Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Murphy of Torfaen

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 31st October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I think that we will find in the future that this legislation will return again and again to bite us, and many of us here will regret having passed it.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. She played an important role in the course of this Bill in reminding your Lordships of the need to deal with the liberty of the citizen. But the greatest threat to the liberty of the citizen is the threat to life. This Bill, which is now in its final stage, is extremely important in ensuring that in future our citizens are protected against terrorism and the threats that face this country and beyond.

Of course, there were and are still issues that need to be taken very seriously with regard to the liberty of the subject. But in all the years that I have been in Parliament, I have not seen as much scrutiny of a Bill as this one. Not only did the Joint Committee, which I had the honour to chair, go through all the details of the Bill over a number of months, the other committees in Parliament also dealt with it, not least the Intelligence and Security Committee.

I commend the Government—not something that I usually do, but I will on this occasion—on accepting a great number of amendments to the Bill, which have improved it in the sense of ensuring that our liberties are safeguarded but that the basic thrust of the Bill remains the same. This has been a tremendous exercise in parliamentary scrutiny. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, it is Parliament’s Bill as much as it is the Government’s.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Murphy of Torfaen

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Amendment 169AA would ensure that applications for targeted equipment interference or targeted examination warrants were granted only on application to a judicial commissioner, removing the role of the Secretary of State. It also applies additional safeguards to the correspondence of parliamentarians when a warrant for hacking is sought. I have held my tongue this afternoon despite listening to some astonishing statements. I will keep my remarks now quite brief. This is not to say that I do not feel a lot of passion for this debate, because I do, but I value your Lordships’ time and so I will be brief.

I feel very strongly that politicians and journalists are not above the law, but politicians have a unique constitutional role, not least in holding the Executive to account. There should be a strong legislative presumption against their surveillance, which should be rebutted only in clear and specific circumstances, overseen only by judicial commissioners, without political involvement, which could have bias. A single process of judicial authorisation ought to exist across the Bill, but in relation to politicians being under surveillance it is imperative to remove any political involvement.

It is illogical to suggest that an adequate replacement for an almost complete prohibition on surveillance of politicians—the Wilson doctrine—is to expressly allow it, needing only the Secretary of State to consult with the Prime Minister prior to authorising interception or hacking. In fact, instead of securing an independent authorisation process, involving two politicians rather than just one makes the process even more political, not less. It is inherent in our democracy that members of the public can correspond with their representatives in private. It is vital that anyone contacting their Member of Parliament and any material that they provide will be handled with confidentiality and sensitivity. This also applies to journalists, of course.

Keir Starmer MP QC raised the issue of communications sent by or intended for Members of Parliament and journalists in Committee in the Commons, saying that,

“the protection is not for the benefit of the journalist or the Member of Parliament but for the wider public good”—[Official Report, Commons, Investigatory Powers Bill Committee, 12/4/16; col. 191.]

People have to know that they have privacy and confidentiality. Of course, it is also essential that the protections granted to elected representatives are consistent across the different methods of surveillance. John Hayes, who was a Minister quite recently—I am not sure where he is now—said that the Government would consider the issue of consistency across the different methods of surveillance. I beg to move.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen]

My Lords, I do not support the amendment, I fear. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness with regard to the correspondence of Members of Parliament. But the Joint Committee looked at whether Members of Parliament should be under surveillance and it agreed with the recommendations before it; that is, that there should be a double lock at that stage. That is consistent with the whole Bill: it should be not only the Secretary of State who signs a warrant but a judicial commissioner.

During the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons, that was made into a triple lock so that the Prime Minister, who originally was only to be informed of the warrant, now had to approve it as well. That seems to be an extremely wise thing to do. As a Member of Parliament—or a Member of this House or any of the devolved Parliaments and legislatures—who was going to have their communications intercepted, it would be important to know that it went as far as having the Prime Minister, the head of government, involved. Having just a judge doing it goes completely against the spirit of the Bill. The double-lock system is what everybody has said is absolutely the right thing to do. This is now a triple lock and I fear that I cannot support the amendment.