Sir Jeremy Wright
MP for Kenilworth and Southam · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I applaud my right hon. Friend’s passion and clarity on this issue. On the subject of democratic accountability, he knows that if, as the hon.”
“I welcome the intent that the Secretary of State has set out this afternoon, and the urgency with which she will require the relevant companies to act.”
“The Electoral Commission has made no formal assessment of this. It would be a matter for Parliament to introduce such legal protections. It is prescribed in law that poll cards and ballot papers must be provided in English or Welsh, but there are no other prescribed language requirements relating to election materials.”
“We can all cynically speculate about the reasons why this sudden about-turn has taken place this week, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who spoke from the Front Bench, said earlier, it is our job to scrutinise this legislation and to ensure that whatever we put in place does justice to the determination o…”
“In today’s version of the amendment paper, for the first time, that amendment has disappeared and been replaced not with the detailed compromise that Intelligence and Security Committee members, who have been engaged with this process, have been working towards, along with many others, but with Government amendment 157.”
“As the House would expect, we engaged with that process as diligently as we could, with no partisan politics, in an effort to make good law in the pursuit of greater state transparency while preserving our national security equities. As the hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,601 lines we hold for Sir Jeremy Wright, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 73.
“The VDPS is all or nothing: it pays out the full amount or nothing at all. In other words, someone adjudged to be 59% disabled as a direct result of vaccination would receive no compensation at all under the scheme. That cannot be right.”
“Friend’s constituent, the Government need to protect entitlement to benefits, as they have done with other similar schemes but which they are currently not doing in relation to payouts under the VDPS. Whether that is universal credit or some other benefit, that post-death entitlement needs to be protected in a way not currently allowed by the law. The second problem with the VDPS is that it requires a 60% level of disablement. The first thing to say about that is that the percentage of disablement can be hard to quantify in these cases, as Jamie Scott’s consultant made clear in her opinion. However, the second thing to say about it is that 60% is a very high bar. There can be significant injury or disablement that does not meet that threshold but is still life-changing.”
“Yes, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who puts it very well. It is important not just that we have the right scheme—I do not believe yet that we do—but that, as he says, when that scheme is in place, it pays out quickly. It is clear that the scheme in place at the moment is not doing that, and it simply is not acceptable or feasible for families in severe financial distress to have to wait the length of time that they are being asked to wait. And the example that he gives is a good one. That example is also important in another respect, because there is something else that the Government need to do. In relation to those cases where vaccine injury is fatal, as was the case with my hon.”
“They must surely do so in their own interests, because in the end, the cost to Government of failing to compensate those who have acted on Government policy will be higher than the cost of compensating them. It is because I support vaccination that I want confidence in vaccination to be maintained. Mostly, the Government should act because the people we are talking about did the right thing at the behest of their Government. Their Government now need to do the right thing by them.”
“Perhaps most strikingly, the no-fault compensation scheme attached to the COVAX programme, whereby countries including the United Kingdom make vaccines available to developing countries, can award up to 12 times the GDP per capita of the claimant’s country. In the UK, that would mean an upper limit roughly three times that of the VDPS. That means that the UK Government are funding better vaccine injury compensation for people in other countries than they are for people in our own. That surely is not a defensible position. The Government must do better, and soon. They must either reform the VDPS in order to make it more similar to the best international comparators, or find a way to settle the inevitable legal actions in these cases swiftly and fairly.”
“The comparable scheme in Canada is also a no-fault scheme that compensates for “severe, life-threatening or life-altering injury that may require… hospitalization or a prolongation of existing hospitalization, and results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or where the outcome is a congenital malformation or death.” Significantly, there is no percentage disablement requirement and, crucially, no upper limit to the level of compensation that may be awarded. In Australia, the scheme covers “a clinical condition or administration related injury…most likely as a result of receiving the COVID-19 Vaccine”, involving hospital treatment and resulting in at least $1,000-worth of losses. Again, it is a no-fault scheme but it has no percentage disablement requirement and no upper limit to the compensation amount.”
“Of course, we must recognise that the Government may need to pursue mass vaccination again in the future. It seems to me that the Government should properly compensate those injured by covid-19 vaccines for reasons of policy as well as those of morality. The question that follows is: can it be done better? You would, of course, expect me to say, Sir Edward, that yes, it can. These are relatively few cases in number, which means that the financial liability for Government is relatively delimited. There are domestic precedents we can follow—for example, the Thalidomide Trust. There are international examples that we can look to as well.”
“Worse still, those cases will put incidents of vaccine injury in the spotlight. We are rightly proud of the widespread take-up in what has been a successful and ongoing vaccination programme, but that take-up relies on public confidence in the covid-19 vaccine programme—confidence that is itself based on the safety of the vaccine. It is, let us be clear, overwhelmingly safe, but it is not universally safe. No vaccine is. The cases we are discussing today demonstrate that. The Government need people to know, surely, that if they are in the tiny minority of those injured by the vaccine that they are being urged to take, they will be looked after. If people cannot be confident of that and see that as they witness those cases being litigated, it is likely to damage uptake of the vaccine.”
“When those cases are brought, they are likely to be brought against the Government, because of the perfectly sensible indemnities given by the Government to those firms that have produced the vaccines. The cases brought will either be won by those injured or lost. If they are won, the Government will be paying full compensation for injury, with additional and avoidable legal costs added. If they are lost, people who have suffered for doing the right thing, the thing that the Government asked them to do, will not be compensated for hardship they have suffered through no fault of their own. Win or lose, the Government should not want those cases litigated. It will seem either that compensation is being dragged out of the Government or that it is being denied in what the public are likely to think are highly deserving cases.”
“That may sound like a lot of money, but it is certainly not enough to compensate for more serious injury and loss of earnings and amenity over lifetimes, especially for people in the 40s, like Jamie Scott, who are disproportionately highly represented among the figures of those who have suffered vaccine-related injury. I appreciate that the Minister will say that the VDPS is not designed to be full compensation but an additional payment that does not prejudice a right to pursue damages through the courts. I want to explore that argument for a moment. The fact that VDPS payments cannot and will not constitute full compensation in many of these cases makes legal action almost inevitable.”
“Yes. Again, I agree with my hon. Friend, who puts her point very powerfully. It seems to me that there is an opportunity for the Government to do better, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and her colleagues will take up that opportunity. We are talking about people in very great need who have done the right thing. There is no fault whatsoever on their part, and the Government are best served by helping them, not just for individual reasons but collectively because of the impact that will have on Government policy. I will come back to that point. As my hon. Friend says, the level of support currently on offer is not adequate. The third problem with the VDPS is that payouts under it are limited to £120,000.”
“As ever, the hon. Gentleman is making a lot of sense. He will have heard me say that the Government have a choice: they can either reform the VDPS or they can deal properly with the cases that are going to come their way. Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that what we are looking at here for the Government is something of a burning platform? They will get those cases, and if they would rather litigate them in the full glare of publicity then that is an option—but they will perhaps be foolish to do so. Would it not be better if they dealt with those cases more quietly?”
“I understand exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Would he agree that the best gift that we could give to the anti-vaxxers would be to allow them to say that people injured by the vaccine will receive no compensation and no help from the Government?”
“Before my hon. Friend moves off international comparisons, can I ask her about the Canadian and Australian schemes that I mentioned? I take her point about COVAX providing full and final settlement, but, as I explained, that is not the case for the Australian model or the Canadian one, neither of which has either a 60% disablement requirement or a maximum sum in compensation. If my hon. Friend is able to comment on that now, I invite her to do so. If she cannot, would she write to me to explain why the Government think those are not appropriate models to follow?”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her forbearance. On the point she has just made, it is true, of course, that people have access to the benefits system. However, as I said earlier, at the moment, at least, if someone is in receipt of a payment under the VDPS, that will count against their entitlement for benefits. It is possible to deal with that if the claimant is still alive; if they are not, it is not possible. Will the Government look at how that might be remedied, as it is in relation to other types of payment under other schemes?”
“Gentleman, I do not know what the future holds for her, but I know the officials behind her will stay where they are, and I hope they will be able to talk either to her or to her successor about what more can be done on this front. The families who have been injured deserve better than they are getting, and the Government’s policy objectives would be better served if the scheme worked better. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered covid-19 vaccines and the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme.”
“It simply falls to me to thank everyone who has participated in the debate. I hope that the Minister has a sense of the degree of consensus about the need to look again at the VDPS or, if not, to look at ways in which these cases can be settled by other means. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) put it, we cannot ignore these cases. Seeking to deal with them justly does not in any way undermine our commitment to vaccination as a public health approach; indeed, I think most of us argue that it strengthens it and makes it more coherent, so I hope the Minister will go away and think again. Like the hon.”
“I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his position. He will understand that those of us who have followed the Bill in some detail since its inception had some nervousness as to who might be standing at that Dispatch Box today, but we could not be more relieved that it is him. May I pick up on his point about the point of order from our right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis)? Does he agree that an additional point to add to his list is that, unusually, this legislation has a remarkable amount of cross-party consensus behind its principles? That distinguishes it from some of the other legislation that perhaps we should not consider in these two weeks. I accept there is plenty of detail to be examined but, in principle, this Bill has a lot of support in this place.”
“I agree that there is scope for more to be done to enable those in academia and in broader civil society to understand more clearly what the harm landscape looks like. Does my hon. Friend agree that if they had access to the sort of information he is describing, we would be able to use their help to understand more fully and more clearly what we can do about those harms?”
“That is because, as others have said, the independence of the regulator is crucial not just to this specific part of the Bill but to the credibility of the whole regulatory and legislative structure here, and therefore we should not undermine it unless we have to.”
“The proposed list comprises “national security, public safety, public health, the UK’s international relations and obligations, economic policy and burden to business.” —[ Official Report , 7 July 2022; Vol. 717, c. 69WS.] The platforms we are talking about are businesses. Are we really saying that a burden on them would give the Secretary of State reason to say to Ofcom, the independent regulator, that it must change a code of practice? That clearly cannot be right. This is still too broad a provision. The progress that has been made is welcome, but I am afraid that there needs to be more to further constrain this discretion.”
“I accept that on 7 July the Secretary of State issued a written statement that helps to some extent on that point—it was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South South (Chris Philp). First, it states that the Secretary of State would act only in “exceptional circumstances”, although it does not say who defines what exceptional circumstances are, leaving it likely that the Secretary of State would do so, which does not help us much. Secondly, it states the intention to replace the phrase “for reasons of public policy” with a list of circumstances in which the Secretary of State might act. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) that that is still too broad.”
“If we are saying that we want these entities to have a standards code and a complaints process that provide some reassurance that they are worthy of the protections the Bill gives, it seems to me that meaningful criteria must apply, which currently they do not. The powers of the Secretary of State have also been discussed by others, but I perhaps differ from their view in believing that there should be circumstances in which the Secretary of State should hold powers to act in genuine emergency situations. However, being able to direct Ofcom, as the Bill allows the Secretary of State to do, to modify a code of practice “for reasons of public policy” is far too broad. Amendment 13 would simply remove that capacity, with amendment 14 consequential upon it.”
“The difficulty here is that in neither case does the Bill refer to any quality threshold for those two things, so having any old standards code or any old policy for complaints will apparently qualify. That cannot be right. I entirely accept that inserting a provision that the standards code and the complaints policies and procedures should be both “suitable and sufficient” opens the question whose job it becomes to decide what is suitable and sufficient. I am familiar with all the problems that may ensue, so again, I do not say that the amendment is the final word on the subject, but I do say that the Government need to look more carefully at what the value of those two items on the list really is if the current definition stands.”
“Currently, however, the Bill is defective and needs to be remedied. That brings us to the definition of news publisher content, because it is important that if we are to give protection to that category of material, we are clear about what we mean by it. Amendments 11 and 12 relate to the definition of news publisher content that arises from the definition of a recognised news publisher in clauses 49 and 50. That matters for the same reason as I just set out: we should give these protections only to those who genuinely deserve them. That requires rigorous definition. Clause 50 states that if an entity is not named in the Bill, as some are, it must fulfil a set of conditions set out in subsection (2), which includes having a standards code and policies and procedures for handling and resolving complaints.”
“Clause 16 as drafted offers the protection given to journalistic content not just to news publishers, but to almost everybody else who chooses to define themselves as a journalist, whether or not that is appropriate. I do not think that that is what the Bill is intended to do, or an approach that this House should endorse. Amendment 10 would close the loophole by removing the second limb, regulated user-generated content that is not news publisher content. Let me be clear: I do not think that that is the perfect answer to the question I have raised, but it is better than the Bill as it stands, and if the Government can come up with a way of reintroducing protections of this kind for types of journalistic content beyond news publisher content that clearly deserve them, I will be delighted and very much open to it.”
“Amendment 10 would amend clause 16(8), which states that: “For the purposes of this section content is “journalistic content”, in relation to a user-to-user service, if…the content is” either “news publisher content in relation to that service”— the definition of which I will return to— “or…regulated user-generated content in relation to that service”. That is the crucial point. The content also has to be “generated for the purposes of journalism” and be linked to the UK. The first problem here is that journalism is not defined in the Bill. There are definitions of journalism, but none appears in the text of this Bill. “UK-linked” does not narrow it down much, and “regulated user-generated content” is a very broad category indeed.”
“It sets out that a platform—a user-to-user service—in category 1 will have “A duty to operate a service using proportionate systems and processes designed to ensure that the importance of the free expression of journalistic content is taken into account when making decisions about…how to treat such content (especially decisions about whether to take it down or restrict users’ access to it), and…whether to take action against a user generating, uploading or sharing such content.” So it is important, because of the significance of those protections, that we get right the definitions of those who should benefit from them.”
“The Bill gives additional protections and considerations to journalists, which is entirely justifiable, given the important role that journalism plays in our society, but those extra protections mean that it will be harder for platforms to remove potentially harmful content that is also journalistic content. We should be sure, therefore, that the right people get the benefit of that protection. It is worth having look at what clause 16 says and does.”
“Amendment 42 would do that when consideration is given to the safety duties designed to protect children set out in clause 11, which requires that “proportionate measures” must be taken to protect children’s safety and goes on to explain what factors might be taken into account when deciding what is proportionate, by adding “the benefits to children’s well-being” of the product or service in that list of factors. Amendment 43 would do the same when consideration is given to the online safety objectives set out in schedule 4. Both amendments are designed to ensure that the appropriate balance is struck when judgments are taken by platforms. Others have spoken about journalistic content, and I am grateful for what the Minister said about that, but my amendment 10 is aimed at the defect that I perceive in clause 16.”
“In other parts of the Bill, however, there are countervailing duties—for example, in relation to freedom of speech and privacy—where, predominantly in relation to adults, we expect platforms to conduct a balancing exercise. It seems right to me to think about that in the context of children, too. As I said, the emphasis is rightly on children’s safety, but the safest approach would be to prohibit children from any online activity at all. We would not regard such an approach as sensible, because there are benefits to children in being able to engage—safely, of course—in online activity and to use online products and services. It seems to me that we ought to recognise that in the language of the Bill.”
“I shall speak to the amendments in my name and the names of other right hon. and hon. Members, to whom I am grateful for their support. I am also grateful to the organisations that helped me to work through some of the problems I am about to identify, including the Carnegie Trust, Reset and the Antisemitism Policy Trust. On the first amendments I shall talk about, amendments 42 and 43, I have been able to speak to Lego, so I can honestly say that these amendments were put together with Lego. Let me explain. The focus of the Bill, quite rightly, is on safety, and there is no safety more important than the safety of children. In that respect, the Bill is clear: platforms must give the safety of children the utmost priority and pay close attention to ways to enhance it.”
“It is important, therefore, that we think about this Bill not in its overarching statements and principles but, particularly at this stage of consideration, in terms of how it will actually work. You will not find a bigger supporter of the Bill in this House than me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to see it work well and be effective. That means that some of the problems that I am highlighting must be addressed. Because humility is a good way to approach debates on something as ground-breaking and complex as this, I do not pretend that I have all the right answers. These amendments have been tabled because the Bill as it stands does not quite yet do the job that we want it to do. It is a good Bill—it needs to pass—but it can be better, and I very much hope that this process will improve it.”
“Yes, that is a possible way forward. Ofcom will need to produce a code of practice in this area. I am sure my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will say that that is a suitable way to deal with the problem that I have identified. It may well be, but at this stage, it is right for the House to recognise that the drafting of the Bill at the moment seeks to offer support to platforms, for which I am sure they will be grateful, but it will need to offer some more in order to allow these judgments to be made. I restate the point that I have made in previous debates on this subject: there is little point in this House passing legislation aimed to make the internet a safer place if the legislation does not work as it is intended to. If our regime does not work, we will keep not a single person any safer.”
“What the hon. and learned Lady says is sensible, but does she accept—this is a point the Minister made earlier—that, at the moment, the platforms have almost unfettered control over what they take down and what they leave up? What this Bill does is present a framework for the balancing exercise that they ought to apply in making those decisions.”
“Lady get the balance exactly right either, but there is cause for further discussion about where we in this House believe the correct boundary is between what an independent regulator should be given authority to do under this legislative and regulatory structure and what we wish to retain to ourselves as a legislature.”
“I think it is extraordinarily important that this Bill does what the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has just described. As the Bill moves from this place to the other place, we must debate what the right balance is between what the Secretary of State must do—in the previous group of amendments, we heard that many of us believe that is too extensive as the Bill stands—what the regulator, Ofcom, must do and what Parliament must do. There is an important judgment call for this House to make on whether we have that balance right in the Bill as it stands. These amendments are very interesting. I am not convinced that the amendments addressed by the hon.”
“The challenge in what she has described in her amendments may be that a platform needs to know how it is to determine and “verify”—that is the word she has used—that a participant in a pornographic video is an adult and a willing participant. It is clearly desirable that the platform should know both of those things, but the question that will have to be answered is: by what mechanism will it establish that? Will it ask the maker of the pornographic video and be prepared to accept the assurances it is given? If not, by what other mechanism should it do this? For example, there may be a discussion to be had on what technology is available to establish whether someone is an adult or is not—that bleeds into the discussion we have had about age assurance. It may be hard for a platform to establish whether someone is a willing participant.”
“I know that is disappointing, but I do think that what she has done is prompted a further debate on exactly this balance between Secretary of State, Executive, legislature and regulator, which is exactly where we need to be. I have two other things to mention. The first relates to new clause 7 and amendment 33, which the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) tabled. She speaks powerfully to a clear need to ensure that this area is properly covered. My question, however, is about practicalities. I am happy to take an intervention if she can answer it immediately. If not, I am happy to discuss it with her another time. She has heard me speak many times about making sure that this Bill is workable.”
“Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I hope it is some comfort to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South when I say that if the House does not support her amendment, it should not be taken that she has not made a good point that needs further discussion—probably in the other place, I fear. We are going to have think carefully about that balance. It is also important that we do not retain to ourselves as a legislature those things that the regulator ought to have in its own armoury. If we want Ofcom to be an effective and independent regulator in this space, we must give it sufficient authority to fulfil that role. She makes interesting points, although I am not sure I can go as far as supporting her amendments.”
“Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie). Again, I have a practical concern. He seeks to ensure that the pornographic content is “taken as a whole”, but I think it is worth remembering why we have included pornographic content in the context of this Bill. We have done it to ensure that children are not exposed to this content online and that where platforms are capable of preventing that from happening, that is exactly what they do. There is a risk that if we take this content as a whole, it is perfectly conceivable that there may be content online that is four hours long, only 10 minutes of which is pornographic in nature. It does not seem to me that that in any way diminishes our requirement of a platform to ensure that children do not see those 10 minutes of pornographic content.”
“Yes, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that useful addition to this debate, but it tends to clarify the point I was seeking to clarify, which is whether or not what the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North has in mind is to ensure that a platform would be expected to make use of those mechanisms that already exist in order to satisfy itself of the things that she rightly asks it to be satisfied of or whether something beyond that would be required to meet her threshold. If it is the former, that is manageable for platforms and perfectly reasonable for us to expect of them. If it is the latter, we need to understand a little more clearly how she expects a platform to achieve that greater assurance. If it is that, she makes an interesting point. Finally, let me come to amendment 56, tabled by my hon.”
“I think it is very important that we recognise the need for platforms to do all they can to ensure that the wrong type of material does not reach vulnerable users, even if that material is a brief part of a fairly long piece. Those, of course, are exactly the principles that we apply to the classification of films and television. It may well be that a small portion of a programme constitutes material that is unsuitable for a child, but we would still seek to put it the wrong side of the 9 o’clock watershed or use whatever methods we think the regulator ought to adopt to ensure that children do not see it. Good points are being made. The practicalities are important; it may be that because of a lack of available time and effort in this place, we have to resolve those elsewhere.”
“I follow that point. I will channel, with some effort, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who I suspect would say that these things are already up for debate and discussed in other contexts—the ability to distinguish between art and pornography is something that we have wrestled with in other media. Actually, in relation to the Bill, I think that one of our guiding principles ought to be that we do not reinvent the wheel where we do not have to, and that we seek to apply to the online world the principles and approaches that we would expect in all other environments. That is probably the answer to my hon. Friend’s point.”
“How is it that the Committee on Standards in Public Life was so right two weeks ago but wrong now?”
“I happen to agree with the right hon. Lady that there should not be a long gap before the appointment of a new independent adviser, but let me put something else to her. Two weeks ago, when she opened a debate on a similar subject, she prayed in aid extensively the Committee on Standards in Public Life, of which I am a member, as she knows, and she did so rightly, in my view. Does she accept, though, that she cannot do that today, because her motion does not accord with what the Committee on Standards in Public Life has said? We believe that the ministerial code must remain the property of the Prime Minister because that is how it derives its authority, and it therefore makes sense that the adviser should give advice to the Prime Minister and not to any Committee of Parliament, however eminent.”
“I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend; I know she wants to move on from this subject and there are other things to speak about, but on the point she makes about further work on the 1989 Act, which she is right to say is complex, does she accept that there is some urgency? Juries are in effect creating their own public interest defences when they try these cases. Would it not be far better if we in Parliament were able to define those defences properly, rather than inviting juries to do so ad hoc, without direction from the judge?”
“It is the criminal justice system that exists to reflect our collective disapproval of and sanction for criminal behaviour. The civil justice system is not set up to do so—certainly not in perpetuity thereafter. Is there any logic in leaving convicted terrorists eligible for criminal legal aid in relation to future allegations against them, as they will rightly remain if this Bill passes, but ineligible for civil legal aid? What that means for a formerly convicted terrorist is that legal aid will be available to them if the question before the court is whether they have again infringed the rights of others in a criminal way, but not if the question is whether others have infringed their rights, perhaps seriously. I am not sure that is right or sensible.”
“I have far fewer concerns about the reduction or non-payment of damages in cases where those damages may be used to fund terrorism; in those cases, decisions can be taken by a court, which in essence can already decide the size of award that would be just in all the circumstances. However, I am frankly worried about the Bill’s proposals on legal aid. This House has debated in the past, sometimes fiercely, which types of legal action should be eligible for legal aid and what level of wealth or poverty should be needed to get it, but I do not think we have ever before contemplated determining someone’s eligibility for civil legal aid based on previous criminal behaviour. Prisoners serving sentences, let alone those whose sentences have been served, do not lose all their rights in our society.”
“A defence of acting reasonably is already included in the 2007 Act, and I do not immediately see what the difference is between an argument of acting reasonably and an argument of acting in the proper exercise of someone’s function, which is what clause 23 would add. As the hon. Lady mentioned, we already have the backstop protection of section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. Ministers will need to explain, as the Bill progresses, why we need further legislative provision on that point. Finally, I come to the clauses at the end of the Bill that deal with civil damages and legal aid for those with terrorist convictions. I also make it clear that I give my own views on this, not the views of the Intelligence and Security Committee.”