Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
Debate between Diana Johnson and Julian Smith(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Diana Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman has made his point, and we will obviously disagree on what I have just said.
Our view, agreed with by most of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, is that the data required to link an IP address to a device is one such category of data that is required and therefore we welcome what in principle clause 17 seeks to achieve. I say “in principle” because we do have some concerns about the drafting of clause 17, which is why we have tabled amendment 5.
Diana Johnson
I will give way, but, as I have said, I do want to get on to the substantive issues.
Julian Smith
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. Will she just clarify briefly the further categories that she sees becoming more important, and where the Government and coalition can expect Labour’s support as they seek to put more of these areas on to the statute book?
Diana Johnson
What I will come on to say about some of the concerns we have might help the hon. Gentleman, but his question obviously leads into a debate that goes wider than this particular grouping, which is specifically on clause 17, and in the Committee stage of the Bill. I will therefore continue with my points on this grouping, because I am sure I would be in trouble if I did not do that.
To repeat, although in principle we support clause 17, we have some concerns about its drafting, which is why we have tabled amendment 5. Because of the broad label “relevant internet data”, we want to put it beyond doubt that the category of data to be retained under clause 17 does not extend beyond what is strictly necessary to link an IP address to a user.
In the Bill, the definition of “relevant internet data” is data which
“relates to an internet access service or an internet communications service”
and
“may be used to identify, or assist in identifying, which internet protocol address…belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication”.
While this appears to include a whole host of other traffic data, including web logs, clause 17 also states that “relevant internet data” is not “communications data” as defined by the schedule to the Data Retention Regulations 2014 or information as defined in clause 17(3)(c), which is supposed to exclude web logs from this provision. We have concerns about the accuracy with which subsection (3)(c) captures the nature of web logs, which is why we have tabled amendment 5. I hope the regulations this clause will enable will be clearer than this primary clause in the legislation. It is disappointing that, unlike with the DRIP Bill, the draft regulations have not yet been published alongside the Bill. This has caused problems for Parliament’s ability to provide proper scrutiny of this clause.
As well as accepting our amendment 5, which I hope the Minister will be able to do, I urge him to go back and look again at the drafting of clause 17 before Report. In order to increase public confidence in the use of retained communications data we need to be clear about what is retained and I believe clause 17 and the accompanying explanatory notes could be better in this regard.
Julian Smith
The hon. Lady talks about web logs. Will she clarify the Opposition’s long-term position on that issue, and what she sees will happen in the future, when on many sides of the security spectrum there seems to be a consensus that there is a need to bring these areas in eventually?
Diana Johnson
I will just reiterate that we are dealing with clause 17, and we are very mindful that we want to ensure that web logs are not included under this clause. My focus is on getting clarity on that from the Minister. What might happen in the long term is perhaps a debate for another time. I am concerned that we get the drafting of this clause as accurate as we can.
I was talking about making sure the public are confident about what we are trying to do through clause 17, and what is included and what is not included. The data at the heart of clause 17 appear to be what is commonly referred to as “IP resolution data”, but this term does not appear in the text of the explanatory notes, and I hope the Minister will be able to explain whether they do refer to the same thing, as there is some confusion here.
As I explained, clause 17 is meant to plug a gap within the current framework for data retention, but when we compare the language of the Bill with the text of the current regulations, the gap is not immediately obvious. Clause 17 refers to data which
“relates to an internet access service or an internet communications service”
and
“may be used to identify, or assist in identifying, which internet protocol address…belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication”.
However, part 3, paragraph 11 of the schedule to the existing regulations refers to the subscriber information
“to whom an Internet Protocol (IP) address, user ID or telephone number was allocated at the time of the communication.”
I ask the Minister to look at this and see whether he cannot amend the language to make clear on the face of the Bill the exact data category that will be provided for in the regulations.
I am also concerned about the degree to which clause 17 relies on definitions provided from the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I am sure the Minister is aware of the findings of the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill that the definitions used in RIPA were out of date and needed to be replaced. Given this, it is surprising to see both the definition of “communication” and section (3)(c) of the clause rely so heavily on RIPA definitions.
I would also like the Minister look again at the definition of “identifier.” According to clause 17
“‘identifier’ means an identifier used to facilitate the transmission of a communication”.
This is at least partly circular, and again adds to the confusion around this clause. Finally, in subsection (2)(b) will the Minister confirm that he does indeed mean “paragraph (a)” rather than subsection (a)?
In addition to the five questions above regarding the drafting, I have 10 questions about the implementation that I hope the Minister will be able to address in his comments. First, will he tell the House whether he expects to introduce new retention regulations under DRIPA section 1, or will the Government be seeking to amend the Data Retention Regulations 2014? Secondly, and on a similar note, will he update the House on when he expects to publish these draft regulations and when he hopes they will be in force? Thirdly, when the data covered under clause 17 is traffic data, while the relevant authority wants to reveal the subscriber information behind this, will this be covered under a single request under RIPA, or could clause 17 data simply lead to a disclosure which requires a further RIPA request to be made? Fourthly—this is particularly relevant to amendment 5—will he assure the House that the retention by the Crown Prosecution Service of this relevant internet data can be done in such a way that does not require deep package inspections of the type that would be considered intrusive surveillance? Fifthly—and again relating to amendment 5—will the Minister explain in practice how the regulations will separate out communications going to a device, which could be a web log, such as access to an app, which would be considered a website, and communications going to a device which enables a communication, such as an app which facilitates web e-mail storage?
Sixthly, will the Minister confirm that the extra reporting requirements imposed on the interception of communications commissioner by the DRIP Act will extend to the data retained and subsequently requested under clause 17? Will the Minister be providing additional resources to the commissioner to meet those additional requirements?
Historical Child Sex Abuse
Debate between Diana Johnson and Julian Smith(9 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing this debate, which is on the progress of the historical child abuse inquiry. I pay tribute to him for his doughty campaigning on child abuse since entering the House of Commons, and for telling the real story about Cyril Smith.
It is right to acknowledge that in his opening speech my hon. Friend set the tone for what has been a good and important debate. He started his speech by describing the experience of survivors. He talked about William and about John and the life chances that had been limited by the people who abused them. I want to use my speech this afternoon to focus on survivors in relation to the inquiry.
We have heard powerful speeches from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who brings a wealth of experience as a former children’s Minister, and the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who has introduced many changes to the law to protect children over the years. He is another doughty fighter on behalf of children and young people. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) spoke eloquently about what he knew had happened in his constituency and the Elm guest house allegations. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) has spoken on many occasions about these issues.
What is powerful about all the speeches is that they were informed in the main by the stories of survivors of abuse. The House owes a huge debt to the survivors, who have shown enormous courage in coming forward, in the hope that their experience can prevent what happened to them from happening again, and that justice can, wherever possible, be done. This debate and the wider inquiry that we are discussing have to have at their heart the survivors’ voices. I want to thank all those people who have taken the time to speak to me and tell me what they want to see out of this child abuse inquiry, including Peter Saunders of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood and Andrew Kershaw of the Survivors of Forde Park, both of whom have done so much to give a voice to those abused as children.
Having listened to the debate today, the Minister can be in no doubt about the commitment of hon. Members to the success of this child abuse inquiry and to ensuring that it has the confidence of survivors. Hon. Members appreciate the scale of the task facing the inquiry panel and the need for the panel to carry out the inquiry in a timely manner, as we know that many perpetrators are growing older and must be brought to justice wherever possible.
Along with the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), many Members have been calling for the overarching inquiry for about two years, so when the Home Secretary announced that she would set it up, that was welcomed across the House. As we know, however, she appointed a chair without proper vetting or consultation. After that sorry saga, we ended up, unbelievably, in the same position with a second chair. We know that the Home Secretary apologised for that and is trying to make sure that from now on there is proper consultation and vetting of the prospective chair. I listened to what the permanent secretary at the Home Office told this place this week, when he said that the child abuse inquiry would be one of the top three issues for the Home Office. That is encouraging to hear.
In relation to the chair, perhaps the Minister will be able to help the House. I understand that about 100 nominations have been made. With due diligence checks and the pre-appointment consultation and hearings that have been scheduled, a chair is unlikely to be in place before the spring of 2015. Will the Minister comment on that timetable?
Although I have just mentioned how important it is to make sure that a chair is appointed as soon as possible, that is not nearly as important as making sure that the survivors of abuse have a voice in the inquiry and that they are involved in discussions about how the inquiry is to proceed. That has not happened enough, which is a problem. It was a fundamental mistake not to consult survivors about the panel members. Although I accept that all the panel members have a great deal to commend them, survivors tell me that they would like to have been consulted. I noted that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that MPs were asked for their opinion and for any suggestions. That is welcome, but the Government missed a trick by not making sure that survivors were also consulted about panel members. As all hon. Members will recognise, if the inquiry is to succeed, survivors must have confidence in the panel to which they will give evidence.
A number of hon. Members referred to the terms of reference. Again, I note that there was no consultation with survivors about the terms of reference for the inquiry. One issue that I would like to take up with the Minister is the cut-off date of 1970. The Home Secretary has said that if that cut-off date is a problem, she will listen to any representations in favour of taking it back further that the chair considers appropriate, but I wonder why the date of 1970 was chosen. I was told just this week that approved schools where a number of children and young people were abused closed in 1969, so they would not come within the scope of the terms of reference. The survivors feel that their experience would not automatically be considered by the panel. Will the Minister explain to the House why 1970 was the date chosen? I have heard suggestions from survivors that the terms of reference should set a cut-off date just after the second world war, which would allow any person still living who has suffered abuse to come forward and feel that their experiences could be part of the inquiry.
Most importantly, I want to talk about how survivors’ voices should be heard in the inquiry. The hon. Member for Mole Valley referred to the experience in Northern Ireland. Its historical institutional abuse inquiry commenced, as he said, with an acknowledgement forum, for the purposes of listening to those who were abused as children in those institutions. That process has taken many months and allowed anyone who has been abused in institutions to come forward and be heard. The acknowledgment forum spoke to more than 500 people. That was not the end of its process of listening to survivors, but the start, informing the next stage of the inquiry, but still hearing from survivors directly.
Australia’s child abuse inquiry has been very good about moving around the country. It reached out to survivors, and the response has been overwhelming. It has taken 17,500 telephone calls, received more than 7,800 letters and e-mails and held over 2,500 private sessions. The English and Welsh inquiry, however, seems to have had two sessions in London and plans two more outside London. They appear to be open meetings. I am very unclear about what it is proposed should happen at those events. It feels to me that they are insufficient, and it is very unclear how they will support survivors who come forward. In Australia and Northern Ireland, people were asked to contact the inquiry, and the inquiry team then worked with individuals to enable them to give evidence in the most appropriate way. They were signposted to support and advice.
I do not think there is any point in proceeding with this inquiry until a process for involving and supporting survivors is established. Existing services, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, are stretched to breaking point, including NAPAC, which faces losing its offices early next year, at a time of unprecedented demand for its support.
Julian Smith
On the remarks that the hon. Lady has just made about the inquiry, which I am really pleased has started its work—the panel members got started on 12 November—are she and the Labour party recommending that that work should now be paused? Will she clarify her remarks?
Diana Johnson
The problem is that there seems to be a lack of clarity—probably because there is no chair in place—as to how the inquiry is going forward and what the purposes of the regional meetings are. I have asked a number of people to explain to me how those meetings will be conducted. If survivors are to come forward and give evidence at those meetings—I do not know whether that is their purpose—there is a concern about the lack of clarity and the lack of an agreed process as to how that is to be handled. That is why I wanted to refer to the Northern Ireland example, as it is very clear what it was going to do in that first period: hear from survivors so that it could get to grips with the extent of the problem through the evidence before it, which would then determine how the rest of the inquiry would proceed. My purpose in referring to that inquiry was to highlight the need for clarity on how proceedings should go on.
On the point about the support available to survivors, I think that we need a very clear process—this fits in with what the hon. Gentleman has just asked—for the inquiry, whereby survivors are fully involved and supported and it has their confidence. I think that we are all looking to ensure that survivors are in that position as the inquiry moves forward.
Julian Smith
The hon. Lady has still not directly answered my question about the Labour party’s view, given what she has said. Does she agree that it is very problematic to ask Ministers to micro-manage this inquiry? There are some very senior people on the panel, and they must now be able to get on with their work. Has she spoken directly to the panel members about their plans for the next few months?
Diana Johnson
I am not trying to imply that the Minister or the Home Secretary should micro-manage. I am merely highlighting where the inquiry is not operating in a clear way, such that survivors are saying that they are not sure what the process is or what the purpose of the regional meetings is. I think the problem stems from the fact that no chair is in place directing the inquiry. As I said, the chair may not be appointed for many months. That causes me some concern. I hope that the Minister will be able to assist us on what the Home Office and Ministers may be able to do to support the panel in making the process a bit clearer so that survivors really understand what is happening during this period.
We must make sure that survivors who come forward with their evidence are fully supported afterwards. I worry that the Home Secretary has talked about the NHS being part of providing that support, given that the NHS is under such stress, particularly in terms of counselling services, where there are often long waiting lists. What additional support will be available to survivors, and particularly to third sector groups?
This inquiry must aim to investigate historical child abuse, to try to bring justice to those who have seen justice denied for too long, and to inform current practice in the field of child protection to stop children being abused in future. While it is important to investigate historical allegations, we must never forget that children are still being abused today, as a number of hon. Members said.
I want to make a suggestion to the Minister about the way forward. While the main inquiry establishes a forum for hearing from survivors, in the first instance, the other inquiries that have been set up—such as the north Wales care homes inquiry, the BBC inquiry, and the ongoing NHS inquiries—would have time to conclude and to put forward their recommendations for a response. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) mentioned the potential confusion about how those other inquiries will fit with the overarching inquiry, and that is part of the overall problem of how this is going to work. The main inquiry could then commence in the position of having heard from survivors of abuse and seen the recommendations of the other inquiries and what they have come up with.
On the legal status of the inquiry, there is a particular issue relating to documents. Lawyers have told me that because the inquiry has not been put on a statutory footing, organisations could destroy documents with no legal consequences, whereas if it were to be put on a statutory footing, there would be criminal consequences for that type of behaviour. The Home Secretary has said that the chair can decide whether to make the inquiry statutory, so that suggests that her mind is open to it. However, as we know, the chair is unlikely to be appointed for many months, and lawyers are saying that in the meantime documents could be destroyed. The hon. Member for Richmond Park also raised this point. Will the Minister comment on it?
We need to hear from the Minister how she is going to make this inquiry work with the confidence of survivors, and how she will give survivors the voice that they deserve and that the inquiry has to hear. She needs to give us an overview of how she sees survivors being consulted and to explain how they will be listened to in the inquiry. I hope that she will also address the broader question of how the inquiry will build on the other inquiries already set up and work to inform best practice. The survivors need to know that this Government and this Parliament want the inquiry to succeed. We want to give survivors whatever redress is possible and to learn lessons so that these terrible situations do not arise in future.