Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have Amendments 32 to 36 in this group. These amendments seek to probe the Government’s position and how far they might be prepared to go in adopting, for example, the recommendations that David Anderson made in his report about removing the Secretary of State from the issuing of targeted interception and examination warrants and replacing the Secretary of State, as the person who decides on these warrants, with a judicial commissioner. The volume of warrants that the Home Secretary, for example, has to sign amounts to as many as 10 a day. We are relieved that she does not now have the additional burden of having to run for leader of the Conservative Party, but one can imagine that to give proper consideration to 10 warrants a day is a significant undertaking, in addition to her other responsibilities.

In non-contentious cases, where there is no political aspect, such as law enforcement warrants, where one is dealing with serious crime—with drug dealers, for example—it is difficult to understand why one would need the Secretary of State to consider these issues. We obviously accept that there may be cases where there is political sensitivity, even in the case of serious crime, and it may be that the Bill can be amended to allow either for the judicial commissioner or even the applicant for the warrant to refer the matter to the Secretary of State in those cases. I also accept that in cases of national security—in cases where the security services, for example, are seeking a warrant, particularly where they may be looking at interception of foreign communications, even foreign diplomatic communications—there is a definite need for the Secretary of State’s involvement. However, as I say, the thrust of this group of amendments is to explore why the Government insist on the Secretary of State being involved in 75% of the warrants that, for example, the Home Secretary signs when those warrants appear to be non-contentious and not politically sensitive but simply to do with law enforcement and serious crime. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I support what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has said, and I too would be grateful for an explanation of why it is necessary or appropriate for the Secretary of State to be involved in the issuing of warrants in relation to non-contentious matters. My understanding—and I should be grateful if the Minister can deal with this—is that the Bill will impose those responsibilities on the Secretary of State in relation to basic policing functions, even though, under existing law, the Secretary of State has no role in the issuing of warrants in such circumstances.

[Lord Strasburger]

My Lords, I spent a lot of time sitting on the Joint Committee, and since then, searching in vain for a cogent reason why the Secretary of State needs to sign off warrants that have no national security or diplomatic import. Why should the Minister spend her valuable time examining and authorising warrants about everyday criminals? We are told that two-thirds or three-quarters—I do not know which; I have heard both figures—of warrants have nothing to do with national security or diplomacy.

The Secretary of State has no role in authorising property search warrants, which arguably are more intrusive, and involve invasion of a person’s home and discovery of information about a far wider range of subjects than a person’s communications. The only reason ever offered is that the Secretary of State is subject to scrutiny by Parliament, whereas a judicial commissioner is not.

When they gave evidence to the Joint Committee I asked two former Ministers who were responsible for authorising warrants how many times they had been held to account by Parliament. Both the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, former Home Secretary, and Owen Paterson, former Northern Ireland Secretary, said that it had never happened. That was just as well because it is a criminal offence under RIPA for the existence or details of a warrant to be publicly disclosed. Clause 54 of the Bill continues that ban, with a penalty of up to five years in prison. Therefore, the whole notion of parliamentary accountability for Ministers who authorise warrants is a complete myth. It has never happened and the Bill prohibits it.

I expect that the Government will refer to the potential to be held to account by the ISC, but that does not fit the Bill and is not visible to the public. As far as I know—and as far as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, knew when he gave evidence—there are no examples of the ISC holding Ministers to account. I should be interested if the Minister can give some examples of when that has happened. I, too, wait with interest to hear the Government’s response to the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

It is really quite difficult for me to answer the noble Lord’s question on the “Five Eyes”: it has to be a question for the other members of that group. The approach we have taken is consonant with our general wish, as a country, to hold Ministers to account for important decisions taken about national security and privacy, rather than to consign those decisions to the court. Nevertheless, we believe there is a role for a judicial commissioner to approve what Ministers do. That double lock is the formula which most people in the other place were comfortable with. That is probably all I can say on that score. I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on the case of Lee Rigby, which is a good example of how a Minister was directly accountable to Parliament, albeit in secret session but nevertheless fully accountable to a committee of Parliament. I am sure there are other examples where that has occurred.

[Lord Pannick]

Before the Minister sits down, could I test his patience? Will he write to me on the question that I raised, which is whether or not the Bill will expand the scope of the authorisation powers of the Secretary of State to new areas or whether it simply continues the existing scope of those powers? If the Bill does confer an authorisation power on the Secretary of State in relation to a wider scope, could he please explain why?

[Earl Howe]

I should be happy to write to the noble Lord on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

In view of the very significant impact that would flow from these amendments, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 37.

[Lord Pannick]

Can the Minister give the Committee a practical example of where it would be necessary and proportionate—the test that he emphasises—to exercise these powers where there is not, to quote the amendment,

“a reasonable suspicion that a serious criminal offence has been or is likely to be committed”?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I think the noble Lord helpfully makes my point for me. As I said at the outset, we are dealing with apples and oranges. We achieve the same objective by different routes, but I am obliged.

[Lord Pannick]

I am sorry to prolong this but I am not agreeing with the noble and learned Lord, I am asking for a practical example of why the Government are not prepared to accept a “reasonable suspicion” test.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

For example, in the case of a missing person there may be no reasonable suspicion but it may still be necessary and proportionate to grant a warrant in those circumstances. I hope that that is concrete enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 38, I will speak also to Amendments 117, 118, 120, 155, 157, 162, 163, 165, 166, 203, 220 and 223. I recognise that the Opposition and the Scottish National Party raised concerns about trade union protections in the Public Bill Committee in the other place. I know that it has been suggested that investigatory powers may have been used in the past to interfere with legitimate trade union activity.

Allow me to repeat what was said in the Commons. The agencies have never been interested in investigating legitimate trade union activity. The Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 limit the activities of the agencies. Both Acts make it explicit that the agencies cannot act to further the interests of any political party. It goes without saying that all the agencies take these duties very seriously.

The Government therefore agreed an opposition amendment on Report in the Commons to what is now Clause 20 of the Bill, making explicit that legitimate trade union activity would never be sufficient grounds of itself for an interception warrant application to be considered necessary.

These amendments read across protections from that amendment to all the relevant provisions in the Bill. It would still permit public authorities to apply for a warrant or authorisation, or issue new or varied data retention notices under Part 4, relating to members or officials of a trade union considered to be a legitimate intelligence target, but it makes explicit that legitimate trade union activity would never be sufficient grounds, of itself, for a warrant, authorisation or notice to be considered necessary. Accordingly, I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick]

The noble Earl recognises in his amendment that legitimate trade union activities would not of themselves be sufficient to establish the necessity of a warrant. I wonder whether the Government’s position is that they also recognise that legitimate trade union activities could not be relevant to the issue of a warrant, because the amendment does not go that far. If the Government do not recognise that, can they give a practical example of where legitimate trade union activities—I emphasise legitimate—could even be relevant to the issue of a warrant?

[Earl Howe]

I cannot do so and I am not sure that it is necessary for me to do so, because if, as I have explained, legitimate trade union activity is never sufficient grounds of itself for a warrant, the question of relevance does not arise.