Asylum: Sexual Orientation

Lord Oates Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as I said, those data are not published, so I cannot give the noble Baroness an answer at this time.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister confirmed in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Scriven that the Government do not record people who apply to the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme on grounds of sexuality. She will be aware that it was a recommendation of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration that such information should be recorded. Can she therefore tell me how the Government can monitor whether these claims are being handled properly?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I said that this information is not published but that the Government collect it. There is guidance and there have been improvements in training, so we take this matter very seriously, as I hope I have explained. It is bad enough having to come here from a country where you have been persecuted because of your sexuality without then having to go through another very uncomfortable process, so we continue to monitor the guidance and the training around this very sensitive area.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Oates Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grabiner (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I should disclose an interest as having been appointed some years ago now as chairman of the management and standards committee established by News Corp, following the revelation of the phone hacking scandal.

I want to say a few words about Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. I respectfully suggest caution as regards whether such an amendment should be approved by the Committee. In my experience—and I have had quite a lot of it—looking at many of the cases arising out of that scandal, journalists tend to be not very good at distinguishing between the public interest and matters which they believe will be of interest to the public. There is quite a fundamental distinction, but one which, regrettably, in my experience is not really appreciated by journalists, even the best of them. It may not be a very wise manoeuvre to introduce this defence into the Bill, as it would encourage journalists to hope that they might secure the benefit of that defence and would thereby be justified in conducting essentially voicemail hacking activity. In my view—and experience confirms this—these cases are mostly about trying to get hold of a story, often a sleazy one, which is wholly intrusive into private lives and little or nothing to do with the public interest. I would be inclined to oppose that amendment if it is pursued.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I will not detain the Committee long. I support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Paddick and Lady Hamwee and I will speak briefly to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.

During the coalition, I was involved in the discussions which led to the royal charter and the other commitments made by all the party leaders and the coalition Government. It is important either that the Government commence the relevant parts of the Act or, as the noble Baroness has indicated, that this amendment should proceed to a Division when the Bill comes back on Report. The Secretary of State’s failure to commence the relevant sections of the Act is an utter betrayal of the commitments which were made at the time by all parties, including the Prime Minister. Most importantly, it is an utter betrayal of the many victims of phone hacking and other invasions of privacy who were to be protected by the royal charter and the Act. I hope that the Government will think very carefully about this. Perhaps the Prime Minister, before he leaves office, will stand up and ensure that the commitments which he made personally are implemented.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly on Amendment 16, to which I added my name, which has already been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Should the Government accept the logic of that amendment, they might also want to look at Clause 4(8)(b)(i), which ought also to be amended to include “a private postal service”. Like the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, I think the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, sounds like a carte blanche for allowing private phone hacking. The noble Lord came up with better words than I could when he spoke about thinking that “public interest” and of “interest to the public” were the same. I would be very alarmed at the idea of allowing phone hacking by private bodies, simply because they thought it might be in the public interest.

The more substantial issue in this group is dealt with in Amendments 18 and 246—I refer to them as the Leveson amendments. The Labour Party has an interest in Amendment 18. Our names are not on it but our former leader, my right honourable friend Ed Miliband, was, along with the current Prime Minister, one of the signatories to the deal which has already been described and which led to amendments being withdrawn in this House and in the Commons. Failing to implement Parliament’s decision on this matter is a shameful disregard for the law on the part of the Government. The Act was passed in good faith and the Government should have implemented it, in accordance with the wishes of this House and the other place. Non-commencement is an unacceptable device to undermine legislation which has been passed.

Amendment 18 seeks gently to encourage the Government to bring into effect the law already passed, and we hope they will agree to do that. I will not rehearse the case that has been made so well already. However, it is remarkable that, as we consider a Bill on investigatory powers that sets out clearly and openly what the state and its agencies can do regarding hacking—the limits, the safeguards and the penalties for exceeding the law—private and unaccountable profit-making bodies such as the press continue to get away with things our spooks rightly would not be able to. The Government should not undermine Parliament by failing to commence Section 40 and we hope that, today, they will show their willingness to act now.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Oates Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, it is intimidating to follow so many noble and learned friends on my own side, let alone all around the House, but I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate because, over the five years that I worked in the coalition Government, we wrestled with many of the issues that this Bill attempts to address. We recognised that our society faces real threats and that it is the duty of the Government to address them.

The then Deputy Prime Minister for whom I worked took that responsibility extremely seriously. He never had the slightest patience with those who dismissed these threats or opposed necessary proportionate and workable measures to counter those threats for ideological reasons. He was committed to ensuring that the security services had the powers they needed and he supported legislation where there was an evidence-based case for it, such as the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. He opposed legislation, such as the draft communications data Bill, where there was not. He was as impatient with those who were careless of our liberties as he was with those who were careless of our security.

I share the approach that he took. I do not see liberty and security as items to be weighed against each other on opposing scales but as principles essential to reinforcing each other. There is no liberty without security but, equally, no security without liberty. Anyone who has lived in a country where the authorities are constantly monitoring what you do, and where they think that they have the right to interfere with your liberty, will know just how insecure that makes you feel. I have no doubt about the threats we face or of the suffering brought about by terrorism, child exploitation or any of the other heinous crimes that the police and intelligence services have to tackle. I was lucky enough to work alongside members of the intelligence services in the previous Government and I have nothing but admiration for the work they do on our behalf and the way they go about it.

I welcome the fact that the Bill is a considerable improvement on the existing arrangements. It covers previously unavowed powers and contains significantly greater safeguards and oversight than had previously been present. It is particularly welcome that it has dispensed with the proposals in the draft communications data Bill that UK network providers be forced to collect and store third-party data relating to services operated by companies overseas.

At the time of the communications data Bill, we refused to agree to such a proposal because no one could make a credible case for it. In the absence of evidence or argument, it was simply asserted that if we did not agree to such a proposal, public safety would be put in jeopardy. Without a shred of evidence to support it, people who should have known better—including some Members of this House—went on television to castigate the then Deputy Prime Minister in the most lurid terms, accusing him of putting lives at risk.

Of course, subsequently, the highly respected Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, investigated the issue and could not have been clearer in his report that he found that no operational case had been made for the power and that,

“there should be no question of progressing this element of the old draft Bill until such time as a compelling operational case has been made”.

It is with that experience in mind that I am sceptical of demands for powers which are not backed up with evidence and which Ministers seek to push through simply by making an assertion that they are necessary for public safety.

While I welcome many parts of the Bill, it is in that context that I regard the retention of internet connection records as an issue of grave concern. The Home Office failed to make an operational case for it. The Government have not approached the issue by demonstrating where a lack of data is obstructing criminal investigations and then exploring how to tackle it. They have taken a proposal that the Home Office has been pushing unsuccessfully for nearly 10 years—perhaps more—and stated that the data would be useful for the police and intelligence services. That is not evidence-based policy-making; it is policy-based evidence-making and we should not accept it unless we have some much better answers than the Home Office managed to provide in the other place.

As my noble friend Lord Paddick highlighted, the Bill establishes a power for the Government to demand the retention of the internet connection records of every single person in this country for a 12-month period in case the state might wish to interrogate those data at some future date. It allows access to the huge amounts of data that will be collected by designated persons without a warrant. It is a very significant power for the Government to demand, a power which outside Russia is operated by no even nominally democratic country in the world. As my noble friend pointed out, Denmark, which operated such a system, has abandoned it, as its security forces were drowning in information they could not process. The scale of data retention under this proposal will be massive. The storage of such a vast amount of personal and private data will be a honeypot for hackers and risks compromising the privacy of millions of innocent people.

Many noble Lords have rightly made the point that the measures in the Bill have been subject probably to greater parliamentary and independent scrutiny than any similar measures that have come before Parliament, and the Government have made many welcome changes. I note in passing that this scrutiny and these changes have been possible only because people in the previous Government would not accept the imposition of measures without scrutiny and an evidence base and insisted that it be provided.

But despite all the parliamentary scrutiny, the public are almost wholly unaware that when this Bill is enacted it will mean the retention of everyone’s often highly personal internet connection records for a period of 12 months, under conditions of security which are unclear. When this power is put to members of the public, the evidence is that they are almost universally horrified by the potential threat it poses to their privacy. We should take that extremely seriously and we should be extremely cautious before we grant such a unique power to our Government. Neither should we lull ourselves into a false sense of security about what security this data can actually provide for us. We should not be naive enough to ignore the fact that those who wish us harm, such as Daesh, are unlikely to be troubled by such a power; they have plenty of ways to mask their activities.

So I hope that we will proceed with caution rather than complacency before we grant the power. In particular I hope that the Government can answer a number of questions. What exactly will ICRs cover? How will the ICR requirements operate in respect of communications on mobile devices via apps? What is the scope of the information they will provide? Where will the data be stored and under what conditions of security? Also, how is it sustainable for the Government to claim that these vast amounts of data can be stored and accessed securely at such a comparatively minimal cost? How is the figure calculated and is it not likely, as it is so often in these cases, to be exponentially more expensive than originally estimated? Lastly, why is the Home Office demanding a power that none of our allies appears to believe is proportional or necessary? We need answers to these questions before we proceed with this part of the Bill.

A number of other important issues in addition to ICRs have been mentioned today, in particular legal and professional privilege, bulk data collection and issues of extra-territoriality. All are areas that we will need to consider carefully during the future stages of the Bill. Finally, we should be wary of creating too cosy a consensus on this Bill lest that dulls our skills of scrutiny when there are very serious issues still to consider.

Identity Documentation

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak in this debate. If ever I wondered about the need for a Liberal party, I do not wonder after hearing the comments today. I was proud to be part of the coalition Government in 2010 who repealed the Identity Cards Act 2006 and who ordered the destruction of the national identity database. I am also proud that my party has been consistent throughout its history in opposing national identity card schemes. Indeed, it was the only party that opposed from the outset the Labour Government’s attempts to impose identity cards in 2004. I am also pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Scriven in opposing the suggestion again today.

There are many reasons, both of principle and practicality, why a national identity card scheme is a very bad idea. The most important issue of principle is that it would fundamentally alter the relationship between the state and its citizens. It violates the fundamental traditions of Britain that have kept our liberties safe.

We need to be really clear about what a national ID card system, with a national ID card database, actually means. For the first time in our peacetime history, the state would have the power to demand information from every person in the land, not in order for them to travel or gain an internationally recognised travel document—a passport—or to prove that they have complied with the driving test, or even to gain access to a public service, but simply because they exist. For the first time in peacetime, every person in this country would be compelled to attend a designated place, to be fingerprinted and to have their biometric data taken from them. On every occasion that a citizen moved house the state would have the right to know. More than that, every citizen would be under a duty to inform the state, and a penalty of severe fines, if they moved their premises.

An ID scheme is being discussed here as if it is just some administrative system. It is a fundamental departure from the way we operate in this country. I can think of no other common-law country in the world that operates a national identity scheme—none. Indeed, we have heard comments from noble Lords telling us how popular a national identity system would be. I wonder about that, because there are two common-law countries that thought about introducing such a system: Australia and New Zealand. They backtracked pretty rapidly because as soon as the public actually knew what it meant they changed their views on it rather quickly. Indeed, I can think of no other democracy in the world that operates a national ID scheme that does not offer its citizens the protection of a written constitution and a Bill of Rights.

[Lord Desai]

Does the noble Lord not think that India is a democracy? Does it not have a written constitution? It has an identity card: 900 million people have such cards.

[Lord Oates]

I absolutely believe in a written constitution.

[Lord Desai]

But does the noble Lord not believe that India is a democracy? He said that no democracy has it, but India is a democracy.

[Lord Oates]

India has a written constitution. I said that no democracy in the world operates a national identity system that does not have and does not afford its citizens the protection of a written constitution, which India does, and a Bill of Rights, which India also does. The noble Lord makes my point rather clearly.

I will rapidly wind up my comments, but I want to address a couple of specific things. The noble Lord, Lord Blair, told the House about circumstances in which the police and the security services did not, and still do not, have information about who somebody actually is. He also said that the police would not need to stop people and demand papers from them, but in those circumstances it is not clear to me how he could be absolutely sure that the people he refers to would have had documents. If the police are not checking for them, it would certainly be possible for people to avoid that.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, had a lot of faith in biometric data, but as we have heard evidenced, 10% of French biometric passports have been found to be forged. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke about illegal workers and tax evasion, but as we know, places such as Italy, France and other countries with ID cards still have to deal with those problems.

A national identity card system would not protect us from terrorism, or stop illegal immigration or illegal workers. But above all, it would violate the fundamental principle that, in this country, it is the state that accounts to the people; it is not the people who have to account to the state.