My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 194ZA, regarding the provision of funds to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has referred to this as a probing amendment.
I entirely agree with what this amendment seeks to achieve. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner must be free to appoint whomever he or she thinks is right and proper and to arrange their office as they see fit. It is certainly true with the current independent commissioners that, although they receive their funding from the Secretary of State, they are free to employ whomever they think best suited for any role they have to fill.
It has always been the intention under the Bill that the commissioner should appoint whom they wish. However, I would not want to accept this amendment as drafted since it may preclude the Secretary of State providing non-monetary assistance to the IPC. I will consider further whether anything more should be done to put beyond doubt that the commissioner will have autonomy over the appointment of staff, but I hope I have made the intention absolutely clear in response to the request from the noble Baroness. On that basis, I invite her to withdraw the amendment.
On Amendment 194DA, it is certainly the case in practice that the president of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is consulted before the budget allocated to the tribunal is settled. The tribunal then has sole responsibility for paying the salaries and expenses of the tribunal. This is a sensible way of doing things and ensures that the tribunal has sufficient funds to conduct its business. I see no reason for changing this practice.
6.45 pm
In addition to making consultation with the IPT a statutory requirement, the first limb of this amendment would also remove the role of the Treasury in approving levels of pay and allowances for the members of the tribunal. Since the Treasury is ultimately responsible for the allocation of public funds, I consider it appropriate that it should continue to play a role.
The second limb of the amendment aims to give the president of the IPT control over determining and providing money for expenses of the IPT, and accepting this amendment would mean that there was no role at all for the Secretary of State in providing funds for the tribunal. Consequently, the tribunal would have to negotiate directly with the Treasury to receive its funding. That would make it unique within the tribunal system.
I do not believe that the tribunal would receive a higher financial settlement if it negotiated directly with the Treasury, and in any case I do not believe at present that the tribunal needs a higher financial
settlement. There has been no suggestion from the president of the tribunal, including in the tribunal’s recent report, that it is underfunded. Indeed, the oversight commissioners are consulted about their budget allocations, and as far as I am aware no commissioner has ever suggested that they have been constrained in performing their duties due to a lack of financial resources. I therefore consider this amendment unnecessary and I invite the noble Baroness not to press it.