers in the Home Office teams led by Lucy, Phoebe, Lucy, Hugh,
Rob, Daphne and Becca, whose significant efforts have made this
Bill happen. It is their hard work that has brought the Bill to
this point. My thanks go also to the Bill team—Tom, Megan,
Sophie, Emer and James—as well as Dan in my private office. I am
also very grateful to Pete and Lucy, the expert drafters in the
Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, for preparing the Bill and
amendments during its passage.
Finally, I thank the intelligence agencies and law enforcement
for their expert contribution to the Bill and for the work they
do to keep this country safe day after day. The Bill will ensure
that they continue to have the tools they need to carry out this
task. We will all be the safer for it. We remain hugely grateful
for their work.
As we send the Bill to the other place, it needs very little
amending, save for some tidying up here and there. It is the
first job of government to keep this country safe. The Bill helps
us do just that.
(Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister and his team for the
liaison and the work we did together to try to meet all our
concerns about the Bill. I also thank him for giving me the
excitement of my life in that I had an amendment accepted—for the
first time in 14 years. That is a pretty good strike rate, is it
not? I was pleased about that as well.
We on the ISC are very happy that the Bill is needed. However, as
the Minister knows, we are still concerned that there is
insufficient acceptance of the fact that parliamentary scrutiny
is required by the ISC more broadly in this and a number of other
areas. I am sure this will be brought up in the other place;
otherwise, I am pleased that we have moved this Bill forward at
pace.
(CB)
My Lords, I echo all the thanks that came from the Minister. I do
not think I can add to his list, but I certainly endorse
everything he said.
Bills of this nature can be controversial. We are seeing this in
some other parts of the world at the moment. That was not the
case in your Lordships’ House. That is testimony to the care with
which the Bill was prepared, the civilised way in which it was
debated and the openness of the Government to some of the
important points made during our debates. I single out in
particular the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee
for the great scrutiny that it applied to it.
If I may, I will depart briefly from the studied impartiality
associated with the Cross Benches. With the Government and
Opposition so closely aligned on a Bill, it was particularly
useful that we heard from the Liberal Democrats—with their
sometimes annoying but rather necessary process of probing
amendments. They caused everyone to think carefully about what we
were doing. All in all, it was a happy experience for me. I hope
that this is a good model for future Home Office Bills.
(LD)
My Lords, having been cleared to annoy your Lordships’ House, I
will do my best to do so.
This Bill started in your Lordships’ House and now heads to the
Commons. Its primary purpose of enabling the intelligence
services to better build their data models and teach their AI
systems has been left completely unmolested by your Lordships.
However, other parts of the Bill have attracted a fanfare of
concern from certain external parties—particularly the large
platforms. Whether the Government and Apple are at cross purposes
or the Minister really is out to get it, we in your Lordships’
House were unable to muster sufficient traction to find out or
clarify. It is now up to the MPs if they choose to pick up that
particular baton.
There was also an unresolved issue around the triple lock and the
Prime Minister’s role when they might be in conflict. Again, this
has moved from our orbit. I hope the tenacity of the noble Lord,
Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lord, , might still be involved somehow
between here and the other place. The Minister raised the
important issue of legislative consent. I hope he is successful
in these negotiations.
I echo what other noble Lords have said. This has been a
well-mannered and constructive process of discussion, with
everybody moving in the same direction, albeit at different
speeds.
I thank the Minister and the team he named for their time,
availability and openness in our discussions. I also thank all
the many external organisations and individuals who took time
either to meet and brief or to send information which helped
inform our debate. The discussion was greatly enhanced by the
noble Lords, and , from the Front Bench, and by
colleagues on their Benches, as well as the Cross Benchers. They
played a pivotal role in our discussions.
Finally, I thank the home team: my colleague, my noble friend
, and, most of all, in the Lib Dem Whips’
Office, without whom nothing is possible.
3.30pm
(Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the Bill and see it as an important step
forward for our country. I thank the Minister and his colleagues
very much for their constructive engagement all the way through;
we very much appreciate that. I join the Minister in thanking his
officials, all of whom have been helpful in ensuring that we
understand the Government’s proposals. I wish him well with the
Scottish Government and sorting out the various legislative
consents; I hope that happens as soon as possible.
I thank my noble friend for his support and help, and
Clare Scally of our Whips Office, who has done an amazing job. I
also thank the noble Lord, , the representative of the
Liberal Democrats, who have engaged with us and others
constructively on the Bill. I also single out the noble Lord,
, whose report
gave us a hugely beneficial platform through which to move
forward. When an expert puts a report together and the Government
engage constructively with it, it helps enormously. Similarly, I
thank my noble friends Lord West and Lord Murphy, the ISC for its
work and the intelligence services, some of whose representatives
are here, for their input. It would be remiss of us not to join
the Minister in thanking them again, particularly when we read on
the front pages of our newspapers the threat to so-called Iranian
dissidents in this country from Iranian criminal gangs. It shows
yet again the importance of the work they do.
The Bill is an important step forward because it maintains the
powers that our police and other services need to stay ahead of
the criminals and those who would organise against us. There are
still one or two issues to be looked at, but the Bill leaves us
in a good place. As the noble Lord, , said, there will be continuing
debate about the triple lock and whether the wording used is
completely right, but it is a significant step forward. As my
noble friend Lord West mentioned, it shows the Government in a
good light when they listen to the arguments and accept
amendments because they are the right thing to do. I hope that we
can do that in other areas as well.
There are still issues with the oversight the ISC has more
generally of government business, and how large companies’
security measures and the work they do will continue under the
Bill. However, the Minister is to be congratulated on the open
way he has led the legislation through the House. As others have
said, it is a case study in how to do it, and we are very
grateful for it.
Bill passed.
