|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
(a) access to intelligence information received directly or indirectly from any of the security or intelligence services"
"access to other information which, if disclosed without authority or otherwise misused, might damage the interests of national security."
I think most people would agree with the inclusion of those two groups. Indeed, their inclusion reflects concerns expressed by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire when we were members of the Committee considering the Bill back in 2007.
"border control or decisions about immigration."
My hon. Friend and I have proposed an additional group, however. We seek to include people involved with the Home Office-that requirement would be inserted into the Government's proposed new subsection (1A)(a)-because the Home Office has control over many aspects of security. Those responsibilities may be more junior in the hierarchy than those addressed by the intelligence and security services, but I know precious little about them because of reasons of confidentiality. We all know about the Home Office, however, and we are aware that there are people in that Department who deal with serious organised crime, which is a lot more rife than it used to be.
Those people are charged with dealing with our national security at a local level. For example, I know that the Dorset police constabulary is charged with dealing with security at the water events and sailing activities that are to take place down in Weymouth during the forthcoming Olympics. Many people are expected to attend and the Dorset police constabulary
is already involved in working out what security precautions are needed to ensure that those activities take place without disruption.
Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes) (Con): My hon. Friend mentions the Dorset police, but is he aware that the Devon and Cornwall police are also considering the problems for Torbay, should the tall ships be racing there during the Olympics? Would that situation not be similar to that which he talks about in Dorset?
Mr. Chope: Similar but probably different in scale, because the ships are bigger in Torbay but there are more of them in Weymouth. My hon. Friend-it is wonderful that he is in the Chamber assiduously dealing with these matters on a Friday, as is so often the case-has drawn attention to the fact that my example of the Dorset constabulary is not unique and is replicated in a lot of other constabularies. However, it is an example of a Home Office activity that makes Home Office posts wholly relevant for consideration as additions to those already listed in Government amendment 1, which in general I support because it brings more detail into the Bill.
"any brother or sister of a person within paragraphs (b) or (c)".
Why should parents and spouses, deceased parents, civil partners or people living together as though they were spouses or civil partners be the only groups of people deemed connected, such that they might have a relationship that could involve undue influence? I should have thought that siblings come into that category as well, which is why we have tabled amendment 2.
Amendment 3 would ensure that we have to use the affirmative procedure for any draft instrument instead of the negative procedure, so at least we could ensure its being debated in this House. We could not of course ensure that it could be amended if we did not like it, but at least we would have the chance to debate it. For all I know, the hon. Member for Hendon, the Bill's promoter, may well have wanted to include an affirmative resolution but was dissuaded by the Government, who, as we know, want as little legislation as possible to be subject to scrutiny in this House, and therefore prefer the negative resolution procedure. However, that is as may be and we will no doubt hear from the Bill's promoter in due course about why the affirmative resolution was not in the Bill to start with.
That brings me conveniently to amendment 4, which would leave out subsection (2) of clause 4. I tabled it because I thought it would concentrate the minds of the Government on the whole Bill. I got the impression when it was last discussed in Committee that they were getting rather lukewarm about it because of the change in the employment situation, the rapid rise in unemployment and the conflict that could be caused by opening up posts in the Government service to aliens who are currently unable to qualify for those posts. The Government could see that there might be-
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|