Skip to main content

1-20 of 121 results for subject:Companies

Legislation X
Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill (HL) 2023-24

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

More
Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill (HL) 2023-24 (121)

Subject

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Type
Public acts
Date
25 April 2024
Reference
CHAP 9 2024, 2024 c. 9

Report stage. New clause 1 discussed with further new clauses, new schedules, Government amendments and amendments. New Clause NC1 negatived on division (171 to 265). New Clause NC2 negatived on division (171 to 265). Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 19 February). Amendment 7 negatived on division (39 to 257). Government amendments...

Lead member
Tom Tugendhat
Answering member
Dan Jarvis
Department
Home Office
Type
Debates on bills
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 cc1301-1353
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Member
Dan Jarvis (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 c1302
House
House of Commons

It is a privilege to open debate on Report of this important Bill. At the outset, it is worth reiterating that Labour supports the Bill, which updates aspects of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. That is because it is imperative that legal frameworks are updated to ensure that our police...

Member
Dan Jarvis (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 c1306
House
House of Commons

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not above the Minister’s pay grade to be able to confirm that the conventions and arrangements

that give the ISC a particular constitutional place in the way our system works ought to operate, even if they have not done so for the...

Member
Angela Eagle (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 c1306
House
House of Commons

My hon. Friend has made an important point, and one with which I suspect the overwhelming majority of Members would agree.

Member
Dan Jarvis (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 c1307
House
House of Commons

I was the Minister who took through the House the Bill that created the ISC. At the time, the intention was that it would evolve to become a very powerful Committee, but it did not absolve the entire House from some responsibility. Two elements are involved here. One has just...

Member
David Davis (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 c1307
House
House of Commons

The right hon. Gentleman has made two important points, both of which I agree with, about redaction and about the attendance of the Prime Minister. I do not think it unreasonable to expect that once a year the Prime Minister should seek to meet what is a very important cross-party...

Member
Dan Jarvis (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 c1307
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman’s point is made more potent by the fact that the matters the ISC considers are not typically—in fact, not at all—partisan. It operates on a non-partisan basis, although of course its members are drawn from both sides of the House, and the material that it studies is...

Member
John Hayes (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 c1307
House
House of Commons

The right hon. Gentleman speaks about these matters with a great deal of authority, not just as a member of the Committee but as a former Security Minister, and I think he has described the situation very well. I hope the Prime Minister is listening; I hope the Prime Minister...

Member
Dan Jarvis (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 cc1307-8
House
House of Commons

I hope that this evening will end with a measure of agreement. On the subject of the tech companies, I understand from information I have received that Apple, techUK, the Information Technology Industry Council and the Computer & Communications Industry Association have expressed concerns. Is the shadow Minister aware of...

Member
Jim Shannon (Democratic Unionist Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 c1308
House
House of Commons

I know that the hon. Member takes these matters incredibly seriously, and he has raised an important point. To be absolutely fair to the Minister and to his Department, I know that this is a matter that the Government have considered very carefully, and that there has been an extensive...

Member
Dan Jarvis (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 c1308
House
House of Commons

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he has addressed this issue, and he deserves a proper response. There is a valid concern that this is a process of engagement with tech companies, and there needs to be a partnership. I will be frank with him: I...

Member
Tom Tugendhat (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 cc1308-9
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to the Minister for clarification on the response to new clause 2. He understands that we have tabled it because we genuinely think that it is a mechanism that—let us be honest about it—would not be particularly onerous for the Government, and would be helpful in focusing...

Member
Dan Jarvis (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 c1309
House
House of Commons

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. May I address the iterative issue that the Minister and he both raised? It is not just the development of technology that is important here; it is also about the development of other countries’ security systems. For example, the Germans are...

Member
David Davis (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 c1309
House
House of Commons

That is a very important point, and I completely agree. These are complex and difficult matters of public policy, and I completely understand that none of this is easy from the Minister’s perspective. However, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so, his point strengthens the case...

Member
Dan Jarvis (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 cc1309-1310
House
House of Commons

As always, the hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight the areas I touched on. The important thing about the Panama papers was that they changed. They would have enjoyed a high level of privacy, but with republication they became “low/no”. It would not be right to say that any...

Member
Tom Tugendhat (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 c1310
House
House of Commons

That is a very useful clarification, and I thank the Minister for it.

Member
Dan Jarvis (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 c1310
House
House of Commons

I accept what the Minister has just said, but where is the threshold for publicity? As he said, the Panama papers were widely distributed in the public domain, but somebody’s Facebook feed might be put into the public domain. If it gets into the national newspapers and on the internet,...

Member
Lord Beamish (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 c1310
House
House of Commons

My right hon. Friend is undoubtedly right: we do need to be very careful. In the end, the Government have to take a view about where they draw the line. These are very difficult decisions that have to be made. We had really useful and constructive debates in Committee about...

Member
Dan Jarvis (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 March 2024
Reference
747 cc1310-2
House
House of Commons