Investigatory Powers Bill: Trade Union and Political Activities
Earl Howe Excerpts(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to strengthen provisions in the Investigatory Powers Bill to increase the protection of data relating to trade union and political activities.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have already strengthened the provisions in the Investigatory Powers Bill by accepting a Labour amendment to add protections for trade unions. It is already illegal for the security and intelligence agencies to further the interests of any political party. The Bill goes further by putting the Wilson doctrine on to a statutory footing, requiring the Prime Minister’s approval for the targeting of parliamentarians’ communications in addition to Secretary of State and judicial commissioner authorisation.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. He has opened up all sorts of trapdoors that I would like to go down, but has he met organisations such as the Blacklist Support Group, the NUJ and Liberty, which have documented evidence of police and security service wrongdoing and illegal activities, so that we can be sure that the safeguards are strong enough?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I have had round-table meetings with a number of organisations, including those representing the journalist profession and freedom of information bodies. The adherence of any public authority to existing legislation is an issue for the commissioners and the relevant courts or regulators, and any complaints can be followed up through those channels. The Bill we are debating provides for a whole range of safeguards in addition to those that currently exist: statutory oversight of the use of investigatory powers and greater powers for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to carry out investigations. In addition, we are creating a number of offences. I hope the noble Baroness will see that we have done our best to strengthen the safeguards that exist under current legislation.
Investigatory Powers Bill
Earl Howe Excerpts(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 7, Schedule 1, Clauses 8 to 12, Schedule 2, Clauses 13 to 53, Schedule 3, Clauses 54 to 57, Clauses 94 to 101, Schedule 6, Clauses 102 to 127, Clauses 58 to 67, Schedule 4, Clauses 68 to 80, Schedule 5, Clauses 81 to 93, Clauses 205 to 219, Schedule 7, Clauses 220 to 223, Clauses 128 to 204, Clause 224, Schedule 8, Clauses 225 to 245, Schedule 9, Clause 246, Schedule 10, Clause 247, Title.
RAF Red Arrows
Earl Howe Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the role of the RAF Red Arrows Aerobatic Team at future Farnborough airshows so that they continue to perform aerobatics rather than just a flypast.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe)
My Lords, regrettably, in view of the densely populated area surrounding Farnborough Airport, the RAF decided that the Red Arrows highly complex displays can no longer be conducted there. It therefore has no plans to review the role of the Red Arrows at Farnborough International Airshow. The safety of the public has to be the priority.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister recollect other statistics such as that the number of people killed on the roads is 1,732, on the railways it is 39, and in air accidents it is 16? For well over 50 years at the Farnborough International Airshow, not a single civilian has been killed from any aerial activity. Is this not an overreaction, possibly to Shoreham? Surely it is possible for the authorities running this famous air show, alongside the RAF, to produce a dynamic aerobatic display? It could be modified in the light of the risk analysis, but to have no display diminishes what is at the moment the number one air show in the world, which is absolutely vital to Her Majesty’s aerobatic exports.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I share my noble friend’s disappointment at the decision but there is no doubt that, following the accident at Shoreham, the safety of the public at and near air shows has come into sharper focus. Following Civil Aviation Authority and Military Aviation Authority changes and amplifications to air display regulations, the Chief of the Air Staff made the judgment that the potential risks to air crew, spectators and other members of the public in the surrounding area were no longer acceptable. As the legally accountable person, the Chief of the Air Staff has to be respected in his decision.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a resident of Crondall, which is on the flight path into Farnborough and where the Chinooks line up for RAF Odiham. Great concern has arisen after Shoreham about the difficult manoeuvres of the Red Arrows. By the way, it is not true that there has never been an accident at Farnborough, although not in the past 50 years. I was at the air show in 1952 when around 30 people were killed when John Derry’s aeroplane crashed and the engine fell into the crowd. Is it not the case that we need to bear in mind that while the flypast by the Red Arrows is highly appreciated, the decision on this is quite logical?
Earl Howe
I am grateful to the noble Lord. If one looks at the map of Farnborough and the surrounding area, it is easy to see how densely populated it now is. It simply is not possible to conduct a Red Arrows display without significant overflight of Farnborough, Camberley and Fleet. As I have explained, the decision has been taken by the Chief of the Air Staff that the potential risk to life from display flying over those areas, which I am afraid is inevitable given the extreme air manoeuvres that the Red Arrows undertake, could not be tolerated.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the decision about Farnborough whereby it is allowed to show formation flypasts but not formation aerobatics, would indicate that perhaps formation aerobatics carry some measure of risk. Can the noble Earl confirm that in making any decision about flights by the Red Arrows, there is never any question that there is a risk in their performance? If it is necessary to make a decision not to participate, would it not be better if the Red Arrows did not appear? It seems to me that an aerobatic team which does not perform aerobatics is of little use to the RAF or to the country.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I would not wish to give the House the impression that the decision taken in relation to Farnborough will apply to every other air show because each event is assessed on a case-by-case basis. There will be many shows and other events where the Red Arrows will continue to perform with an acceptable degree of risk, but that risk always exists and safety must remain the paramount consideration at all times. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble and gallant Lord about the Red Arrows remaining at Farnborough and performing a flypast. I think that the flypast was appreciated, as was the static display on the ground.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, we are all justifiably proud of the Red Arrows. They train for eight months of the year in order to perform and they are part of the RAF events team. Can the Minister please tell the House what is the annual cost of the RAF events team and the justification for that cost in the light of the severe reductions in our Armed Forces personnel?
Earl Howe
I thought I detected in that question some scepticism as to the value of the Red Arrows. Frankly, I am surprised by that because they are fantastic global ambassadors for the United Kingdom. They promote the best of Britain and represent the speed, agility and precision of the Royal Air Force. They showcase the professionalism of our Armed Forces very well. I will write to the noble Lord with the figure that he seeks. It is not as easy for me to quote a figure as perhaps some might think.
Lord Spicer (Con)
If we continue to delay decisions at Gatwick and Heathrow, will we not be forced to make more use of Farnborough anyway?
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, over more than 50 years the Red Arrows have flown almost 5,000 displays around the world. They have been used to recruit to our Armed Forces and they have acted as ambassadors for Britain. I read the statement from the Minister’s department about why it was thought that the traditional high-speed display was not appropriate at Farnborough and they performed a flypast instead. In response to an earlier question, the Minister said that in future we will look at these displays on a case-by-case basis. I hope we will because in the last figure I have, the cost of the display team is £6.1 million. That is a lot of money to spend on an occasional flypast.
Naval Warships: Repair at Sea
Earl Howe Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, RFA “Diligence”, the forward repair ship, is one part of a system providing support facilities to deployed ships and submarines. This support is regularly supplemented by commercial arrangements and international agreements. When bespoke afloat capabilities are required, these are contracted on the open commercial market. This solution is not dependent on “Diligence” and has proven effective. Of course, we continue to consider all our capability requirements, depending on the operational task.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, “Diligence” has provided wonderful support to Royal Naval ships. What is the cost of her recent refits and is my noble friend satisfied that her sale will not affect the maintenance of Royal Naval ships when away from home ports?
Earl Howe
My Lords, there was a refit of RFA “Diligence” in 2012-13 and another in 2014-15, both driven by mandatory certification requirements. The aggregate cost of those refits was £28.6 million. I reassure my noble friend that the withdrawal from service of RFA “Diligence” will not have a material effect on the support provided to the fleet. We are always considering different and innovative ways of providing that support to deliver the best value for money for the taxpayer. The Royal Navy is confident that, through a combination of the measures that I have outlined, the required support will be available.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, this news fills me with despair. As late as this spring, the Government said that “Diligence” was invaluable to the Royal Navy, as I know from my own experience. We now have 19 frigates and destroyers; six of those destroyers have intercooler problems. We have not resolved that problem yet and we need to do so. We are using merchant ships—the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries—to do the jobs that warships should do. We have a shortage of manpower and we have ships laid up alongside. We are not fulfilling the tasks that I think our nation would expect us to fulfil. Is it not the case that there is insufficient money to run the naval programme today? Are we not creating an ever-bigger black hole, if I may refer back to that term? We have a very real problem. We will have less ships in the Navy in 2025 than now —I am sorry, we will have fewer; I did go to grammar school but I get my words wrong occasionally—despite what the Government said firmly. After a long interchange between us, the noble Earl admitted that there would be fewer. How many will we have in 2025?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord made a series of points and asked a series of questions. Of course, there are always acute cost pressures where we have a service at the cutting-edge of excellence, as the Royal Navy is. But there is now a range of ways in which the Royal Navy delivers operational maintenance and repair to the fleet. It can often be, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, through a Royal Navy repair and maintenance party being deployed to a ship or, more likely, as will be the case with the carriers, through the ship’s own personnel and capabilities. In addition, we have well-established commercial arrangements and international agreements, such as the use of other countries’ bases and facilities. I would mention that, due to a successful recruitment campaign, RFA manning is currently on target, with many vacancies oversubscribed.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, with due respect, I fear that the Minister’s Answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, is somewhat complacent. The fact is that the Navy’s attribute to be deployable worldwide without any host nation support is critical. Where I believe it is complacent is that the noble Earl overlooks what happens in conflict. We are scarred with examples of where allies and international agreements sometimes fall away when we get into conflict situations. RFA “Diligence” may be only one component of our support but it is a critical one, especially for the servicing, maintenance and repair of nuclear submarines, which cannot get into ports where there are no nuclear-cleared berths. Will the Minister please reflect on that and reassure the House that the Ministry of Defence may look at this again?
Earl Howe
The House will listen with great respect to the noble and gallant Lord, with his enormous experience. The approach now being taken by the Royal Navy is to upskill our own engineers and give them an opportunity to use their skills. That is a good thing and, to that end, we are working with industry to improve training in diagnostics and repair techniques, which puts the service man and woman at the centre of operational maintenance. I will, however, reflect on the points that the noble and gallant Lord has made.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, some would argue that the Royal Navy is the most successful fighting force in the history of our country, and high standards of training have ensured that it remains so, despite cuts in personnel, ships, submarines and aircraft. Why, then, on 4 August did the Ministry of Defence slip out an advert seeking expressions of interest and inviting parties to buy RFA “Diligence”, which it described as surplus equipment “in good overall condition”? Will the Minister say how it is surplus when it is our only at-sea repair ship? It should certainly be in good overall condition because we spent £16 million on the last refit. Can the Minister offer us any hope that his department will soon have a long-term strategic approach to defence spending and planning? It would make his life a lot easier as he would not have to keep coming here to defend the indefensible.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I assure noble Lords that there is a long-term strategy for the Royal Navy’s expenditure plans. The Royal Navy has declared that “Diligence” is no longer essential to its needs. Over 30 years, it has performed a very useful service to the Royal Navy, but it started life before the Falklands conflict. It is an obsolescent ship. However, the taxpayer will be getting value for it. The sale of “Diligence” will be managed by the Disposal Services Authority, which issued the notice to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
SDSR15 specifically said that the Government would publish a new national shipbuilding strategy in 2016. Can the Minister give us any indication of when we might expect this?
Earl Howe
My Lords, Sir John Parker is leading the national shipbuilding strategy. That work is intended to place UK warship building on a sustainable long-term footing. He is considering a range of issues to do that, including that regularly raised by the noble Lord, Lord West, which is a regular drumbeat of warship building.
Investigatory Powers Bill
Earl Howe Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, I had the privilege of sitting on the Joint Committee on the Bill and on the Joint Committee on its precursor, the Communications Data Bill, three years earlier. That puts me in a position to inform the House about one example of how technology has come to this area of law and the Government’s attitude to it. In the earlier Committee three years ago, the subject of the problems that encryption presented to the security services and law enforcement was raised several times with senior Home Office officials, the police and security agency officers. They dismissed it at the time. “It is not a problem”, they said—they were not concerned about it. In the proceedings of the Joint Committee and in this House on this Bill, the Government have repeatedly expressed their concern about the effect of encryption on their ability to protect us. That is a 180 degree change in the space of less than three years. I draw that to the House’s attention in support of the notion of substantially accelerating the review of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, explained, Amendment 234A deals with the review of the operation of this legislation. The amendment would reduce the length of time for which it has been in operation from five years and six months to two years and six months. It is of course good practice to conduct post-legislative scrutiny, particularly for legislation as significant as the Bill. That is what the Bill provides for. Notwithstanding any suggestion by virtue of the amendment that the House might be eager to revisit the issue within the scope of this Parliament, I suggest that reducing the time for which the legislation had been operating before the review takes place would be profoundly unhelpful in assessing its utility.
First, the timing of when the review should occur is precisely as the Joint Committee convened to scrutinise the draft Bill recommended. As the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, that committee considered that work on a review,
“should begin within six months of the end of the fifth year after which the Bill is enacted”.
We have followed that lead.
I was asked what kind of review this would involve. As I mentioned, the Bill attempts to give effect to the recommendation of the committee. We cannot, clearly, bind Parliament in the actions that it takes, so the Bill provides for consideration of any report by a committee of Parliament. I hope that again accords with the steer that the Joint Committee gave us.
Of course, we must ensure that before such a review takes place, all the Bill’s provisions have commenced and been in effect for a sufficient period so that a review is meaningful and effective. As the Joint Committee again concluded:
“The evidence of several years’ operation will inform the debate”.
A review after two and a half years runs the risk that processes and capabilities will not have had sufficient time to bed down before they are subject to a formal review. We need to bear in mind, in particular, that communication service providers will need to implement legislation. Surely the last thing we want is for them to turn round after a short time, if the noble Baroness’s proposal gains traction, and say that it is too soon. We do not wish to create uncertainty for them at this stage. They have to implement this, as has everybody else. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, rightly said that it is important that the impact of the Act should be reviewed and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, also correctly spoke of the need to monitor how the Act was working. I do not disagree with either.
However, I would just point out that an urgent review of the Act is not necessary, given the strong oversight provided in the Bill by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the requirement that the commissioner should publish annual reports. The exercise of the powers provided for under the Bill will be subject to the ongoing oversight of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and his report will be laid before Parliament. I was grateful for the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. He referred to David Anderson’s recommendation to establish a technical advisory panel. I am reserving judgment on that recommendation in the light of our debates last week. David Anderson said, in paragraph 9.3, that the point of the TAP would not be to provide an alternative oversight function, or to place new regulatory burdens on the SIAs. Rather it would serve to inform the Secretary of State and enhance the work of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner by ensuring that both are kept as up-to-date as possible with the fast-moving technologies whose use they are asked to approve. There is good sense in not overlaying the oversight that the Act will have too heavily. For all those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I hope that what I have said convinces her that there is some logic to the Government’s position.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, before I respond, I wonder whether the Minister can tell the Committee when it is expected that the provisions of the Bill will commence. Does he have that information?
Baroness Hamwee
I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and I am sure he will understand the importance of the question of the extent to which the Government have decided when the provision should commence. I imagine they must have a programme in mind. He says that the timing is precisely as the Joint Committee proposed, but it is not, as we have heard, the type of review proposed by the committee, as I understand the report. Yes, of course we want to avoid uncertainty, but we would argue that a shorter period would give greater confidence to the communication service providers and others that changes in technology and the operation of the Bill will be made as soon as they reasonably should, to assist them as well as everyone else.
The Minister mentioned the IPC’s report under Clause 210, but I believe the Secretary of State does not have to act on it. The Minister mentioned that the technology advisory panel is primarily about technology, although David Anderson argued forcefully that it should comprise more than technicians. I do not want that word to sound pejorative—I am searching for a more respectful term—but I am sure the Committee will understand.
This is an important issue, and I cannot promise that we shall not return to it on Report.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the arguments for and against a definition of national security have been considered at length both here and in the other place over the years, including in the Bill’s Committee stage in the other place. Neither House has been persuaded of the necessity of such a definition.
If the Committee will forgive me, I do not intend to rehearse previous discussions in full, but suffice it to say that it has been the policy of successive Governments not to define national security in statute. National security is one of the statutory purposes of the security and intelligence agencies. Threats to national security are, as we have heard, constantly evolving and difficult to predict, and it is vital that legislation does not constrain the security and intelligence agencies in their ability to protect the public from new and emerging threats.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, made a very important point about the European convention. However, I think the key point is that to define national security in statute could have the unintended effect of constraining the ability of the security and intelligence agencies to respond to new and emerging threats to our national security.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen made an important point which was echoed by the Solicitor-General in the other place. Who could have imagined a few years ago cyberattacks of the nature and scale that now threaten us?
As I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is concerned with the purpose of national security being subject to too broad an interpretation in the Bill. I hope, however, that she will be reassured by the role of the judicial commissioners. They will oversee the use of these powers and will ensure that they are used only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so. The commissioners are the ultimate check against abuse. We need to remember that all the most intrusive powers in this Bill that may be used for the purpose of national security are subject to the double lock. That means that the Secretary of State and a judicial commissioner must consider whether their use is necessary and proportionate. The activities of the security and intelligence agencies will be subject to retrospective oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and, of course, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. Should the Government ever treat national security as a kind of blank cheque, I have no doubt that the ISC and the IPC would make clear their position in their reports.
In view of the considerable time that Parliament has spent considering this question in the past, the conclusion it reached and the arguments advanced during this debate, I invite the noble Baroness to reconsider and not to press her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
Why was the phrase “economic well-being” included as a rather loose term?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
My point is simply that there was a recommendation that it was unnecessarily confusing. Therefore, there must be a reason for putting it in, and I would like to know the reason; that is all.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
I thank the Minister very much for those answers. I also thank noble Lords, who obviously did not agree with me, for their comments. This definition was meant to be a prompt, guidance, not something to be set in stone. Without a definition, I find it difficult to understand how we can describe anything that is necessary for the future well-being of the country. The whole Bill is based on a definition. However, if you have not described it, how can you be sure that you are doing the right thing? Nevertheless, given the explanation provided, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) regulations under section 50(3),”
“Definitions of “other relevant crime” and “serious crime”
4A_(1) The definitions of—(a) “other relevant crime” in section (Restrictions in relation to internet connection records)(6), and(b) “serious crime” in section 235(1),are to be read, until the appointed day, as if for the words “the age of 18 (or, in relation to Scotland or Northern Ireland, 21)” there were substituted “the age of 21”._(2) In sub-paragraph (1), “the appointed day” means the day on which the amendment made to section 81(3)(a) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by paragraph 211 of Schedule 7 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 comes into force.”
“Immigration Act 2016
In section 7(2)(b) of the Immigration Act 2016 (information gateways: supplementary) for “Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000” substitute “any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016”.”
Earl Howe
My Lords, this is a minor consequential amendment to the Immigration Act 2016 regarding information gateways. The Act currently sets out that disclosures that can be made for the purposes of any exercise of any function of the director cannot authorise a disclosure that would be prohibited by Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This amendment simply substitutes “Part 1 of RIPA” with,
“any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016”,
in the Immigration Act 2016 so that prohibited disclosures under these sections are not authorised by the Immigration Act. I beg to move.
Investigatory Powers Bill
Earl Howe Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have commented on David Anderson QC’s review. I take this opportunity to thank Mr Anderson for undertaking that review and I welcome his comprehensive report. The history of events leading up to the commissioning of that report was well rehearsed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Mr Anderson was supported by an expert, security-cleared team of his own choosing. The Government, and in particular the security and intelligence agencies, provided Mr Anderson and his team with all necessary information, access and assistance for them to undertake the review effectively. As the report itself makes plain, almost 250 members of the security and intelligence agencies have been involved in the review, dedicating over 2,000 man-hours to support it. This has ensured that Mr Anderson has had the necessary resources to undertake a detailed assessment of the operational case for bulk powers in sufficient time to inform today’s debate.
As has been said today, the report sets out in extensive detail the review’s working methods and the sources of evidence that have been used to determine whether the operational case for bulk powers has been made. As noble Lords will have observed, these sources of evidence include: 60 detailed and highly classified case studies; internal security and intelligence agency documents considering the utility of bulk powers, which address shortcomings and failures as well as successes; statistical information on the extent of the use of bulk powers; allegations made by Edward Snowden; and a number of previous reviews, including in the UK and overseas. In fact, David Anderson found that previous reviews were either supportive of the need for the bulk powers or that they were in some cases not relevant to the UK context.
In their consideration of all this evidence, the review team critically appraised the need for bulk capabilities, including considering whether the same result could have been achieved through alternative investigative methods. This question has not just been taken on trust. The expertise of the review team has meant that, in the words of Mr Anderson, the security and intelligence agencies have been put,
“to strict proof of what they assert”.
In relation to the scope of the review, David Anderson was specifically asked to consider the operational case for bulk powers. The sensitive nature of those powers means that this task rightly had to be conducted by a security-cleared review team. But the safeguards that apply to those powers are, rightly, a matter for Parliament to consider as part of our ongoing scrutiny of the Bill’s provisions. The Government are clear that the Bill ensures that robust safeguards and world-leading oversight will apply to the exercise of bulk powers. For example, every bulk warrant will be subject to the double lock; any subsequent examination of material collected must be considered necessary and proportionate for an operational purpose approved by the Secretary of State and a judicial commissioner; and before issuing a bulk warrant, the Secretary of State must consider whether the same result could be achieved through less intrusive means.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, pointed out that the review did not specifically consider whether the use of bulk powers is proportionate. That is true; but it is also true that the question of whether alternative methods could achieve the same result was examined in detail. This question is equally important to the consideration of whether these powers are proportionate and necessary. The review has concluded that in the great majority of cases, there will be no effective alternative to the use of bulk powers and that where alternatives exist,
“they were likely to produce less comprehensive intelligence and were often more dangerous … more resource-intensive, more intrusive or—crucially—slower”.
I turn now to the conclusions of the review in a bit more detail. Taken together, they show that bulk powers are crucial. The report concludes that these powers,
“have a clear operational purpose”,
that they,
“play an important part in identifying, understanding and averting threats in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and further afield”,
and that the contributions made by bulk powers could not be replicated by other means. The review also concludes that bulk powers are vital across the full range of security and intelligence agency activity, including counterterrorism, cyberdefence, child sexual exploitation, organised crime and the support of military operations, and that they have been used to disrupt terrorist activity, prevent bomb attacks, facilitate the rescue of hostages, thwart cyberattacks and save lives.
This is a vital point. Mr Anderson is clear that questions of necessity cannot be entirely divorced from questions of proportionality. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, rather neatly brought us into the domain of moral philosophy. The review concludes beyond all doubt that, were it not for the bulk powers, there would be more successful terrorist attacks, more successful cyberattacks, more dead hostages and military personnel, and more abused and exploited children. It is now for Parliament to decide whether the powers that have prevented such atrocities are proportionate, given the threats faced by the UK and our European and other allies around the world, given the extensive safeguards and oversight provided in this Bill, and given the review’s conclusions that there are no effective alternatives. The Government firmly believe that they are.
Turning briefly to the individual powers under review, the report concludes that there is a,
“proven operational case for three of the bulk powers”,
with reference to bulk interception, bulk acquisition of communications data and bulk personal datasets.
In relation to bulk interception, the report concludes that it is of “vital utility” to the security and intelligence agencies and that alternative methods, alone or in combination, fall short of providing the same results.
The review finds that the bulk acquisition of communications data is,
“crucial in a variety of fields, including counter-terrorism, counter-espionage and counter proliferation”.
In addition, the review states that case studies provided to the review team demonstrated that,
“bulk acquisition has contributed significantly to the disruption of terrorist operations and, through that disruption, almost certainly the saving of lives”.
On bulk personal datasets, Mr Anderson states:
“I have no hesitation in concluding that BPDs are of great utility to the SIAs. The case studies that I examined provided unequivocal evidence of their value”.
He goes on to conclude that in “vital” areas of work, such as pattern analysis and anomaly detection, there is “no practicable alternative”.
Mr Anderson’s conclusion in relation to bulk equipment interference, which I will come to in more detail in a second, is differentiated from the other powers under review in that he finds that there is a,
“distinct (though not yet proven) operational case”,
for its use. The reason for this difference is that bulk equipment interference has not yet been exercised. That is not to say that bulk equipment interference is a new power. While it has not yet been deployed, activity that would be classed as bulk equipment interference under the Bill could be authorised under existing legislation but, to date, GCHQ has carried out only equipment interference operations which would have been authorised under a targeted equipment interference warrant under the Bill. While acknowledging that bulk equipment interference has not yet been used, the review still concludes that,
“an operational case for bulk EI has been made out in principle”,
and that there are likely to be cases where,
“no effective alternative is available”.
In summary, the conclusions of this detailed and thorough independent review mean that there can now be absolutely no question that the operational case for the bulk powers in the Bill has been comprehensively made out. It now falls to us to decide whether to continue to provide our security and intelligence agencies with these vital powers to counter the threats we face.
Let me turn to some of the specific questions and points that noble Lords have raised. First, I turn to the issue of bulk personal datasets, which a number of noble Lords referred to. A bulk personal dataset is a dataset containing information about a range of people, most of whom are not of interest to the security and intelligence agencies, for example a telephone directory. A list of people who have a passport is another good example of such a dataset. It includes personal information about a large number of individuals, the majority of which will relate to people who are not of security or intelligence interest. Analysis of bulk personal datasets is an essential way for the security and intelligence agencies to focus their efforts on individuals who threaten our national security. The use of bulk personal datasets is not new, and the Bill does not provide new powers for acquiring them; rather, it provides robust transparent safeguards around bulk personal datasets, including a requirement for warrants to authorise the retention and use of them. The safeguards are comparable to those provided in relation to other powers in the Bill, including the double lock, for example.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pursued these issues, and in particular raised the point in the review where Mr Anderson says that some bulk personal datasets may contain,
“material that is comparable to the content of communications”,
and, in rare cases, even material subject to legal professional privilege. He went on to say it is imperative that,
“consideration be given to the introduction of additional safeguards to the Bill and Code of Practice”.
We are carefully considering whether changes should be made to the Bill and code of practice to address the rare occasions when a bulk personal dataset may contain material comparable to the content of communications or subject to legal professional privilege, and discussions on that are going on at the moment. As David Anderson’s report also makes clear, in considering the sources of evidence, the review team specifically questioned whether similar results could have been achieved by other, less intrusive methods, I do not believe that anyone who has read this detailed and comprehensive report in full could come away with the impression that it did not consider hard evidence on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also flagged David Anderson’s comment that the Government’s operational case for bulk powers,
“categorises the purposes served by the powers under review in ways which lack coherence and consistency”.
The Government’s operational case for bulk powers was published in response to the recommendation of the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill, but we acknowledged that there was a need for the operational case to be subjected to independent scrutiny. That is why we commissioned David Anderson’s review, and the conclusions of the review are clear that,
“bulk powers have a clear operational purpose”.
The question was raised about bulk powers as distinct from targeted thematic powers. As noble Lords will remember, this issue was looked at by the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I will just quote a short passage from the speech of my right honourable friend Dominic Grieve MP, who is chair of the ISC, because it helps to inform this question. He said:
“The second issue concerns the agencies’ use of equipment interference. Our concerns focused on the way in which the use of this capability is authorised, rather than on the need for it, which is clear to us. In particular, we were not initially provided with evidence that explained the need for a bulk power, as opposed to a targeted thematic one. That is why we reported in the way we did. Following publication of our report, we received additional evidence from the agencies as to why they need bulk equipment interference warrants to remain in the Bill and they actually made a persuasive case. More importantly, the Committee was reassured that information obtained by such means will be treated in exactly the same way, with exactly the same controls, as data acquired under a bulk interception warrant. The Committee is therefore broadly content that there is a valid case for the power to remain in the Bill, but, just as with bulk interception warrants, we want to see the safeguards and controls in detail and hope to do so in the near future”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/16; col. 838.]
I hope noble Lords will appreciate that we have been around this course before. There is a need for both powers, as I hope will now be accepted.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made the case for going a bit wider than the narrow wording of the recommendation. Will the Government have a look at recommendation 6 of the RUSI report? We recommended an advisory council for digital technology and engineering to cover some of these exact points. The recommendation goes somewhat wider—it is probably too wide for the purposes of the Bill—but it met the point about providing research on engineering technology and being answerable to the Secretary of State, so the process is open and we keep abreast of technical measures. Advancing public education is what we get from David Anderson’s reports from time to time; that is what they are about. I ask for recommendation 6 of the RUSI report to be considered in conjunction with David Anderson’s recommendation to see whether consensus can emerge.
Lord Strasburger
The noble Earl spoke at some length about the utility of bulk personal datasets to the intelligence agencies, but he did not answer my question, which was generated by the revelation in Mr Anderson’s report that bodies other than the intelligence agencies have access to bulk personal datasets. Which other bodies have access to bulk personal datasets?
Earl Howe
Almost anyone has access to bulk personal datasets. Many of us have a telephone directory. A very wide range of public bodies and commercial organisations have access to bulk personal datasets, because that expression describes a wide range. I cannot be specific to the noble Lord, but if I am able, on advice, I will write to him to elucidate further.
Lord Rosser
Before I wind up—and I shall, of course, withdraw the amendment—does the noble Earl anticipate that the Government will come forward with an amendment on Report on the recommendation in the report on the technology panel, or not?
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for his detailed response and thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, as well as thanking the Committee for its indulgence in allowing us to have a general debate on the Anderson report, even though my amendment related only to one specific part of it. It is very useful to have had the debate that we have had. I am sure that other noble Lords will do so, but I shall certainly want to read again in Hansard the full details of the Minister’s response and the replies that he has given to the questions that have been raised. Once again, I thank him for his detailed response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
(a) ”
“(4) The operational purposes specified in the warrant must be ones specified, in a list maintained by the heads of the intelligence services (“the list of operational purposes”), as purposes which they consider are operational purposes for which intercepted content or secondary data obtained under bulk interception warrants may be selected for examination.”
Earl Howe
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 198, 207, 208, 213, 214, 227, 228 and 223, all of which relate to operational purposes on bulk warrants.
The amendments tabled by the Government add significant detail to the provisions in the Bill on operational purposes—that is, the purposes for which data collected under a bulk warrant may be selected for examination. Operational purposes are an important new safeguard and we are committed to ensuring that the Bill includes as much detail as possible about how they will operate in practice. These amendments respond to amendments tabled in the House of Commons by the Intelligence and Security Committee, and they address concerns raised during the Committee stage in the Commons that operational purposes could be “general”.
The amendments would do a number of key things. They would create a requirement that the heads of the intelligence services must maintain a list of all operational purposes. The maintenance of this list would ensure that the security and intelligence agencies are able to assess and review all the operational purposes that are, or could be, specified across the full range of their bulk warrants at a particular time. This would ensure that these purposes remain up to date and relevant to the current threat picture, better enabling the agencies to identify warrants that need to be modified, adding or removing operational purposes. The maintenance of the central list would also make sure that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is able to oversee, in one place, the full range of purposes for which a bulk warrant could authorise the examination of material.
The amendments would apply robust controls to the addition of an operational purpose to the central list, requiring that any such addition must be approved by the Secretary of State. They make clear that the Secretary of State may approve the addition of an operational purpose to that list only if satisfied that it contains more detail than the statutory grounds on which the warrant was issued, such as in the interests of national security.
The amendments would also enhance the oversight and transparency of the use of operational purposes. As well as the rigorous independent oversight that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will apply to the exercise of bulk powers, these amendments would also require the following: that the list of operational purposes must be reviewed annually by the Prime Minister; that the list must be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee every three months; and that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must publish a summary of the use of operational purposes in each of his or her annual reports.
The amendments would also take out references in the Bill to operational purposes being able to be “general purposes”. This provision was inserted in the Bill to ensure that operational purposes do not have to be drawn so tightly that they are operationally unworkable. While it has never been the case that this language meant operational purposes could be vague or lacking in detail, the Government have listened to concerns that this language could be misinterpreted and that is why these amendments would remove it.
These amendments would significantly enhance the Bill’s provisions on operational purposes, adding absolute clarity as to how this important safeguard will operate in practice. I hope that the Committee will approve them. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for those amendments. They bring a significant improvement to the Bill and are extremely welcome. We were faced previously with the situation in which operational purposes were to be part of the Bill but we would never know what those operational purposes were. I appreciate that they are not going to become public knowledge, but at least we will now have a review by the Intelligence and Security Committee every three months and the annual review by the Prime Minister as well. Removal of the term “general” is greatly reassuring and we wholeheartedly support these amendments.
(5A) An operational purpose may be specified in the list of operational purposes only with the approval of the Secretary of State.(5B) The Secretary of State may give such approval only if satisfied that the operational purpose is specified in a greater level of detail than the descriptions contained in section 129(1)(b) or (2).(5C) At the end of each relevant three-month period the Secretary of State must give a copy of the list of operational purposes to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.(5D) In subsection (5C) “relevant three-month period” means—(a) the period of three months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, and(b) each successive period of three months.(5E) The Prime Minister must review the list of operational purposes at least once a year.”
Earl Howe
My Lords, Amendments 201ZA, 210ZB, 217A and 231ZA seek to insert a provision into the clauses that enable the modification of bulk interception, acquisition, equipment interference or bulk personal dataset warrants. The amendments would require that persons who can make a minor modification to remove an operational purpose from a warrant must keep under review the operational purposes on each bulk warrant. The intended effect of these amendments, as I understand it, is that such persons will be aware when one of those purposes is no longer necessary and can remove it from the warrant.
These amendments are not necessary because the relevant draft codes of practice, which were published when the Bill was introduced to Parliament, already make clear that the security and intelligence agencies must keep bulk warrants under ongoing review. In addition, the draft codes set out specific requirements in relation to operational purposes. This includes a requirement that the security and intelligence agencies will need to ensure that bulk warrants are relevant to the current threat picture and will therefore need to identify operational purposes that need to be added to or removed from bulk warrants.
Further to the requirements in the draft codes, the government amendments, as I explained earlier, would create a requirement in the Bill that the heads of the intelligence services must maintain a list of all operational purposes. I set out the rationale and utility of that list in the preceding group of amendments. The provisions in the Bill and the detailed requirements set out in the draft codes of practice already make clear that the operational purposes on any bulk warrant will be kept under review. This will ensure that where an operational purpose is no longer necessary on a particular warrant it can be identified and removed. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Amendments 201ZB, 210ZC, 217B and 231ZB make a modification to remove an operational purpose from a bulk warrant a major modification. Currently, a modification removing an operational purpose is a minor modification, meaning that it may be made by a Secretary of State or a senior official acting on their behalf. This amendment intends that such a modification would instead be subject to the double lock and must therefore be made by a Secretary of State and approved by a judicial commissioner before taking effect. That would be entirely unnecessary. A modification removing an operational purpose from a bulk warrant reduces the scope of the conduct that the warrant authorises, conduct that will already have been approved by the Secretary of State and a judicial commissioner. Subjecting such a modification to the double lock is superfluous. Accordingly, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw these amendments.
Amendments 201ZC and 217C relate to the modification of bulk warrants for the purpose of allowing examination of material after acquisition has ceased. These amendments would remove important technical provisions from the Bill. The Bill enables a bulk interception or bulk equipment interference warrant to be modified such that it no longer authorises the acquisition of any material but continues to authorise the selection of material for examination. This provision caters for limited circumstances where it may no longer be necessary or possible to continue the collection of data, such as where a communications service provider who is providing assistance in giving effect to the warrant goes out of business but where the data collected up to that point remain pertinent. In such circumstances, it may continue to be necessary and proportionate to examine data that have already been collected under the warrant.
The subsections that these amendments would remove simply clarify that a warrant that has been modified in this way remains a valid bulk warrant in spite of the provisions in Clauses 127(2) and 162(1). This is necessary because these clauses state that one of the conditions of the warrant is that its main purpose is to acquire data, but, of course, a warrant that has been modified in the manner I have described will no longer meet this condition, given that it will no longer authorise the collection of data. I hope the noble Lord will agree that these provisions are necessary and recognise that they serve only to reduce the activity that would have been authorised by the original unmodified warrant.
On Amendment 201ZJ, Clause 142 prohibits the selection for examination of intercepted content using criteria referable to an individual known to be in the British Islands, except where a targeted examination warrant—subject to the double lock—has been issued. I hope it is helpful if I draw the noble Lord’s attention to Clause 142(5), because there is one additional exception to this prohibition. That subsection addresses cases where there is a change of circumstances such that a person whose content is being selected for examination enters, or is discovered to be in, the British Islands. The subsection provides that selection for examination may continue in these circumstances for five working days with the approval of a senior official. This is vital to cater for circumstances such as where a member of an organised crime group travels into the British Islands. Any selection for examination after the five-day period will require the issuing of a targeted examination warrant.
I hope and believe that that explanation addresses the query the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, put to me. I understand his amendment as intended to capture the set of circumstances I just outlined, but it would also lead to a diminution in safeguards, given that it would enable selection for examination to continue for what I would judge to be an unnecessarily long period—in the absence of a targeted examination warrant—where there is a change of circumstances and someone has entered or is discovered to be in the UK. I hope that explanation will allow the noble Lord to feel comfortable in not pressing this amendment.
Lord Paddick
I am very grateful to the noble Earl for those explanations. Regarding Amendments 201ZA and that group, I am still concerned that the Minister or senior official is reliant on the security services flagging up to them that they need to withdraw operational purpose or even cancel a warrant. It is trusting the head of the intelligence services to flag that up. I will read very carefully what the noble Earl said about that.
I am grateful for his confirmation of when a bulk interception warrant is not a bulk interception warrant but still is. The only difference between us was that I asked whether it was right that analysis needs to continue after content is not being added to, whereas the correct term was “examination” continues. I think we are on all fours as far as that is concerned.
On Amendment 201ZJ, I accept that if there is a change in circumstances, whether a foreign terrorist or a foreign criminal arrives in the UK, the switch is not immediately flipped in that a five-day grace period is provided by Clause 142(5) for that content to continue to be allowed to be selected, even though the person is in the British Islands. However, it seems an unnecessary hurdle for the security services to have to apply for a targeted examination warrant in those circumstances, if it is a known terrorist coming into the UK. Presumably the five days are simply to allow enough time for a targeted examination warrant to be applied for, but I illiberally suggest that that is unnecessary bureaucracy for the security and intelligence services to go through. However, if the Government, the Home Office and others are content for the intelligence and security services to jump through that particular hoop, who am I to argue? On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) The fact that the communications data which would be obtained under a warrant relates to the activities in the British Islands of a trade union is not, of itself, sufficient to establish that the warrant is necessary in the interests of national security or on that ground and a ground falling within subsection (2).”
(a) ”
“( ) The operational purposes specified in the warrant must be ones specified, in a list maintained by the heads of the intelligence services (“the list of operational purposes”), as purposes which they consider are operational purposes for which communications data obtained under bulk acquisition warrants may be selected for examination.”
(5A) An operational purpose may be specified in the list of operational purposes only with the approval of the Secretary of State.(5B) The Secretary of State may give such approval only if satisfied that the operational purpose is specified in a greater level of detail than the descriptions contained in section 146(1)(a) or (2).(5C) At the end of each relevant three-month period the Secretary of State must give a copy of the list of operational purposes to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.(5D) In subsection (5C) “relevant three-month period” means—(a) the period of three months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, and(b) each successive period of three months.(5E) The Prime Minister must review the list of operational purposes at least once a year.”
Investigatory Powers Bill
Earl Howe Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend and I decided that I would be the one to confess how difficult I find it to understand Clause 151(5), so this is a probing amendment. I managed to make some progress in following the trail between different clauses and subsections this morning, but it involved something like copying and pasting chunks of wording in my head. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain straightforwardly what follows from modifying a bulk acquisition warrant so that it no longer authorises or requires telecoms operators to do what is listed in Clause 146(5)(a). We are told to disregard Clause 151(2)(a), but the same criteria are then brought in by reference to Clause 146(1)(a) and Clause 146(2). I am sorry to be dim, but we decided that this probably justified seeking a short explanation.
I have complimented the draftsmen of the Bill—and I do not resile from that—as it is very helpful to have references to where definitions are to be found and so on, but given the complexity of the subject matter, this is a plea for the Bill to say, for example, “If a warrant is modified so that there is no requirement on a telecoms operator, then, in the case of renewal, the following”. That would have caused slightly less of a scrambled brain. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness has explained, Amendment 210ZA relates to the modification of a bulk acquisition warrant for the purpose of allowing examination of material after acquisition has ceased. Here, we come back to the issue that we debated earlier in relation to Amendments 201ZC and 217C, which covered bulk interception and bulk equipment interference warrants. The amendment would remove important technical provisions from the Bill—a point that I made in that earlier debate.
The Bill enables a bulk acquisition warrant to be modified such that it no longer authorises the acquisition of any material but continues to authorise the selection of material for examination. The circumstances catered for here are limited to a situation where it may no longer be necessary or possible to continue the collection of data, such as where a communications service provider goes out of business, but the data collected up to that point under a warrant remain pertinent. In circumstances such as those, it may continue to be necessary and proportionate to examine data that have already been collected under that warrant.
Clause 151(5), which the amendment would remove, simply clarifies that a warrant that has been modified in that way remains a valid bulk warrant if the Secretary of State considers that examination of the acquired data remains necessary and it is approved by a judicial commissioner. That is necessary because Clause 146(5) states that one of the conditions of the warrant is that its main purpose is to acquire data. But, of course, a warrant that has been modified in the manner I have described will no longer meet that condition because it will no longer authorise the collection of data.
I hope that that explanation clarifies any uncertainty in the noble Baroness’s mind and that she will agree that these provisions are necessary.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, that is extremely helpful, and I got an example without asking for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
(a) ”
“(5) The operational purposes specified in the warrant must be ones specified, in a list maintained by the heads of the intelligence services (“the list of operational purposes”), as purposes which they consider are operational purposes for which material obtained under bulk equipment interference warrants may be selected for examination.”
(6A) An operational purpose may be specified in the list of operational purposes only with the approval of the Secretary of State.(6B) The Secretary of State may give such approval only if satisfied that the operational purpose is specified in a greater level of detail than the descriptions contained in section 164(1)(b) or (2).(6C) At the end of each relevant three-month period, the Secretary of State must give a copy of the list of operational purposes to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.(6D) In subsection (6C), “relevant three-month period” means—(a) the period of three months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, and(b) each successive period of three months.(6E) The Prime Minister must review the list of operational purposes at least once a year.”
Earl Howe
My Lords, this is the first group of amendments specific to Part 7, which relates to bulk personal datasets. In moving Amendment 218 I shall speak also to Amendments 219, 226 and 232.
The Government agreed in the other place that we should provide further restrictions on the use of class BPD warrants, and the new clause provided by Amendment 219 and the consequential changes made by Amendments 218 and 232 honour that commitment.
This builds on Clause 187, “Additional safeguards for health records”, previously introduced in the other place. That clause states that a dataset that includes health records can be retained under a specific BPD warrant only if there are exceptional and compelling circumstances to do so.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I will speak to our Amendments 218A, 218B, 219A, 223A and 223D, and question whether Clauses 185 and 186 should stand part of the Bill. The purpose of Amendments 218A and 218B, and of the question whether Clauses 185 and 186 should stand part of the Bill, is to ensure that each bulk personal dataset is separately authorised by the Secretary of State and a judicial commissioner, and to exclude class bulk personal dataset warrants. It is our intention not to disallow specific bulk dataset warrants, but to remove class bulk personal dataset warrants from the Bill.
Both the Joint Committee on the Bill and the Intelligence and Security Committee recommended that class bulk personal datasets should be removed from the Bill, yet they remain part of it. The Intelligence and Security Committee reported that the acquisition, retention and examination of any bulk personal dataset is sufficiently intrusive that it should require a specific warrant. I accept what the noble Earl said on working with the ISC to try to meet it half way by adding these additional safeguards, but we maintain that it still does not go far enough, because bulk personal datasets containing private information on a large number of people are of no relevant or legitimate interest to the agencies.
I appreciate that the amendments we have proposed do not make every amendment necessary to completely remove the provision of class bulk personal datasets from the Bill, but at this stage we believe it is sufficient to raise the point of principle. I ask the Minister to justify going against the recommendations of the Joint Committee and the ISC.
Amendment 219A is an amendment to government Amendment 219. It would require the head of the intelligence service to consult the judicial commissioner when deciding whether the nature of a bulk personal dataset acquired through a class bulk personal dataset warrant requires a separate warrant. It would require consultation with the judicial commissioner where there is a sense from the head of the security services that a particular bulk personal dataset requires separate authorisation.
Amendment 223A relates to Clause 186(6), which states that a separate warrant is not required to retain and examine a bulk personal dataset that may reasonably be regarded as a replacement for a bulk personal dataset for which a warrant already exists—for example, the latest edition of the electoral roll. The amendment would exempt from this automatic authority for a replacement dataset—
Earl Howe
It may be for the convenience of the Committee to appreciate, as I understand it, that the noble Lord would like to put this group with the group that I think was originally separated out; that is, the group beginning with government Amendment 221. Is it his wish that we should deal with everything comprehensively in one go or shall we split the groups as originally proposed?
Lord Paddick
I do apologise; perhaps I have an out of date list. It would be helpful if we could deal with all these matters together if that is possible. The noble Earl indicates that it is and I am grateful.
Amendment 223A refers to Clause 186(6), which states that a separate warrant is not required to retain and examine a bulk personal dataset that may reasonably be regarded as a replacement for an updated bulk personal dataset for which a warrant already exists. The amendment seeks to exempt from this automatic authority a replacement dataset which contains new and additional information that was not included in the original bulk dataset. For example, if a new electoral roll was to contain the email addresses of voters as a new category of information, a new warrant would be required even though it might be considered a replacement for a bulk personal dataset that was already in existence.
Amendment 223C refers to Clause 187 and the definition of “health record” under subsection (6)(c). It states that a,
“‘health record’ means a record, or a copy of a record, which … was obtained by the intelligence service from a health professional”.
Should this not be “would be obtained” to cover the situation where the authority to obtain the record was not given? Whether something is a health record or not should not depend on whether it has or has not been obtained by the intelligence service.
Amendment 223D requires that the judicial commissioner who approves bulk personal dataset warrants, in addition to those matters contained in Clause 188(1)(a), should also consider in the case of health records the additional safeguards set out in Clause 187(3); that is, that there are “exceptional and compelling circumstances”. Following on from our previous amendment, we would say exceptional and compelling,
“circumstances ‘relating to national security’”.
Earl Howe
My Lords, given that we are grouping everything together in the way we have agreed, perhaps it would be appropriate if I complete my remarks on the government amendments before addressing the noble Lord’s amendments. The amendments that I have not yet spoken to are government Amendments 221 and 222. These are related to and consequential on the government amendments introducing restrictions on the use of class warrants that I have already spoken to. They are part of a set of amendments that honour the Government’s commitments in the other place that we should provide further restrictions on the use of class BPD warrants. Amendments 221 and 222 amend Clause 186, which makes provision for specific BPD warrants. In particular, Amendment 221 adds to the circumstances in which an agency may apply for a specific BPD warrant the situation in which it is prevented from relying on a class BPD warrant by the new clause placing restrictions on the use of those warrants that we debated earlier. Amendment 222 builds on this by placing an obligation on the agency in such circumstances to include an explanation of why it cannot rely on a class BPD warrant in its application for a specific BPD warrant. These amendments thus ensure that the provisions in the Bill setting out the circumstances in which class and specific BPD warrants should be used will operate coherently together. These amendments thus also respond to the constructive engagements we have had with the ISC and the other place.
Turning to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I understand that the intention behind Amendments 219A and 218B and the stand part debate is to remove the provisions allowing for class BPD warrants. Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves that class BPD warrants provide an appropriate means of authorising the retention and use of datasets that are similar both in nature and in the level of intrusion that their retention and use would result in. This would, for example, allow the Secretary of State to authorise a class of dataset relating to travel covering datasets that are similar in nature but refer to different travel routes, or perhaps where they were provided by different sources. The decision to issue a warrant for a particular class of data would be subject to approval by a judicial commissioner before being issued.
Removing class warrants would increase bureaucracy without increasing safeguards. It is also unnecessary because such warrants are subject to the “double lock” authorisation process by a Secretary of State and judicial commissioner. If they considered that a class bulk personal dataset warrant was too broad, they would not issue it.
It is quite true that the ISC and the Joint Committee which scrutinised the draft Bill did not endorse class BPD warrants in their original reports on the draft Bill, but the ISC’s view on this has changed. As the chair of the ISC said at Third Reading of the Bill in the other place,
“we then had further evidence—as has happened in the dialogue with the Government and the agencies—in particular from the Secret Intelligence Service, about the rationale for retaining class warrants in the Bill. In particular, the evidence highlighted the fact that many of these datasets covered the same information or type of information. In those circumstances, we considered that a class warrant would be appropriate, as the privacy considerations were identical”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/6/16; col. 1063.]
He then made additional comments on restrictions on their use. The Government accepted in principle the ISC’s arguments for restrictions on the use of class BPD warrants, and we have already discussed amendments brought forward by the Government to reflect this. So I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will want to think further about those amendments that seek to excise class BPD warrants.
Amendment 219A adds to Amendment 219—the government new clause on restricting use of class bulk personal dataset warrants—that the judicial commissioner must be consulted before a decision is taken. This is an unnecessary amendment. The Secretary of State and judicial commissioner double lock will apply not only to new class and specific BPD warrants, but also to renewals of both types of warrants. This gives them effective oversight of the datasets that appear under each type of warrant. These decisions will also be subject to retrospective oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. To add another pre-consultation is not necessary or efficient. Moreover, the draft code of practice includes detailed guidance on when a specific BPD warrant should be sought. It also makes it clear, for example, that if required in an individual case, the security and intelligence agency can seek guidance from the Secretary of State or a judicial commissioner on whether it would be appropriate for a specific BPD warrant to be sought. So again, I hope that the noble Lord will want to reflect further on that amendment.
Amendment 223A would restrict the extent to which a specific BPD warrant could extend to replacement datasets. In effect, it would mean that only absolutely identical datasets could be covered by these provisions. The provision for a replacement dataset would be relevant only where a specific BPD warrant has been authorised and is already in place. The provision is a pragmatic and sensible approach to situations where a dataset is regularly or continually updated; for example, a particular dataset may be updated weekly or monthly. These updates would, by definition, include additional information, but in these cases the necessity and proportionality case and operational purposes would not alter. To require repeated new warrants in this scenario would not be proportionate; the notion of a replacement dataset allows the agencies to use these amended and updated data in line with the existing authorisation. Again, I hope the noble Lord will find that acceptable.
“Restriction on use of class BPD warrants
(1) An intelligence service may not retain, or retain and examine, a bulk personal dataset in reliance on a class BPD warrant if the head of the intelligence service considers—(a) that the bulk personal dataset consists of, or includes, health records, or(b) that a substantial proportion of the bulk personal dataset consists of sensitive personal data.(2) An intelligence service may not retain, or retain and examine, a bulk personal dataset in reliance on a class BPD warrant if the head of the intelligence service considers that the nature of the bulk personal dataset, or the circumstances in which it was created, is or are such that its retention, or retention and examination, by the intelligence service raises novel or contentious issues which ought to be considered by the Secretary of State and a Judicial Commissioner on an application by the head of the intelligence service for a specific BPD warrant.(3) In subsection (1)—“health records” has the same meaning as in section 187;“sensitive personal data” means personal data consisting of information about an individual (whether living or deceased) which is of a kind mentioned in section 2(a) to (f) of the Data Protection Act 1998.”
“( ) The fact that a class BPD warrant would authorise the retention, or the retention and examination, of bulk personal datasets relating to activities in the British Islands of a trade union is not, of itself, sufficient to establish that the warrant is necessary on grounds falling within subsection (3)(a).”
(i) the intelligence service is prevented by section (Restriction on use of class BPD warrants)(1) or (2) from retaining, or retaining and examining, the bulk personal dataset in reliance on the class BPD warrant, or(ii) ”
(a) ”
“(5) The operational purposes specified in a class BPD warrant or a specific BPD warrant must be ones specified, in a list maintained by the heads of the intelligence services (“the list of operational purposes”), as purposes which they consider are operational purposes for which data contained in bulk personal datasets retained in reliance on class BPD warrants or specific BPD warrants may be selected for examination.”
(6A) An operational purpose may be specified in the list of operational purposes only with the approval of the Secretary of State.(6B) The Secretary of State may give such approval only if satisfied that the operational purpose is specified in a greater level of detail than the descriptions contained in section 185(3)(a) or (as the case may be) section 186(5)(a).(6C) At the end of each relevant three-month period, the Secretary of State must give a copy of the list of operational purposes to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.(6D) In subsection (6C), “relevant three-month period” means—(a) the period of three months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, and(b) each successive period of three months.(6E) The Prime Minister must review the list of operational purposes at least once a year.(6F) In this Part, “the specified operational purposes”, in relation to a class BPD warrant or a specific BPD warrant, means the operational purposes specified in the warrant in accordance with this section.”
Investigatory Powers Bill
Earl Howe Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Referrals by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament
(1) Subsection (2) applies if the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament refers a matter to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner with a view to the Commissioner carrying out an investigation, inspection or audit into it.(2) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner must inform the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament of the Commissioner’s decision as to whether to carry out the investigation, inspection or audit.”
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, in the House of Commons, in response to the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee—my right honourable friend Dominic Grieve MP—the Government agreed that the ISC could refer matters to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner but that it would be entirely at the discretion of the IPC as to whether or not he or she undertook further investigation. On Report my right honourable friend suggested that this was unsatisfactory as previously he had written to the Interception of Communications Commissioner and had not received a response. Accordingly, we have now drafted government Amendment 193, which places a duty on the IPC to respond to the ISC with his or her decision on whether or not he or she is going to undertake any work on the issue that the ISC has referred. I hope that the Committee will welcome this proposed change. I beg to move.
Lord Janvrin (CB)
I rise to speak to Amendment 194 in my name. I remind the House of my membership of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Obviously, we support government Amendment 193. Our very small additional amendment suggests that there should be a further subsection which will ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee has sight of the commissioner’s findings or report, subject to the rules governing the ISC’s access to information under the Justice and Security Act 2013, to which we make reference in the amendment. This seems to us a small but sensible addition to the Government’s amendment.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As has been said, government Amendment 193 places a statutory duty on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to inform the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament of his or her decision as to whether to carry out an investigation, inspection or audit in cases where the Intelligence and Security Committee has referred a matter to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner with a view to the commissioner carrying out such an investigation, inspection or audit. Amendment 194, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, is very similar to the government amendment, except it also requires the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with the outcome of any investigation, inspection or audit carried out under the terms of the government amendment. I do not know whether the Government are going to accept Amendment 194—we shall find out shortly—or, alternatively, give reasons why it is not acceptable. They may simply say that this will happen anyway and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
However, I have one other, I think very minor, point to raise. I accept before I start that it may display a degree of confusion about another part of the Bill. Clause 206(1) enables the Prime Minister to give direction to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, provided that it,
“does not apply in relation to anything which is required to be kept under review by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner under section 205”.
Clause 206(3) states that:
“The Prime Minister may give a direction under this section at the request of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament”.
Where the direction under subsection (3) has been given by the Prime Minister to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner at the request of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, will the terms of government Amendment 193 and Amendment 194, if accepted, apply in respect of the commissioner informing the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament of his or her decision and the outcome of any investigation, inspection or audit? If not, why not?
Earl Howe
My Lords, let me start my response to the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, by endorsing the point ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and paying tribute to the work that the ISC does. Its members have proven themselves adept at holding the security and intelligence agencies to account and they are more than capable, I believe, of investigating any issue that falls within their remit.
It is conceivable, however, that the ISC may uncover an issue that merits further investigation but which is outside its remit to investigate. In those instances, it is right that the committee can refer the issue to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who can then decide whether to investigate further. It is also right that, having referred the issue, the ISC is then informed about the commissioner’s decision on whether to take further action. That is what the Government’s amendment seeks to achieve and I am glad that it has found favour with the committee.
The amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, would go further than that and mean that the commissioner must then report to the ISC the result of the investigation. I find that difficult to accept for two reasons. First, the IPC should report solely to the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for our national security and therefore best placed to take any national security decisions that arise as a result of the reports. Secondly, if an issue has been referred to the IPC because it is outside the remit of the ISC, it does not necessarily follow that the ISC should see the result of that investigation.
It is worth focusing for a second on how things work in the real world. I am sure that, in practice, the IPC and the ISC will strike up a sensible and solid working relationship and keep each other informed of their work. But we do not have to provide for that in statute. On that basis, and in the light of the government amendment, which achieves almost all of what is intended by the ISC, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, will feel able not to press the amendment.
Let me address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which is not a trivial point. Prime ministerial direction would come into play in a scenario in which, upon request of the ISC, the IPC declined to investigate further in the area suggested. In that situation, the ISC could progress the matter by asking the Prime Minister to direct the commissioner to undertake an investigation. That is provided for by Clause 206(3).
I do not think it is appropriate for this Bill to provide a mechanism whereby the IPC has to report in a certain fashion. We have to be a little careful here to ensure that the IPC is not seen as an arm of the Intelligence and Security Committee—it is not. However, there is a memorandum of understanding between the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Prime Minister. I understand that that memorandum of understanding will come up for review in the reasonably near future. I suggest that, at that time, if it is thought appropriate, the MoU could provide a vehicle to offer some further reassurance in the area that the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, is seeking.
I recognise the issue that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin. As I said, I think that in the real world it will be a non-issue. However, if there is concern in this area, perhaps I can send a signal to those involved that, when the MoU is further considered, this issue will also be factored in.
Lord Janvrin
I too share the view that the Minister has expressed: I can imagine, and I sincerely hope, that in the real world there will be the closest possible working relationship between the IPC and the ISC. I take entirely the point that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner reports to the Prime Minister. However, the point we are trying to make is that where the ISC is involved in looking at an issue and has seen an area that it thinks is for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to look at, and that has been accepted as is provided for in Amendment 193, some kind of reference back seems common sense and what the committee needs. However, given the point made by the Minister about the MoU, I will not press this amendment.
Earl Howe
My Lords, let me turn first to Amendments 194CA and 194CB in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which deal with Clause 214.
Clause 214 allows a Secretary of State to modify the functions of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or other judicial commissioners. This will allow the functions of the judicial commissioners to be extended, but also to be changed to reflect any potential changes to the investigatory powers that the commissioners oversee. The judicial commissioners will oversee the use of a wide range of powers, including some in other enactments. Those powers may in due course be changed or updated, perhaps in the same way that this Bill is replacing parts of RIPA. In such a case, it is right that the functions of the judicial commissioners could be modified to reflect the changes. However, this may not mean an extension of the judicial commissioners’ oversight. The change may be entirely neutral—for example, a public authority changing its name or something of that sort. If these amendments were accepted, such a sensible change would not be possible.
I hope I can reassure noble Lords that this power will not be used to reduce the oversight provided by the commissioners. The Government have been very clear on this point. It is also worth reminding the Committee that this power is subject to the affirmative procedure and that Parliament will have to approve any regulations made under this clause. So any attempt to diminish the commissioner’s oversight responsibilities, were such an attempt to be made, would no doubt be scrutinised extremely carefully by each House of Parliament, particularly in the light of the assurance that I have just given.
The Committee will recall that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed a concern about the breadth of the order-making power, as was made clear by noble Lords. It recommended that it should not extend to the IPC’s functions relating to the authorisation of warrants. The Government accepted this recommendation, and this clause has been amended accordingly.
Amendments 194CC, 194CD and 194CE deal with changes to Schedule 7. Amendment 194CC would require the Secretary of State to consult persons interested in a code of practice before issuing such a code. This amendment is unnecessary as the clause as drafted provides for the publication of codes in draft and for the Secretary of State to consider representations on the draft codes. In order for the Secretary of State to hear representations on the code, the Bill requires a consultation to be conducted.
I understand that Amendments 194CD and 194CE are intended to probe whether the use of “have regard to” or “take into account” strengthens or weakens the effect of the consideration of a failure to comply with a code conducted by a supervisory authority or a court or tribunal. Having taken advice on the matter, I can assure your Lordships that the choice of language is based on the context and it is appropriate to refer to a court or an oversight body taking matters into account. However, that form of words does not provide any greater or lesser degree of consideration.
Amendments 238A, 238B, 240A, 240B and 242A I believe respond to the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on this Bill of 8 July 2016. These amendments relate to the parliamentary procedure used where primary legislation is modified and to the power to make consequential amendments not being time-limited in relation to Clause 242(2) and Clause 242(3).
The proposed amendments to Clause 238 seek to ensure that whenever a delegated legislative power is used to modify primary legislation the affirmative procedure should apply. This is a point which has been raised by the committee in the context of a number of Bills, and I am afraid that it is one that the Government cannot accept. Where secondary legislation amends the text of primary legislation, the Government agree that such legislation should be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government have committed that, wherever possible, changes to primary legislation will be made by textual amendment rather than by modifying the primary legislation. There are likely to be relatively few occasions when the powers to otherwise modify primary legislation need to be exercised—I apologise for the split infinitive which the noble Baroness pointed out. However, it remains the Government’s position that there are some cases where it is necessary to modify primary legislation and that it is not possible to specify which kinds of modification of primary legislation should attract the negative procedure and which the affirmative procedure without creating legal uncertainty.
The Government have set out their position in the Delegated Powers Committee memorandum on this Bill, and in relation to a number of different Bills, and remain of the view that the position is justified and that the powers in the Bill are subject to the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. I have in fact today written to my noble friend Lady Fookes, the chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, setting out the Government’s position and the reasons for it in response to the committee’s view on this issue and on the point raised by the committee on the power to amend Schedule 8. I will, of course, place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House. I therefore ask that these amendments be withdrawn.
The proposed amendment to Clause 242 seeks to constrain the power to make consequential amendments so that it could not be used to amend legislation passed after this Bill receives Royal Assent. Clause 242 contains the usual power to make amendments to other legislation consequential on the provisions in the Bill. However, as currently drafted, the power would permit the amendment of legislation passed at any time in the future. Amendment 242A would in fact go further than the committee’s recommendation, which recognised the necessity of amending of enactments passed or made during the current Session. I can confirm that the Government will bring forward amendments on Report which would restrict the powers conferred by Clause 242 and the similar power in Schedule 8 to the Bill in response to the committee’s recommendation.
The power to make consequential amendments to enactments passed in the same Session is necessary because other Bills before Parliament at the same time as this Bill touch upon the powers and public authorities covered by this Bill, such as, for example, the Policing and Crime Bill. Since it is impossible to predict how those Bills or the Investigatory Powers Bill may be amended during their parliamentary passage, and which Bill may achieve Royal Assent first, it is necessary to allow for the possibility of consequential amendment of future enactments.
I have just been handed a note to amplify what I said on Amendment 194CC in relation to consultation on codes of practice, and will just add that consultation comprises publication of a draft and consideration of any representations made. I suggest to the noble Baroness that publication, by its nature, is conspicuous and is the means by which government consultations are established. I hope she is satisfied on that point.
Finally, government Amendment 241, which is in this group, makes it clear that a statutory instrument containing regulations made under Clause 50(3)—the designation of relevant international agreements under which interception may be carried out—is subject to the negative parliamentary procedure. This amendment is consequential on the amendment to Part 2 which was considered in July. I hope that the House will agree to that amendment when I come to move it.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I apologise for the rather cheap gibe about the split infinitive. I recognise that I am old-fashioned, and styles have moved on. It would obviously be inappropriate to pursue the points made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee at this point, given that the Minister has written to it, and we will wait to see if anything more happens on that. However, I will just say, on the question of consultation, that the Government are often very good at being proactive in consulting and at contacting organisations which they know have an interest. That is something that should be encouraged. To my mind, consultation which simply involves publication on a website—or perhaps in common parlance, “slipping something out”—the day before a recess and waiting to see whether there are any comments is not good practice. That was why I was concerned to spell this out. I am not of course suggesting that anyone on the Front Bench at the moment would indulge in such a practice, but it has been known to happen. This is not an unnecessary point, but I will not pursue it this evening.
Investigatory Powers Bill
Earl Howe Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 154 and will not repeat what has been said about it. It simply asks the Government to make explicit what they have said—namely, that the retention of third-party data will not be required. It would be helpful to make that clear in the Bill.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has explained, these three amendments all deal with the issue of third-party data. Amendment 116 seeks to prevent public authorities from acquiring third-party data, Amendment 154 seeks to put the Government’s commitment not to require retention of third-party data on to the face of the Bill and Amendment 235 seeks to amend the definition of communications data to exclude from it third-party data.
On the acquisition of third-party data, the Bill maintains the existing position under RIPA that public authorities can acquire third-party data where necessary and proportionate to do so. But I want to be clear here—a provider is required to comply with a request for communications data, including a request for third-party data, only where it is reasonably practicable for them to do so. It is absolutely right that, where a communications service provider holds, or is able to obtain, communications data, whether in relation to its own services or those provided by a third party, then the data should be available to public authorities for the statutory purposes in the Bill. Put simply, data that already exist, are already held and which could save a life, convict a criminal, prevent a terrorist attack or provide an alibi, should not be put out of reach of law enforcement based solely on which company it is that holds the information.
Amendment 154 deals with the retention of third-party data. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, this matter was considered in the Commons, where the Government gave a commitment to consider it further. I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment and giving me an opportunity to update the Committee on those considerations. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has given a clear commitment that we will not require a telecommunications operator to retain third-party data, and that commitment is given effect to in the Communications Data Draft Code of Practice. However, distilling that commitment into primary legislative drafting is complex. We do not want to include provisions in the Bill that are not entirely clear in scope or which put in place restrictions that are broader, or indeed narrower, than intended. But we have been making good progress and are close to a provision that we think achieves the desired outcome. Of course, we need to test that drafting with operational stakeholders and with those telecommunications operators likely to be affected by the legislation, but we hope to be able to return to this issue on Report.
Finally, on Amendment 235, the principle of what are communications data is clear. Changing that position so that the classification of data changes depending on which provider holds them would no doubt cause confusion among providers as to how the data should be handled. While I understand the concerns around third-party data, and hope that what I have said today lays some of those to rest, amending the definition of communications data is not the right way forward. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 116.
Lord Paddick
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and am encouraged by the promise of government amendments on Report. I have to say that I am still a little confused. The former Home Secretary, in her commitment, said that third-party data of telecommunications operators from abroad would not be required to be retained by UK telecoms operators. If the third-party data are of a different UK telecoms operator, surely the Secretary of State can make an order to get the data from that operator. But I will read carefully in Hansard what the Minister has said. As he has made a commitment, we will come back to this on Report. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe
My Lords, Clause 58 is the first clause of Part 3 of the Bill and deals with the targeted obtaining of communications data. It provides the power for only those public authorities listed in Schedule 4 to the Bill to authorise conduct to obtain communications data. Obtaining communications data may be authorised only when necessary for one of the statutory purposes listed in Clause 58(7) and where the conduct authorised is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved. Similarly, Clause 146(2) provides the statutory purposes for which a bulk communications data acquisition warrant will be considered necessary. Those purposes mirror the statutory functions of the security and intelligence agencies, since bulk warrants are of course available only to those agencies. They are where it is,
“in the interests of national security”,
for the prevention or detection of serious crime, or,
“in the interests of the economic well-being of”,
the UK where relevant to national security.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have heard repeatedly of the vital importance of communications data for the full range of law enforcement activity and national security investigations. This Government are committed to ensuring that law enforcement and the intelligence agencies have the tools they need to carry out the critical responsibilities that Parliament has placed upon them. Indeed, one of the key aims of this legislation is to ensure that investigatory powers are fit for a digital age and that crime can be investigated wherever it takes place, regardless of the method of communication. However, the Government consider these amendments unnecessary for targeted communications data and an inappropriate extension of responsibilities for our intelligence agencies for bulk communications data.
The Bill already provides that communications data may be acquired for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, wherever that crime takes place and whatever scale it is on, where an application for communications data meets the requirements for necessity and proportionality. So it would already be available for the purpose of suppressing less serious crimes perpetrated on a large scale. I commend the aim of my noble friend Lord Lucas’s amendment but I believe that the Bill already provides the powers that he seeks.
As I said earlier, the bulk acquisition of communications data is available only to the intelligence agencies, whose statutory functions relate to serious crime and national security. The inclusion of a statutory purpose to obtain communications data in bulk so that our intelligence agencies could suppress less serious crime would therefore, in my submission, be inappropriate.
I hope that my noble friend finds those comments helpful and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I am not surprised but disappointed, but I shall certainly seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
“( ) The fact that the communications data which would be obtained in pursuance of an authorisation relates to the activities in the British Islands of a trade union is not, of itself, sufficient to establish that it is necessary to obtain the data for a purpose falling within subsection (7).”
“Restrictions in relation to internet connection records
(1) A designated senior officer of a local authority may not grant an authorisation for the purpose of obtaining data which is, or can only be obtained by processing, an internet connection record.(2) A designated senior officer of a relevant public authority which is not a local authority may not grant an authorisation for the purpose of obtaining data which is, or can only be obtained by processing, an internet connection record unless condition A, B or C is met.(3) Condition A is that the designated senior officer considers that it is necessary, for a purpose falling within section 58(7), to obtain the data to identify which person or apparatus is using an internet service where—(a) the service and time of use are already known, but(b) the identity of the person or apparatus using the service is not known.(4) Condition B is that—(a) the purpose for which the data is to be obtained falls within section 58(7) but is not the purpose falling within section 58(7)(b) of preventing or detecting crime, and(b) the designated senior officer considers that it is necessary to obtain the data to identify—(i) which internet communications service is being used, and when and how it is being used, by a person or apparatus whose identity is already known,(ii) where or when a person or apparatus whose identity is already known is obtaining access to, or running, a computer file or computer program which wholly or mainly involves making available, or acquiring, material whose possession is a crime, or(iii) which internet service is being used, and when and how it is being used, by a person or apparatus whose identity is already known.(5) Condition C is that—(a) the purpose for which the data is to be obtained is the purpose falling within section 58(7)(b) of preventing or detecting crime,(b) the crime to be prevented or detected is serious crime or other relevant crime, and(c) the designated senior officer considers that it is necessary to obtain the data to identify—(i) which internet communications service is being used, and when and how it is being used, by a person or apparatus whose identity is already known,(ii) where or when a person or apparatus whose identity is already known is obtaining access to, or running, a computer file or computer program which wholly or mainly involves making available, or acquiring, material whose possession is a crime, or (iii) which internet service is being used, and when and how it is being used, by a person or apparatus whose identity is already known.(6) In subsection (5) “other relevant crime” means crime which is not serious crime but where the offence, or one of the offences, which is or would be constituted by the conduct concerned is—(a) an offence for which an individual who has reached the age of 18 (or, in relation to Scotland or Northern Ireland, 21) is capable of being sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 6 months or more (disregarding any enactment prohibiting or restricting the imprisonment of individuals who have no previous convictions), or(b) an offence—(i) by a person who is not an individual, or(ii) which involves, as an integral part of it, the sending of a communication or a breach of a person’s privacy.(7) In this Act “internet connection record” means communications data which—(a) may be used to identify, or assist in identifying, a telecommunications service to which a communication is transmitted by means of a telecommunication system for the purpose of obtaining access to, or running, a computer file or computer program, and(b) comprises data generated or processed by a telecommunications operator in the process of supplying the telecommunications service to the sender of the communication (whether or not a person).”
(ba) there is an opportunity to obtain information where—(i) the opportunity is rare,(ii) the time to act is short, and(iii) the need to obtain the information is significant and in”
Earl Howe
My Lords, in moving Amendment 124 I shall speak also to Amendment 127. We consider the requirement for an authorising officer to be independent of the operation or investigation being worked on an important safeguard and intend the exceptions to be drawn as narrowly as possible. That is why we welcomed the Intelligence and Security Committee amendments on this in the House of Commons and why we have tabled these amendments, which fully reflect the substance of the ISC’s intention and more narrowly define the national security exceptions. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have Amendment 126 in this group. It attempts to challenge the fact that the size of the relevant public authority, which may make it difficult to find a senior officer independent of the investigation to which the authorisation relates, makes it an exceptional circumstance, which it would be if the Bill is accepted as drafted.
Earl Howe
My Lords, Amendment 126, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has just explained, concerns the independence of the authorising officer. As I mentioned a moment ago, the Bill provides for a very limited set of circumstances in which the designated senior officer need not be independent of the investigation or operation; for example, where delays in locating an independent officer may pose a threat to life, or in specific cases where the interests of national security prevent it. As we have heard, the intention behind the amendment is to ensure that an authorising officer is always, without any exceptions, independent of the investigation. I beg the noble Lord’s pardon.
Lord Paddick
I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. We entirely accept that some public authorities will be so small, or some investigations so important, that there cannot be someone independent of the investigation who can give the authority. As the Bill is drafted, however, simply the size of the public authority is seen as an exceptional circumstance. It is not an exceptional circumstance and the amendment attempts to allow the size of the authority to be a reason why an independent senior officer cannot give the authority without making it an exceptional circumstance.
Earl Howe
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. He is right: in some small public authorities there will be only a small number of staff sufficiently senior to take on this important responsibility. Where he and I part company is over the question of whether the rank of the designated senior officer should be lowered to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of them to always be independent of the investigation. I do not feel able to agree to that, because to do so would lower the safeguards that form an integral part of the communications data regime. Equally, I am afraid the Government are not prepared to remove these powers from some of the smaller authorities. They may be small, but they often do vital work in keeping the public safe and investigating crime.
I would be happy to discuss this further outside the forum of Committee, if that would help the noble Lord. I understand where he is coming from, but we have a fundamental disagreement of view on this.
Lord Paddick
I would just add that we do not disagree that a public authority may be so small that there is no independent senior officer who can grant the authority; the problem is whether that situation would amount to an exceptional circumstance. However, I would be very happy to discuss that situation with the noble Earl between now and Report.
( ) may cancel it at any time, and( ) ”
Lord Paddick
My Lords, Amendments 146 and 147 in this group are also in my name and the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Much concern has been expressed about the number of public authorities that can intrude into people’s privacy, and as a result, restrictions have been put in the Bill. If the Bill is enacted there will be fewer public bodies with that ability, and that is to be welcomed. We therefore do not think it is right that under Clause 67 the Secretary of State should be allowed by regulation to add a public authority. Amendment 145 would delete this power from Clause 67(2)(a) and Amendment 146 would make a similar change to subsection (3).
Amendment 147 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to consult representatives of local authorities—for example, the Local Government Association—if she intends to make regulations to change a local authority-designated senior officer to someone of lower office, rank or position, in addition to consulting each of the local authorities concerned, as set out in Clause 69(5). I beg to move.
Earl Howe
My Lords, these amendments all concern the public authorities that are able to acquire communications data. I should take this opportunity to mention a document which we published last week and which is available in the Printed Paper Office: Operational Case for the Use of Communications Data by Public Authorities. It sets out why it is essential that the authorities listed in Schedule 4 to the Bill are able to acquire communications data. It is important to recognise that the crimes they investigate are not trivial. They include offences such as bribery and corruption, defrauding vulnerable people of their life savings, stealing sensitive personal information and supplying dangerous counterfeit medicines. That document is pertinent to this group of amendments, because Amendments 145 and 146 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to add public authorities to Schedule 4 by regulations.
I recognise the well-intentioned purpose of the amendments. However, it is not something that the Government can support because it goes against our stated aim of ensuring that the Bill is future-proofed. Although we have no plans to use the regulation-making power, and, indeed, we think it unlikely that any additional authorities will be identified, it would not be good policy to specifically rule it out. That is because communications data are an essential investigative tool for numerous investigations and they are used by a number of different authorities. As I said, we have published the operational case demonstrating why it is so essential that the authorities listed in Schedule 4 continue to be able to use these powers.
As that operational case demonstrates, the authorities that acquire communications data, including the so-called “minor users”, often do so to investigate serious crime and, in some cases, save lives. Should a new investigative body be established—for example, with a remit to investigate a specific type of serious crime—we would want the flexibility to give it the powers that it needed. Similarly, we need to be able to adapt the list if changes in the roles and responsibilities of public bodies mean that it falls out of date.
Of course, there should be full and proper scrutiny of any decisions to provide powers to an additional body. The Government will consider giving powers only where a public authority can make a robust case and, perhaps more importantly, the Bill allows a public authority to be added to Schedule 4 only under the enhanced affirmative procedure. This procedure requires additional consultation above and beyond the affirmative procedure and ensures that a parliamentary committee is provided with an opportunity to consider the draft regulations.
This power has been considered by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In her letter to the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill, my noble friend Lady Fookes reported that the committee accepted the need for the delegated power and welcomed the strengthening of scrutiny procedures under the Bill. She said that,
“the enhanced affirmative procedure ... provides an appropriate level of Parliamentary scrutiny”.
I hope that that reassures the Committee that sufficient scrutiny is already built into the process to ensure that an additional public authority would be added to Schedule 4 only where it had a robust and compelling need for the powers.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
Obviously, this is a very important area, which has given rise to a lot of public concern about how widely this would go in terms of all the authorities that might have access to information in this way. But it must be right that, if there is to be a list and it is to bear the power to remove names—which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is not suggesting should be deleted—there must be a power to add to the list as well where appropriate. Knowing the way that Governments, bodies and names change, I can see without altering the impact at all that it would be necessary to exercise this power. Could the Minister say a little more about the committee that he was talking about? Is it a standing committee, special committee or advisory committee? When he mentioned the proposal to add somebody to the list, he said that that would be scrutinised by a committee. What sort of committee would that be?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I was referring to the procedure relating to the enhanced affirmative process. That procedure is set out in Clause 239 of the Bill. Importantly, it provides for a relevant parliamentary committee to report on the regulations. I do not think that I can be more specific at this stage. The enhanced affirmative procedure has been used in the past, albeit not very frequently, and is there as an additional safeguard. I endorse everything that my noble friend said in support of my remarks. He is absolutely right that we cannot foresee at this stage the need to add to the list, but we must and should provide for the circumstances where that becomes necessary.
Lord Paddick
I am grateful for the noble Earl’s explanation. The noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, raised this important concern that people have about the range of public authorities that will be able to access this data. There is a real concern that the Secretary of State by regulation can simply add to the list included in the Bill. As a general principle, to have provisions in a Bill in order—to quote the noble Earl —to future-proof it, even if those are unlikely to be used, is not the ideal way forward. However, the enhanced affirmative procedure does give some reassurance on that issue.
On the other matters, I will read carefully what the noble Earl has said, but at this point I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) The fact that the data which would be retained under a retention notice relates to the activities in the British Islands of a trade union is not, of itself, sufficient to establish that the requirement to retain the data is necessary for one or more of the purposes falling within paragraphs (a) to (j) of section 58(7).”
Lord Rosser
The intention behind this amendment to Clause 83 is to replicate the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act in its original form. In so doing, it would restrict the scope of Clause 83 and equate it to existing data retention provisions in DRIPA, with the only addition being the inclusion of internet connection records.
Under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, the term “relevant communications data”, as I understand it, covers internet access services, internet email and internet telephony. Those categories replicate the 2009 data retention regulations, which implemented the then EU data retention directive. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 extended DRIPA to include what was called IP address resolution data.
Clause 83 currently empowers the Home Secretary to issue retention notices covering some six categories of data under the definition of “relevant communications data”. One of these categories is internet connection records. That therefore leaves five other categories, which on the face of it would appear to go wider than the existing data retention categories under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 as amended by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.
As the Bill is currently drafted, the term “relevant communications data” could be interpreted as some sort of catch-all definition of relevant communications data that would cover the collection of virtually any type of communication on a network, including communications where the sender or recipient was not a human being. If that is an accurate assessment, the definition of “relevant communications data” in Clause 83 would cover not only background interactions that smartphone apps make automatically with their supplier servers but presumably also the entire internet of things.
I therefore seek an explanation from the Government as to why the scope of “relevant communications data” in the Bill is not consistent with that in current recent legislation, the reasons and justification for the apparent broadening of the scope, and the difficulties that presumably the Government believe would be caused if the scope of Clause 83 were restricted in line with the amendment and instead equated to existing data retention provisions in DRIPA, apart from the addition of the inclusion of internet connection records. I beg to move.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the amendment seeks to amend the definition of “relevant communications data”—that is, the communications data that the Secretary of State will be able to require communications service providers to retain.
In looking at how the amendment is couched, I would like to bring the Committee’s attention to a statement made by David Anderson QC in his report on investigatory powers. He said that,
“any new law … must be couched in technology-neutral language”.
The Government agree. However, the amendment would go against that advice. It would seek to revert to the technical language from the data retention regulations 2009. This, in turn, as the noble Lord mentioned, was drawn from the EU data retention directive 2006, which was struck down in 2014.
I suggest to the noble Lord that it would be inappropriate to base today’s law on specific tele- communications definitions from a decade ago. For example, the amendment would ensure that we retained a reference to dial-up internet access in our legislation. That surely cannot be appropriate where broadband and mobile internet access are now the norm. The approach we have taken is to keep our definitions technologically neutral, as David Anderson recommended and as, indeed, is sensible in the drafting of any law that needs to apply across a range of technologies over time.
I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that it is not appropriate to tie our data retention regime to specific, and outdated, technological language. Those are the reasons why the Government cannot support the amendment.
Lord Rosser
Perhaps I may ask a question on that point. Not unfairly, the noble Earl made reference to regulations of some years ago, but presumably it is also accurate to say, and perhaps he could comment on this, that very recent legislation—namely, DRIPA 2014, as amended by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015—has also used the wording referred to in the amendment. Therefore, it also relates to legislation that is not particularly old and indeed is pretty recent. As I see it, we are making a change in wording from legislation that was passed only a year or two ago.
Earl Howe
The noble Lord makes what is, on the face of it, a fair point. We have language, as I have explained, that is out of date. But even where the language is not out of date in the kinds of instances that he refers to—for example, legislation refers to the “international mobile equipment identity” of devices—the rate at which telecommunications change means that that kind of language could become out of date very quickly. We try to read across the data descriptions that originated in the 2006 directive to the communications technologies of today, and do so in technology-neutral language. That is why we have departed from the approach that the noble Lord is advocating.
As the noble Lord will remember, DRIPA was emergency legislation. We simply replicated the existing language in that Bill. We now have an opportunity in the Bill before us to do rather better and try to future-proof the terms that the Bill contains.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for that explanation. In the light of what he has said on behalf of the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) The fact that additional relevant communications data which would be retained under a retention notice as varied relates to the activities in the British Islands of a trade union is not, of itself, sufficient to establish that the requirement to retain the data is necessary for one or more of the purposes falling within paragraphs (a) to (j) of section 58(7).”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendments 159 and 160. Amendment 164 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser. Our points are much the same as those made by my noble friend Lord Harris. I do not think there will be planting of evidence, for example. Our concern is much more about the risk to any public cybersecurity system, and we would want that to be taken into account. These amendments follow the recommendations of the Joint Committee. The idea is to minimise any potential risks. If, for example, the Secretary of State has to take into account any risk to the security and integrity of the networks, that by itself will ensure that any applicant sets that out in the form they submit. We hope the Government will respond, as my noble friend Lord Harris said, not necessarily by using these exact words but in the spirit of these amendments in order to retain overall security.
Earl Howe
My Lords, Amendments 159 and 160 would introduce new clauses requiring the person making an application for a warrant to make a detailed assessment of the risks of the proposed equipment interference activity to any critical national infrastructure, to the security and integrity of systems and networks, and to the privacy of those not targeted. Amendment 164 is linked to the requirement to produce risk assessments and would require the Secretary of State, when issuing warrants to the Chief of Defence Intelligence, to consider the content of these assessments when deciding whether the activity under the warrant would be proportionate. Amendment 169A would require a judicial commissioner to take into account a technical cyber risk assessment, conducted by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, of the specific equipment interference proposed when deciding whether to approve a decision to issue a warrant.
I start by making an important general point. It seems these amendments are based on a fundamental misinterpretation of what GCHQ and others are here to do. Their role is to protect the public. That includes protecting cybersecurity. Indeed, the Government have invested very considerable resources into improving our cybersecurity efforts. Last November, the Chancellor announced the creation of a new national cyber centre led by GCHQ, with an additional £190 million of funding.
GCHQ has an excellent track record in identifying cyber vulnerabilities and making leading computer companies aware so they can improve their security. For example, in September 2015, Apple publicly credited CESG, the information assurance arm of GCHQ, with the detection of a vulnerability in its iOS operating system for iPhones and iPads, which could have been exploited to allow the unauthorised modification of software and to extract information from the devices. That vulnerability has now been patched.
I appreciate that the noble Lords’ amendments are intended to introduce safeguards, but I contend that sufficient safeguards are already contained in the Bill. Part 5 already requires the Secretary of State or law enforcement chief to consider whether the proposed conduct is necessary and proportionate before issuing a warrant. The Government have provided even more reassurance since the discussion of these same amendments in the other place. As we have frequently reflected, Clause 2 is a new provision that sets out overarching privacy duties. It includes a requirement to have regard to the public interest in the integrity and security of telecommunication systems. This requirement applies to any decision on whether to issue an equipment interference warrant.
The draft statutory code of practice also sets out, in detail, the factors that must be considered in respect of proportionality. The code states at paragraph 3.27 that one element of proportionality that should be considered is,
“explaining how and why the methods to be adopted will minimise the risk of intrusion on the subject and others”.
It goes on to state at paragraph 3.30:
“Equipment interference activity must therefore be carried out in such a way as to appropriately minimise the risk that the activities of the equipment interference agency would result in any increase of the likelihood or severity of any unauthorised intrusion into the privacy, or risk to the security, of users of equipment or systems, whether or not that equipment is subject to the activities of the equipment interference agency”.
If noble Lords will allow me one last quote, paragraph 3.31 states:
“Any application for an equipment interference warrant should contain an assessment of any risk to the security or integrity of systems or networks that the proposed activity may involve including the steps taken to appropriately minimise such risk … The issuing authority should consider any such assessment when considering whether the proposed activity is proportionate”.
Lord Beith (LD)
An innocent citizen could be the subject of training or testing equipment interference under paragraphs (d) or (e). Are these not legitimate questions to ask on behalf of such a citizen? If it is established that there was a risk, albeit a relatively small one, who will make the judgment that it is reasonable to expose the person, his equipment and his privacy to that risk?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will accept that, in the context of training and testing, those activities are essential if we are to have fully functioning services. It should not only be current investigations that are used for training as that could jeopardise operations. Current investigations may not give the full range of testing and training opportunities to prepare staff and equipment for all necessary eventualities. I will write to the noble Lord on the precise procedures involved in authorising testing and training as I do not have the information in front of me. However, appropriate safeguards will be built into those procedures.
I come back to the point I was making about these amendments in general. I contend that they are not necessary because the Bill and the draft statutory code of practice already require that the impact on people’s privacy, including in respect of collateral intrusion and cybersecurity, is properly considered in every single case. The draft codes will, of course, also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and agreement before they come into force. I hope that those remarks are helpful in reassuring the noble Lord and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick
I thank the Minister for responding to these amendments. I have to say that I am a little sceptical. Yes, of course, as I think he just mentioned, one part of GCHQ is responsible for improving cybersecurity and identifying vulnerabilities around it. However, the role of another part of GCHQ is to breach cybersecurity in order to access information on terrorists’ and serious criminals’ devices. Indeed, when I was at GCHQ it was accepted that there was a tension between the two parts of that organisation as far as that is concerned.
I am also not convinced that it is absolutely clear and obvious in the Bill that there is a need to consider the unintended consequences of damage to networks or devices. I accept what the noble Earl says about collateral intrusion but not in terms of damage to devices or networks. However, at this stage—
Earl Howe
Before the noble Lord decides what to do with his amendment, it might be helpful if I amplify my earlier comments. It is perfectly right to say that some equipment interference operations involve taking advantage of weaknesses, generally in how users are interacting with the internet, but sometimes vulnerabilities in the software or hardware themselves. However, I also contend that the use of equipment interference does not in itself create those weaknesses. While the security and intelligence agencies might on occasion—as I say—exploit such capabilities, they are at the same time committed to making the internet as secure as possible. As I mentioned, the security and intelligence agencies regularly highlight such vulnerabilities to industry.
There is a simple point to be made here. To leave targets open to exploitation by others would increase the risk that their privacy would be unnecessarily intruded upon. It would also increase the risk of those who wish to know who our targets are identifying the security and intelligence agencies’ tools and techniques. Therefore, operations must be carried out in such a way as to minimise that risk. I come back to the point I made near the start of my remarks: the purpose of GCHQ is to protect the public in that sense.
“( ) The fact that the information which would be obtained under a warrant relates to the activities in the British Islands of a trade union is not, of itself, sufficient to establish that the warrant is necessary on grounds falling within subsection (5).”
“( ) The fact that the information which would be obtained under a warrant relates to the activities in the British Islands of a trade union is not, of itself, sufficient to establish that the warrant is necessary as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b).”
“( ) The fact that the information which would be obtained under a warrant relates to the activities in the British Islands of a trade union is not, of itself, sufficient to establish that the warrant is necessary as mentioned in subsection (1)(a).”
“( ) The fact that the information which would be obtained under a warrant relates to the activities in the British Islands of a trade union is not, of itself, sufficient to establish that the warrant is necessary as mentioned in subsection (1)(a).”
(a) ”
( ) consider the matters referred to in subsection (1) with a sufficient degree of care as to ensure that the Judicial Commissioner complies with the duties imposed by section 2 (general duties in relation to privacy).”
Lord Rosser
Since the issue of the Wilson doctrine has been raised, perhaps I could refer to the recent report from the Select Committee on the Constitution. It referred to the Wilson doctrine and made particular reference to a case decided last year, where,
“the Investigatory Powers Tribunal held that the Wilson Doctrine provided fewer safeguards for parliamentarians’ communications than had commonly been supposed”.
The Select Committee ended that section of its report by saying:
“We note that the surveillance of parliamentarians is a significant constitutional issue and would welcome clarification from the Government of its current understanding of the Wilson Doctrine”.
Do the Government intend to give an indication of their current understanding of the Wilson doctrine, in line with the views expressed in that recent report from the Select Committee on the Constitution?
Earl Howe
My Lords, Amendment 169AA would remove the role of the Secretary of State and law enforcement chiefs from the warrant authorisation process, in circumstances where an equipment interference warrant is sought for the purposes of acquiring the communications or private information of a Member of a relevant legislature. This proposal reflects an earlier amendment discussed by this Committee in the context of interception. As I understood her, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is concerned that the safeguards contained in the Bill politicise the process of authorising a warrant. I do not share that perspective at all.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Keen said when we first discussed this matter, this amendment would in fact reduce the safeguards for parliamentarians. In line with the commitment given by the previous Prime Minister last November, the Bill provides a triple lock where warrants concern a parliamentarian’s communications or private information: they must be issued by the Secretary of State; approved by the Prime Minister; and authorised by a judicial commissioner. The Bill goes even further in the context of equipment interference warrants issued to law enforcement agencies, which are issued by a law enforcement chief and must be approved by the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and an independent judicial commissioner.
I will not rehearse the arguments for the double lock at this point, but it is important to remember, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, reminded us, that it was endorsed by the Joint Committee of Parliament that scrutinised the draft Bill and, following amendments made in the other place, enjoyed cross-party support. The additional safeguards provided for parliamentarians add an extra layer of checks to the process. I do not share the perception of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that the process introduces the risk of political bias. In fact, I find it difficult to see what possible benefit would accrue from removing one of the checks that we now propose—that regarding the Secretary of State or law enforcement chief. In view of that, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
I will move on briefly to the amendment tabled by the Government. Amendment 173 is—this answers the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—a small, technical amendment that simply corrects the omission of a definition from Clause 114. The amendment adds the appropriate definition of a “designated senior official” to the clause, informing the reader of the persons to whom the provision applies. We do not think that there is any need to revisit the relative definitions in other parts of the Bill, and the amendment does not change how the equipment interference regime operates in any way.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the Government’s view of the Wilson doctrine. As he will be aware, in its judgment of 14 October the IPT comprehensively rejected the claim brought by a number of parliamentarians that their communications were improperly intercepted and found that all activity was within the law. The IPT also found that MPs’ communications with their constituents and others are protected by RIPA, the statutory legal regime, and that the regime governing the interception of MPs’ communications is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.
In February 2015, the Government published an updated draft code of practice on the interception of communications, which explicitly recognised the importance of communications between constituents and their elected representatives. In consequence, the Bill now provides for this in statute by setting out a role for the Prime Minister in authorising warrants which target a parliamentarian. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Beith
I have to ask the Minister to address the Wilson doctrine just to this extent. Given the statutory provision which he and I both now support, what kind of statement does he envisage would be made by a Prime Minister to the House of Commons on the lines first envisaged by Harold Wilson so long ago? How can that possibly be a relevant proceeding now that these statutory provisions will be in place?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I understand it, the Wilson doctrine committed the then Government to returning to Parliament if there was a change of policy. Clearly, now that we are enshrining what I think by common consent is a good formula for protecting parliamentarians, the need for a Government to come back to Parliament to announce a change in policy would have to be followed up, if it were done, by further primary legislation. I cannot envisage that and simply do not foresee that contingency. Through the Bill, we are now in a stronger and clearer position on the protection of parliamentarians and their communications with constituents than we were before.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
I thank the noble Lords who have made kind comments, even if they disagreed with me. We are not going to agree on the double or treble lock because, quite honestly, if you have two people from the same background or discipline agreeing with and corroborating each other—whether police chiefs or politicians—I think that there is the possibility of bias and that people outside this Chamber will see that as well.
I have heard several times in our debates the idea that we have to give the security or intelligence services the tools that they need to do the job. Personally, I heard that quite a lot with reference to the Met Police when I was on the Met Police Authority. In fact, while the Met and the intelligence services can be somewhat like a greedy child at Christmas, wanting more and more toys, it was the current Prime Minister who said “Enough” to the police. When the previous Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, wanted water cannon to be used on the streets of London, Theresa May MP said that, no, she would not authorise it. So sometimes you have to say no because it is not the right thing—the right powers or toys to give to a department.
This is a monstrous Bill which, in essence, means the end of privacy for us all. It is very important that we get these things right, so I welcome all the debate that we are having. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
““designated senior official” means a senior official who has been designated by the Secretary of State or (in the case of warrants issued by the Scottish Ministers) the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this section.”
Investigatory Powers Bill
Earl Howe Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 176A seeks to replace the statutory appointment of an Investigatory Powers Commissioner with the creation of an investigatory powers commission. This topic was discussed in detail, and voted on, in the other place, which agreed with the government position that establishing a commission was not necessary.
I am afraid I remain unconvinced of what practical good this amendment would do. The powers and duties on the proposed body would remain exactly the same as the responsibilities of a commissioner. The number of inspectors, technical experts and judicial commissioners employed by the organisation would remain exactly the same. In fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, indicated, the only things that would increase would be the expense of the body to the taxpayer and the bureaucracy that it would be faced with. The body would need to be provided with a range of staff to perform corporate functions on its behalf, including its own IT people for when the printers break, its own procurement people to buy the stationery and so on.
Lord Strasburger
I just wonder whether all the expenditure that the Minister is listing does not apply just as much to the commissioners as to any commission.
Earl Howe
No, I do not believe it does. A lot of these overheads, such as those relating to back-office functions, can be shared with other arms of the executive, so my advice is that these would be extra costs that would have to be paid for by the new body.
The new commission will also have to appoint a board and at least three non-executive directors. That would certainly add significantly to the expense of creating a new oversight body with, I contend, very little benefit in the quality of the oversight that it provides. Creating a commission would not serve to advance independence, which was one argument put forward by the noble Baroness. The current oversight bodies, the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the Interception of Communications Commissioner and the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, are provided for in statute in the same way as we propose to provide for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The model we propose will allow the oversight bodies to focus on their core tasks of inspections and investigations without tying them up in too much administration; that is a sensible approach. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to reflect on that between now and Report.
As for the comment that the model we propose does not respond to the recommendations about separating powers, it will be for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to decide how to arrange and run their office. The commissioner will have responsibility for two distinct functions and will have sufficient staff to undertake them independently of each other. However, as David Anderson recognised, there are distinct advantages in having that relationship, even if it is an arm’s-length one, between the two functions. An example of where David Anderson felt that the relationship will be useful is when the judicial commissioners could specifically advise the inspectorate on matters to look out for on their inspections. The dialogue would be lost if the two functions were kept completely distinct.
Baroness Hamwee
Before the noble Earl moves on, 20 minutes ago I was not hugely enthusiastic about a single body; I have become a little more so as the debate has gone on. I have one question and another point. Have the current commissioners been consulted about the Bill’s proposals for the structure? What is their view about a single body as distinct from the parallel arrangements? Secondly, I absolutely understand that if you create a new body you create the need for some administrative—bureaucratic, if you like—arrangements, but for the argument to hinge too much on savings really worries me. As my noble friend says, surely, from paperclips onwards, the needs will be identical. If savings are expected from this, there must be concern that the functions will be affected.
Earl Howe
I understand the noble Baroness’s strength of feeling on this. Part of the purpose of our debates in Committee is to enable all of us to reflect on the points that have been made between now and Report, and I will certainly go away and do that. The answer to her first question is yes, the current commissioners were consulted about bringing the functions together into a new commissioner, and they approve of creating that single function.
Amendment 194A would require the Secretary of State to provide the judicial commissioners with support and assistance. While I agree with the intention behind the amendment, it is unnecessary. In terms of support, Clause 213 already places a duty on the Secretary of State to provide the IPC with staff, accommodation, equipment and other facilities. As regards assistance, Clause 211 requires the Secretary of State to provide the IPC with any access and assistance as necessary to fulfil its functions. Amendments 194B and 194BA are more specifically about the funding and resources that the IPC receives from the Secretary of State.
I fully support the principle that the IPC should be both well resourced and well supported. The impact assessment the Government have published makes it clear that the predicted future funding of the IPC is £7.4 million per annum. That is an increase of 131%—well over double—when compared to the combined funding that the existing commissioners received before the Bill was introduced. I also appreciate that the needs of the commissioner may change over time. Therefore, Clause 210(2)(d) makes it clear that the annual report of the IPC must contain information about,
“funding, staffing and other resources”.
I am certain that the IPC would use this opportunity to alert the Prime Minister if it felt that it was under-resourced in any fashion. The Prime Minister must then lay this report before Parliament, so Parliament could then take up the cause of the IPC if we ever reached that state of affairs. Therefore, I do not believe that Amendments 194B and 194BA are necessary.
Amendments 194E and 194F propose changes to Clause 220 of the Bill. This clause provides for the continued existence of a technical advisory board, currently provided for in Section 13 of RIPA. It also provides for the make-up of the technical advisory board to be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations. Amendment 194E would make a minor change to this clause. From what the noble Baroness said, I do not think that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the membership of the existing board is replaced in its entirety—that we should scrap the existing board and start from scratch. If I am wrong about that, perhaps she could indicate as much, but I did not gather that from her comments. But it might be helpful for me to provide some additional information about the make-up of the current board.
Current board members were appointed from the very small pool of people who have knowledge of the cost and technical feasibility of developing the technical capabilities used to give effect to warrants. In line with RIPA and the provisions in this clause, there is a balance of representation from the telecommunications industry and from the agencies entitled to apply for warrants or authorisations under the Bill. The role of these experts is to advise the Secretary of State on cost and technical grounds if an interception notice given under RIPA is referred for review.
The Investigatory Powers Bill extends this important safeguard to data retention notices, national security notices and all technical capability notices. It is of course right that board members must be able to meet the requirements of this new role. So, in response to the recommendations of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, the Government committed to audit the membership of the current board to identify any gaps in knowledge; those will be addressed as a priority through the recruitment of new members.
It may be helpful for me to make the Committee aware that the board’s independent chair may, if required, call on external expertise to assist the group in deciding reasonable costs and the technical feasibility of an obligation. Furthermore, regulations under Clause 220 may also provide for other persons to be appointed to the board as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. This ensures that the technical advisory board is sufficiently flexible to be able to seek particular expertise as required.
I note that the noble Baroness feels that the word “continue” is inappropriate in this context, but I argue the opposite. If the board exists at the moment, it is perhaps not the right thing implicitly to deny its existence by failing to include a word that acknowledges the fact. I hope that we are not dancing too much on the head of a pin there, and that she will not insist on the change that she has proposed.
Lord Rosser
Will the noble Earl respond in writing on the point on the part of the report by the Select Committee on the Constitution which states:
“The House may wish to consider whether it would be appropriate for an independent court to be prevented from disclosing information if it considers it necessary in the interests of justice”?
Is that the issue on which the Government are going to respond?
Lord Rosser
There is one more point. In response to Amendment 194BA on funding, the noble Earl said that Clause 210 already requires the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to make an annual report to the Prime Minister. The Select Committee on the Constitution was of course aware of that at the time when it made its report, since it comments:
“The Prime Minister is required to publish the report but has a power to order redactions”.
I wonder why the Government do not therefore feel able to go down the road of the Select Committee recommendation over the Investigatory Powers Commissioner having the right to make written representations to Parliament, because they argue it on the grounds of the requirements of judicial independence and the need for public trust and confidence in the system. They say, in suggesting that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner might have the right to make written representations to Parliament, that that is,
“akin to the right conferred on the Lord Chief Justice by section 5 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005”.
I am not sure why the Government are in effect rejecting the suggestion from the Select Committee on the Constitution, which knew at the time when it made that suggestion that Clause 210 required the commissioner to make that annual report but commented that although the Prime Minister is required to publish it, he has a power to order redactions. That is therefore slightly different from the Investigatory Powers Commissioner having the right to make written representations to Parliament directly, and it is a right that is akin only to that already conferred on the Lord Chief Justice under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
Earl Howe
I understand the point made by the noble Lord, but I think it would be unimaginable that Parliament would not protest if there were a redaction in the report around the commissioner’s funding. Redactions, in any case, are made only on national security grounds, not on matters of this nature. Nevertheless, I will consider carefully over the summer period what the noble Lord has said, and no doubt we can return to these matters at a later stage.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have been listening to what the Minister has been saying. It is not too much of a stretch to imagine an argument that goes, “We can’t publish comments about the funding available because that would give clues about the severity of the security system situation or about the effort that is or is not going into dealing with it”, so it is a serious point. Regarding the phraseology in Clause 220, I was never much of a dancer so I hope the Minister will forgive me. I accept that it is a continuation of an existing board, but that is not how it appears in the Bill. I think it would benefit from being anchored by a reference to the existing board. I do not want to bring back such a minor point on Report, so I thought I would make it now and see if it gained any traction.