Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 11th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, I wonder whether we might first get what might be called “private grief” out of the way—that is, the difference between my view on this matter and that of my party’s Front Bench. If I run the risk of being accused of consistency on this, I am proud of it.

Let us start with the point that my noble friend made about the United States of America. Yes, the United States of America has the body he has described, but how effective is it? I wonder whether my noble friend has examined the Patriot Act and its consequences. It is a set of provisions that allows the American authorities to do what is unimaginable here; for example, at their own whim, to look up the credit card transactions of any citizen throughout the United States for any given period. I do not want to replicate that.

I want also to pick up on a point made very briefly but eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. This amendment, in my judgment, betrays a lack of confidence in the security services that is completely unjustified. Anyone who has ever looked properly at the way in which the security services have been managed, at least in recent times, or anyone who, like myself, has examined the behaviour of the security services in very difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland in recent times, will know that the management is extremely rigorous and does not need the help of an expensive and ill-conceived quango to ensure that its staff behave properly.

The risks to national security from the sloppy drafting of subsection (5) of the amendment are manifest. There is no provision here for the members of the board to be directly vetted. That means that whoever the members of the board were, they would be entitled under subsection (5)(a) of the amendment to have access to,

“all relevant material (including classified information) held by any government department or agency”.

Presumably it would be their opinion as to what was relevant. Indeed, they would be able to call as witnesses or take statements from,

“personnel of any department and agency”.

That is a provision completely unparalleled in our history.

Furthermore, this proposal usurps the powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee. There is nothing provided by the amendment that the Intelligence and Security Committee cannot at least reasonably do. The amendment clearly envisages that this will be a political board, but outside the control of Parliament, because it says that no more than three members should come from any single political party. It is a sort of freeloading, undisciplined version of the Intelligence and Security Committee, without the control of either the Executive or Parliament.

Also, it looks like a very expensive board, compared, at least, with the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. Neither David Anderson, nor I as his predecessor, ever complained about our remuneration as independent reviewer, but it pales into insignificance by at least two noughts on the end compared with this unnecessary board.

Furthermore, such a board would duplicate not just the Intelligence and Security Committee, but all the additional provisions, some contained in welcome government amendments, that have been added to the Bill. I have been watching every detail of the Bill over its very long period of gestation. More information was given when the Bill was first tabled than on any other Bill I have ever known, including more information about the security services than we have ever seen in parliamentary papers. We will now have an independent reviewer, commissioners, judges—a whole panoply of people applying sound management and good judicial principles to the considerations that the board would vaguely look at. It is not even a civil liberties board: it is not what it says on the tin, because civil liberties are not merely connected with investigatory powers.

This proposal is a fudge and it is misleading. I apologise to my noble friends for saying so, but as I have said, I have been completely consistent about this. It is one of the worst proposals I have seen on national security that has ever been proposed to your Lordships’ House. I shall not support it, I hope that others among my noble friends will not support it, and I urge the House to reject it.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, all I can say in response so far is thank heavens we do not have the coalition Government in power. I support entirely what we have just heard from the noble Lord, the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.

I will choose my words carefully. One of the things that is worth thinking about with legislation like this is that we have the Government today, but we are legislating; we are Parliament. How would the Opposition use this? When I look at my friends in opposition, frankly, I will support the Government to vote this down. I am not prepared to abstain on such a barmy and dangerous amendment, as the noble Lord just said.

I will not go through the amendment. In fact, the noble Lord who moved it did not go through it. He did not explain what it meant by “professional qualifications, achievements” and “public stature” for the appointments. It is preposterous and a nosy parker’s charter into investigatory powers because it does not talk about looking at things; it demands access to all material from an agency and requests information from any agency or government department. There is nothing about the staff of the body. Forget the fact it is envisaged that three out of five members of the board will be of the same political party—it is envisaged to be party political—there is nothing about the security aspects of the staff, let alone the vetting of the people.

It is not, as the amendment says, just about civil liberties. It is in many ways trying to second-guess the powers of the commissioners. It is trying to second-guess the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the parliamentary security committee. We should have nothing to do with it. I hope the noble Lord will think twice if he is thinking about calling a Division on this. They will be laughed out of court.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I fully support what the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Rooker, have said. The amendment would create a security nightmare and be a recipe for obfuscation, muddle and confusion. Indeed, it is a dangerous proposal and I am amazed that it has been put forward. If the House divided, I would vote against it. Accepting it would be a grave error, and I am surprised and shocked to see such an amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

That is precisely why I have suggested to the House that it is not unreasonable for the new Ministers in post to take a fresh look for themselves at the issues involved, as I hope the noble Lord will appreciate.

[Lord Rooker]

That being said, can I follow up my noble friend’s question? The Minister listed groups that have asked the Government to implement Section 40. Is there an individual or group that has requested the new Government not to implement it?

[Earl Howe]

I am not aware of that, but I can seek advice and let the noble Lord know when I have received it.

I do not believe that the amendments that the noble Baroness has tabled will achieve the outcome that she seeks. This clause deals with the interception of private telecommunication systems, such as a company’s internal email or telephone system. That is not, I think, what the noble Baroness is driving at, so I do not believe the amendment would be capable of being used as she intends.

That reflects a broader point that these issues should not really be dealt with in this Bill. I am all too well aware that many people suffered terribly at the hands of unscrupulous members of the media, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Baroness, whose family, I know, suffered unspeakable wrongdoing by people who called themselves journalists. While we all agree that the outcome of Leveson and the proper regulation of the media are clearly important matters, the powers for law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies provided in this Bill are vitally important, too. It is not right to try to deal with serious but largely unrelated matters in a Bill of this vital national interest.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I hope that the Government will be assiduous—particularly when it comes to the operation of the codes of practice, but also in keeping the impact of this legislation under review—in seeking to ensure that the police, the intelligence services and the judicial commissioners really will be scrupulous and sparing in their applications, that the use of these very significant powers in relation to journalism will be extremely rare, and that there will be rigorous oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to ensure that these amendments, as well as Amendments 10 and 11, will not just work in theory but have real bite in protecting the confidential sources of information which are the wellspring of press freedom and, as my noble friend said, fundamental to our democracy.

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, I am not a journalism specialist like the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Black. Having listened to the debate, I have a couple of points which I hope the Minister will find supportive. The overall package of the Bill that has now been presented on Report is far more liberal than would ever have come forward from the Labour Government of which I was a member for 12 years. We would have been far less willing to give in the way this Government have. What they have brought forward is remarkable. I can almost prove that. I attended the Labour Party conference in Liverpool, where there were hundreds of fringe meetings every day. I scanned the book, dozens of pages of it, because I was there the previous year when the situation with this Bill was slightly different. Not one fringe meeting was advertised in relation to any part of this Bill. There was nothing about journalism, lawyers or investigatory powers; absolutely nothing compared to the previous two years. I find that quite practical and I hope the Government will find it reassuring.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, to add to that, I too am most impressed with the package the Government have come up with. It is really impressive. It shows a great willingness to compromise but does not compromise our security at all. I also pass my good wishes to the noble Earl on the 219th anniversary of his ancestor raising the siege of Gibraltar.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Monday 17th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 137B to 137F in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. We return to the issue of informing innocent people when they have been subjected to targeted surveillance by law enforcement or the security and intelligence agencies. The European Court of Human Rights said in 2007:

“As soon as notification of targeted surveillance can be made without jeopardising the purpose of the surveillance after its termination, information should be provided to the persons concerned”.

When we raised the issue in Committee, the Minister raised a series of quite reasonable objections, which we have tried to address in this new amendment.

In Committee, the Minister said:

“It would not be practical, for example, for the commissioner to make everyone whose data were subject to a data retention notice aware of that fact”.

Of course, we agree. We therefore restrict the notification requirement to targeted interception warrants, where a person’s communications are intercepted, and targeted examination warrants, where communications are acquired in bulk and a UK citizen’s communications are among those acquired in bulk and the security and intelligence agencies wish to examine those communications. The provisions would also apply where a targeted equipment interference warrant is used. This would ensure that only when the specific individual’s communications are intercepted or equipment interfered with would notification have to be considered.

In Committee, the Minister said that,

“we would need to notify suspected criminals and terrorists that they have been under investigation just because a specific ongoing investigation had stalled or, indeed, had concluded with evidence of wrongdoing but with insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution”.

We have therefore written into the amendment that notification shall not be given if the person is suspected of being involved in terrorism-related or other criminal activity.

In Committee, the Minister said that,

“suspected criminals and terrorists will often appear on the radar of the police and the security services at different times in the context of different investigations. It would clearly not be appropriate to inform them that investigatory powers had been used against them in a particular case”.

Of course, we agree. The amendment now states that notification shall not be given if it might prejudice any continuing or anticipated investigation concerning the subject of the surveillance or any other person.

The Minister said in Committee that our amendment,

“would put unreasonable burdens on all public authorities covered by this Bill to require them constantly to need to make a case to the commissioner as to whether it would hamper national security or serious crime investigations if subjects were told that investigatory powers had been used against them”.

We do not agree. We hope that the number of occasions when completely innocent people are targeted will be small and the amendment now includes the provision that notice should not be given if the Investigatory Powers Commissioner determines that it is in the interests of national security, or the public interest in preventing or detecting serious crime, that it is not given. In most cases, this will be obvious and require no further justification from the public authorities.

The Minister in Committee further objected that notification would,

“not just run contrary to the long-standing policy of successive Governments of neither confirming nor denying any specific activity by the security and intelligence agencies, but would essentially require the techniques the agencies use in specific cases to be made public”.—[Official Report, 5/9/16; col. 858.]

It has not been the long-standing policy of successive Governments to deny that the security services kept a record of the details of every phone call made in the UK until recently and it is not a reasonable argument simply to say, “That’s what we’ve always done”. However, we have taken on board the Minister’s other criticisms and included in the amendment that notification,

“shall include no details of the methods used or any other matter which might hinder any future investigation”.

Having, I believe, dealt with all the objections the Minister raised in Committee, I hope the Minister responding will reconsider whether post-event notification could, in the circumstances I have described, be allowed, and that the Government will accept the amendment.

Amendments 137B to 137E are related to Amendment 137A, to the extent that they seek to tighten up on error reporting. Amendment 137B deletes the phrase “the Commissioner considers that” from Clause 209(1), so that the commissioner must report a serious error whether or not they consider it so. Whether the error is serious should be an objective test, not a subjective consideration by the commissioner. Amendment 137C deletes the condition that,

“it is in the public interest for the person to be informed”.

Surely, if the error is serious it should be reported—or, to put it another way, surely it must always be in the public interest if the error is serious.

Amendment 137D would delete the provision stating that notification should be given only if the error has caused “significant” prejudice or harm to the person concerned, and adds wording so that the clause would state that they should be notified if the error,

“has caused or may cause prejudice or harm to the person concerned”.

The argument here has echoes of an amendment that the Government rejected earlier on Report—that asking a commissioner to make a decision on whether the prejudice or harm is significant muddies the waters.

Amendment 137E would delete Clause 209(9)(b), which defines a relevant error. There appears to us to be no need to describe in regulations the kind of error to which these provisions relate. We believe that the definition in Clause 209(9)(a) is sufficient.

Amendment 137F relates to the final paragraph of Clause 209, which states that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner should,

“keep under review the definition of ‘relevant error’”.

We have added a requirement that any recommendations should be included in reports made under Clause 212, which covers annual and other reports required from the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.

I beg to move Amendment 137A.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Can the noble Lord explain proposed new subsection 3(b)? Could the subject of a warrant challenge that subsection using other legislation —on the fact that there are “no details”, for example? Is it open to challenge by that person, using any of the other laws on the statute book?

[Lord Paddick]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I have absolutely no idea whether they could or could not.

[Lord Rooker]

I submit that they could. The lawyers will find a way to fill the courts with challenges from the crooks and spivs we are trying to protect the British public from. But I will wait for the Minister’s technical answer, rather than the one I gave.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

To pose a legal challenge which is not based on any instance or evidence of the basis on which such a challenge could be made—I certainly cannot think of a basis on which someone could require the production of knowledge of the means used for interception, based on existing legislation.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 19th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

If my noble friend wants me to be specific, I will, but I was trying not to take up too much time. Let us take the example of a piece of information, given to a security service, that people in possession of a bulk delivery of a certain type of telecommunications equipment, say a phone brand, are involved in the planning of a terrorist event. In order to find out quickly who these people are, the authorities would need to attack the bulk, so as to exclude all people who are not involved in the planned event. This is an absolutely routine technique that is used. I see one or two of my noble friends turning round in surprise. If they are surprised, they have not even read modern spy novels, let alone about the reality of what is being done by intelligence agencies all around the world.

The answer to my noble friend is as simple as that. I will just repeat my question, because I would like him to reply to it in due course. I take it that he has read the code of practice. What is missing from the code of practice that is required in order to provide the protection he wishes for? It is all in the code of practice; it is all in the statute. I apologise for repeating something I said on Monday, but these provisions, as drafted, are a careful and responsible response by a Government who wish to do no more than the state absolutely has to, safely, to protect their citizens.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I will answer that point. The Bill of course is not draconian in any way whatever. It is a modest response to the technology that exists today, and an attempt to look at the technology of tomorrow that we do not know about. That is part of the problem. I regret that I was a bit late and missed the first 20 seconds of the noble Lord’s introduction, so I may have this wrong, but he gave the impression that David Anderson supported his amendment. One only has to go to the report published in August, from which I want to put two sentences on the record. Paragraph 6.16 says:

“There is a clear value in the use of bulk powers to eliminate lines of enquiry, so that resources can be concentrated elsewhere and disruption to the public minimised”.

I do not think we should fetter the security services by this amendment. The other sentence from the report that I want to put on the record is in paragraph 6.47, at point (d):

“Even where alternatives might be available, they are frequently more intrusive than the use of bulk acquisition”.

Most of the bulk acquisition will never, ever be read. The vast majority—99.999%—will never be read or studied by anybody, and it gives a false impression when the noble Lord says that all our telephone calls, internet searches, and web browsing will be read by someone. That is simply not true. What is more, he has been briefed and knows that that is the case. I do not see why the opponents of the Bill, in this House or the other House, should try to give a false impression of what it is trying to do. I hope the noble Lord tests the opinion of the House, because I would like it clearly on the record that he probably has little or no support for his amendment.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

I can be brief. I must begin of course by expressing my regret that I do not agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench. There is nothing more insulting than the expression, “If you could only see what passes across my desk, you would take a different view”. I do not use that expression, but I have to admit that I cannot expunge from my memory my experience as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee and my contact during that period with the security services. Essentially, we are talking about a question of judgment. My judgment is legitimately assisted by the conclusions of the report from Mr David Anderson, who was, a bit like Moses, dispatched up the mountain and told to come back with tablets of stone. In particular he came back with case studies, and I defy anyone to read them and not be persuaded beyond all doubt of the necessity for the powers that we are discussing today. As my noble friend Lord Carlile has pointed out, Mr Anderson reached the proven conclusion of the operational purpose of three powers and made a further case in respect of the fourth.

Sometimes in the course of these deliberations we confine ourselves to the question of terrorism. As has been mentioned, I think in passing, we should always remember that these are powers that are apt to deal with the question of organised crime and, more particularly, in the rather febrile atmosphere that surrounds the matter, the question of child sexual abuse.

Mr Anderson made the observation, which I doubt anyone would wish to challenge, that the pace of technological change is frightening. We all carry a mobile phone in our pockets; if we think of the first one we ever got some 20 years ago and compare it with the capacity of the one that we now have, that is as powerful an illustration of technological change as one could imagine.

I suppose the question may arise as to whether what we are discussing is necessary and proportionate. I respectfully suggest that the nature of the threat—I noticed as soon as I came into the building that the threat level is still severe—and the experience across the Channel, plus the experience of the security services in dealing with plots, argues beyond peradventure that what is proposed here is both necessary and proportionate. For these reasons, I regret I will not be able to follow my noble friend Lord Paddick when he tests the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

I am grateful to the Minister and to other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. As regards the comments of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, despite my request that he specifically address the issue of internet connection records, I did not hear him do so. We are not against the bulk acquisition of communications data in general or per se. We oppose only the bulk acquisition of internet connection records as part of those data.

On the question my noble friend Lord Carlile raised about the codes of practice, of course they are comprehensive. However, through this amendment we are trying to prevent internet connection records being acquired in bulk, which is allowed for in the codes of practice.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was of a different opinion from the one that I quoted—that the Bill was draconian. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to emphasise to the House that it was the current Labour shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, who described the Bill as draconian.

[Lord Rooker]

For the avoidance of doubt, I understood that—that was the point I made.

[Lord Paddick]

I did not suggest in any way that David Anderson agreed with this amendment, or that the lists of everybody’s websites would be read, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, suggested.

As regards the comments made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, he referred to case studies in the David Anderson report on bulk data. I cannot emphasise this enough to noble Lords: internet connection records do not currently exist. The telecommunications companies will have to create them. Therefore any case studies in David Anderson’s report do not relate to the bulk collection of internet connection records. Internet connection records do not exist, so they cannot be collected in bulk at the moment.

I acknowledge the great experience of the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, and his passion about these issues. He emphasised that everything needs to be done to prevent a terrorist attack, and I agree with him 100%. The point that I made in my opening speech when I quoted David Anderson directly, saying that it was a direct quote from him, was that GCHQ, MI5 and MI6—the agencies responsible for keeping us safe from terrorism—say that they do not need internet connection records. Even the Minister said that at present there is no anticipated need to collect internet connection records to prevent a terrorist attack.

I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for saying that we are making a fundamental point here. The difference between today’s debate and Monday’s debate is that requiring individuals’ internet connection records has to be based on reasonable suspicion. Thanks to the intervention of the Labour Front Bench, the level of the seriousness of the crime that needs to be suspected before those records can be handed over is higher than the Government first suggested. However, this power would allow everybody’s internet connection records to be acquired in bulk by the security agencies with no reasonable suspicion at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, Amendments 250A and 251A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, relate to technical capability notices through which the Secretary of State can require an operator to have a capacity to provide any assistance necessary that might be required to give effect to the powers under the Bill. We have received representations on behalf of operators asking that those notices should be specific about the distinct service or product to which the notice applies, rather than a blanket, “You must have the capability to do anything we may require you to do under the powers contained in legislation”. Amendment 250A is intended to have that effect, while Amendment 251A tries to limit the scope of technical capability notices. The power to issue a technical capability notice applies to any provider capable of being considered a telecommunications provider under the very broad definitions in the Bill. It would not be proportionate or necessary for this power to be so broad. The amendment aims to narrow the definition to exclude services that are not primarily communications services, even when there may be a communications element. Whether the wording of our amendment achieves that is a matter for debate, but that is what is intended. I beg to move.

[Lord Rooker]

Could the noble Lord list the operators to which he referred?

[Lord Paddick]

I can certainly tell the noble Lord that Yahoo! was one of the operators, but I do not have a list to hand.

--- Later in debate ---

In summary, I hope the Government will be able to confirm that they accept Amendments 251 and 252A. These would remove the uncertainty that exists in the current drafting of the Bill about whether operators can be forced to vandalise the security of their own products to the detriment of all internet users and the UK tech industry. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, if I could be convinced that the same rules applied everywhere on the globe—because we are talking about a global function—in respect of the rule of law, freedom, transparency and privacy protection, then I might have a bit of sympathy with the business operators, as we will call them.

I had the privilege of being among those serving on the RUSI panel. We had a discussion with the providers, but they did not all want to come and sit round the table at the same time—I recall two or three sessions—because they are competitors. We put it to them—it was not original; it had come up elsewhere—that not one of these companies, whether Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo or Microsoft, would ever have been able to start what is now their global business in countries such as Russia, Iran and China. Yet they have become global and make enormous profits, although I will not go into the issue of them paying their taxes.

These providers hide behind the fact that the countries where they are able to start and function have the rule of law and are democracies where you can challenge Governments in the courts and get redress, yet they then go and operate in countries where they cannot do that. If they all said, “When we operate in China, we’re going to produce all our phones fully encrypted, exactly as we do for everybody else. The Chinese Government are allowing us to close end to end. They don’t want to know what their citizens are saying”, then fine, but I do not believe that that is the case, and that is part of the problem.

My noble friend Lord Harris touched on the issue of other Governments, but we can legislate only for the UK. I fully understand that, yet half of an email sent from my office upstairs to a colleague here might be split and end up travelling through the rest of Europe or America or half-way round the world. That is how the system works. Just because you are emailing someone in this country from within this country, you cannot guarantee that the entire message will stay in this country while it is being whizzed round the world. The system does not work as I originally thought it did. So we can legislate only for this country and messages get split up around the world.

The fact is that the business plans and business operations of these companies depend on open, transparent and democratic countries with the rule of law, yet they are willing to work in countries where there is no rule of law and where there are corrupt regimes, such as in Russia, or undemocratic regimes, as in China. These are countries with huge populations and the companies can do business there according to a different business plan from the one that applies here. From the point of view of those who are there to protect us, that has to lead to a suspicion that at some point we might need a bit more information than we have and that we might need to ask for that to be provided.

I take second place to no one on the protection of privacy, but the fact is that you cannot discuss this issue just in the context of the UK or Europe; it is global, and the rules do not apply equally across the globe. If we take that on board, I think we ought to have a fair degree of sympathy with how the Government will operate these measures.

I have listened to other people and have read more about this matter since finishing our work on the RUSI panel, and the fact is that there is a great reluctance to have these powers. In a democracy there is an incredible reluctance for private information to be treated in this way, but at the end of the day there will be proportionality and our people will be tested on the need for these powers. One of the raisons d’être of the Bill is to put in second and third checks, so those with the powers will be watched and the watchers will be watched, and that is how we can give the public confidence. I do not think that we ought to write the Bill to suit the business operators’ original business plans, because they are not implementing them on an equal basis across the globe. Therefore, I hope that the Government will reject these amendments.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Before my noble friend sits down, to be honest I think that he has slightly misunderstood the point that has been made. I am not putting this forward because of the business models of particular companies; I am proposing it because of the inherent weakness that could conceivably be created. His argument, if I understood what he just said, is that because Russia or China may require, or may force because the business there is so valuable, a communications service provider to put in one of these back doors, therefore we need to have the same facility. The point is that, because it is a global provision, if a back door is built in—because Russia or China or wherever else has demanded it—then a technical capability notice would operate because the operator would have that existing facility. That is precisely the circumstance in which a technical capability notice could be served. This amendment seeks to exclude a requirement from our Government that it should be created at our behest, which other people would then use.

[Lord Rooker]

I take on board what my noble friend is saying. I fully accept the distinction he makes but, basically, although I am a customer of some of these companies, I do not trust them—they will tell us that this has been built in and is secure, but do deals with those other regimes.

[Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)]

My Lords, there have not been very many points in the course of this legislation on which I have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, but on this point I do. Amendment 252A raises a very interesting and important point.

Although I am absolutely in favour, as you would imagine, of the Government having the opportunity to access the communications of anybody who is a threat to us—due to terrorism, criminal activities or anything of that sort—there is a competing national security issue here of this country having effective cybersecurity. We have seen the way in which hostile Governments have been seeking to intervene in the American elections, and we have seen all sorts of attempts by hostile states, criminal groups and others to use cyber weaknesses to take forward hostile agendas. Therefore, there is a genuine national security interest in ensuring that, as far as we can, our citizens can communicate securely and privately when they are not going about mischievous business.

The idea that we should take into consideration the requirement not to place non-targeted customers or others at additional security risk is an entirely legitimate one, and I am very interested to hear how the Minister would want to interpret this. We have competing national security issues here and it is a point well made.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 31st October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the Minister on this group of amendments. As I do not propose to speak on the next and final group, I just want to make a couple of general points about the Bill, which will take only a minute or two.

This is the final day of our deliberations on the Bill, which has had a remarkable passage through Parliament. That is mainly due to the fact that the Government had a draft Bill, and there was also the independent report on surveillance and the work of the Joint Committee. Added to that, the Government were willing to respond to points made by amending the Bill. There will of course be only one issue for the Members of the Commons, who will see a non-government amendment on the matter on which we have just voted and on which I do not wish to comment.

I hope that Labour Party Members in the House of Commons will support the hundreds of Lords amendments. Many of these have been proposed by members of parties other than the government party, although a lot have come from the Government. They make this legislation more than a government Act; in my view, it is truly a parliamentary Act, given the input from other parties.

When the Bill was introduced in the Commons in March this year, I broke a 15-year vow of silence by speaking at the Parliamentary Labour Party to oppose the idea that Labour should abstain if there was a vote at Second Reading. I pleaded for support for the Bill at that point. However, there are still people on the Labour Benches in the Commons who oppose the Bill and I think that my colleagues there should ignore them. It is not a snoopers’ charter; it is not draconian; and it is not a stop-and-search power for the digital age. It will make UK citizens safer. Whether one looks at things like the request filter, the oversight procedures, the privacy protection or the obligations on communications service providers, just to take four aspects, it is a Bill that deserves active support, not sniping from the sidelines or the Front Bench.

There is one hole in the Bill. The Bill is about the state and its duties and responsibilities. The gaping hole now is the use that commercial service providers make of personal information given to them by citizens as they use the services. On page 41 of the report of the RUSI panel, on which I had the honour to serve, we listed the word length of the terms and conditions of popular internet services, and I do not propose to go over those again. All we do as users is tick a box, which means that companies analyse the content of our search results and the content of our emails when we send and receive them and when they are stored. This is done so that we can receive targeted advertising. Indeed, one service provider has filed a patent about being able to sense the mood of the user so that it is better able to make more profit. The Government will not be allowed to do that under this legislation, and Labour MPs should think about that if they are asked to oppose the Bill.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I support these amendments and I strongly support my noble friend Lord Rooker in everything that he has said. This Bill is a classic example of how a Bill should come through this place. The way in which it has been built up across Parliament has been remarkable. It meets all the requirements for our security and for personal liberty, and we should be very proud of it.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I cannot support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I declare an interest: I have given advice to a number of newspapers on press regulation issues.

There are different views on the wisdom or otherwise of Section 40 and of Leveson part 2, but the merits or dangers of press regulation should not be allowed to determine the issue before the House today. It is very simple. There are two reasons. First, the Bill is vital to national security. This House has spent hours in Committee and on Report improving the Bill’s contents in a non-partisan spirit. Whatever views noble Lords may have on Section 40 and on the failure yet to implement it, that is no justification for the passage of this important Bill to be held hostage by those who wish to further the cause of Section 40. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that this is not about whether the amendments are within scope—plainly they are—the point is whether it is justified to hold up a Bill of this nature, a Bill about security, to advance a point of view on press regulation.

The second reason why I cannot support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, is because whether or not to implement Section 40 is now the subject of a 10-week consultation. I simply cannot understand the objections to the Government having a 10-week consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, says that it should be 12 weeks; perhaps it should and perhaps it should not, but that is not a substantial point. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and those who agree with her can argue their case about Section 40 and Leveson during the consultation. It is quite indefensible to hold up this vital Bill when the issue about which the noble Baroness is concerned—perhaps rightly—is the subject of active consultation.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, yesterday, I watched the Secretary of State when she delivered the Statement—the first time I have seen her at the Dispatch Box. I did not see the debate later, but I watched the Statement and all the questions on it. I got the impression that she was really threatening the press about Section 40. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, referred to this in another context. I was struck by the number of Conservative Members of Parliament who I would say are people of substance—they were there when I was there; they have been there a long time—who basically threatened IPSO. They made the point that there has to be a different, cheap system of adjudication before going to court. That is what I felt they were pushing for. They will not vote for that today or tomorrow; they will wait for the end of the consultation. I have supported both the noble Baroness and Leveson on more than one occasion, but I think that we should stick to the main issue today, which is Royal Assent for this Bill. I personally do not intend to vote to stop Royal Assent.