Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Jack Straw and Julian Huppert

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

That delves into subjects that I am unable to get too involved in. It is a shame that the matter is being dealt with so late. I raised this issue with the Home Secretary on the day that European Court of Justice ruling came out. I questioned her and challenged her on the time scale then. All of us were surprised by the announcement and I wish that we had been able to start sooner. I worry that those within the Conservative and Labour parties who have made it clear that they continue to want to have the measures in the draft Communications Data Bill will bring that back instead of introducing something that some of us would prefer. I wish I could believe that there was a liberal majority in this House—both with a capital L and a small l—but I am not sure that that is the case.

On the other amendments, I am glad that we seem to have reached an agreement on wording. I hope that the Government clause to write the details of the review into legislation will be supported by Members on both sides of the House. I very much want that to happen and for us to reach a place where we can improve. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that at least one version of the oversight clause will be adopted, because it would be a useful addition. I think that having it on the face of the Bill was always intended, which can only be a good thing.

Some of us have been trying to get a proper review of RIPA and all the associated legislation, such as the Telecommunications Act 1984, for many years. We have that chance now. I want a proper review, proper pre-legislative scrutiny and a Bill that will be properly debated in the House. The question is how best to get there.

[Mr Straw]

I will deal first with the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I was the Minister responsible for RIPA. It was a carefully constructed Act that was preceded in 1999 by a lengthy consultation process. Everybody recognised at the time that it was a major improvement on the legislative regime for intercepting communications, data retention and other matters. As I said earlier—and I introduced the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill on this basis—its purpose was to make the intrusive powers of the state compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force more than two year later on 2 October 2000. I am proud of the 1998 Act and—to reassure and provide therapy to the hon. Member for Cambridge—of the fact that it was indeed a liberal measure, but I of course accept that the world of telecommunications has changed radically in the 14 years since. Interestingly, it has not changed as much as it had changed in the preceding 15 years, which followed the Interception of Communications Act 1985, but it has still changed a great deal and for sure it would be worth while for RIPA to be reviewed. However, that is not a case for not proceeding with this measure tonight.

I also accept, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said eloquently in her speech, that even if we accept the need for emergency legislation, as we do, it would have been far better for our consideration to have been extended over two or three days in the Commons rather than just one. Indeed, if we had not been up against the buffers of the summer recess that might easily have been possible and we would have avoided the process of manuscript amendments.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson)—who, parenthetically, is not that much younger than my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), as he is in his fifth decade and my right hon. Friend is in his sixth—asked rhetorically whether we were surprised that relatively few Members had taken part in the debates today. He then tried to provide an answer, but I must say that it was not that convincing. He said that the reason was the pressure of time. I have been present in the Chamber when debates on Bills or other subjects have been subject to time pressures. When they have been very controversial this place has been packed and Ministers have had a hard time. I would suggest that the more convincing explanation for the fact that not many Members have been present for all or any part of the debates today is that most are convinced by the arguments that are being made by the Government, with the support of the Opposition; that the measure clarifies the law in the light of the ECJ judgment; and, in so far as it changes RIPA, that it does so in one respect only—through clause 3, which has the effect, which I hope would be supported by every Member, of restricting the basis on which warrants can be made in relation to economic well-being and qualifies that with reference to national security.

Let me turn to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East, which would repeal the Bill by the end of this year rather than by the end of 2016, as the final clause of the Bill proposes. My hon. Friend said by way of justification for his amendment, in a very delphic comment, that we had not seen what the Government had seen. By definition, we have not seen that which the Government have not shown us and that might be secret or classified, but in justifying this measure the Government have not come along and told us that there are plenty of reasons for it but that they cannot let us in on them.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) made a very witty speech earlier in which he spoke of the Disqualifications Act 2000. That measure changed the basis for the disqualification of Members to allow members of Sinn Fein to sit in the Dáil, the Northern Ireland Assembly and this place. My right hon. Friend was not allowed to explain that, so that really was a situation in which Members of the House had not seen what the Government had seen. That is not the case here. We have seen what the Government have seen. The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to it—it is the ECJ judgment and everybody can read it and understand its consequences. That is the basis for this Bill. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East that I do not accept what the hon. Member for Cambridge is suggesting, which is that we can only have legislation either in a day or in six months. If this House wanted to, it could consider legislation over a two-week period and that would be preferable in this case.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jack Straw and Julian Huppert

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

Let us be clear that SIAC does not deal with criminal cases. There is no procedure in our system, north or south of the border—and nor should there ever be—whereby, in any criminal trial, somebody can be tried and lose their liberty without being able to hear all the evidence.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Mr Straw]

I recommend that the hon. Gentleman not test me on the details of the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008, because I know every part of it and why we had to go through with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I cannot resist the temptation. To amplify the point that was just made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in SIAC cases, as happened in control order cases, people’s liberty could be significantly curtailed without them knowing the evidence against them?

[Mr Straw]

Of course I do, and that was going to be my next point. No one is suggesting that SIAC deals with trivial matters. It deals with whether an individual should be deported on national security grounds, while the control order tribunals deal with restrictions of individuals’ liberty.

I have met one individual who was subject to a control order and will tell the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) about the circumstances outside the Chamber. The heart of the issue is about protecting our national security. That has been discussed in abstract terms today, but what we are actually debating is how to protect the sources of information on which intelligence depends. These individuals are developed by our intelligence and security agencies and they place themselves at considerable risk. In essence, they provide information to the United Kingdom—as they would to a foreign intelligence agency—that they are not supposed to provide. Sometimes they betray their own Government or country. They are, by definition, giving away confidences and they do so for a variety of motives: some say that they are doing it for the highest of motives, which are that they fundamentally disagree with the system in which they are operating; some do it for the lowest of motives, because they have committed a criminal act and want some form of escape; and some are somewhere in between, in that they have high motives but they also want some money.

In every case, that information would simply dry up if the identity of that individual, or information leading to their identification, was compromised. That is the fundamental dilemma, and there is no way out of it unless we want to abandon our intelligence and security agencies. Let us remind ourselves—this is not scare- mongering; it happens to be true—that, had we abandoned those agencies, scores of serious atrocities would have killed our constituents and many others. If we had explained how we had ended up in such a situation by saying that information had to be provided in its entirety in open court in all circumstances, people would have said, “Thanks very much, but my relative, wife or child has just died.” That is the dilemma and it is not abstract—it is absolutely real.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I dare say that it would. We will have to see what happens.

To return to the principle, I talked earlier to the right hon. Member for Blackburn about the range of civil proceedings into which the previous Government introduced close material proceedings. I find many of those far more objectionable than civil cases. I do not like the introduction of closed material proceedings into civil cases and find the principle very difficult. However, I find it worse when people’s liberty is at risk. That is the case with control orders, terrorism prevention and investigation measures, and SIAC.

I know something of the case referred to by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) because we have discussed it in the past. The gentleman referred to has had his liberty seriously infringed. It is not a simple question of whether he is allowed to stay in the country or not. He has been detained for a considerable time now, given that it is two years since we last spoke about the case in great detail, based on evidence that he does not have the chance to see. That strikes me as deeply alarming. I am sure that the whole House would hold the position that criminal sanctions should not be allowed. We are edging very close to that if we are detaining somebody for years.

[Mr Straw]

None of us likes the idea of closed proceedings or proceedings in which the evidence is kept from one of the parties. However, on the assumption that the court has decided that the evidence cannot be made available in open court because another individual, perhaps an informant or an agent, could be killed—I am not joking—what is the hon. Gentleman’s answer to this dilemma? Is it to leave the person at liberty or to do what used to happen in the past, which was that the Home Secretary would make such decisions without any proceedings? What is his alternative?

[Dr Huppert]

I think that it is the same as the right hon. Gentleman’s alternative would be in a criminal case for which the evidence needed to convict somebody could not be gathered. If one cannot gain that evidence, one cannot proceed. It is important that that applies when people are being deprived of their liberty. I made the same argument when we were getting rid of control orders. One must try to provide the evidence that is needed to convict people. Failing that, I do not like the idea that people are simply held for many years, with very little freedom. I believe that control orders had 23-hour curfews. That is an extreme infringement of liberty. I know that we are not discussing criminal issues principally, but there are many cases in the criminal system in which the police are sure that somebody is guilty, but they cannot find evidence that may be used in court. None of us would want to see such cases proceed and the same should apply to any other serious deprivation of liberty.

I look forward to the votes. It is not clear to me exactly which matters we will have the opportunity to vote on. I will stand by all the votes that I cast in Committee, where we came very close to changing the Bill, but never quite close enough. I think that we won one vote on a new clause being read a Second time, but the decision was reversed immediately afterwards by the Chairman’s casting vote. I hope that we will change the provisions either so that we do not have these proceedings, which would be my ideal, or we at least move them closer to the proposals of the JCHR. I accept that we should not keep every word of what the Joint Committee suggested and that tweaks could be made. I hope that the Minister will consider that at the point at which he confirms the position on habeas corpus and my other questions.