argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Philip Thomas Hollobone (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It relates to the non-disclosure of Government-held information to the House. During the response to the urgent question on the deportation of foreign and EU prisoners, at 5 minutes past 4 this afternoon my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) asked the Home Secretary if she would tell the House how many EU prisoners had been transferred compulsorily from this country to their EU country of origin under the terms of the EU prisoner transfer agreement, which the Home Secretary prayed in aid in her response to the urgent question. The Home Secretary said in answer to him that she did not have that information readily available. I repeated the question 10 minutes later, at quarter past 4. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), was on the Front Bench, there were seven officials in the box, and there were other Home Office Ministers on the Front Bench. I find it inconceivable that the Home Secretary was not apprised of that information, and withheld it from the House. What can be done, Sir, to make sure that that information is released to the House before it rises later today?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I did not quite hear the tail end of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I am sure that he would not suggest that a Minister would deliberately refuse to give information that she had at the time. As for exactly what was known by the Minister, or what was available to Minister, or what was proffered to the Minister, I do not know. If a Minister has not given a correct answer it is incumbent on them to correct it as quickly as possible. If the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied, as he clearly is, he has the resources of the Table Office open to him to table a question, including a question for a named day. If he is dissatisfied with the answer to that named day question, or does not receive a substantive answer, there is an arsenal of parliamentary weapons available to him, especially if he judges the matter to be urgent. I will leave the hon. Gentleman, who is a wily and experienced parliamentarian, to his own devices.
Investigatory Powers Bill (Programme) (No. 2) — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Other
John Henry Hayes (Conservative, Centre-right): I beg to move, That the Order of 15 March 2016 (Investigatory Powers Bill (Programme)) in the last session of Parliament be varied as follows: (1) Paragraphs (5) and (6) of the Order shall be omitted (2) Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken on the days and in the order shown in the first column of the following Table (3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table Table Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings Day 1 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Part 1; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Part 8 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Part 2; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Part 5; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Chapter 1 of Part 9 Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order Day 2 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Part 6; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Part 7 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Part 3; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Part 4; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Chapter 2 of Part 9; remaining proceedings on Consideration Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration on the second day One hour before the moment of interruption (4) Any proceedings in Legislative Grand Committee and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day I am immensely grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to move the programme motion. I do not want to delay the House unduly, because there are many significant matters to debate in this important legislation. It has been the Government’s habit, in respect of the Bill, to engage in the most careful—
Investigatory Powers Bill (Programme) (No. 2) — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Other
John Henry Hayes (Conservative, Centre-right): And will certainly not do so in the next two days, Mr Speaker The programme motion is relatively straightforward, because, as I was about to say, it is the Government’s habit, in respect of the Bill, to both listen and learn. Over the next two days, I hope to be able to show that we have done both. Scrutiny has been considerable, and the draft Bill that preceded the Bill that we are considering on Report was scrutinised closely by three parliamentary Committees, including a special Joint Committee, chaired and supported by Members of the Lords and the Commons, who gave the measure considerable attention. The Joint Committee produced a report with numerous recommendations, and members of the Public Bill Committee engaged in debate on those recommendations. There has therefore been a thorough process, and that will continue over the next two days Question put and agreed to.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Henry Hayes (Conservative, Centre-right): It is true that such concerns have been expressed. Indeed, as we debate the Bill in further detail, particularly with regard to internet communication records, we will see that the capability of organisations to meet the Bill’s requirements must be met in a way that is not excessively expensive or impossible to implement, and that does not have the sort of unintended consequences described by my hon. Friend. It is partly the response to those overtures that has stimulated the changes under discussion. So it was, as he said, partly about what the Opposition said in Committee, partly about what the three reports said in respect of privacy and the consequences he described, and partly about the extensive discussions we have had with the sector on how these things could best be implemented.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): I realise that the Bill is complex, but could I ask my right hon. Friend—not during today’s debate, but before our consideration of the matter is concluded—to write to me setting out each of the penalties for each of the misconducts identified in the Bill? The point that I will make to him in due course is that it remains extremely complex to follow, and, in some cases, the penalties appear to be little more than a rap over the knuckles under the Data Protection Act.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Civil Rights
John Henry Hayes (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. and learned Friend has made the point about incomprehensibility previously. Indeed, when we debated the draft version of the Bill, one of the telling points he made was that new legislation was needed in part because it should be more comprehensible, easier to navigate and thus more understandable to more people. He is right that the fact that existing provisions are to be found in a number of places makes it hard to determine exactly what powers there are and how the abuse of those powers will be dealt with. I happily concede the point that he has made, because it is important that all Members of this House, particularly he and the Committee that he chairs, are fully aware of the kinds of penalties that might apply. I have described them as "severe", and I have made the point that wrongdoing cannot be tolerated. Therefore, the least I can do is agree with him that it would be helpful to set out those penalties as he has described. We will do so before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament, because it is only right for us to do so The purpose of the amendments and new clauses that we have tabled is to reflect the consideration of the Committee chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend, and to reflect the character and content of the debate that took place when the Bill enjoyed scrutiny in Committee. As we considered privacy to an increasing degree, it became clear that as well as the implicit emphasis on private interest, which runs through the Bill, there was a compelling case for an explicit commitment to privacy in the form of a new clause. To that end, it is right to say that both the minor parties on the Committee—in this case, the Scottish National party—
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Other
John Henry Hayes (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) shakes his head, but given that the SNP had only two Members on the Committee, I cannot describe it as the major contributor. Before he started shaking his head, I was about to say that the SNP made an incredibly helpful contribution, because it tested the Government, held us to account and made a number of useful and thought-through proposals. The Opposition—by the way, I say to the hon. Gentleman that they are Her Majesty’s Opposition—equally added immense value to our consideration by making the proposal for this new clause, among others. In my judgment, it was absolutely clear that the Opposition were determined to improve the legislation, rather than to weaken or dilute it. In that spirit, I am happy to propose the Government new clauses and amendments in this group To allow as many colleagues as possible to contribute to this important debate, I will now finish, except to say this: when Bills come before the House and are considered on Second Reading and debated in Committee and on Report, different circumstances apply and different shadow Ministers and Ministers approach the matter in their own style, but I take the view that although circumstances are beyond human control, our conduct, to quote Benjamin Disraeli, "is in our power", and our conduct in consideration of this Bill, which is in our power, should continue to be as measured, reasonable and moderate as it can be.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Other
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): The whole House is glad to hear that there has been constructive engagement on this matter, as it is incredibly important to get it right. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that those letters are put in the Library today so that the rest of the House is aware of what is going on, as this is fundamental to the Bill?
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Other
John Henry Hayes (Conservative, Centre-right): I am more than happy to make my letter to the hon. and learned Gentleman available to the House immediately, and I am sure he will do the same. One important point—I want to prevent the hon. and learned Gentleman from having to deal with this himself—is that the review must be conducted during the period in which the Bill is considered, because a review after the legislation has been passed would not be sufficient. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has asked for that, and other hon. Members will also take an interest in it, so I happily make that further commitment on the Floor of the House.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Kenneth Clarke (Conservative, Centre-right): I am listening with interest because the question of an overriding privacy clause has concerned a lot of people. I was not involved in the Committee, and I am not a member of any Select Committees. I am waiting to hear whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied by new clause 5, which he appears to be. The drafting of legislation is always somewhat obscure nowadays, but does he think that the new clause is satisfactory? It says that the public authority should have regard to "any other aspects of the public interest in the protection of privacy" Would he have preferred some reference to the right of a citizen of the United Kingdom to privacy? Does he think that there is a significant difference, or am I simply making a minor drafting point?
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Robert James Buckland (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. and learned Gentleman and I debated this point closely in Committee, and I thank him for the way in which he has approached the matter. With regard to clarity, it is not now beyond any doubt that the test will depend not on the personality of commissioners, but the facts before them? They have a very clear basis on which to make their judgment, looking at the particular degree and seriousness of the case, and balancing the right to privacy with all the qualifications that he, I and others know exist in article 8.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Civil Rights
John Henry Hayes (Conservative, Centre-right): I note the hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments about the difference between the two new clauses, and the Government are not blind to his argument about ensuring that the connection to human rights is secure. The Bill will clearly continue to enjoy scrutiny over the coming weeks and months, and he needs to know that, as he described earlier, we are always happy to listen and learn. I hope that tonight we can establish that an overarching privacy clause is essential, and can continue to have a discussion about the fine details.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Centre-right): Section 6 of the Human Rights Act requires public authorities to have regard to the Act in any event, so I wonder what advantage the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks referring to the Act in the Bill will have.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Civil Rights
David Michael Davis (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his patience in giving way so many times. Frankly, I favour his version and the reason is this. It rather bounces off something he said earlier, when he was talking about the protection of trade unionists. Of course, he is right: historically, there have been cases, 20 years ago or so, of what one might call foolish interference in trade union actions by the agencies. Today, one of the problems is interference in what might be thought of as legitimate demonstrations, by environmental groups and so on, that have become public scandals. When he was talking about trade unionists, I was trying to think how we generalise that. It seems to me that his new clause is the right way to protect those engaged in legitimate democratic activity from improper intervention.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. and learned Gentleman will have seen that the Intelligence and Security Committee has tabled a short amendment that says: "This Act sets out the extent to which certain investigatory powers may be used to interfere with an individual’s privacy." We felt that that, linked to either his or the Government’s amendment, would send out a clear general statement about the state’s requirement to protect privacy. I wonder whether he has a view on that, because it seems to me that our amendment would add something without in any way undermining the ability thereafter in the Bill to undertake those necessary interferences that might be required.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. As will be noted, the Intelligence and Security Committee has tabled a number of amendments to this part of the Bill for the House’s consideration. I want briefly to run through them and explain the Committee’s collective position I want to start, however, by commenting on the debate we have just been having about privacy. It seems to me that it is absolutely central to the duty on this House that we should ensure that the principle of the right to privacy against the state is maintained except if there is a good and sufficient reason why that should not happen. In that context, it is extremely important that the Bill should be clear about the right to privacy. I very much welcome new clause 5; indeed, the difference between that and the new clause tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) is, in reality, very slender indeed, as I see he acknowledges.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Other
Robert James Buckland (Conservative, Centre-right): I have listened very carefully to what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about amendment 18, which the Government are prepared to accept. On the first part of new clause 2, the Government are prepared to accept referral in principle, but I would like to address in greater detail in my closing remarks, my concerns about reporting. I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will listen carefully to what I have to say in due course.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): New clause 5 relates to privacy and states that the public authority must have regard to "whether what is sought to be achieved by the warrant, authorisation or notice could reasonably be achieved by other less intrusive means" If the new clause is accepted, could that affect the point that my right hon. and learned Friend is making? Would not the least intrusive method possible have to be used?
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): The amendment would require that "the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must, in particular, keep under review the operation of safeguards to protect privacy." In our view, it is crystal clear that such a provision would meet the needs that we have expressed. As I have said, the Committee has been satisfied that the rules relating to bulk interception are adequate to provide the necessary safeguards. So, as long as we apply identical standards to equipment interference, the Intelligence and Security Committee believes that this process could be made to operate properly.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the Minister. Clearly, the more targeted a power can be, the better. Indeed, that was one of the reasons that the Committee expressed concern about whether the bulk power was required in the case of equipment interference. However, in classified evidence to us, the Government made the compelling case that simply relying on thematic powers or targeted powers would be likely to be insufficient and unsatisfactory. In changing our position, we have acknowledged that. However, that makes it all the more important that the safeguards should be properly in place. Those are the key amendments in this group that I wanted to bring before the House. I simply reiterate my earlier comment that the Government have really co-operated and moved a great deal in relation to this legislation. They have responded positively, as I shall be able to illustrate as we come to the further amendments.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Robert James Buckland (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right in her recollection, and I am giving this matter anxious consideration. I would, however, point out that clause 203, dealing with the information gateway, underpins the important principles that she outlines about the rights of whistleblowers. I hope that is of some assistance.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Other
John Henry Hayes (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Reference was made earlier to an exchange of correspondence that I enjoyed with the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). I wanted you and the House to know that that correspondence is now available in the Vote Office for the information of Members.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): Privacy is the right to be left alone. It was once proclaimed to be the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilised men, which is why the privacy provisions in the Bill are important. There are many such provisions interweaved in the Bill. To give three important examples, targeted and bulk inception can take place only in the interests of national security, of tackling serious crime and of the economic wellbeing of the UK. It can take place only with judicial authorisation, and communications data—who, where, when—obtained from service providers have to be justified on the basis of a necessary and proportionate test. The relevant clauses all ensure that any interference with privacy is kept to a minimum I am pleased to have served on the Bill Committee, where the issue of privacy was raised with some force by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). I am pleased that as a result of the points that he and other Members made the Bill will be amended with an overarching clause on privacy to further protect and ensure the privacy of individuals. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) said, new clause 5 provides for the public authority to have regard to the question of whether the action can be reasonably achieved by "less intrusive means". It also provides a new requirement for the consideration of the public interest in the protection of privacy. New clause 6 provides for an overarching civil liability, adding to the extensive criminal penalties in the Bill Those safeguards strike the right balance between privacy and scrutiny. As the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras said, safety, security and privacy are not an either/or. That balance has been recognised in Europe, where the ECHR provides under article 8 respect for private and family life and also states that interference by a public authority is legitimate in some circumstances—in fact, the very circumstances outlined in the Bill, including the interests of national security, public safety, the economic wellbeing of the country and the prevention of crime and disorder The same balance has been recognised by the UN. In 2014, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated: "Where there is a legitimate aim and appropriate safeguards are in place, a State might be allowed to engage in quite intrusive surveillance" if "it is both necessary and proportionate" That balance is recognised by the public. A TNS BMRB poll in 2014 stated that 71% of respondents prioritised the reduction of the threat posed by terrorists, even if that eroded people’s right to privacy. The Bill seeks to ensure that the balance is right, and in enacting it we ought to remember that interference with privacy is often too much until it is too little.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Henry Hayes (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not going to surprise my hon. Friend or the House, but he will have noted that the changes we have brought forward to the Bill mean that if a serious error has been identified by the commissioner, the individual concerned will be notified. That is a significant and new provision, which goes some way towards satisfying his desire. Perhaps he can meet me halfway.