Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD):...Amendments 16
and 17 deal with the number of different bodies that can be
authorised under the Bill as it currently stands. At present, it
extends well beyond the obvious candidates and includes: MI5, the
police, the security services, the Food Standards Agency, the
Gambling Commission, and the Department of Health and Social Care.
With these amendments, we seek to reduce the list to the National
Crime Agency the Serious Fraud Office and...Request free trial
(Orkney
and Shetland) (LD):...Amendments 16 and 17 deal with the number of
different bodies that can be authorised under the Bill as it
currently stands. At present, it extends well beyond the obvious
candidates and includes: MI5, the police, the security services,
the Food Standards Agency, the Gambling Commission, and the
Department of Health and Social Care. With these amendments, we
seek to reduce the list to the National Crime Agency the
Serious Fraud Office and the intelligence services...
(Bracknell) (Con):...To think that our operators are
naturally predisposed to committing murder, torture or sex crimes,
or that the Bill somehow encourages them to do so, is just wrong.
The need to exercise discretion and judgment lies at the heart of
what we ask our services to perform. Not only are these people good
at what they do, they intuitively know the difference between right
and wrong, so it is right that a CCA may be granted where necessary
for one of three purposes: national security, the prevention or
detection of crime, and in the interests of the economic wellbeing
of the UK. I am happy, too, that under clause 2 only responsible
bodies, such as the police, the National Crime Agency the Serious
Fraud Office or the security services, will be
entrusted to do so, albeit with further work needed beyond the
scope of the Bill on appropriate operating procedures...
...The recent evidence on why the Bill is necessary speaks
for itself. Since March 2017, MI5 and counter-terrorism police have
thwarted at least 27 terror attacks on home soil. In 2017, covert
operations infiltrated a criminal organisation to stop a planned
attack on Downing Street. In 2018, the National Crime Agency disrupted
more than 30 threats to life, seized over 3,000 kg of class A
drugs, safeguarded more than 200 people, and removed almost 100
firearms and 4,000 rounds of ammunition off the streets. Between
2017 and 2019, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has prevented
hundreds of millions of pounds of tax loss, with one case alone
estimated to have saved the Treasury over £100 million. Such is the
wider utility and benefit of our intelligence sources across a
range of authorised bodies, what else do we not know?
(Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab):...The
Minister will also know that I have long supported much of the
counter-terror work that the Home Office does, as well as its work
with the police and intelligence agencies. I agree with the core
purpose behind this Bill, which is to provide a legal framework for
the difficult work that our Security Service, counter-terror police
and National Crime Agency need to be
able to do in order to keep us safe. But that is why we should take
care to get the details of the legislation right. That is important
because it is not only about the rule of law and safeguards for our
democracy, but about the interests of the Security Service and the
police. It in their interests to have the proper safeguards in
place for the vital work they do. It protects them and it also
protects individual officers, who have to take very difficult
decisions under pressure with great integrity...
...It is clear that legislation is needed. We should not be
blocking legislation on this but seeking to amend it. We should
also give the House of Lords a chance to table amendments, with
their expertise, and I hope they will have more time to consider
amendments than we have had. If the House blocks legislation, the
courts will intervene, and that will be unsatisfactory, no matter
what the Appeal Court decides. If the Appeal Court decides that the
status quo is fine, we will not have this legislation—we will not
have a statutory footing for the operations that we have discussed,
we will not have the safeguards in place, and we will not have
transparency. On the other hand, if the Appeal Court decides that
the status quo is not appropriate and strikes down the legal basis
for this activity, MI5 and the National Crime Agency will
suddenly end up without a legal basis to do the urgent work that is
so important to keep us safe. Let us be honest: we will also face
emergency legislation being brought to the House with even less
time to consider it than I am complaining about today. It is far
better for us to have proper consideration of legislation, but I
really urge the Minister to ensure that there is more time for this
to be discussed and more opportunity for amendments to be tabled in
the other place following our debate...
(St Helens
North) (Lab):...As I said
on Second Reading, my right hon. and learned Friend has made it
clear that security is a top priority for the Labour party under
his leadership. We will be robust in supporting the fight against
terrorism and crime in all its forms. We consider it our first
responsibility to keep this country, its citizens and our
communities safe, and we are grateful to those in the police, the
security services, the National Crime Agency and
wider law enforcement. They put their own safety and lives at risk
to protect us, and we will meet our duty to support them...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
|
