Welcomes the Government's change of heart on making it explicit in the Bill that individuals can access criminal injuries compensation whenever appropriate. Acknowledges the improvements made during the Bill’s passage and continues to monitor these matters for future enhancements.

Supports the Bill as it provides legal certainty for covert human intelligence sources. Welcomes judicial oversight measures, additional safeguards for children and vulnerable people, and provisions addressing collateral damage.

Acknowledges the necessity of a Bill but could not support it due to insufficient safeguards. Welcomes additional protections for children and vulnerable people, yet remains concerned about the extent of these powers. Questions the adequacy of human rights protections under the Human Rights Act.

Welcomes the Bill for providing legal certainty, especially in light of judicial oversight. Supports provisions for redress and compensation for victims of collateral damage, as well as additional safeguards for juveniles.

Acknowledges the improvements in the Bill concerning children and covert intelligence sources, thanks various individuals for their work on this issue. Supports the exceptional circumstances principle and the role of IPCO. Expresses concern over the absence of appropriate adults in all conversations involving children as CHIS and urges the Minister to publish a long-awaited code of practice. Emphasises the importance of safeguarding protection for all children involved, not just those under 16.

Compliments Stella Creasy on her campaign efforts. Expresses concern about the division between children above and below 16 regarding the requirement for an appropriate adult, suggesting that police officers should not be allowed to make such judgments even in exceptional circumstances. Acknowledges improvements made but argues they are insufficient. Raises ambiguity about the extent of crimes CHISs could authorise and seeks clarity from the Minister on the legality of acts breaching the Human Rights Act.

Ms Begum is opposed to the Bill as it seeks to decriminalise criminal conduct by intelligence agents. She argues that the amendments do not provide sufficient safeguards for ethnic minorities, protest movements, and trade unions, particularly concerning the rights of children from these groups. She cites concerns over increased surveillance in Muslim communities and fears that the Bill could exacerbate existing civil rights issues.

Mr Hayes supports the Bill, arguing it is necessary for saving lives by enabling covert intelligence operations. He emphasises that these measures are crucial in preventing terror attacks and ensuring public safety. Mr Hayes highlights improvements made to safeguards through government engagement but maintains that certain criminal activities are necessary under controlled conditions to gather critical information.

Mr Carmichael welcomes the improvements but remains sceptical of the Bill's adequacy in providing sufficient protections. He argues that its introduction was driven by a legal risk rather than genuine concern for oversight, suggesting it will not stand the test of time. Mr Carmichael criticises the ambiguity between the Government's arguments before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and their stance on the Bill.

Supports the Bill's primary objective of defending national security. Acknowledges Lords amendment 3 on criminal injuries compensation but urges the Government to consider related counter-amendments due to operational concerns.

Thankful for the Bill and the efforts of the Government in bringing it forward. Supports amendments that aim at addressing human rights issues and safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.

Stresses the importance of open legislation, training for CHIS agents, and the need to avoid collusion activities. Supports the Bill's role in reducing such activities and safeguarding communities.