Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2020

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I have read the papers in front of us this afternoon and should like to highlight a couple of things. I note from paragraph 7.2 that there has been a

“rapid escalation of organised crime”

in recent years of fly-tipping and so on. It seems to me, as one who has been using the tidy tip in Biggleswade in Bedfordshire by appointment, that there is no provision for small businesses or small builders to get rid of their bits and pieces of rubbish. Although it is not absolutely covered by the order, I wonder whether it is not time to look at the fly-tipping challenge that we are facing in this country.

My other point concerns paragraph 7.3 and the Department of Health and Social Care. Am I right in thinking that that is to do with the purchasing done by the department? If not, what else does it cover?

Moving on, I note that 10 departments are now involved. One asks who is co-ordinating those 10 to ensure that they are consistent in their approach to what they think is fraud.

I declare an interest as a trustee of the parliamentary pension fund. We all know that small businesses have, quite rightly, been brought into the national pension scheme since 2012. Why, at this point, eight years on, is it felt for the first time that the Pensions Regulator should be given powers? Previously, it was not given powers, because they were not up to scratch. Any of us who are involved in that world know that it is hugely complicated at the moment; it is not easy, particularly for the millions of small businesses, to keep up to date with the changes that are being made. I am sure that mistakes are made, but I do not think that, at this point in time, this particular edition of the Pensions Regulator is proportionate to the problems in that area.

Moving on to the second order, those of us who have worked with or alongside the United States will be well aware that there are six states, Delaware being the leading one, that do not co-operate with the US Government very much at all in declaring who has moved money in and out of a state. We have had instances in the past on the Public Accounts Committee where it was clear that that particular state—and five others, I think—just does not co-operate. This all sounds fine here, but what will happen in relation to those states that do not co-operate with the US Government as a whole?

Secondly, what is the position of our overseas territories? I declare an interest: I have family in the Cayman Islands. In my judgment and, I think, in that of Her Majesty’s Government, those islands have been highly co-operative in trying to find a modus vivendi in the illegal movement of funds. Other parts of the overseas territories have not been quite so co-operative. It is not clear to me whether this agreement with the US is limited to just the UK and, as far as the States is concerned, probably does not touch those six states—I have mentioned only the leading one. I am not sure whether this measure covers the overseas territories. I do not think that it does, but I would be grateful for elucidation on that point.

Are we in a position to say okay, we have got the States, but there are other countries that we believe we should have a similar agreement with? If that is private and confidential, I do not expect it to be indicated this evening, but it would be helpful for the Committee to know the key parties—that is, countries—that we would like to have agreements with.

Paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that

“the Parties shall engage in a review of each Party’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement”.

One wonders how often. I happened to notice that tomorrow we will deal with a separate SI in which reviews will occur every three years. In other places, it is eight years. There does not seem to be too much consistency in government.

Paragraph 7.6 states:

“The IPA is included in this list, but the COPO Act is not, because it did not exist when the IPA was drafted. Consequently, the IPC is currently unable to keep under review any Agreement-related activity exercisable by virtue of the COPO Act, such as the use of OPOs.”


Is this not a loophole? Since we are doing this now—this measure must have been prepared some time ago—what are we doing to close that loophole?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, Lord Morris? I think we have to move on, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, for his brief appearance. I could not keep up with the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, so I have missed some bits out. I hope to pick them up in the answers to other questions, but I will write to him if not.

I was very pleased to hear the opening remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett; I thought he would be supportive. He admitted to never having heard of the UK National Authority for Counter Eavesdropping. I join him in that: neither have I. It is the national authority for technical security and counter-eavesdropping. It helps the Government on technical espionage attacks by hostile state actors. Its capabilities and purpose are distinct and focus on countering close-access technical operations that could ultimately damage national security.

As he will know only too well, hostile state actors currently have the desire and the means to gain access to or otherwise compromise the integrity of highly classified communications systems and secure facilities. They are known to be able to carry out close-attack technical attacks, as demonstrated by the attack on the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague by the Russian intelligence services in 2018. In that case, the Dutch authorities were able to detect and apprehend the agents involved, along with a car full of equipment.

We assessed that Russia and other hostile state actors, particularly China, will continue to attempt to disrupt, attack and commit espionage in the UK. I do not think any noble Lords in the Committee would disagree with that. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s recent report into the interference by Russia in UK democracy demonstrates intent, capability and, indeed, tenacity.

There is also the insider threat to consider, whereby an individual in an organisation may place a device for eavesdropping purposes. Insider threats can be from corrupt, compromised, disgruntled staff or from contractors. They can be among the hardest threats to identify. In order to fulfil its role, the UK National Authority for Counter Eavesdropping needs to be able to identify illicit and covert eavesdropping devices that may be present in sensitive and classified areas and then identify the user behind the device using communications data. We are now all experts in that particular agency.

There were a number of questions, particularly from the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Foulkes, about agencies being added and taken away, about why that happens and about the purposes of the various agencies that have been added. For clarity, the authorities we are talking about are the Pensions Regulator, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Environment Agency and the Insolvency Service. It was right that those powers were removed in 2015, just as it is right for them to be reinstated now. We cannot foresee how operational requirements will evolve in response to the crimes that public authorities are investigating. We need to have the option to add and remove authorities depending on the necessity of the powers; the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was right that it is nothing to do with the coalition. This is precisely why the IPA included the power to add and remove bodies from Schedule 4.

These authorities have all demonstrated a strong necessity and proportionality case against similar criteria that the Home Office applied when removing powers in 2015. Those criteria were: the statutory responsibilities of the authorities with access; the seriousness of the offences that they investigate; and the number of requests that they made. As is demonstrated by the case of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary in particular, which does not expect to use the powers often, assessing the volume of applications made is perhaps not the most effective of criteria for deciding which bodies should be listed in Schedule 4. The risk here is just too high to ignore. A public authority can make infrequent use of powers, yet still lead on investigations where communications data is critical.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Naseby on celebrating his diamond wedding anniversary today.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Tomorrow.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

In fact, I think I ought to congratulate his wife more than him on enduring 60 years of marital bliss with my noble friend.

My noble friend talked about local fly-tipping. That is precisely the type of thing for which the Environment Agency might wish to use its communications data powers to protect the natural environment. Its statutory duties include the protection of the environment, natural resources and, of course, human health, which fly-tipping affects. It prosecutes offences that create serious risks of harm to people and the environment, such as illegal landfills and hazardous waste disposal—that might come under my noble friend’s question—and treatment and shipments. Its remit encompasses more than 400 different offences and it encounters some 40,000 suspected offences each year. Of course, we know that waste crime costs the economy in excess of £600 million a year.

Back in 2018, the Secretary of State for the Environment announced an independent review into waste crime, which published the report Independent Review into Serious and Organised Crime in the Waste Sector. That report recommended that the Home Office grant communications data powers under Part 3 of the Investigatory Powers Act. We have a duty to respond to that recommendation.

My noble friend asked about the DHSC. Its inclusion has nothing to do with financial matters; it is purely because its name has changed. He also talked about the Pensions Regulator. It is sad to say so, but criminality in pensions is not only a present threat but a growing one. It is recognised as a risk by the Pensions Regulator and its supporting regulatory partners, including the Serious Fraud Office, the National Crime Agency and HMRC. Having previously referred cases to law enforcement partners to prosecute, the Pensions Regulator now actively leads on these types of investigations and the prosecution of offenders. As my noble friend will appreciate, communications data will be a vital tool in assisting these investigations.

The Pensions Regulator took ownership of Project Bloom from the NCA in 2016. Bloom is a multiagency approach to pension scams and fraud. The Pensions Regulator can evidence £500 million-worth of scams in its regulatory remit, which is quite significant. It estimates that the ongoing threat runs into several billion pounds. Through Project Bloom, the Pensions Regulator has been running a communications campaign with the FCA featuring national television advertising campaigns, which noble Lords may well have seen.

The noble Lord also asked about states, such as Delaware, that do not co-operate. It is to companies rather than states that these requests will be made. That is an important point. Overseas territories do not use it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, asked about the review. It has not yet appeared because the agreement is not yet in force. I am sure that when it is the review will be forthcoming.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, asked about temporary powers. Those statutory powers will last for one year. He asked about the IPCO’s role in all this. It will cover its role in the agreement and in the annual report, which is publicly available.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, rightly asked about the business cases, which I did not go into at great length because they are sensitive and extremely lengthy. Reflecting on that thought, I am very happy to organise a private session to go through the business cases for interested noble Lords. The noble Lord also asked about the consultation period under the Investigatory Powers Act. A 12-week period is required for consultation with relevant public authorities and the IPCO on Schedule 4 changes.

The noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, asked how many organisations have applied and been turned down. I do not know the answer to that question, but I can find out. They also covered the death penalty assurances, which they know are being sought. It was interesting that we have received assurances from the US that should the UK accede to the 2015 MLA request by transferring evidence, the death penalty will not be sought or imposed in any prosecution in the recent case of Kotey and Elsheikh. I hope noble Lords will understand—I know they will—that it would not be appropriate to comment any further while legal challenges are ongoing in that case.

The noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick, talked about additional resources. They are well-versed in our ambitions for 20,000 police officers. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked about lowering the rank. Quite simply, no lowering of the rank is required. On the ISC, it is not a requirement in the legislation already using the enhanced procedure—laid for 40 days and debated in both Houses—but I fundamentally agree with the noble Lords that engagement with the ISC is an important factor.

The final question to which I have an answer is about safeguards, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I am sure the IPCO will lay out any concerns the commissioner has in his annual report, particularly on any safeguarding issues around the whole regime.

I will leave it there for now. I will attempt to answer any questions I have not answered in writing.

Motion agreed.