On Monday, 5th October, I appeared in the House of Commons to support the Home Office in the debate for a Bill called the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill.
This legislation deals with participation in criminal conduct by covert human intelligence sources. These are agents, or undercover officers, who help to secure prosecutions and disruptions by infiltrating criminal and terrorist groups.
These covert human intelligence sources (CHIS) are absolutely vital to operations and every foiled terrorism plot in recent years has involved some kind of CHIS.
The Bill has cross-party support and enables our Government to take proportionate measures to provide our intelligence services – who are of paramount importance in keeping us safe – with the confidence they deserve to carry out their work.
We should not underestimate the immense contribution that covert human intelligence sources have made, and continue to make, to protect the public and this country. We can never publicly set out the exact details of what they do on our behalf, but without them, lives would have been lost. They are exceptional people, courageous and devoted, and we are grateful to them. It is right that covert human intelligence sources, their handlers and the public authorities to whom the Bill relates have the certainty and clarity to continue to use this tactic. It is also right, however, that this is subject to robust safeguards and independent oversight. This legislation will achieve both those things and ensure we can continue to bring to justice those who want to do us harm.
There is robust oversight of the use of criminal conduct authorisations (CCAs) and we have a world-leading investigatory powers regime with significant, independent oversight of the use of those powers. Few other countries in the world, if any, have such a strong oversight process. The Bill is designed to protect CHIS in allowing them to better conduct their work and have clear and detailed guidance that they must follow in deciding whether to grant an authorisation for criminal conduct.
There is a code of practice which sets out that there does need to be a reasonable belief that an authorisation is necessary and proportionate. All authorising officers must be appropriately trained, and the independent Investigatory Powers Commissioner can identify if any public body is failing to train their officers or assess them to a sufficiently high standard.
You can watch my closing remarks in the Bill’s House of Commons debate, which is around 12 minutes in length, here:
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/3a967fb4-42e5-4faf-90dc-6fff0f151ee4?in=21:30:32&out=21:42:27