My Lords, again I thank all those who have spoken on this group of amendments, and in particular I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his generous remarks.
In terms of the Russia report, it is simply not true that we have not implemented the report’s recommendations. As I said in my opening remarks, the Government published a full and comprehensive response to the ISC report in July 2020, which is available online and which addressed all the committee’s key themes and recommendations point by point. The Government have responded to all the recommendations that could be identified within the report. The majority of the committee’s recommendations were already being implemented by the Government before the report was published: for example, those covering co-ordination of HMG Russia’s work, close working with international partners, and continued exposition and attribution of malign Russian activity.
I would say also that, as noted in HMG’s response to the Russia report, an assessment was produced and is available at a higher classification. Noble Lords will appreciate the difficulties of producing intelligence assessments for the wider public, given the risks of putting sensitive material, including information about our capabilities and methods, into the public domain.
6.15 pm
If I may, I will go on to address the remarks about the ISC, particularly those made by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord West. Noble Lords will be aware that the ISC proposed changes to the memorandum of understanding in its annual report for 2021-22, which was published in December. This included a proposal to extend the committee’s oversight to include one of the organisations affected by the recent changes in the machinery of government. As such, the Prime Minister has not yet responded to these proposals. The noble Lords will recall my remarks in Committee that the Prime Minister will respond in due course. It is entirely appropriate that the ISC should propose changes to the MoU in this way, so the proposals can be given full consideration. We may well anticipate that, when this Bill has completed its passage through Parliament, the ISC may decide it wishes to suggest changes to the MoU, and we will welcome those, including such proposals as are in their next annual report to the Prime Minister.
The MoU is subject to continuous review and the Government do not think it would be appropriate to mandate the Prime Minister to update the MoU in a specific timeframe, particularly so soon after a change has been proposed, and while there is an established practice of the ISC proposing such changes via its annual report. The MoU is clear that it is important to
avoid duplication and, as I have said, some of the organisations the ISC is proposing to include in its remit are very new, and there are discussions under way regarding whether they are best overseen by other parliamentary Select Committees.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has some concerns that the Prime Minister was unaware of the ISC’s concerns, and that is not the case. The Justice and Security Act requires the Prime Minister to read the report before it is published, and the Prime Minister gets an unredacted version, so he sees the full picture. Ultimately, whether and when the Prime Minister attends an ISC is for the Prime Minister to decide. The noble Lord will recall that my noble friend Lord True heard noble Lords’ concerns last week, and will no doubt pass them on to the Prime Minister, and I will certainly remind him of that.
I am afraid I am going to reject completely the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, about fits of pique and whatnot.
Going on to the tier 1 visa scheme—