House of Commons · Bill Debate
03 May 2023 · 19 other contributors
Opened by Thomas Tugendhat Con Tonbridge
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Thomas Tugendhat raised concerns about intelligence services bill - lords amendment 26, lords amendments 1-21, 23-25, 27-121, 123-152 and 154-174 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Mr. Thomas Tugendhat moved Lords amendment 26 to the Intelligence Services Bill, which aims to introduce a duty for the intelligence services to update the memorandum of understanding with the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament regularly. The amendment seeks to ensure transparency and accountability in intelligence operations by requiring regular updates on changes in policy or practice that affect the security of information sharing.
Ms. Rosie Winterton provided procedural guidance to the House regarding Lords amendments 33 and 34, noting that financial privilege is engaged by these amendments if they are agreed to.
Concerned about the inclusion of assistance in torture within the scope of defence. Suggested excluding it to protect individuals like Jagtar Singh Johal from being implicated.
Asked about the use of cryptocurrencies, particularly cryptocurrency mixers, in facilitating hostile state activities. Requested clarification on measures taken to prevent such misuse.
Questioned the adequacy of current checks on foreign donations given the addition of 3.5 million non-resident individuals to the electoral register under the Elections Act 2022.
Suggested that the amendment would force the Government to amend the memorandum of understanding between the Prime Minister and the Intelligence and Security Committee, addressing concerns over reluctance to do so voluntarily.
Mr Lewis intervened to highlight that the previous Prime Minister had offered to meet with the Intelligence and Security Committee. This intervention aimed to correct a misstatement about the current Prime Minister's predecessors not meeting the ISC.
Ms. Theresa Villiers agrees with Julian Lewis on the importance of reforming the Official Secrets Act 1989 and updating the MOU of the Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure proper oversight.
Mr. Martin Docherty expresses concern that clauses 85 to 88 may allow British Governments to avoid paying damages in cases of torture by friendly states, arguing it is not a good way to conduct intelligence services.
Mr. Bob Stewart supports revising the MOU because current arrangements hinder proper scrutiny by the Intelligence and Security Committee, emphasising that classified information should not be used in open courts.
Ms. Alison Thewliss agrees with the need to guard against foreign influence and highlights difficulties in tracing money from incorporated associations that donate to political parties.
Mr. Jeremy Wright notes the ISC's contribution in resolving issues with clause 28, demonstrating its importance and utility for government resolutions.
Mr. Owen Thompson finds it perplexing why the Government resists updating the MOU of the ISC, urging the Minister to commit to this change.
Called for time-limited debate, acknowledged significant issues with the bill but welcomed positive changes, expressed concern over lack of public interest defence in Official Secrets Act and improvements to legal aid provisions.
Welcomed amendments for clarity on offences and registration schemes, criticised omission of public interest defence in Official Secrets Act. Supported Lords amendment 22 for increased transparency on foreign donations to political parties, acknowledged need for ISC updated memorandum of understanding under Lords amendment 122.
Jeremy Wright supports Lords amendment 122 as it highlights the gap in parliamentary scrutiny due to outdated ISC remit. He explains that new units like the Investment Security Unit operate beyond current ISC oversight, leading to a lack of comprehensive review of intelligence-related decisions.
Alistair Carmichael proposes an amendment to disapply subsection (2) of proposed new section 50A of the Serious Crime Act 2007. He argues that clause 31, as it stands, could open UK personnel's actions to International Criminal Court jurisdiction and provide a statutory defence for crimes like torture, undermining historical prohibitions on such abuses.
Offers support for the right hon. Member's amendment, speaks as a representative of journalists to clarify and narrow definitions of offences in the Bill. Emphasises the need for close monitoring and independent review of the legislation’s implementation. Acknowledges concerns over foreign money influencing politics but supports the risk management approach proposed by Lords amendment 22.
Supports Lords amendment 22, citing its strong pedigree with recommendations from Lord Carlile, Lord Evans, Baroness Manningham-Buller, Lord West, and others. Highlights the Electoral Commission's demand for due diligence in checking donations to ensure they are not tainted by human rights abuses or malign influence. Argues that current law is flawed and requires further checks.
He thanked the hon. Member for Halifax and highlighted that the Government remains committed to the UN convention against torture, stating there is nothing in the Bill that would undermine this commitment or give rise to the need for amendments. He acknowledged Lord Pannick’s concerns but stated they were addressed in clause 3 of the Bill. Thomas emphasised treating British citizens like other British citizens, arguing political parties should make judgments and decisions without legal obligation. He also discussed changes to the MOU suggested by the ISC, stating he lacks the authority to implement such changes as he is not the Prime Minister. Finally, he welcomed the hon. Member for Cumbernauld's new role within the SNP.