Extract from report
stage (day 3) of the Online Safety Bill
Clause 60: Regulations about reports to the NCA
Amendment 185
Moved by
185: Clause 60, page 59, line 15, at end insert—
“(2A) The regulations may also—(a) require providers to retain,
for a specified period, data of a specified description
associated with a report, and(b) impose restrictions or
requirements in relation to the retention of such data (including
how the data is to be secured or stored or who may access the
data).(2B) The power to require the retention of data associated
with a report includes power to require the retention of—(a)
content generated, uploaded or shared by any user mentioned in
the report (or metadata relating to such content), and(b) user
data relating to any such person (or metadata relating to such
data).“User data” here has the meaning given by section 206.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations under this Clause may
require a provider to retain data associated with a report sent
to the NCA and impose restrictions or requirements in relation to
the retention of the data.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, child sexual exploitation or abuse is an abhorrent
crime. Reporting allows victims to be identified and offenders
apprehended. It is vital that in-scope companies retain the data
included in reports made to the National Crime
Agency This will enable effective prosecutions and ensure
that children can be protected.
The amendments in my name in this group will enable the Secretary
of State to include in the regulations about the reporting of
child sexual exploitation or abuse content a requirement for
providers to retain data. This requirement will be triggered only
by a provider making a report of suspected child sexual
exploitation or abuse to the National Crime
Agency The provider will need to retain the data included
in the report, along with any associated account data. This is
vital to enabling prosecutions and to ensuring that children can
be protected, because data in reports cannot be used as evidence.
Law enforcement agencies request this data only when they have
determined that the content is in fact illegal and that it is
necessary to progress investigations.
Details such as the types of data and the period of time for
which providers must retain this data will be specified in
regulations. This will ensure that the requirement is
future-proofed against new types of data and will prevent
companies retaining types of data that may have become obsolete.
The amendments will also enable regulations to include any
necessary safeguards in relation to data protection. However,
providers will be expected to store, process and share this
personal data within the UK GDPR framework.
Regulations about child sexual exploitation or abuse reporting
will undergo a robust consultation with relevant parties and will
be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This process will ensure
that the regulations about retaining data will be well-informed,
effective and fit for purpose. These amendments bring the child
sexual exploitation and abuse reporting requirements into line
with international standards. I beg to move.
(LD)
My Lords, these seem very sensible amendments. I am curious about
why they have arrived only at this stage, given this was a known
problem and that the Bill has been drafted over a long period. I
am genuinely curious as to why this issue has been raised only
now.
On the substance of the amendments, it seems entirely sensible
that, given that we are now going to have 20,000 to 25,000
regulated entities in scope, some of which will never have
encountered child sexual exploitation or abuse material or
understood that they have a legal duty in relation to it, it will
be helpful for them to have a clear set of regulations that tell
them how to treat their material.
Child sexual exploitation or abuse material is toxic in both a
moral and a legal sense. It needs to be treated almost literally
as toxic material inside a company, and sometimes that is not
well understood. People feel that they can forward material to
someone else, not understanding that in doing so they will break
the law. I have had experiences where well-meaning people acting
in a vigilante capacity sent material to me, and at that point
you have to report them to police. There are no ifs or buts. They
have committed an offence in doing so. As somebody who works
inside a company, your computer has to be quarantined and taken
off and cleaned, just as it would be for any other toxic
material, because we framed the law, quite correctly, to say that
we do not want to offer people the defence of saying “I was
forwarding this material because I’m a good guy”. Forwarding the
material is a strict liability offence, so to have regulations
that explain, particularly to organisations that have never dealt
with this material, exactly how they have to deal with it in
order to be legally compliant will be extremely helpful.
One thing I want to flag is that there are going to be some
really fundamental cross-border issues that have to be addressed.
In many instances of child sexual exploitation or abuse material,
the material has been shared between people in different
jurisdictions. The provider may not be in a UK jurisdiction, and
we have got to avoid any conflicts of laws. I am sure the
Government are thinking about this, but in drafting those
regulations, what we cannot do, for example, is order a provider
to retain data in a way that would be illegal in the jurisdiction
from which it originates or in which it has its headquarters. The
same would apply vice versa. We would not expect a foreign
Government to order a UK company to act in a way that was against
UK law in dealing with child sexual exploitation or abuse
material. This all has to be worked out. I hope the Government
are conscious of that.
I think the public interest is best served if the United Kingdom,
the United States and the European Union, in particular, adopt
common standards around this. I do not think there is anything
between us in terms of how we would want to approach child sexual
exploitation or abuse material, so the extent to which we end up
having common legal standards will be extraordinarily
helpful.
As a general matter, to have regulations that help companies with
their compliance is going to be very helpful. I am curious as to
how we have got there with the amendment only at this very late
stage.
(CB)
My Lords, I rise to make a slightly lesser point, but I also
welcome these amendments. I want to ask the Minister where the
consultation piece of this will lie and to check that all the
people who have been in this space for many years will be
consulted.
(LD)
My Lords, as ever, my noble friend Lord Allan and the noble
Baroness, Lady Kidron, have made helpful, practical and
operational points that I hope the Minister will be able to
answer. In fact, the first half of my noble friend’s speech was
really a speech that the Minister himself could have given in
welcoming the amendment, which we do on these Benches.
19:30:00
(Lab)
My Lords, from this side we certainly welcome these government
amendments. I felt it was probably churlish to ask why it had
taken until this late stage to comply with international
standards, but that point was made very well by the noble Lord,
, and I look forward to
the Minister’s response.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their support for these
amendments and for their commitment, as expected, to ensuring
that we have the strongest protections in the Bill for
children.
The noble Lord, , asked: why only now?
It became apparent during the regular engagement that, as he
would expect, the Government have with the National
Crime Agency on issues such as this that this would be
necessary, so we are happy to bring these amendments forward.
They are vital amendments to enable law enforcement partners to
prosecute offenders and keep children safe.
Reports received by the National Crime
Agency are for intelligence only and so cannot be relied on
as evidence. As a result, in some cases law enforcement agencies
may be required to request that companies provide data in an
evidential format. The submitted report will contain a limited
amount of information from which law enforcement agencies will
have to decide what action to take. Reporting companies may hold
wider data that relate to the individuals featured in the report,
which could allow law enforcement agencies to understand the full
circumstances of the event or attribute identities to the users
of the accounts.
The data retention period will provide law enforcement agencies
with the necessary time to decide whether it is appropriate to
request data in order to continue their investigations. I hope
that explains the context of why we are doing this now and why
these amendments are important ones to add to the Bill. I am very
grateful for noble Lords’ support for them.
Amendment 185 agreed.
Extracts from Commons
Amendments and Reasons to the Illegal Migration Bill
Motion X
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 103, to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 103A.
103A: Because the Amendment is unnecessary as section 1 of the
Crime and Courts Act 2013 already provides for the National Crime
Agency to have functions in relation to combating organised
crime; this function encompasses organised immigration crime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice
() (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion X, with the leave of the House, I will
also speak to Motion Y.
Motion X relates to the function of the National Crime
Agency On Report, the noble Lord, , indicated that he had brought
forward his amendment to generate a debate about the role of the
NCA in tackling organised immigration crime. That debate has been
most useful, but on the substance of the amendment I hope that
your Lordships will accept that it is not in fact needed, as the
Commons has decided.
As regards proposed new Section 6A of the Crime and Courts Act
2013, which is now proposed in Amendment 103B, I respectfully
suggest that the NCA’s annual report and annual plan already set
out the range of activities in which it is already engaged to
tackle the cross-channel people-smuggling gangs. Again, this is
an unnecessary addition to the 2013 Act.
Finally on this aspect, I gently say that this here is, after
all, the legislature. We are not the Executive, and I would
respectfully suggest that the legislature should be slow to
overmanage the independent executive agencies, when there is no
compelling reason to do so in this case. That is the Government’s
position on Motion X.
As regards Motion Y, the Government are of course grateful to
have the further opportunity to discuss Lords Amendment 104 with
the most reverend Primate the . The Government
can wholeheartedly concur with the sentiments behind this
amendment. While our immediate focus is on enacting this Bill, we
also need to take a longer-term view if we are to tackle refugee
crises and human trafficking. That is what the Government are
doing. The Government entirely accept that these challenges
cannot be solved by the UK alone and that we need to work
collaboratively with our international partners if we are to
achieve our shared goals.
The interconnected nature of migration and the need to work
collectively is why the Government are already working with the
UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other international
partners. Noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable
friend the Prime Minister has secured agreements quite recently
with France, Italy, Albania and the EU to work together to
address illegal migration, through a combination of operational,
diplomatic and development-led interventions. The UK has every
incentive to continue to develop that work at international level
to address the international problems of migration.
Against that background, the Government’s position, while
accepting fully the very good, worthy and wise intentions behind
the amendment proposed by the most reverend Primate, is that this
amendment is unnecessary. If I may, I again respectfully and
humbly question whether it is a proper use of legislation to
provide in law how a Government—it would be any Governments over
the next 10 years—should set out their policy on working with
international partners over a 10-year period. Government policies
change, adapt and respond to circumstances. What those policies
should be is a matter of public debate and political debate.
In the Government’s view, it would be a somewhat unusual use of
legislation to set this out alone for migration. Why not do it
for defence, health or education? This is particularly where the
Government are expected to set out their strategy for working
diplomatically with international partners in such a
circumstances, unless it is really required. But in the
Government’s submission, with all respect to those who support
and have proposed this amendment, it is not necessary because the
Government are well aware of the need to develop a strategy and
co-operate with international partners, as I have just said.
23:45:00
Motion X1 (as an amendment to Motion X)
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 103B in lieu—
103B: After Clause 60, insert the following new Clause—
“Organised immigration crime enforcement
(1) The Crime and Courts Act 2013 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1 (the National Crime Agency ,
after subsection (10) insert—
“(10A) The NCA has a specific function to combat organised
crime where the purpose of that crime is to enable the illegal
entry of a person into the United Kingdom via the English Channel
(the “organised immigration crime function”).”
(3) After section 6 (duty to publish information), insert—
“6A Duties in relation to organised immigration crime
(1) The Director General must, in addition to other reporting
requirements under this Part, make arrangements for publishing
information about the NCA’s progress in fulfilling the organised
immigration crime function.
(2) Reports under subsection (1) must be made at least once every
six months but may be made more frequently if the Director
General deems it appropriate.
(3) Reports under subsection (1) must be submitted to the
Secretary of State.
(4) Reports under subsection (1) may, if the Director General
deems it appropriate, include recommendations regarding potential
additional measures in relation to the NCA’s organised
immigration crime function.
(5) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable, lay
before both Houses of Parliament—
(a) a summary of each report under subsection (1), and
(b) the Secretary of State’s response to the report.””
(Lab)
My Lords, before I speak to my own amendment, I would like to say
that we very much support the most reverend Primate’s Motion Y1.
Contrary to what the Minister has said, it gives us a great and
important opportunity to discuss these global issues, which
matter so much. Some of you will have listened to Nick Robinson
on the “Today” programme—he is brilliant, of course—who
highlighted some of the issues that have emerged in various areas
of the world. The most reverend Primate gives us the opportunity
to do that, and we very much support his Motion.
I do not intend, given the hour, to speak for long to my Motion.
In the whole discussion we have had on the Bill, my proposed
amendment is the only one that deals with criminal gangs. This is
one of the most important ways to tackle the problem of illegal
migration. Contrary to what the Minister has just told us, it is
part and parcel of what Parliament should be doing—legislating in
the face of what the Government themselves have described as a
national emergency. The full power of the state is required to
tackle this issue. It is only right that Parliament put forward
amendments and Motions and ask itself and the agencies that work
for the state whether enough is being done. That is what my
Motion seeks to do.
To be honest, I could not believe it when the Minister said that
there was no compelling reason to do this. In the last few
months, I have not heard anything different from the Government
about the crisis unfolding across the channel, with hundreds of
people—a record number just a few days ago—coming across the
channel every day. Frankly, there is every compelling reason to
do something to tackle the criminal gangs who are exploiting some
of the most vulnerable.
One alternative we have to the Government’s proposal concerns the
international nature of the crisis, which the most reverend
Primate will no doubt refer to. In my Motion I refer to the need
for not only action by the National Crime
Agency but international co-operation of law enforcement and
police forces across Europe and beyond if we are to tackle this
problem. I hope that your Lordships will feel able to accept my
Motion, because there is a continuing need to ask the Government
whether we are doing enough to tackle and break up the criminal
gangs and to get to the really big figures who organise this
business on a massive scale and exploit the weakness and
vulnerability of people across the continent and beyond. Just by
demanding that the Government answer that, we can get some of the
answers we deserve. I look forward to the Minister’s reply, and I
beg to move.
The
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord,
, and to the noble Lord,
, for what he said. Like him, I
will be brief.
Immigration and asylum, as the long series of debates on this
Bill has shown, is an extraordinarily divisive issue. Speaking as
someone who has been deeply embedded in east Kent for more than a
decade now, I know from experience the extent to which
communities are divided and individuals are torn between their
desire to do what they know is right and care for those arriving,
and their apprehension about the impact on local communities. One
understands both those feelings very well.
When this amendment was tabled in its previous form last week, it
produced considerable reconciliation and unity across the House.
It was agreed that this is a massive, international issue on a
generational basis and that tackling it needs profound thinking
on a long-term basis. Legislation and strategy must be fitted to
the problem, not the problem to the legislation. That is not how
it works. For some things we do not debate strategy or have
strategy on the face of a Bill, but it is impossible to imagine
that we can solve a problem of this kind by taking short-term
view after short-term view. It is essential that the solutions,
as we go forward, bring together the whole of politics, all sides
of both Houses, and unite our country instead of using this as a
wedge issue to divide things.
This is a moment of reconciliation and an opportunity for
profound long-term thought. This happens with climate change, on
which there is legislation about 2050, never mind 10 years’ time;
it happens with defence, where documents are produced that look
at our proposals out to 2030; it happens with spending plans,
where we have three-year committed views on spending because we
know that you cannot do it in 12-month sections.
Secondly, this provides accountability. I could not agree more
that a legislature is not operational, but it is the place in
which the operational Executive is held to account, never mind
which party it is. That will be as inconvenient to any other
party in government as it is to the current party and there will
be moments, if another party is in government, when it will not
like it. That is the nature of our constitution. This provides
for accountability; Ministers and Secretaries of State must come
to both Houses and allow their view of the world to be tested,
challenged, informed and improved.
Thirdly, it enables flexibility. The strategy shifts and changes
as circumstances shift and change. Most of your Lordships will
know Keynes’s remark:
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”
Of course we will need to change our mind as time goes on—if the
boats are stopped, if new threats emerge to do with migration and
if there are new issues.
The 10-year strategy will enable the whole country, united, to
understand where we are going, what the sacrifices are and how
they will be mitigated. This is not a party-political issue but
one in which we must work together: if we work separately, we
will fall separately. Finally, it puts us back into leadership
globally. Without leadership, we cannot lead as this country
should do and as we have so often shown we can. This is an
international issue. We have enormous clout. It does not involve
only the UNHCR, who I think are among the most extraordinary
people I meet, but so many other groups. We need to see how that
leadership is being exercised.
If this Motion passes this evening or if I have eloquently
persuaded the Minister to stand up and say that he has changed
his mind—I am not that hopeful—there are, of course, other ways
of doing it. Before we come back for the next bit of ping-pong, I
would be very happy and open to talk about alternative, but solid
and dependable, ways of achieving the same ends for our country:
reconciliation over this issue, accountability for this and
future governments, flexibility in strategy, and leadership in
the world. There may be other ways, and I am very open to those.
I beg to move.
(Lab)
My Lords, as someone who rarely goes to bed after 11 pm, I will
be incredibly brief. I will comment on both propositions and give
my support to my noble friend and to the most reverent
Primate.
We reached an agreement with the French 21 years ago that tackled
organised criminality, not its victims. For a time, it was
successful. The business model changed, and we must change with
it. The National Crime Agency
working with its counterparts in France, could do a similar job,
with the Government negotiating with the Government of France. We
could pay for a licensing scheme in France that would make it a
criminal offence for anyone to purchase, transport or sell a boat
without a licence. Our agencies and theirs could then work
together to tackle the organised criminal fraternity, who are
bringing such misery.
In support of the most reverend Primate, if we ever needed a
long-term strategy of 10 years rather than 10 months, one geared
not to a general election but to solving a problem, and to
dealing with it internationally, on a long-term basis, we need it
now. That is why this House should support both propositions.
(LD)
My Lords, today the Government heralded a reduction in the
vacancies in the social care sector. This was achieved mainly
through the arrival of 70,000 overseas workers in the last year,
while the Bill tries to stop 45,000 people desperately seeking
sanctuary in the UK. We on these Benches support Motions X1 and
Y1. In a Bill devoid of any measures that target people
smugglers, Motion X1 is the very minimum required. It is
remarkable that stopping the boats is one of the Prime Minister’s
five priorities, and yet it is not one of the Home Secretary’s
strategic priorities for the National Crime
Agency
The most reverend Primate has made a compelling case in Motion
Y1. The Government have set out in legislation the need for a
climate change strategy. But, again, on one of the Prime
Minister’s five top priorities, there is no need to set out in
legislation the need for a strategy in relation to the movement
of refugees and human trafficking. How can the Minister possibly
say that that is a consistent position for the Government to
take? We on these Benches will support both these Motions if the
noble Lord and the most reverend Primate decide to test the
opinion of the House.
00:00:00
(Con)
My Lords, if I may I will first deal briefly with Motion X1 and
the National Crime Agency
It is important to remind the House that the Government have a
dedicated multi-agency task force on organised immigration crime,
which includes the NCA. The task force is committed to
dismantling organised immigration crime groups internationally,
including the criminal networks which facilitate people
smuggling. In partial response, at least, to the noble Lord,
, the task force is active in
17 countries worldwide, working with partners to build
intelligence and prosecution capability.
The Government’s position, and indeed the position of the House
of Commons, is that there is no need for further legislative
measures to support the effectiveness of the National
Crime Agency That is the reason why the Government cannot
support Motion X1. As regards Motion Y1, no one could have
listened to the speeches tonight without recognising the power
and sincerity with which they were made. The Government are all
for reconciliation and accountability; that is a matter, in the
Government’s view, for the normal political process. The House of
Commons’ view, as expressed very recently and by a substantial
majority, is that Amendment Y1 is unnecessary, although I am sure
the sentiment behind it is shared by all of us.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank those who have spoken in this brief debate. I
thank my noble friend for his support and one or
two of the ideas he brought forward, which highlight the point I
am trying to make. That I have tabled an amendment has caused my
noble friend to put before your Lordships
the idea of licensing the boats. That may be a good idea, there
may be better ideas or there may be additional ideas, but at
least that was an idea that came forward.
The Minister himself has given the House a couple of facts about
17 countries working together; that has never come up in our
discussions on the Bill. We need to continue to ask questions of
the Government and to keep making demands of them; through that,
public policy will be improved. The very least we can do is for
at least one part of the Bill to concentrate on the criminal
gangs who are causing such misery, rather than on the people who
suffer misery at the hands of those gangs. That is the purpose of
my amendment, and I thank the noble Lord, , for his support.
I finish with reference to the most reverend Primate the . How refreshing it
is to have a contribution which talks about how to deal with a
common problem facing humanity, whatever our views or wherever we
come from—actually looking at what we might do to come together
to solve that common problem rather than seeking to divide us, as
sometimes happens.
I finish with this: we either try to solve this problem as one
country—where one country believes that it can solve the problem
by tightening up its borders and pulling up the drawbridge—or we
recognise that across the continent and the globe countless
millions of people are moving and the number who are going move
in the future is probably going to increase. Some of the poorest
countries in the world take in more refugees than many of the
richer countries. All that needs to be discussed, debated and
looked at—not just in a debate in Parliament but over a period of
time in which people can contribute. That should include not just
people in the legislature but members of the public,
organisations and people from different parts of the globe.
I thought that the most reverend Primate’s contribution was
refreshing and is to be welcomed. I hope that as well as
supporting my own Motion your Lordships see fit to support the
Motion in his name. It deserves support. It allows us to look
forward, up and out, rather than inward. For that, we are in his
debt. I look forward to all of us supporting his Motion. I wish
to test the opinion of the House on Motion X1.
Division 9
12/07/2023 00:05:00
Division on Motion X1
Ayes: 157
Noes: 114
Motion X1 agreed.
To read the whole debate, CLICK HERE
Extract from
Westminster Hall debate on Metropolitan Police: Stephen Lawrence
Murder Investigation
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home
Department ( ):...The IOPC investigation
collated evidence related to the actions and omissions of the
four officers in the early stages of the investigation into
Stephen’s murder. A file was then provided to the CPS to answer
whether anyone should face charges. This was a vast investigation
that had been undertaken by the National Crime
Agency under the IOPC’s direction. It involved the
gathering and analysis of several million pages of information
and intelligence, spanning many years. I understand that NCA
investigators also interviewed more than 150 people, including
serving and former police officers and staff involved in the
original murder inquiry, relevant witnesses and others, including
journalists with in-depth knowledge of the original
investigation...
To read the whole debate, CLICK HERE
