Protection of Freedoms Bill
Public Bill Committee, 22 March 2011.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Good morning, everybody. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets during Committee proceedings. Will all Members please ensure that mobile phones, pagers and so on are turned off or switched to silent mode during Committee sittings? As a general rule, my fellow Chair and I do not intend to call starred amendments that have not been tabled with adequate notice. The required notice period for Public Bill Committees is three working days, so amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on Monday for consideration on Thursday, and by the rise of the House on Thursday for consideration on Tuesday. The deadline for the Tuesday sitting immediately following the Easter recess will be 4.30 pm on Tuesday 19 April. The deadline is a full week due to the Easter public holiday. The deadline for tabling amendments for the sittings on Thursday 28 April and Tuesday 3 May are also affected by public holidays and will also be a full week before the sitting. There is a money resolution in connection with the Bill and copies are available in the room.
Not everyone is familiar with the process of taking oral evidence in Public Bill Committees, so it might help if I explain briefly how we will proceed. The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, for which debate is limited to half an hour. The Minister has tabled an amendment because an organisation is unable to field a witness, so once he has moved the programme motion, we will consider that amendment before we decide on the motion itself. We will then proceed to a motion to report written evidence, and then a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence sessions. I hope that we can take that formally. Assuming that the second of those motions is agreed to, the Committee will move into private session, and at that stage I am afraid that I will have to ask witnesses and members of the public to leave us for a short while. You will then be invited back into the room and our oral evidence session will begin. If the Committee agrees to the programme motion, it will hear oral evidence this morning.
James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 am on Tuesday 22 March) meet—
(a) at 4.00 pm on Tuesday 22 March;
(b) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 24 March;
(c) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 29 March;
(d) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 5 April;
(e) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 26 April;
(f) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 28 April;
(g) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 3 May;
(h) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 10 May;
(i) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 12 May;
(j) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 17 May;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
TABLE
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
Good morning, Mr Streeter. If it is your pleasure, I shall stay seated. Good morning to everyone on the Committee. It is very good to see that my legal brief has come with me from the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Northampton North here; we are both raring to go. I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Bill. As he says, there are some important matters to be discussed; there is a balance between civil liberties and public protection and where we draw the line on that will be a matter for debate on a whole range of issues.
I am also grateful for the Minister’s comment about the public reading stage. It is somewhat regrettable that we have not seen the report—certainly, I have not seen it; that may be my fault, but it has certainly come in very late. I appreciate that this is a pilot, but the deadline for comments was, I think, 7 March and it has been a couple of weeks since then. If we are to scrutinise the Bill, the evidence sessions are very helpful; we have expert witnesses coming to give us all their thoughts and views and professional opinion on the whole range of issues before us and that certainly informs our debate and adds significantly to it. Clearly, the whole point of the public reading is to take into account the points of view of many people out there who might not otherwise have the opportunity to comment. It would have been interesting to have those points of view and it may have informed one or two of the questions that we might have asked our professional witnesses. I appreciate what the Minister has said and it is important that we get those points of view as soon as we possibly can.
On another matter, the generality of the programme motion is fine, but I want to ask the Minister to explain to the Committee why we are discussing clauses on stop and search in the Bill when the Government have passed a remedial order that, in effect, brings into law those very clauses. The Minister will know that the whole area of guidance and law around stop and search has been somewhat chaotic. In July last year, in response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, the Home Secretary announced interim guidance to prevent the police using Section 44 stop-and-search powers.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
I am reluctant to interrupt, Mr Coaker, but would you relate this to the programme motion?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
The programme motion has within it our discussions of clauses 58 to 62. These clauses are amendments to the law with respect to stop and search. The remedial order, which the Government have published and which came into law on 18 March, in effect puts into practice and into law the clauses before us in the Bill. I am trying to ask, Mr Streeter, why we have clauses before us to discuss which the Government have already, through the remedial order, put into law?
Last July, the Home Secretary published guidance which said that there should be no reasonable suspicion; then there was the counter-terrorism review which said that there may be some problem with that; then more guidance was published, which came into effect on 6 March, which has now been superseded by new guidance which came into effect on 18 March. Surely, in the programme motion, the Minister needs to explain to the Committee why we are discussing clauses which bring into law things that are already in law because the Government passed a remedial order. It is, frankly, chaotic and this is a serious part of the Bill.
We have senior police officers with us who are receiving different guidance about stop and search all the time. Three or four different codes of practice, sets of guidance, have been sent out to police about the operation of stop and search and whether reasonable suspicion can or cannot be used. I want the Minister, through you, Mr Streeter, to tell the Committee why we are discussing these clauses. This prevention and suppression of terrorism remedial order, the Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011, was made on 16 March 2011, was laid before Parliament on 17 March 2011 and came into force on 18 March 2011. Why is it appropriate for us to include in this programme motion clauses that are already law? Surely, this Committee, or Parliament, should have had the opportunity to debate these clauses before they came into law. What is the point of having clauses in a Bill that are already law? Will the Minister respond to that?
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Before I ask the Minister to respond, would anyone else like to contribute on the programme motion or amendment?
James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)
The hon. Member for Gedling will, I am sure, make a number of comments on the detailed consideration of the provisions relating to counter-terrorism stop and search, as, I am sure, he will on other issues, but the purpose of having the provisions within the Bill is to provide the very scrutiny and analysis that he is seeking of provisions to set out the long-term framework for ensuring that the police have the powers that are required to protect the public. I am sure he will wish to raise questions with relevant witnesses that will appear before the Committee this morning, whether from the Association of Chief Police Officers or the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism, who will, I am sure, be able to answer his questions on the necessity of those powers and, equally, the necessity of having provisions in place to cover the period between now and Royal Assent. That is why it is appropriate to have the provisions in this legislation to allow consideration and scrutiny of what is an important part of this legislation and to ensure that there is detailed examination during the taking of evidence this morning.
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
Unusually for the Minister, that is totally inadequate. If the Government wanted a debate about laws on stop and search, they could have arranged for a debate on the Floor of the House. This Committee is going to be asked to consider clauses on stop and search that are already in law. I suggest that that is not the way to conduct business on something as serious as this. Parliament, or even this Committee, should have had the opportunity to debate it, whatever the rights and wrongs of the remedial order before us. If the Minister thinks that there is a problem because there is a gap in the guidance between 6 March and 18 March, then there should have been the opportunity to debate it on the Floor of the House.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
I am going to move us on, because this is about the programme motion. The hon. Gentleman has made a very powerful case and, no doubt, he will return to it as the Bill chugs its way through Committee.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Copies of memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Thank you, witnesses, for your forbearance. We shall now hear oral evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers. For the record, please introduce yourselves to the Committee.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Different colleagues will have different questions. Perhaps you can decide among yourselves who should best pick each one up, unless you are specifically asked. I remind Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick strictly to the timings in the programme motion just agreed. I hope that I do not have to interrupt anyone mid-sentence, but I will do so if need be.
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Mr Sims, starting with you—perhaps your colleagues will want to comment as well—what, if any, concerns do you have about the proposed regime in the Bill regarding the retention of biometric data and how will it affect your ability to detect and prosecute crime?
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
That is a comprehensive answer, and I am extremely grateful to you, but could you keep your answers slightly more brief?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
You started your response by saying that the six years was based on evidence and research. You criticised the Scottish system and suggested that there does not appear to be the same degree of evidence base for it. Could you elaborate on that?
John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)
It has not led to any extensions, but how many applications have there been for extensions?
John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)
Why is that?
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
Mr Sims, I was interested to hear you saying that the current system for DNA retention is evidence-based. In that situation you should have a consistency of application for DNA retention, but I am sure ACPO is aware that there is something of a postcode lottery at the moment with DNA retention. Some forces are refusing to remove DNA after a case is closed, and others are accepting it routinely. Could you explain that inconsistency if there is such an evidence base? Do you think it is an acceptable situation?
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
So you welcome the DNA programme that is set before you in the Bill.
Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham)
Mr Sims, with regard to the Scottish model, to which you referred earlier, would I be right in saying that applying the protections of the Scottish model for DNA retention would have no effect on the vast majority of criminal investigations? Linked to that, would you also accept that in terms of DNA-led criminal convictions or evidence, alone it cannot secure a conviction and, therefore, for a number of criminal investigations you need more than simply DNA evidence?
Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham)
In terms of serious cases, for example with regard to sexual offences, would I be right in saying that a large proportion of sexual cases are issues regarding consent rather than DNA-led stranger rapes?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
Thank you, Chief Constable. First, is any work being done on the 1,000 matches that will be lost if the measures in the Bill are enacted? Is there any indication of what proportion of those would be serious as opposed to less serious offences? Secondly, that is the number of matches that are made in catching somebody who has committed an offence; has any work been done on the number of people who have managed to demonstrate their innocence as a consequence of DNA matches, and is there any reflection of that in the Bill?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
Mr Sims, do you believe that distinctions should be made between young people and adults with respect to DNA retention and the rules surrounding it? Do you see a difference, or should the seriousness of the offence be the determinant of retention periods?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
Mr Sims, you were kind enough to tell us that the number of matches was a small proportion of those obtained every year. Do you have those figures, please?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
So the percentage is?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
Of those matches, are you able to tell us how many would be conclusive of guilt?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
It is important to note, is it not? Let us take the example of a serious assault where the witness has a bloody injury; the presence of blood on the clothes of a suspect may connote presence at the scene but is not conclusive of participation.
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
But that would not help with issues of consent—for example, in sexual offences. To follow on from what my hon. Friend was just saying, the reality is that there would be many offences where DNA would not necessarily even be relevant.
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
But even where there is a DNA hit, that would not necessarily help when it comes to matters such as consent or self-defence.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
In terms of the effectiveness of the DNA database, what assessment has been made of the impact of ensuring that everyone who has been convicted has their DNA on the database? Secondly, what estimate has been made of the cost of maintaining a very large DNA database, which clearly has many hundreds of thousands of people who are innocent on it? That, of course, is then a resource that is not available to the police to do other work.
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
I was going to ask about the process of disposing of data; does that £80 million you were referring to relate to disposing of stored physical samples? Can you say something about the process of removing profiles from the national database? What happens to the DNA data that are in the batches that are processed by the Forensic Science Service and other forensic service providers?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
But their profile is still held at that forensic service provider, because it cannot been deleted.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
We are moving on from the DNA database in about seven or eight minutes’ time and I have four colleagues who have caught my eye, so snappier questions please. Gareth Johnson.
Gareth Johnson (Conservative, Dartford)
Mr Sims, you mentioned a number of offences where you feel that there may not be a match as a result of the Bill. Clearly, though, it would be the case, would it not, that the only way that you can guarantee that a DNA sample taken from a scene would match a sample on the register is if everybody is on the register? Inevitably, unless we take everybody’s DNA, there will be serious offences where there will not be a match.
Tom Watson (Labour, West Bromwich East)
My apologies to witnesses and colleagues for arriving late—I was on another Committee. I have a constituent who was arrested, but not charged, possibly on the basis of a malicious, anonymous allegation, who gave a DNA sample and now seeks to establish, first, whether he is on the database and, secondly, how he can remove himself from it. There is an extraordinary series of hurdle he has to get over, starting with a subject access request under the Data Protection Act. Is it your sense that he is potentially being unfairly treated and that there needs to be a simple appeals mechanism for a citizen who finds himself in that situation? If you have already covered it, my apologies.
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
Mr Sims, I would like to take you back to your earlier comment when you said that you felt that the general public thought that children should be treated differently from adults under the criminal justice system. Surely the public think, most of all, that those who are not found guilty should be treated as innocent under the justice system, but you said that 20% of those held on the DNA system are not convicted. Do you not think it is appropriate that we should be setting forth a DNA retention system that distinguishes between those who are found guilty and those who are not?
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
I understand that, under the current system, those who are innocent can have their DNA held indefinitely.
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
We are not considering that legislation, we are considering this legislation.
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
You are happy about that?
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
It is yes or no.
Steven Baker (Conservative, Wycombe)
Mr Sims, you mentioned speculative search. Forgive me, I do not really know what that means. Will you just sketch what it is, why it is helpful and how it is conducted?
Steven Baker (Conservative, Wycombe)
Will you explain why it is an important protection? To what extent does it produce convictions?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Mr Sims, you said that a search would be carried out routinely of the DNA database. In the past, all DNA has been retained on the database, so, in a sense, you have been collecting it. In future, not all of it will be—it may be disposed of—and someone may be in a cell for 24 hours. Do you think that a system will drift in where people do not bother anymore, in certain cases?
Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham)
There are real concerns about the decision of the European Court in S. and Marper with regard to the current regime, which was said to be completely inadequate. In the light of that, do you not think that what is proposed in the Bill moves us considerably towards the right way of bringing people to account in the justice process, along with balancing our rights?
Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham)
But do you not think that it strikes the right balance between preserving one’s individual freedoms and, equally, helping you in the investigation process?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
The chief constable was right to point out that the evidence base for the retention period is contained in the Crime and Security Act 2010, as opposed to this one. However, moving on from that, could I make one comment? The chief constable and Mr Pugh are absolutely right that a code on the deletion of DNA would be exceptionally helpful to chief constables across the county, so the sooner that is done the better.
On retention periods, as we know that a distinction has been made between serious and minor offences, I wonder whether there are any comments about whether the dividing line between minor and serious as defined in the Bill is adequate. I appreciate that it might have been helpful to give notice of that question. There is obviously a line. If you go above it, you move into the serious category, or you can go below it. The distinction is laid out in the Bill, and I just wonder whether the line is appropriate.
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
How often is it prosecuted?
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Thank you very much indeed. Michael Ellis will now lead us on CCTV.
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
Thank you, Mr Streeter. Deputy Chief Constable Gerrard, there is a proposal in the Bill for increased regulation of surveillance cameras, and I would like to know whether you see a need for that, and what your views are generally. It is also a recognised fact that we will have a code of practice for the development and use of surveillance cameras in the provisions of the Bill. What are your views on that, and on the appointment of a surveillance camera commissioner?
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
As far as you are concerned, the measure is basically giving you what you were asking for.
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
But you were asking for a code of practice.
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
So that in itself is something for which you were asking.
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
Is it your view that the code of guidance, or rather the legislation, should cover more than police and local authorities? Have you any figures for the number of cameras that are covered by police and local authorities and the total number?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
Is the same code of practice—or the same type of thing—applicable between a CCTV camera and ANPR, for example?
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
For the record, could you say what ANPR is?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
This is my final question. Do you think that there will be a conflict between the new CCTV camera commissioner and the Information Commissioner? Will there be tension between them? The Information Commissioner already has a code of practice with respect to this, and there is the Data Protection Act 1998 and so on. How do you see the two commissioners relating? Would it be better if it was all put together under one commissioner, instead of having lots of separate commissioners?
Tom Watson (Labour, West Bromwich East)
I want to tease you a little on that. It was with some bemusement that I read that the Minister is proposing setting up another quango. I am not sure whether he has cleared it with the Cabinet Office. Given where public policy is going on the privacy space, would it not make your life simpler if all the new commissioners who are supposed to be regulating the state’s intrusions into people’s privacy were wrapped into one, so that we get a kind of super-privacy commissioner who can deal with all aspects of this? You would get a single point of contact, citizens would know where to go, and we would not have the Government creating all sorts of waste by recreating five different organisations that all need new offices.
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
Mr Gerrard, you have mentioned a number of times that you do not want to pass comment until you see the codes of practice, and that the devil will be in the detail. I take it that you are making clear to the Home Office what you would like to see in the codes of practice and what your concerns are, and that you are fully consulting on what you would like to see in those codes of practice, so that the Home Office has every opportunity to give you a fully functioning code of practice that you approve of entirely.
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
Have you met the Minister on this subject?
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
A final question on CCTV from Tom Brake.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
Mr Gerrard, how helpful would it be to the police to have codes of practice that apply to the private sector, such as BP garages? I shall give you an example. In one particular ward, 20% of police time is spent on dealing with drive-outs and shoplifting at one BP petrol station. There are black spots in the CCTV coverage, the images are often not of an appropriate quality, and the police are actually required to go to the petrol station to collect the material. That is a huge waste of police resources. Do you think that a code of practice would be helpful in ensuring that the police could deal more effectively with such incidents?
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
We are now moving on to pre-charge detention.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
This question is for Mr Kavanagh. What concerns do you have, if any, about the reduction of the maximum period for pre-charge detention for terrorism suspects to 14 days, given that legislation to increase such a period could be introduced if required?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
On encryption, is it not already the case that if a hard disk is encrypted, it is virtually impossible to crack it, however much time is allocated to the task?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
How much notice do you think it will be possible to give of a problem with a 14-day limit? How soon in an inquiry would the police, or anyone else investigating the matter, know that you would be up against that time scale?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
This question is supplementary to the one that Tom Brake just asked. Are you in discussions with the Home Office about that? If 60% of cases are resolved in the first seven days, that leaves 40% going on between seven or 14 days. Correct me if I am wrong. The process that operates between you in counter-terrorism and the Home Office will be needed in relation to the early identification of an individual within that 40% who might require additional detention. Clearly, it would be difficult to get people together on a Friday night in order for Parliament to introduce the emergency legislation, so are you in discussions with the Home Office about this? I think it is crucial.
Steven Baker (Conservative, Wycombe)
Mr Kavanagh, what disadvantages, if any, would there be to proposed limitations of police powers to stop and search without having to demonstrate reasonable suspicion?
Steven Baker (Conservative, Wycombe)
On the appropriateness of powers and communities’ sense of how they are used, can you reflect on the interplay between equalities legislation and stop and search?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
Mr Kavanagh, do you think that the Government are now in the right place on stop and search powers? The initial guidance from Mr Mackey said that police officers were required to have reasonable suspicion. Then there were the guidelines that came into force on 6 March. Now, we have new guidelines that supersede the clauses of the Bill. Those guidelines came into force on 18 March and do not require reasonable suspicion. Have you been in discussion with the Home Office on those changes to practice? Is it usual, in your experience of policing, to have three changes on something as important as stop and search? Have the Government finally landed in the right place, notwithstanding the fact that we have not debated it?
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
Mr Kavanagh, just to expand on what you said about not having it right until now and about proportionality, is it not right that in 2009 alone 100,000 people were stopped under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, yet there was not a single arrest on a terrorism-related offence stemming from those 100,000 stops? Does ACPO accept that that was an example of disproportionate use of anti-terror power and does it therefore agree with the European Court?
John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)
There are stop and searches at airports, where things can change at a moment’s notice. Do you think that the rules concerning stop and search in airports are adequate, or is improvement needed in that area?
John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)
The 70% reduction in section 43—
John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)
In 44, sorry—are any of them at airports?
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Can we move on to the disclosure of criminal records? Diana Johnson.
Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)
My question is for Mr Pountain. Can you help the Committee by describing the process by which the police decide what information to disclose for a criminal records check? Do you feel that the portability set out in the Bill will complicate matters for the police?
Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)
Just so I am clear, the portability should be limited to the sector.
Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)
That is your approach.
John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)
May I declare an interest in the next question? My wife works for Disclosure Scotland as a manager. May I ask Mr Pountain about the differences between north and south? Have they looked at the Scottish way of doing things, because I believe it is slightly different from what happens south of the border, and it appears to work better north of the border? Can you comment?
Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)
I would like to ask you about a power the police currently have, which is to disclose information to a prospective employer if there is an investigation into a person but, obviously, no conviction. I understand that the Bill will not allow police to disclose that information in future. Would you like to comment on that?
Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)
You are happy with that?
Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)
May I just ask you about the brown envelope? What kind of cases would come under that?
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
We now move to our final set of questions, on wheel-clamping.
Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham)
This is a question for Mr Gerrard.
Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham)
In that case, it is a question for the whole panel. Do you accept that wheel-clamping is a real problem throughout the country and needs to be dealt with? Linked to that, the Bill will extend power to the police and others to remove illegally parked vehicles. Are you happy with that power? Do you think you can fulfil the role?
Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)
I am interested in the extension to the police of the power to remove vehicles. How often do the police remove vehicles, and what is the cost of the police removing vehicles? You may have to write to me about that.
Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)
What happens to a vehicle once it is removed by the police? Does anyone know?
Gareth Johnson (Conservative, Dartford)
I do not know if you have data on this, but do you have a rough idea how many call-outs there have been by the police to private road clamping as opposed to clampers employed by local authorities?
Tom Watson (Labour, West Bromwich East)
Mr Sims, may I talk about our constituents again?
Tom Watson (Labour, West Bromwich East)
You and I have both spoken out publicly about cowboy clampers. However, the Reverend Brian Thompson from West Bromwich takes a different view. He is concerned that the new legislation will prohibit him from clamping cars that are parked illegally outside his church. There are also a number of manufacturers outside the West Bromwich Albion ground who have been plagued by that for years. Are you concerned that the Bill might put a greater obligation on your capacity to deal with such issues if it is taken out of the hands of the private sector, and people go to the police to deal with parking illegally and causing a nuisance?
Steven Baker (Conservative, Wycombe)
Much as we have all had horrible problems with cowboy clampers, it seems ironic that a Bill on freedoms is not only banning something, but banning something that is the assertion of a property right. Is there a better way to moderate the behaviour of cowboy clampers without completely ruling out the activity?
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
The final question on wheel-clamping is from Diana Johnson.
Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)
Because we are removing wheel-clamping and introducing the right to use ticketing, I am concerned that the rogue wheel-clampers who blight all our constituencies will move into the ticketing industry and develop a heavy-handed approach to ticketing. Does ACPO have the view that the real issue is about regulation, whether of wheel-clamping companies or ticketing companies? That is the real issue.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
We have four minutes left with this excellent set of witnesses, and the Minister wishes to ask a couple of questions to use up the time.
James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)
Mr Sims, when ACPO gave evidence to the Committee examining the Crime and Security Bill in January 2010, it made it clear that although retention was properly a matter for Parliament to decide, ACPO wanted a clear set of guidelines and rules. Does that still remain ACPO’s view in relation to that broad general point?
James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)
What progress has ACPO made in ensuring that the DNA profiles of convicted persons are included on the national DNA database?
James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)
Just to be clear on that, in terms of persistent prolific offenders, for example, and the reoffending of those who have been convicted, presumably that is an important change for the effective detection of more crimes?
James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)
Mr Gerrard, on a separate point, what lessons has the police service drawn from the review of Operation Champion about the importance of maintaining community confidence in CCTV, and how might that inform our consideration on CCTV?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
Could I ask Mr Gerrard to confirm that I have the figure right? ACPO’s assessment is from 4.2 million cameras to 1.85 million, of which the Bill will affect only 29,700. Is that why there is a worry about the breadth of the Bill? Secondly, is there any recent evidence about the effectiveness of CCTV in both detecting crime and increasing public confidence?
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Very quickly, please.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Thank you very much indeed, gentlemen, for your excellent and concise answers. We will now move on to our next witness.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Lord Macdonald, welcome. Thank you very much for attending our session. We have a number of questions, and Vernon Coaker will ask the first one.
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
Good afternoon, Lord Macdonald, and thank you for coming. I have a couple of questions to begin with on the issue of surveillance. The main driver for the Bill is the disquiet that there has been about local authorities’ use of the powers. In your review, did you see lots of evidence of local authorities using counter-terrorism powers inappropriately?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
Following your review, what evidence are the Government basing the Bill’s measures on? Given that you just said that local authorities are not misusing the RIPA powers, what evidence are the Government using to say that in order to solve the problem—which you say does not exist—judicial authority is required?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
So there has been no abuse, but you see some merit in—
Gareth Johnson (Conservative, Dartford)
I think that you have possibly answered my question, but you touched on the point that you believed that there was no widespread abuse of the powers. Do you accept, however, that there appears to be genuine concern about them among the public that powers can be abused, and that there is a necessity for the public to be reassured?
Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham)
Lord Macdonald, Mr Coaker asked about the fact that there has not been widespread abuse, but am I right in thinking that the current system is open to widespread abuse, and that, therefore, having the checks and balances through judicial mechanics would be the best way forward in striking the right balance?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
Obviously, the police and intelligence services are exempt from requiring that judicial authorisation. Do you think that, given some of the recent disquiet about some of these operations and so on, you could apply the same argument about public confidence to the police and intelligence services? Or would you see that as potentially compromising those investigations, if they had to seek judicial authority for using surveillance powers?
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
Do you not think that the public would differentiate on the use of counter-terrorism powers between the police and security services and a local authority? Certainly, my constituents fail to understand why local authorities should be involved in counter-terrorism activities, and are pleased that there would be judicial oversight of such uses of surveillance.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Thank you very much. We move on to pre-charge detention.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
Lord Macdonald, you are happy that we are moving to 14 days pre-charge detention. However, are there circumstances in which you would be happy for it to go beyond 14 days? Have there been occasions in your experience where you thought that was necessary and you would, if not be comfortable with it, at least accept that it was necessary?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
In earlier evidence from Mr Kavanagh, we heard him describe how technology is developing, getting much more complicated, and how terrorists are using it. He seemed to be indicating that that was one of the justifications, or reasons, why it might be necessary to push beyond 14 days, but that does not appear to be your view.
Tom Watson (Labour, West Bromwich East)
Do you accept that policy makers have been tearing their hair out over the last decade to do with the central argument about pre-charge detention, which is how long it takes to decode a hard disc drive? Might it be helpful to policy makers if the relevant authorities just listed the number of hard discs they have seized and how long it has taken them to decrypt them, so that we can get some objective information about how long it takes?
Tom Watson (Labour, West Bromwich East)
Okay. A slightly leftfield question, but it might be relevant to amendments that I want to table. There is a situation where private organisations can invade privacy using the technology of citizens. I am thinking of media organisations. They can hack a phone and use a public interest defence, which they say is lawful. Do you think that there is a point where an editor should require judicial authority on a public interest defence story, rather than them making the decision on whose phone to hack?
Tom Watson (Labour, West Bromwich East)
Should there be a greater criminal sanction, if they hack a phone using a public interest defence that proves spurious in a future criminal case—that is, a custodial sentence?
Tom Watson (Labour, West Bromwich East)
Quite a few others didn’t.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
I am fascinated by this, but we are moving on to talk about stop and search with Clive Efford.
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Do you think that the proposals for stop and search in the Bill strike the right balance between protecting people’s civil liberties and the ability to detect and prevent terrorism?
Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham)
With regard to the threshold, at the moment, for a criminal offence you have to have a reasonable suspicion to arrest somebody, and therefore, with regard to a stop and search, you have the reasonable suspicion there. So it is only right and proper to have the fair balance between what a criminal threshold is and what a stop-and-search threshold should be.
John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)
Do you think that places such as airports should have different flexibility compared with other places?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
Do you think the Home Secretary has now got the balance right in the remedial order that she passed on 18 March, given that initially she said last July that stopping and searching people would require reasonable suspicion? Do you think the balance is now right?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
The provision has already been enacted by a remedial order, which came into force on 18 March, replacing one that had come into effect only on 6 March. That seems a bit chaotic, but, apparently, it’s fine. I just wonder whether you think that the Home Secretary is now in the right place, or was she in the right place in July, when she required reasonable suspicion?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
With the Chairman’s prerogative, I’ve been allowed to return to the issue of 14 days, as we seem to have moved swiftly through the agenda.
We heard earlier from Mr Kavanagh that he expected the police to know within perhaps seven days whether they would perhaps seek to go beyond 14 days’ pre-charge detention. What discussions with the police and other bodies involved would you expect to happen between that point and the 14-day period to try to ensure that they did everything possible to ensure that it didn’t go beyond the 14-day period?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
You’re describing a catastrophic scenario. Therefore, there would not even be the need for them to clear certain barriers and to demonstrate that it was going to go beyond 14 days?
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Tom Watson is going to ask a couple of questions now, Lord Macdonald, on stuff that is not currently in the Bill, but the Bill could be amended in Committee, so I will allow his questions. Then we will hear from Michael Ellis.
Tom Watson (Labour, West Bromwich East)
Lord Macdonald, is it your view that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 distinguishes between the interception of a voicemail message that has been listened to by the owner of the phone and one that has not?
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
Just to go back to the pre-charge detention period, we hear what you say—that it is most unlikely that there will be a degree of marginality, and that we will get to seven, eight or nine days before we realise that we cannot do it in 14, and I respectfully agree. Do you know the system that the Americans use? They have a pre-charge detention period of only one or two days, do they not?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
The proposal is that if you want to go beyond 14 days you will need emergency legislation. One thing that lawyers have raised about that is the integrity of the process, with respect to the individual who may be subject to the application, or to the reason why there has been a request to extend the 14-day period. Even as a non-lawyer I can see that issue, because in a sense we are saying, “The case of this individual is so serious that we require the extension.” How would Parliament work with the legal system to ensure that the integrity of this system was maintained, with respect to ensuring that individuals had the fair trials that we are all entitled to?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
I think that is a very fair answer. This is almost about how you would prevent the noise around the fact. There are very clear rules about what can be reported in papers, and what can be said when a trial is going on. It is almost about the atmosphere that has been created around individuals because of the very nature of the request to Parliament to have the emergency legislation put in place.
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
I am very conscious that a lot of the discussion about pre-charge detention has been based on hypotheticals—on what might happen if this happened or if that extreme situation occurred. Do you think it is important that as we proceed in this very sensitive area of legislation, we base things as much as possible on the evidence of experience and on the ways in which we have needed to use these powers in the past?
Mark Tami (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)
May I take you back to Mr Coaker’s point about the fact that the nature of an emergency may mean that you are effectively legislating on that, rather than on the actual principle? As you say, there will be a distinct possibility that, either intentionally or inadvertently, any hon. Member debating this matter in the Chamber could stray into an area that could subsequently affect a case. Is that not one of the problems of legislating on individual cases?
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
The Minister has the final word.
James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)
Lord Macdonald, you have set out the basis behind this, and the role of Parliament has been raised in Committee this morning. You have clearly considered carefully whether Parliament should make the decision, or whether it should be made through other means. Perhaps you might conclude by sharing your thoughts on why you believe this is the best approach, rather than any other mechanisms that would appropriately cater for the situation.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
I thank you on behalf of the entire Committee for such robust and clear answers.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Sir Paul, welcome. Perhaps you will introduce yourself for the record.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Yes, thank you.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Sir Paul, it may be that colleagues can look at that themselves.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
That will be compulsory homework for everyone on the Committee; thank you. Nicola Blackwood will lead with our first question.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Sir Paul, I think questions and answers might be more appropriate, if you do not mind. Nicola Blackwood.
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
Thank you, Sir Paul, for your very helpful summary.
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
Your helpful start of the summary. Could you give us some recent figures for the authorisations that have already been made by local authorities, in terms of surveillance under RIPA?
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
Have those varied since the introduction of the Act? Have they increased?
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
Okay. Do you agree that it is important that the public perception of the role that their local authority plays in relation to confidential data is carefully considered in the Bill?
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
And do you not accept the fact that the public consider that local authorities have too many powers in all sorts of areas?
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
You do not think that it is important for local authorities to have the trust and confidence of their constituents?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
Sir Paul, you said in your answer to Nicola Blackwood that too few requests were made. Will you expand on that?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
Given that you think the system works pretty well at the moment, and that there is not much sign of abuse, what do you think of the proposals in the Bill to require local authorities to seek judicial approval?
Tom Watson (Labour, West Bromwich East)
Sir Paul, you are a very distinguished individual. I, unfortunately, am a cheeky Back-Bench scamp. Please forgive me for asking these slightly forward-leaning questions. On the basis of what you have just said, is it your view that local authorities could significantly bring down the cost of housing benefit bills by taking down more housing benefit cheats than they currently do?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Most of what I was going to ask has already been answered. A lot of the examples that have been given to justify this section of the Bill have been things like bin-snoopers. In one particular case, a local authority investigated someone sending their child to a school. It believed that the person did not live in the catchment area and had no right to apply for that school. Did you investigate that particular case, and did you find that that was not an appropriate use of powers?
Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham)
In terms of checks and balances and individuals’ freedoms, do you not think that it is right and proper to have a checks-and-balances process, in which the local authorities have to go through a judicial process for that checks-and-balances measure to be overseen?
Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham)
Is it not the case that in the system at the moment, although you do not have evidence of substantial abuse—
Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham)
Absolutely, but the system is open to abuse. In any system, having checks and balances would be the appropriate way forward.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
You stated earlier that you thought that local authorities were not using the powers often enough. What evidence do you have that there are lots of cases—
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
Could it be that the other local authorities are tackling this problem in a different way and not relying on communications data?
Tom Watson (Labour, West Bromwich East)
I am enjoying the way that you are dealing with the lawyers on this Committee. I would like to invite you back again, if that is okay.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Question, please.
Tom Watson (Labour, West Bromwich East)
I think that you might have identified new freedoms that we need to find in this stupendous Bill. Would it be possible for you to give us the clauses in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 that you would like local authorities—?
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
Sir Paul, are you concerned about the public having confidence in systems such as this one? You have been a distinguished judge and you are a distinguished servant of the Crown. But are you conscious of the fact that politicians and those who serve the public in other capacities are keen for the general public to have confidence in our systems of management, particularly when it comes to such things as the interception of communication?
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
There may be no evidence that you have come across—
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
No, that you have come across. [ Laughter. ] You assumed that I said “camouflaged”. That is rather telling, Sir Paul.
The former Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, referred to “dustbin Stasi” and things of that sort. This is not a political one-sided issue here. Sir Paul, what we have to be focused on—do we not?—is the misuse of powers by the state and the perception of misuse.
Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)
On the issue of public confidence, it seems that some Members have taken the view that there has been damage to public confidence in some of these issues. Do you think that that is true and, if so, where do you think that that lack of public confidence might have come from, given that you think that it is not based on evidence?
Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)
So you think that some of these issues have been conflated with others by the press?
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
Would you accept, Sir Paul, that there are other ways of detecting crime than the interception of communication? Would you accept that there are other democratic countries that detect crime by an alternative route?
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
Would there not be alternative methods for discovering fly-tipping, such as witnesses or closed circuit television surveillance? There are alternative methods under your scope, are there not?
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
I detect a sudden flurry of interest. I hope that colleagues will be brief with their questions.
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
Sir Paul, you have quite properly confined yourself to the area of your competence with regard to communications. As you have acknowledged, the proposed reforms would require judicial approval for not only that, but directed surveillance and covert human intelligence sources. I am going to put it simply: would it not be an anomaly if we left the area that you cover out of any proposed reforms to the other two areas in which there is evidence of mischief?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
Why not?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
But those three areas go together, do they not? To have one exemption would be wholly anomalous.
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
That is a matter for you, Sir Paul.
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
Indeed, and it is a matter for Parliament to look at the whole position. It is not Parliament’s job to have anomalies, which I suggest you are advocating.
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
Sir Paul, it is very interesting to hear your evidence given that we have just heard from Lord Macdonald, who expressed a confident opinion that the interception of communications is so intrusive that it justifies judicial oversight as a point of principle. Why do you come to a different view?
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
Do you not think that part of the reason there is such a lack of public confidence—as a constituency MP I can say from my inbox that there is—is that there are so many different versions of rules and regulations relating to different forms of interception? Do you not think that simplifying it would reassure the public and allow a sense of confidence that would be valuable to local authorities in developing their intelligence in these areas?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
I have a very simple question, Sir Paul. You said that in 2010 there were 1,811 requests. Do you have the figures for the previous years?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
It would be helpful, if you would not mind.
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
I agree that I am being lazy in asking for them, but it would be helpful.
Steven Baker (Conservative, Wycombe)
Is there a place in society for objection in principle to particular powers and procedures?
Steven Baker (Conservative, Wycombe)
So we seem to be having a conversation in a very utilitarian way about evidence, which is fantastic. It is the usual course of things. We also seem to agree that there is a place for objection in principle to the existence of certain powers.
Steven Baker (Conservative, Wycombe)
Or we could say that they may investigate these particular offences but we will protect them and restore confidence by requiring judicial approval, in principle.
Tom Watson (Labour, West Bromwich East)
Sir Paul, were you surprised to see this piece of gold-plated regulation in the Bill?
Tom Watson (Labour, West Bromwich East)
And have you had representations from either the Local Government Association or the Department for Communities and Local Government on this?
John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)
Sir Paul, I have been very interested in what you have been saying. Would you accept that what some colleagues have been saying to you is actually changing the law by perception rather than by evidence?
John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)
Is there not a place for that within the system?
John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)
And is this where your quarter of a million pounds cost comes in, in that you would say that perceptions should not cost a quarter of a million pounds?
John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)
I wonder if you would say then how your part of the communications comes into the system, and how it could be excluded from the Bill.
John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)
Following on from my colleague, Mr Watson, in asking further details, it is obviously a disappointment, having heard what you have been saying, that we did not have something beforehand. Could you perhaps give us your ideas on where your communications side will come into the system?
John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)
As much as possible, by the sound of it. Anything that can improve the Bill would be helpful.
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
Sir Paul, laws are enacted all the time, are they not—and certainly have been by the previous Government—to act in a preventive way, or to seek to do so? Further to questions that have been asked by colleagues on both sides, do you accept that there is scope to prevent abuses? We know that there have been abuses in other areas outside your remit—for example, in surveillance other than in communications. Do you accept that, as a first question?
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
But we ought not necessarily to wait for misuse of a system before doing something to remedy a defect. Should we not act with regard to how things should operate, even assuming that they are operating perfectly now?
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
You say “overkill”, Sir Paul. In your role as interception commissioner, do you ever take evidence or speak to members of the general public on these issues?
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
So you have no contact with the general public, other than in your personal capacity. In your role as interception commissioner, you do not take evidence from the general public on these matters.
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
Why “of course not”, Sir Paul?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
I just wonder, Sir Paul, whether you have ever sat down with someone who has had the powers used against them and asked them whether they felt that it had been an abuse of power.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
Allegedly. You are confident that all 1,811 people who have been subject to these powers fall into that category. You know that for a fact.
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
Sir Paul, forgive me. You have been a lawyer for many years, I presume. Surely they are allegedly rogue traders until they are proven guilty. You are innocent until proven guilty.
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
You assume guilt.
Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)
What happens if it is a malicious complaint, Sir Paul? What happens if—
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
Michael, thank you.
I sense, Sir Paul, that we are coming to the end of our question and answer session. We would like to thank you very much indeed for your frank and colourful answers, which have delighted and interested the Committee greatly.
Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)
It has been a great pleasure.
Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)
Before we come to the questions for our witnesses, you wish to raise a point of order, Mr Coaker.
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
On a point of order, Mr Caton—I apologise to the witnesses, but I will only delay everyone for one minute. This morning, in our deliberations on the provisions of the Bill vis-à-vis the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the interception of communications commissioner came and told us his views about how the provisions of the Bill will operate with respect to RIPA and his responsibilities. His responsibilities deal with communications.
From the questions and comments that arose this morning, I think that the Committee would have liked to ask the relevant surveillance commissioner about the operation of RIPA. Clearly, we were not able to do that. Through the usual channels—the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip—we sought the attendance of the surveillance commissioners at our deliberations, but it was felt to be inappropriate. That is their decision, which I can understand up to a point, but it would be helpful to the Committee if we could ascertain the views of the chief surveillance commissioner on the provisions in the Bill—whether they see a problem, whether they think the provisions are good or whether they would like to see the Bill amended in any way.
I suggest to the Committee—hopefully the Minister will be able to say something positive—that we should contact the chief surveillance commissioner and ask whether he can provide the Committee with answers to certain questions that would aid our deliberations and our consideration of the Bill. If the Minister could agree to that, it would be extremely helpful.
James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)
I hear what the hon. Member for Gedling has just said about information for the Committee. The commissioner was asked if he could attend and give evidence, but unfortunately he was not available. I am certainly happy to refer the commissioner to what was asked in Committee about his views in respect of the RIPA provisions, and to ask what he might be able to provide to the Committee in terms of setting out his thoughts and his response. If that would help the hon. Gentleman, I am happy to take that away and to update the Committee once we have done that, letting the Committee know what information we have been able to secure.