Security Service Act - Clause 1 - Authorisation of Criminal Conduct

Mr Nigel Evans supported the government's stance on disagreeing with Lords amendments 2 to 5 and 6 to 14. He highlighted the need for clarity in the legal framework without overburdening it, addressing concerns about juveniles through existing codes of practice under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) Order 2000.

Mr Kevan Jones intervened to raise specific questions about the inclusion of juvenile considerations in the Bill, operational impacts on MI5 due to non-adoption in Scotland, and the necessity for detailed information in annual reports by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.

Mr Bob Stewart intervened briefly to correct a mistake regarding addressing Mr Deputy Speaker correctly.

Welcomed Labour's return to a more security-focused stance under new leadership. Emphasised the risk of putting agents' lives at stake if strict limitations were set on authorised activities.

Lewis opposes Lords amendment 2, arguing that it would make it easier for terrorists to identify undercover agents and increase the number of atrocities committed. He believes that prohibiting criminal conduct authorisations is counterproductive despite being well-intentioned.

Cherry supports Lords amendments as they address some concerns, though she opposes the Bill due to its retreat from rule-of-law principles and human rights protections. She highlights that the amendments do not sufficiently protect trade union activities or women’s rights and does not see sufficient safeguards for these issues in the Bill.

Neill supports the importance of balancing national security with the rule of law. He questions why a reasonableness test should not be included in Lords amendment 1, citing potential inconsistencies between the code of practice and statute. Neill agrees with the Government’s stance on Lords amendment 2 but highlights practical risks that could arise if passed. For Lords amendments 3 and 4, he emphasises the need for innocent victims to receive proper compensation for unintentional harm caused by CHIS activities. Concerning Lords amendment 5, Neill supports Lord Thomas's argument and believes there should be a judicial means of stopping improperly authorised activity.

Expressed gratitude for security services and stated the bill should be welcomed as it puts current practices on a statutory footing. Acknowledged difficult decisions by security services but disagreed that the bill would allow extreme measures like murder or rape. Supported judicial oversight but not pre-authorisation. Raised concerns about the scope of organisations covered by the bill, particularly non-security agencies.

Expressed worry that putting constraints on covert operatives in statute could result in their harm or death. Highlighted potential risks to operatives if legislation identifies them.

Suggested it might be a mistake to have the same bill cover both security services and other agencies like the Food Safety Agency, questioning the necessity for such broad scope.

I argue that using children as spies is morally reprehensible, with minimal safeguards in place. An example of a 17-year-old child being forced into illegal activities highlights the risks involved. I support Amendment 4 to restrict such practices to exceptional circumstances and limit potential harm. Additionally, Amendment 2 is crucial to prevent state authorisation of serious crimes like torture or murder, aligning with international standards.

The amendment is necessary to protect children involved in criminal activities, such as county lines gangs. With an estimated 46,000 children and 4,000 in London alone engaged in such gangs, it is crucial that the state does not put them directly in harm’s way by asking them to commit crimes or inform on others without proper safeguards. The amendment also extends protection to vulnerable individuals, including victims of trafficking and modern slavery.

Argues that accepting Lords amendments could put lives at risk, citing examples of terrorist attacks. Emphasises the need for covert intelligence sources to act bravely and against potential terrorists and gangsters. Disagrees with arguments based on human rights, stating they are weak. Trusts experts like the Intelligence and Security Committee more than others. Supports trust in security services' ability to act proportionately.

Intervenes to argue that Blair's approach worsened terrorism, suggesting different experts support his view. Argues for empirical evidence from other countries.

Intervenes to argue against relying on authority and supports specific example of terrorists using forbidden actions as a checklist, which he finds unanswerable.

Intervenes to share personal experience of not needing laws to prevent using children in operations.

Proposes amendments to empower parliamentary oversight by providing objective measures for covert human intelligence sources, ensuring they can be held accountable. Emphasises the importance of protecting victims and treating children differently under criminal law. Criticises the Government's narrow approach as a panic measure rather than a comprehensive regulatory framework.

Davies argues that the Bill brings unnecessary, disproportionate powers and removes safeguards. He supports Lords amendments to exclude certain serious crimes from authorisations and improve judicial scrutiny through objective tests and reports to judicial commissioners.

Khan supports the Bill, highlighting its importance for national security and effective operations. He acknowledges concerns about juvenile and vulnerable CHIS but argues that robust safeguards exist and are necessary to combat criminal activities effectively.

Supports Lords amendments 1 to 6, particularly amendment 3. Argues that the Bill does not provide sufficient protection for victims of covert operations or marginalized communities such as Muslims. Emphasises the need for redress mechanisms and a review based on public inquiry findings.

Ellis argued against setting limits in the legislation similar to those of other countries, emphasising consistency across UK Acts. He mentioned existing safeguards and the need for reasonable belief tests. He also discussed civil redress mechanisms through independent bodies like the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Regarding juveniles, he noted that the amendment does not provide new powers but seeks to place on a statutory basis the framework and safeguards for rare occasions where juveniles may participate in criminal conduct as CHIS.

McGinn questioned why the Government would not accept the amendment despite the need for consistency across law. He raised concerns about different protections for 16 and 17-year-olds who commit crimes voluntarily versus those authorised under a criminal conduct authorisation.