Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Lord Oates and Lord King of Bridgwater

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 19th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates]

I am dealing with the fact that we are granting a power under the Bill, as this House voted only a couple of days ago, for all the websites visited by every user in this country, whether suspected of anything or innocent, to be recorded. That is a matter of fact, not a matter of debate.

We also need to deal with the canard that we have heard from people such as the noble Lord who spoke from the Labour Benches earlier, which is that to question the powers granted under the Bill is somehow to question the integrity of the police or the security and intelligence agencies, to cast aspersions on them. That is nonsense. I have nothing but respect for the difficult, often dangerous and always demanding jobs carried out on our behalf by the police and security services. There is no doubt that the vast majority of them do so with absolute dedication and integrity, but it is absurd to suggest that such powers are not on occasion abused. We know they are. That is a matter of fact; it is recorded in our history. Of course, it is inevitable that that is the case: all such agencies are made up of human beings and we are all subject to frailty. That is why, over the years, those who believe in constitutional democracy have insisted on limiting the powers granted to the state and its agents.

That is why we have such concern about the power granted after our debate the other day to record—I repeat—every website visited by every person in this country. The Government will now have the power to demand that that be recorded. That is why we are concerned about that and about the bulk power in relation to it. That is why I will be supporting my noble friend Lord Paddick and my colleagues on the Front Bench: I think that is rightly a matter of grave concern for liberties in this country.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord accepts one thing: the use of these powers, which are very substantial, could in certain circumstances be essential to obstruct or prevent an otherwise very serious terrorist incident. I am not sure whether he challenges that. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to the supporting evidence from David Anderson to that effect. So the noble Lord, Lord Oates, is taking the courageous position—as is the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—of being prepared to accept that risk. In the current situation, nobody in this House has any right to be ignorant that the threat at present is severe—and “severe” may be slightly underplaying the scale of the situation at the moment. We know the situation; there is no point drawing attention to it. We know what is happening in Mosul at present, where the instruction among ISIS is, “Don’t hang around here. Get into some of the capitals of the West and see what you can do”. The message is going out to try to cause a terrorist incident right on our doorstep.

[Lord Oates]

The noble Lord asks me specifically what I believe. It is very simple. I do not believe that we should record the websites visited by every person in this country. I do not think that is merited; it is not a power used by any other “Five Eyes” country or any constitutional democracy that I know of.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Lord Oates and Lord King of Bridgwater

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. The Committee has listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, who was a member of the Joint Committee, which agreed unanimously—himself included—to this statement:

“We agree that all of the proposed purposes for which access to ICRs could be sought are appropriate”.

It went on to say:

“Whether ICRs are included or not”—

subject to the European Court of Justice—

“we believe that, in light of the ongoing need for communications data and the imminent expiry of DRIPA, a continued policy of some form of data retention is appropriate and that these provisions should accordingly form part of the Bill”.

A number of us have come to this Committee anxious to see the work done under the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, whose chairmanship of the Joint Committee was impressive. We were under the impression that its report was an accurate record. Now the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, stands up and says something entirely different from what was unanimously agreed in the Joint Committee.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 156A but I also support Amendment 147A, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Strasburger. I will not go into all the details set out so ably by my noble friends Lord Paddick and Lord Strasburger but there are some key issues which really have to be addressed. It is not good enough, frankly, to say that the Joint Committee may have said this or that; we need answers to the questions that have been posed.

The first question is: why is it that the United Kingdom, as far as I understand it—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—uniquely among the “Five Eyes” countries requires this power? Indeed, as far as I understand it this is unique among any equivalent western democracies. I hope the Minister will tell us what is so unique about the situation we find ourselves in. It is not shared by the United States, Canada, New Zealand or any other western democracy.

Secondly, it is important to understand that, at the moment, 25 countries around the world are considering investigatory powers legislation—countries such as India, Pakistan and many others. They are looking towards us and at what we do. We have to think extremely carefully about what we are doing and we must ensure that our questions are answered. It is incumbent on the Government to do that.

We are also in a time of quite a lot of political upheaval. As a result, I doubt many people have been paying a huge amount of attention to the Bill. I imagine the public will be absolutely horrified when they discover that Parliament has granted a power to government to insist on the retention of the details of every single person in this country’s access to every single website. They will want to know why and they will want to know under what conditions of security such information is to be held. They will want to know the cost and whether this Parliament rigorously examined the cost and the need for their data—the data of innocent people—to be held in this manner. It is not good enough for us just to say that this power might be desirable or useful at some point; we have to be clear that it is proportionate, that it can work and that it can be held securely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

Does the noble Lord not remember that some of us tried to anticipate some of these problems and bring in amendments to a previous Bill? We were told then that we must not rush this. This Bill must now have been subject to the most exhaustive scrutiny of any that I can remember. It has been the subject of three independent reports and of scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses, on which the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Butler, who are present, and other Members served. The noble Lord stands there and suggests that this is some impetuous reaction to a problem that has just arisen. I have been critical—I should have liked to see earlier action—but I accept that the Government decided that the Bill should be subject to the most exhaustive public scrutiny that I can remember for any Bill. In fairness, the noble Lord might recognise that in his speech.

[Lord Oates]

If the noble Lord had been in his place at Second Reading, he would have heard me give exactly that recognition. I recognise entirely the scrutiny and excellent work. I note that it is only because of the actions of people such as the then Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, that we had that scrutiny. I am grateful that we had it and the Bill is much better as a consequence. I welcome it. That does not mean, however, that as a result of that scrutiny we should abandon our Committee proceedings; it does not mean that those of us who have not served on Joint Committees should not be able to ask questions or seek answers. That is certainly what I will continue to do in this matter.

What is being required is an extraordinary power. We must be absolutely clear about that: it is unique. The noble Lord, Lord King, the Minister or any other noble Lord needs to explain—and nobody has, certainly not in all the proceedings so far in this House—why we, uniquely, need this power. The power is one that even such eminent people as my noble friend Lord Carlile—no slouch on counterterrorism measures—have questioned in the past. Indeed on 25 May 2013, he penned an article, I believe in the Daily Mail, in which he said:

“I, Lord Reid, Lord West and others of like mind have never favoured the recording of every website visited by every internet user, though we have been accused of that ambition”.

I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it that is exactly what is proposed: the retention of data on the internet connection records of every internet user in the country. I hope that the Minister will address and answer all the detailed points put by my noble friends Lord Paddick and Lord Strasburger, and tell the House why we, uniquely, need a power required by no other constitutional democracy of a similar type in the world.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Oates and Lord King of Bridgwater

Monday 8th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

The answer to the first question is no. The second I will need to think about, as it is far too complicated for me.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I speak in support of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I must say that I followed his argument completely but I am not sure that I followed that of the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, at all. The noble Lord seemed to make the case that because strikes can be disruptive—we must acknowledge that they can be, particularly in the public sector areas of transport and education, as the Government have argued—and because of the impact on people, that justified the Government’s proposed thresholds. But is the idea that the Government do not impact on people? The Government impact on the lives of millions of people in many areas, not just during the period when a strike may take place. Not long ago, we were discussing the changes to universal credit in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which will have a massive impact on some of the most vulnerable people in this country. That is on a mandate of, what, 24%? What we are asking for is a bit of consistency from the Government. Why do they believe that trade unions should be held to a completely different democratic standard than the rest of our democracy operates to?

We should consider carefully this idea of introducing thresholds. It is a major step in the way our democracy operates. In the first place, it second-guesses what the people who do not vote actually mean. It may be that the people who do not vote actually mean they do not want to vote; it does not mean that they wish to vote no. However, under this system, we have the perverse incentive whereby if you wish to oppose strike action you may well be better off not participating in a vote. If you do participate, you may help people over the threshold. As a noble Lord said previously, somebody voting against a strike who tips the vote over the threshold is actually facilitating it taking place. That makes no sense whatever. In a situation where there was a 50% turnout—which would meet the first threshold under the 40% requirement—even if 79% of those voting in that ballot voted in favour, the strike would be illegal. That would have a massive impact on industrial relations.

Thresholds like this are almost without precedent in this country. The only example I came across was the rather ill-fated 1979 Scottish devolution referendum, in which there was a 40% threshold. That was universally regarded as a not entirely successful way to go about things and has never been repeated. It was certainly not something the Government were keen to take on for the European Union referendum. As I have said before, strikes are undoubtedly disruptive, particularly in the public sector, and they should be a last resort. If we vote to leave the European Union, it could massively disrupt all of our lives for ever, but nobody is suggesting a 40% threshold there—for the good reason that inventing thresholds like this simply undermines people’s faith in the system and can create extremely perverse outcomes.

Will the Minister tell the Committee why the Government believe it appropriate to impose such thresholds for a strike, which could cause disruption, but not appropriate in cases such as membership of the European Union? Why should this sort of threshold not be met when the Government are acting as a monopoly supplier of service? For instance, on the benefits system, with what mandate is a party with 24% of the vote savagely attacking the rights of vulnerable working people? There is very little consistency in what the Government are suggesting and I hope they will reconsider it.