Armed Forces (Service Court Rules) (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2022

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not wish simply to make things up. I have very little to say on this. However, the amendments to the rules that the Government have brought forward are important. I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lord Jones.

From the various reports we have seen, there seems to be a real problem of confidence in some of the service justice system. To be fair to the Government, it is good to see them coming forward to adopt the recommendations of the review that they set up to look at this. These days, being commended is probably something the Government would welcome, but this is an important step forward in this case.

I sometimes wonder about overriding objectives. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is right: this is not a sarcastic remark, but it is quite astounding that we have to say that a court must deal with people fairly—“justly”, according to the law—and that that needs to be written down in law. Having said that, I understand that it is something put down by Judge Lyons—fair enough.

I want to tease the Minister a bit politically here. I do not know whether she has passed this by all sections of the Government but I am absolutely delighted to see them recognising the rights of defendants, particularly under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is absolutely wonderful that the Ministry of Defence is defending the convention and using it as a way of ensuring that courts operate—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)]

There is a Division in the House. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

Defence Estate

Lord Beith Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I shall again need to write to my noble friend as this is slightly off the theme of the Statement, but I recognise the importance of the point he raises.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, will the vital monitoring of our skies against hostile incursions continue to be carried out from RAF Boulmer in Northumberland, bearing in mind that, the last time there was a proposal to move it, the proposal got short shrift from the National Audit Office?

[Earl Howe]

I was slightly dreading that I would get questions on the detail of these sites. Again, I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to write to him on that point.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

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

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I repudiate it completely. The Government have been clear about the timescale of the consultation and have committed to respond in a timely manner. We are taking this matter with proper seriousness. It is important that everyone has an opportunity to take on board and reflect on the changes that have occurred in the years since Lord Justice Leveson made his recommendations. I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—

[Lord Beith (LD)]

Just to clarify this matter, can the Minister tell us when he was told that the Government were launching a consultation on Section 40?

[Earl Howe]

I was made aware of it at the beginning of the week, but I am also aware that it was in gestation long before that.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that there is no mandatory period for a public consultation. The Cabinet Office guidelines say that there must be a proportionate amount of time, and I think 10 weeks gives everybody time to look properly at the issues and to submit their views to government. In that light, and for all the reasons I rehearsed earlier, I respectfully ask your Lordships to allow the Bill to pass without these amendments.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

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

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, Amendment 250A would define a technical capability notice as,

“specifying the distinct service or product to which the notice applies”.

I do not believe this amendment is necessary. The safeguards that apply to the giving of a notice under the Bill already ensure that a technical capability notice cannot be of a generic nature. I will not go into detail here about the lengthy process that must be undertaken before a notice can be given; we have discussed them at length previously and we will undoubtedly review them again shortly during our discussions on encryption. But it might be helpful for me to summarise.

Before giving a notice, the Secretary of State must consult the company concerned. This process will ensure that the company is fully aware of which services the notice applies to. The decision to issue a notice must be approved by the Secretary of State and a judicial commissioner. The obligations set out in the notice must be clear so that the Secretary of State and judicial commissioner can take a view as to the necessity and proportionality of the conduct required. As I have already mentioned, we propose a similar role for the judicial commissioner when a notice is varied. The operator may raise any concerns about the requirements to be set out in the notice, including any lack of clarity regarding their scope, during the consultation process. The operator may also seek a formal review of their obligations, as provided for in Clause 233. The safeguards which apply to the giving of a notice have been strengthened during the Bill’s passage through Parliament, and will ensure that the regime provided for under the Bill will be more targeted than that under existing legislation. It is for these reasons that I consider the amendment unnecessary.

Amendment 251A seeks to narrow the category of operators to whom a technical capability notice could be given. This change would exclude operators that provide services that have a communications element but are not primarily a communication service. This amendment, which has already been discussed in the Commons, is also unnecessary and, in my view, risks dangerously limiting the capabilities of law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies. We are aware that the manner in which criminals and terrorists communicate is diversifying, as they attempt to find new ways to evade detection. We cannot be in a situation where terrorists, paedophiles and other criminals can use technology to escape justice. As David Anderson said,

“no-go areas for law enforcement should be minimised as far as possible, whether in the physical or the digital world”.

It is important that the Government can continue to impose obligations relating to technical capabilities on a range of operators to ensure that law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies can access, in a timely manner, communications of criminals and terrorists using less conventional services, such as those offered by gaming service providers and online marketplaces. It may be appropriate to exclude certain categories of operators from obligations under this clause, such as small businesses, but it is our intention to use secondary legislation to do so. It would not be appropriate to impose blanket exemptions on services that have a communications element but are primarily not a communication service, since to do so would make it clear to terrorists and criminals that communications over such systems could not be monitored.

For all the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

Before the noble Earl sits down, I refer to a point which at least needs to be borne in mind in drafting regulations. In most circumstances, if the Government impose upon a business an obligation of some kind, and behave totally unreasonably in doing so—or the business thinks that the Government are behaving unreasonably—the matter will end up in public discussion and the company has the weapon of saying to the public at large, “The Government are asking us to do something unreasonable”. That must not happen in these circumstances because clearly secrecy must be maintained. Therefore, the company is in a weaker position than it would be in the normal exchange between government and business. I hope that Ministers will recognise that fact.

[Earl Howe]

With the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point, which I think will come up in the next group of amendments when we discuss encryption because it is centre stage in that issue. He is absolutely right and I hope that I can assuage his concerns in the next debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I hope that the House will allow me to speak at somewhat greater length than usual in responding to these amendments. I recognise the concern that lies behind them and I also recognise that, although we debated the Bill’s provisions on encryption in Committee, there is a need to correct a number of misconceptions that have been expressed and to set out the reality of the Government’s position on encryption. I would also like to make clear what the provisions in the Bill do and, crucially, what they do not do, and to explain why these provisions are so important to our law enforcement and intelligence agencies. I hope that by, setting this out, I can reassure noble Lords that the amendments are not necessary.

As we have made clear before, the Government recognise the importance of encryption. It keeps people’s personal data and intellectual property secure and ensures safe online commerce. The Government work closely with industry and businesses to improve their cybersecurity. For example, GCHQ plays a vital information assurance role, providing advice and guidance to enable government, industry and the public to protect their IT systems and use the internet safely. Indeed, the director of GCHQ said in March that he is accountable to the Prime Minister just as much, if not more, for the state of cybersecurity in the UK as he is for intelligence collection.

In the past two years, the security and intelligence agencies have disclosed vulnerabilities in every major mobile and desktop platform, including the big names that underpin British business. You do not have to take the Government’s word for that. In September 2015, Apple publicly credited the information assurance arm of GCHQ with the detection of a vulnerability in its operating system for iPhones and iPads, which could otherwise have been exploited by criminals to disrupt devices and extract information from them. As a result, this vulnerability could be fixed.

The assertion that the Government are opposed to encryption or would legislate to undermine it is fanciful. However, the Government and Parliament also have a responsibility to ensure that our security and intelligence services and law enforcement agencies have the capabilities necessary to keep our citizens safe. Encryption is now almost ubiquitous and is the default setting for most IT products and online services. While this technology is primarily used by law-abiding citizens, it can also be used—easily and cheaply—by terrorists and other criminals. Therefore, it can only be right that we retain the ability, as currently exists in legislation, to require a telecommunications operator to remove encryption in limited circumstances, subject to strong controls and safeguards. If we do not provide for this ability, then we must simply accept that there can be areas online beyond the reach of the law where criminals can go about their business unimpeded and without the risk of detection. That would be both irresponsible and wrong.

That is our starting principle, and it is one that we share with David Anderson QC. I have quoted this before, but he stated in his investigatory powers review, A Question of Trust:

“My first principle is that no-go areas for law enforcement should be minimised as far as possible, whether in the physical or digital world”.

This principle was also shared by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill and the Science and Technology Committee, both of which recognised that, in tightly prescribed circumstances, it should remain possible for our law enforcement agencies and security and intelligence services to be able to access unencrypted communications or data. That is exactly what Clauses 229 to 234 of the Bill provide for: strong safeguards to ensure that obligations to remove encryption can be imposed only in limited circumstances and subject to rigorous controls.

Clause 229 enables the Secretary of State to give a technical capability notice to a telecommunications operator in relation to interception, communications data or equipment interference. As part of maintaining a technical capability, the Bill makes clear at Clause 229(5)(c) that the obligations that may be imposed on an operator by the Secretary of State can include the removal of encryption. Before a technical capability notice is given, the Secretary of State must specifically consider the technical feasibility and likely cost of complying with it. Clause 231(4) provides that this consideration must explicitly take account of any obligations to remove encryption.

The Secretary of State must also consult the relevant operator before a notice is given. The draft codes of practice, which were published on 4 October, make clear that should the telecommunications operator have concerns about the reasonableness, cost or technical feasibility of any requirements to be set out in the notice, which of course includes any obligations relating to the removal of encryption, it should raise these concerns during the consultation process.

We have also amended the Bill to make clear that the Secretary of State may give a technical capability notice only where he or she considers that it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and, under Clause 230, that decision must also now be approved by a judicial commissioner, placing the stringent safeguard of the double lock on to any giving of a notice to require the removal of encryption. Clause 2 of the Bill, the privacy clause, also makes explicit that, before the Secretary of State may decide to give a notice, he or she must have regard to the public interest in the integrity and security of telecommunications systems.

In addition, a telecommunications operator that is given a technical capability notice may refer any aspect of the notice, including obligations relating to the removal of encryption, back to the Secretary of State for a review. In undertaking such a review, the Secretary of State must consult the Technical Advisory Board in relation to the technical and financial requirements of the notice, as well as a judicial commissioner in relation to its proportionality. We have amended the review clauses in the Bill to strengthen these provisions further. Where the Secretary of State decides that the outcome of the review should be to vary or confirm the effect of the notice, rather than to revoke it, that decision must be approved by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.

The Bill also makes absolutely clear that, in line with current practice, obligations imposed on telecommunications operators to remove encryption may relate only to encryption applied by or on behalf of the company on whom the obligation is being placed. That ensures that such an obligation cannot require a telecommunications operator to remove encryption applied by other companies to data transiting their network. As we have already outlined, we have also now tabled a government amendment that would further strengthen the Bill’s provisions on technical capability notices. This amendment makes clear that the Secretary of State may vary a notice only where they consider that it is necessary and proportionate to do so. The amendment also makes clear that, in circumstances where a notice is being varied in such a way that would impose new obligations on the operator, the variation must be approved by a judicial commissioner.

Furthermore, obligations imposed under a technical capability notice to remove encryption require the relevant operator to maintain the capability to remove encryption when it is subsequently served with a warrant, notice or authorisation, rather than requiring it to remove encryption per se. That means that companies will not be forced to hand over encryption keys to the Government. Such a warrant, notice or authorisation will be subject to the double lock of Secretary of State and judicial commissioner approval, and the company on whom the warrant is served will not be required to take any steps, such as the removal of encryption, if they are not reasonably practicable steps for that company to take. So a technical capability notice could not, in itself, authorise an interference with privacy. It would simply require a capability to be maintained that would allow a telecommunications operator to give effect to a warrant quickly and securely including, where applicable, the ability to remove encryption.

That is an enormously long list of safeguards. Indeed, it is difficult to think what more the Government could do. These safeguards ensure that an obligation to remove encryption under Clause 229 of the Bill will be subject to very strict controls and may be imposed only where it is necessary and proportionate, technically feasible and reasonably practicable for the relevant operator to comply. Let me be clear: the Bill’s provisions on encryption simply maintain and clarify the current legal position, and apply strengthened safeguards to those provisions. They will mean that our law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies maintain the ability to require telecommunications operators to remove encryption in very tightly defined circumstances.

I would also like to make absolutely clear what the Bill does not provide for on encryption.

[Lord Beith]

Could the Minister help those of us who are not deeply technical in these matters? We fear that circumstances by their nature cannot be technical and defined. In at least some cases, the consequences of serving a notice would be that the operator would have to create a significant weakness, which would apply far beyond the objective for which the notice was being served, and the operator would have to say in future to its customers, “This system is not as strong as we would like it to be”.

[Earl Howe]

We come back to the test of reasonable practicability here. I am about to come on to what the Bill does not provide for on encryption and I hope that this will help the noble Lord.

The Bill does not ban encryption or do anything to limit its use. The Bill will not be used to force providers to undermine their business models, to create so-called back doors or to compromise encryption keys. It will not be used to prevent new encrypted products or services from being launched and it will not undermine internet security.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

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

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

This amendment relates to Clause 58, which some people, although not the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, have referred to in the context of a recent opinion by the ECJ Advocate-General in the case involving Tom Watson MP. We do not support the amendment but I want to make it clear that the fact that we are opposed to it does not mean that we have decided that the clause as it stands meets the opinion of the ECJ Advocate-General in the case now before the European Court of Justice involving Tom Watson MP and relating to retaining and accessing communications data, should that opinion be reflected in the judgment of the court when it is delivered. I want to make that statement as there may be those who, for some reason or another, have come to the conclusion that the fact that we have not tabled any amendments to Clause 58 means that we believe that the clause will cover the position of the Tom Watson case if the judgment of the court proves in line with that of the opinion of the ECJ Advocate-General.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I applaud any attempt to make the definitions precise but there comes a point when there is a negative consequence. I am slightly worried that the wording of the amendment—certainly as drafted—could inhibit the activities of law enforcement in establishing a pattern in the development of criminal behaviour and activity, particularly in the area of organised crime, if it were to be interpreted as strictly as its wording invites. Although the intention of the amendment is good, I am not yet persuaded that it can safely be included without an undesirable inhibition of a particularly important area of activity at the moment—namely, establishing whether groups with well-suspected criminal intent might be planning something worse.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has set perhaps the hardest task for the Minister today in asking him to comment on what was perhaps not a coded speech but simply one inviting speculation.

Turning to the amendment itself, as on the first day of Report we are sympathetic to where the noble Baroness is coming from. Indeed, I think we had an amendment on “reasonable suspicion” at an earlier stage. However, perhaps again I should phrase what I have to say as a request for confirmation, as my noble friend Lord Paddick did last week. Reasonable suspicion is encompassed by the necessity and proportionality test. The way the noble Baroness has expressed it is that there is a moderate-sized hurdle to be got over and then a higher hurdle to be surmounted, by having “reasonable suspicion” and then the necessity and proportionality test. To keep up the athletic metaphor, you will not get over the higher hurdle even if you get over the lower one, so it seems to us that you might as well just have the higher hurdle. Perhaps we can be given some more assurances about how the different criteria will bite.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

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

[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.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Amendment 137A seeks to insert a provision into the Bill that would require the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to notify the subject of a targeted interception or equipment interference warrant in certain circumstances. The amendment tries to tightly draw those circumstances, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for recognising in drafting it that a significant number of factors should rightly preclude such notification from taking place. Nevertheless, I still think the amendment could threaten to undermine the capabilities that law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies rely on to pursue the most serious wrongdoers. The amendment recognises that notifying a person that they have been the subject of surveillance may have an immediate impact on an investigation—or it may have damaging effects on the public interest or national security more broadly.

That being the case, it is extremely difficult to envisage a scenario where notification could responsibly be allowed to occur. Notifying a person that their communications have been intercepted, irrespective of whether that notification included any further details about the methods used, would necessarily risk hindering a future investigation. For example, there will be circumstances where a terrorist or serious criminal who was previously the subject of a warrant will no longer be an active suspect in an investigation. Advising that individual that they have been the subject of interception may help them to evade detection if they were minded to return to or resume criminal activity.

On one reading, then, the amendment would not provide for disclosure other than where a person has been the subject of deliberate wrongdoing or a serious error. If that is the intention behind the amendment—and I fear it is not—it is redundant, because there is already provision in the Bill to notify people who have been the subject of serious errors.

The alternative, of course, is that the amendment should provide for individuals to be notified in a wider range of circumstances. I find that prospect troubling. As I say, it is never possible to know whether an individual will return to criminality in the future. Even if they do not, revealing the fact that they were the subject of a warrant may provide some small insight into the techniques and capabilities used by law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies. That, in turn, would provide an avenue for the most determined and capable actors to piece together a picture of the agencies and how they work, handing an advantage to those we are working hard to pursue—let alone the prospect that they might seek disclosure by way of a review of the conduct of the authorities in order to determine exactly what methodology had been employed. For all these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw this amendment.

I turn to Amendments 137B to 137F, which, as the noble Lord indicated, are in a sense consequential on his primary amendment, and which deal with error reporting as provided for in Clause 209. Clause 209 is of the utmost importance. It provides that if a person has been the subject of a serious error, and it would not be contrary to the public interest, the commissioner must inform that individual of the error and their right to apply to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The judicial commissioner must provide such details as considered necessary for the person to bring a claim.

Clause 209 seeks to maintain a very delicate balance between two important but competing interests. On one hand, there is the right of the individual who has suffered harm as a result of the error to seek some sort of redress. On the other, there is the long-standing security and intelligence agency principle of neither confirming nor denying that an individual has been the subject of investigatory powers. This principle is vital to the security and intelligence agencies, as it prevents those who would wish to do us harm launching spurious complaints and claims in order further to understand the agencies’ most sensitive capabilities. I hope the noble Lord will agree that, given the fine balance between these two principles, it is right that the decision be taken on a case-by-case basis by the commissioner, a senior member of the judiciary who will have full access to the facts on which to base their decision.

Amendments 137B and 137C would remove the commissioner’s discretion to make that judgment. He would no longer be able to consider how the wider public interest would be best served, and would instead be compelled to tell an individual if they had been the subject of a serious error, regardless of the consequences and the harm that might be caused. I do not think that is right. It is, for example, conceivable that an investigation into a dangerous criminal gang may result in action mistakenly being taken against an innocent associate of one of the gang members. That would be unfortunate, and the commissioner would undoubtedly want to ensure that remedial action was taken at an appropriate time. But before doing so, it is right that the commissioner should consider the public interest in informing the person, balanced against the risk of undermining an ongoing investigation, and that is what the clause as drafted provides for.

Amendment 137D seeks to require notification where the error has not caused serious harm or prejudice but may do so in the future. I do not think it necessary or appropriate, given the difficult balance that has to be struck here, for persons to be informed when there is such an error. This would put the commissioner in the difficult position of speculating on potential future consequences. Additionally, the commissioner does not get only one opportunity to assess the harm that has occurred. We would of course expect the commissioner to keep under review the consequences of an error and, if it resulted in harm at some point in the future, it would be open to the commissioner to inform the individual at that point. This seems a more sensible approach than putting the commissioner in the position of second-guessing what potential future consequences may one day occur or not occur.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Lords Chamber

Our Amendment 223B suggests that health records are so sensitive that the exceptional and compelling circumstances should relate only to national security and not, for example, serious crime. I beg to move.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend has very helpfully referred to the qualification of economic well-being as a justification by reference to national security and he rightly probed why it appears in that form. It gave me some satisfaction, in a sense, that it was qualified in this way because, in my years on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I occasionally thought that the concept of economic well-being was capable of extraordinarily wide interpretation. If it was being interpreted very widely in order to support actions which might in some way touch upon economic well-being, it is appropriate that it should be qualified if the powers engaged are sufficiently wide as potentially to affect the rights and liberties of other people. In this legislation we are talking about powers which can impinge upon the lives and liberties of other people unintentionally or not as part of the purpose but as a necessary consequence of being able to use things such as bulk datasets or equipment interference. Therefore, I hope that the reason that economic well-being is qualified by reference to national security is a recognition that some of the powers given in this Bill require particularly stringent qualification to be permissive and used. If that is so, I welcome it.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for making it clear that these are essentially probing amendments and I respond to them in that light. These amendments relate to the issuing, approval and modification of warrants under Parts 6 and 7 of the Bill.

Amendments 194J, 201B and 210B would remove from the Bill an important safeguard which requires that a bulk interception, acquisition or equipment interference warrant may be issued only if doing so is in the interest of national security. The Bill provides for a warrant under Part 6 to be issued where it is necessary on three statutory grounds: in the interests of national security; for the prevention and detection of serious crime; or in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom where those interests are also relevant to national security.

Clause 129(1)(b)(ii), Clause 146(1)(a)(ii) and Clause 164(1)(b)(ii), which these amendments seek to remove, ensure that one of those statutory grounds must always be national security. This is clearly an important safeguard which recognises the particular sensitivity of bulk powers and therefore limits their use to the most tightly drawn circumstances. In other words, the Bill says that a bulk warrant provided for in Part 6 of the Bill must have,

“in the interests of national security”,

as one of the statutory purposes to authorise collection. However, collection can also be authorised to prevent serious crime and to protect the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in addition to being authorised to protect national security.

The inclusion of the additional statutory grounds relating to serious crime and economic well-being remains vital. There will be circumstances where it is necessary and proportionate to select for examination data collected under a bulk warrant in order to, for example, prevent and detect serious crime, such as to detect and disrupt child sexual exploitation. However, the Bill ensures that the initial collection of data could be authorised only if doing so is necessary to protect national security, albeit that it may be necessary for one of the other two purposes that I have already described. In other words, there is a relationship between the statutory requirements for the bulk warrant and the operational purposes which will be specified in the same warrant application, some of which may relate to the prevention of serious crime or economic interest.

On that last point of economic interest, it has been asked how that can be distinguished from national security. In a sense, it is a matter of emphasis at the end of the day. The ISC looked at this in detail, and at the need to retain it as a statutory purpose in its own right. It took extensive evidence from the agencies and, indeed, from the Foreign Secretary. I believe that Dominic Grieve was the chair at that time. He made it clear during Report in the Commons that the ISC had been persuaded that there remained a need for safeguarding the UK’s economic well-being to continue to exist as a statutory purpose for the use of the investigatory powers in the Bill in their own right. Therefore, I accept that it is linked to national security but it is a matter of underlining the need to have in mind the cases in which economic well-being will be the prevailing factor.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Paddick and myself, I shall speak to this amendment and to Amendment 194DA.

The first amendment provides that the Secretary of State should provide “funds to cover” the hiring of staff, the arrangement of facilities and so on for the judicial commissioners. The amendment simply probes whether the appointment of staff—indeed, the hiring and firing of staff—is a matter for the Secretary of State or for the IPC. I would be grateful if the Minister will help me on how—in the real world, which has just been referred to—that will be dealt with.

Amendment 194DA provides for a new clause—although it is not so very new—to create a role in this for the president of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. RIPA provides for the Secretary of State to pay members and expenses—remuneration, allowances and so on—with the approval of the Treasury. I have not sought to delete the Treasury’s control—I am realistic to that extent—but wanted to add a role for the president. Should expenses, for example, be a matter for the Secretary of State? I beg to move.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, it is quite important that we get this right. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, will remember, one of the commissioners under the previous arrangements was found by the ISC to have been hopelessly inadequately provided with staff, to such an extent that there was a huge build-up of correspondence. That was some years ago and it took some effort by Members of our party as well as of his to ensure that that was quickly remedied.

I also have experience as a constituency Member of Parliament in dealing with an employee issue, the merits of which I will certainly not go into but which was not helped by its being unclear who the employer was. I am talking about somebody who was engaged in the office of one of the commissioners. So I am grateful to my noble friend for trying to make sure that we get this bit right.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 194ZA, regarding the provision of funds to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has referred to this as a probing amendment.

I entirely agree with what this amendment seeks to achieve. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner must be free to appoint whomever he or she thinks is right and proper and to arrange their office as they see fit. It is certainly true with the current independent commissioners that, although they receive their funding from the Secretary of State, they are free to employ whomever they think best suited for any role they have to fill.

It has always been the intention under the Bill that the commissioner should appoint whom they wish. However, I would not want to accept this amendment as drafted since it may preclude the Secretary of State providing non-monetary assistance to the IPC. I will consider further whether anything more should be done to put beyond doubt that the commissioner will have autonomy over the appointment of staff, but I hope I have made the intention absolutely clear in response to the request from the noble Baroness. On that basis, I invite her to withdraw the amendment.

On Amendment 194DA, it is certainly the case in practice that the president of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is consulted before the budget allocated to the tribunal is settled. The tribunal then has sole responsibility for paying the salaries and expenses of the tribunal. This is a sensible way of doing things and ensures that the tribunal has sufficient funds to conduct its business. I see no reason for changing this practice.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, Amendments 159 and 160 would introduce new clauses requiring the person making an application for a warrant to make a detailed assessment of the risks of the proposed equipment interference activity to any critical national infrastructure, to the security and integrity of systems and networks, and to the privacy of those not targeted. Amendment 164 is linked to the requirement to produce risk assessments and would require the Secretary of State, when issuing warrants to the Chief of Defence Intelligence, to consider the content of these assessments when deciding whether the activity under the warrant would be proportionate. Amendment 169A would require a judicial commissioner to take into account a technical cyber risk assessment, conducted by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, of the specific equipment interference proposed when deciding whether to approve a decision to issue a warrant.

I start by making an important general point. It seems these amendments are based on a fundamental misinterpretation of what GCHQ and others are here to do. Their role is to protect the public. That includes protecting cybersecurity. Indeed, the Government have invested very considerable resources into improving our cybersecurity efforts. Last November, the Chancellor announced the creation of a new national cyber centre led by GCHQ, with an additional £190 million of funding.

GCHQ has an excellent track record in identifying cyber vulnerabilities and making leading computer companies aware so they can improve their security. For example, in September 2015, Apple publicly credited CESG, the information assurance arm of GCHQ, with the detection of a vulnerability in its iOS operating system for iPhones and iPads, which could have been exploited to allow the unauthorised modification of software and to extract information from the devices. That vulnerability has now been patched.

I appreciate that the noble Lords’ amendments are intended to introduce safeguards, but I contend that sufficient safeguards are already contained in the Bill. Part 5 already requires the Secretary of State or law enforcement chief to consider whether the proposed conduct is necessary and proportionate before issuing a warrant. The Government have provided even more reassurance since the discussion of these same amendments in the other place. As we have frequently reflected, Clause 2 is a new provision that sets out overarching privacy duties. It includes a requirement to have regard to the public interest in the integrity and security of telecommunication systems. This requirement applies to any decision on whether to issue an equipment interference warrant.

The draft statutory code of practice also sets out, in detail, the factors that must be considered in respect of proportionality. The code states at paragraph 3.27 that one element of proportionality that should be considered is,

“explaining how and why the methods to be adopted will minimise the risk of intrusion on the subject and others”.

It goes on to state at paragraph 3.30:

“Equipment interference activity must therefore be carried out in such a way as to appropriately minimise the risk that the activities of the equipment interference agency would result in any increase of the likelihood or severity of any unauthorised intrusion into the privacy, or risk to the security, of users of equipment or systems, whether or not that equipment is subject to the activities of the equipment interference agency”.

If noble Lords will allow me one last quote, paragraph 3.31 states:

“Any application for an equipment interference warrant should contain an assessment of any risk to the security or integrity of systems or networks that the proposed activity may involve including the steps taken to appropriately minimise such risk … The issuing authority should consider any such assessment when considering whether the proposed activity is proportionate”.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

An innocent citizen could be the subject of training or testing equipment interference under paragraphs (d) or (e). Are these not legitimate questions to ask on behalf of such a citizen? If it is established that there was a risk, albeit a relatively small one, who will make the judgment that it is reasonable to expose the person, his equipment and his privacy to that risk?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will accept that, in the context of training and testing, those activities are essential if we are to have fully functioning services. It should not only be current investigations that are used for training as that could jeopardise operations. Current investigations may not give the full range of testing and training opportunities to prepare staff and equipment for all necessary eventualities. I will write to the noble Lord on the precise procedures involved in authorising testing and training as I do not have the information in front of me. However, appropriate safeguards will be built into those procedures.

I come back to the point I was making about these amendments in general. I contend that they are not necessary because the Bill and the draft statutory code of practice already require that the impact on people’s privacy, including in respect of collateral intrusion and cybersecurity, is properly considered in every single case. The draft codes will, of course, also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and agreement before they come into force. I hope that those remarks are helpful in reassuring the noble Lord and that he will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen]

My Lords, I do not support the amendment, I fear. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness with regard to the correspondence of Members of Parliament. But the Joint Committee looked at whether Members of Parliament should be under surveillance and it agreed with the recommendations before it; that is, that there should be a double lock at that stage. That is consistent with the whole Bill: it should be not only the Secretary of State who signs a warrant but a judicial commissioner.

During the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons, that was made into a triple lock so that the Prime Minister, who originally was only to be informed of the warrant, now had to approve it as well. That seems to be an extremely wise thing to do. As a Member of Parliament—or a Member of this House or any of the devolved Parliaments and legislatures—who was going to have their communications intercepted, it would be important to know that it went as far as having the Prime Minister, the head of government, involved. Having just a judge doing it goes completely against the spirit of the Bill. The double-lock system is what everybody has said is absolutely the right thing to do. This is now a triple lock and I fear that I cannot support the amendment.

[Lord Beith]

My Lords, I am very glad the noble Baroness has tabled this amendment because it enables us to clarify the extension of the things we were discussing on telephone interception into this area, which the Government are now seeking to ensure is covered in other respects and that the same principles should apply. Having said that, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, that what is now in the Bill is probably about the best set of safeguards that we could reasonably construct from the very important principle—I agree with the noble Baroness on this—that we should protect the ability of constituents and whistleblowers to contact elected Members to raise matters of concern. They may be matters which affect the very organisations, whether it is the intelligence services or the police, that might seek the power to initiate interception.

The noble Baroness mentioned the Wilson doctrine, which came up earlier. That adds no clarity whatever to the situation but simply obscures it. It is even further complicated now by the fact that the last Prime Minister to make a Statement on the subject is no longer the Prime Minister. It is not even clear that his successor will consider herself bound in any way by what Mr Cameron said on the subject. As I think we teased out in the previous discussion, the Wilson doctrine does not really mean anything now. There is now a statutory basis for considering how to deal with a situation where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a Member of a legislature is involved in very serious crime or associated with terrorism. That is the procedure set out in the clause that the amendment addresses.

That there should be a bizarre principle now that the Government generally have a policy of not using these sorts of powers but will come along to Parliament some day and say, “We’ve changed our minds and now we want to use these powers very widely indeed” just does not make any sense at all. Since no Prime Minister has ever come to the House to satisfy the requirements of the Wilson doctrine—that if government policy changes, you should make such a Statement—the whole thing has become absurd. We should give it a decent burial and satisfy ourselves that the provisions we put in place for governing interceptions of any kind of the communications of a legislator are satisfactory. I am of the view that the clause we have now, following the various interventions that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, described, is a good basis for doing so.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, feels that she got an adequate response to her equivalent amendment the other day. I had a look at the Official Report this morning and I thought that it was quite telegraphic—quite brief. So it is understandable that she would raise the matter again in this context. I see that she has expanded subsection (3)(d) with regard to the public interest. On the noble Baroness’s previous amendment on interception, my noble friend Lord Paddick made the point that if ever there was a need for political accountability regarding the target of a warrant, it is when that target is a parliamentarian. He acknowledged the tensions and dilemmas in all this.

I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which, when it considered these issues before the Bill had its Report stage in the Commons, expressed concern about the separation of powers, which is what underlies this, at any rate as regards parliamentarians—the need to be able to communicate freely with constituents and others because of the distinction between the Executive and the legislature.

Perhaps I might say a word about government Amendment 173—although not to argue with it. It is about modifications and the Committee knows our concerns about those, but I accept the need to define “designated senior official”. But I wonder about the wording that this is for,

“the purposes of this section”.

Presumably it is also for the purposes of the modification and is case by case. I am not really sure about that but I can see the need for an audit trail. I think that the phrase “designated senior official” is used elsewhere, not only in this clause—I found it in Clause 112(7)—and not only as a senior official designated by a public authority. So I wonder whether there is a need to look at the definition throughout. Of course, the Bill is not really long enough as it is, so maybe we should have additional definitions collated in Clause 236. My principal point is whether there might be some confusion about using the phrase only for the one section.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, Amendment 169AA would remove the role of the Secretary of State and law enforcement chiefs from the warrant authorisation process, in circumstances where an equipment interference warrant is sought for the purposes of acquiring the communications or private information of a Member of a relevant legislature. This proposal reflects an earlier amendment discussed by this Committee in the context of interception. As I understood her, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is concerned that the safeguards contained in the Bill politicise the process of authorising a warrant. I do not share that perspective at all.

As my noble and learned friend Lord Keen said when we first discussed this matter, this amendment would in fact reduce the safeguards for parliamentarians. In line with the commitment given by the previous Prime Minister last November, the Bill provides a triple lock where warrants concern a parliamentarian’s communications or private information: they must be issued by the Secretary of State; approved by the Prime Minister; and authorised by a judicial commissioner. The Bill goes even further in the context of equipment interference warrants issued to law enforcement agencies, which are issued by a law enforcement chief and must be approved by the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and an independent judicial commissioner.

I will not rehearse the arguments for the double lock at this point, but it is important to remember, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, reminded us, that it was endorsed by the Joint Committee of Parliament that scrutinised the draft Bill and, following amendments made in the other place, enjoyed cross-party support. The additional safeguards provided for parliamentarians add an extra layer of checks to the process. I do not share the perception of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that the process introduces the risk of political bias. In fact, I find it difficult to see what possible benefit would accrue from removing one of the checks that we now propose—that regarding the Secretary of State or law enforcement chief. In view of that, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

I will move on briefly to the amendment tabled by the Government. Amendment 173 is—this answers the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—a small, technical amendment that simply corrects the omission of a definition from Clause 114. The amendment adds the appropriate definition of a “designated senior official” to the clause, informing the reader of the persons to whom the provision applies. We do not think that there is any need to revisit the relative definitions in other parts of the Bill, and the amendment does not change how the equipment interference regime operates in any way.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the Government’s view of the Wilson doctrine. As he will be aware, in its judgment of 14 October the IPT comprehensively rejected the claim brought by a number of parliamentarians that their communications were improperly intercepted and found that all activity was within the law. The IPT also found that MPs’ communications with their constituents and others are protected by RIPA, the statutory legal regime, and that the regime governing the interception of MPs’ communications is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.

In February 2015, the Government published an updated draft code of practice on the interception of communications, which explicitly recognised the importance of communications between constituents and their elected representatives. In consequence, the Bill now provides for this in statute by setting out a role for the Prime Minister in authorising warrants which target a parliamentarian. I hope that that is helpful.

[Lord Beith]

I have to ask the Minister to address the Wilson doctrine just to this extent. Given the statutory provision which he and I both now support, what kind of statement does he envisage would be made by a Prime Minister to the House of Commons on the lines first envisaged by Harold Wilson so long ago? How can that possibly be a relevant proceeding now that these statutory provisions will be in place?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as I understand it, the Wilson doctrine committed the then Government to returning to Parliament if there was a change of policy. Clearly, now that we are enshrining what I think by common consent is a good formula for protecting parliamentarians, the need for a Government to come back to Parliament to announce a change in policy would have to be followed up, if it were done, by further primary legislation. I cannot envisage that and simply do not foresee that contingency. Through the Bill, we are now in a stronger and clearer position on the protection of parliamentarians and their communications with constituents than we were before.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The amendment is about applications to intercept being made by a judicial commissioner, not the Secretary of State via the Prime Minister. Amendment 43B sets out some additional requirements to be taken into account.

The debate has been fascinating because there has been a lot of use of words such as “reasonable”, “proportionate” and even “democratic accountability”. We all probably draw the lines on those matters at different places, and I certainly do so. My amendments speak to the area that has been covered by the Wilson doctrine of 1966 on parliamentarians’ correspondence and communications. The doctrine was explored by the two Green parliamentarians, Caroline Lucas in the other place and myself in your Lordships’ House, at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. After successive Prime Ministers—even recently—have declared that the Wilson doctrine was still in force, we in fact found at the IPT that it applied only to targeted, not incidental, interceptions. The doctrine therefore has proved to be fairly worthless.

For me, the surveillance of parliamentarians is a constitutional issue, because it is our job to hold the Executive to account, without interference and without inhibition. In addition, of course, constituents have a right to privacy, which is not acknowledged enough at times. It goes without saying that criminals have to be caught. People always raise the issue of what happens if we have a parliamentarian who is a paedophile; of course, I would seek to see that criminal found and removed. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said that the current drafting,

“does not eliminate the risk of a partisan motivation, whether real or apparent”—

that is if a Government Member does it—and it fails to supply,

“a safeguard commensurate with the importance of the public interest at stake”.

As I have explained in your Lordships’ House several times, I was targeted by the police and put on their domestic extremist database. I feel that, if somebody like me can be targeted as a domestic extremist—I was an elected politician at the time and was actually sitting on the Metropolitan Police Authority, overseeing the police—then I am very nervous about where such authorisation comes from. I would argue that there are simply not enough safeguards for unhindered scrutiny of the Executive by parliamentarians, which is obviously vital for any democracy.

We heard today the Prime Minster—now the previous Prime Minister—saying in his valedictory speech that he saluted the robustness of our challenging of our leaders here in Britain. This whole Bill puts that at risk; it does not allow us to do our job properly without the risk of interference. I hope that the Minister will not try to reassure me by telling me that the Government are in listening mode, because that is exactly what I am frightened of. I beg to move.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 44 in this group might appear to want to resurrect the Wilson doctrine but it is really only to give it a decent burial. The Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, said in its report published on Monday that,

“the surveillance of parliamentarians is a significant constitutional issue”,

and that the committee,

“would welcome clarification from the Government of its current understanding of the Wilson Doctrine”.

The amendment allows for that and allows us to consider whether the procedures in the Bill make a better job of dealing with the difficult issue of whether communications of an elected member of a legislature should be intercepted and, if so, on what authority.

While it existed, the Wilson doctrine had merit in that it produced a higher threshold, mainly the involvement of the Prime Minister, and that in so far as it was observed—I have reason to believe that it often was observed in practice and that this was recognised to be a different situation to other interceptions—it played that useful role. However, it was riddled with failings. All it did, if your Lordships read it, was to set out the policy of a particular Government at a particular time. What it of course set out was not that the communications of parliamentarians would never be intercepted but that the Government’s policy at the time was not to do so and the Prime Minister would come before the House at a time of his choosing—presumably at a time when it would no longer be damaging to the investigation—and advise the House that the policy had been changed. It was a very odd doctrine; the Prime Minister could come to the House and say, “We’ve changed the policy but we’re going to change it back now because that inquiry has been dealt with”. It is one of the inherent inconsistencies in the doctrine.

It was never clear whether the doctrine bound any subsequent Government either not to intercept MPs’ communication or to come to the House at a time of their choosing to reveal that the policy had been changed. It raises a fascinating issue since, so far as I can see, no Prime Minister has ever come to the House and said what situation we were in—or are in, until this legislation is passed—under that doctrine. It clearly was not fit for purpose. We therefore have to ask ourselves whether the procedures in the Bill that essentially try to do the same thing—that is, to involve the Prime Minister and raise it to a higher level within the Executive—are a sufficient extra safeguard for the constituents and whistleblowers who will communicate with their MPs or with legislators. They may be doing so because they are aware of some evil going on within the very organisation that might seek to intercept their communications. We have to have some regard to this.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that the Speaker of the House of Commons and, by analogy, Speakers of other legislatures should have a role in this. Although I am attracted by the intention, I find it slightly difficult because of the position it would put the Speaker in. The analogy is drawn with the procedures which were recommended following the serving of a search warrant in the House of Commons in the Damian Green case. It was felt that if in future the Speaker was consulted before a search warrant would be executed on parliamentary premises, then it was an appropriate precedent.

There is trouble with that precedent. If a search takes place on the premises it does not remain secret for very long. It becomes pretty obvious that it has taken place. If an interception was taking place, then the Speaker might be in possession of the knowledge that MP X’s communications are being intercepted for a considerable period, during which he has to have normal dealings with that Member of Parliament, call that Member of Parliament in debate and so on. That strikes me as a rather difficult position in which to put the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Speaker in this House or a Speaker in any other legislature.

Incidentally, the involvement of other legislatures in the provisions in the Bill is an advance on the Wilson doctrine which applied only, as far as I am aware, to the House of Commons. I find myself before this House having to rely on the Bill as it stands and the prime ministerial involvement as being a significantly higher threshold. As one has always been worried about the supremacy of the Executive in this activity, I cannot be entirely content with that except for the fact that we are building in a process of judicial oversight, which I have advocated for many years and I am delighted to find in the Bill, and have been discussing what the conditions for that oversight are.

I would not want us to get into the position which, as I understand it, would arise from the amendment moved by the noble Baroness because I do not want a judicial authority appearing to be the initiator of an interception. That seems to me to get the role completely wrong. A law and order organisation or national security organisation has to be the initiator and the Secretary of State one of the routes through which it goes on its way to be authorised. The procedure under the Bill would also involve the Prime Minister in this process. I probably have to be content with that unless someone comes up with something better or someone convinces me that the Joint Committee’s recommendation does not have the disadvantage that I mentioned. Of course, I do not have the slightest intention of pursuing Amendment 44 and attempting to write into the Bill the provisions of the obsolete Wilson doctrine but it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of it.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have Amendments 45, 85A and 85B in this group. While I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, regarding the potential for partisan action in these circumstances, I would have thought if there was ever a need for political accountability in terms of who is going to be targeted by a warrant of this kind, it is where a parliamentarian is being targeted. I can see the tension and the dilemma in that.

The Bill states in Clause 26(2) that additional safeguards for Members of Parliament include the fact that:

“The Secretary of State may not issue the warrant without the approval of the Prime Minister”.

Our Amendment 45 suggests that where the warrant relates to a Member of the Scottish Parliament, it should not be issued without the approval of the First Minister of Scotland, as the most appropriate person to give such approval. Perhaps the Minister can explain why it should be the Prime Minister in every case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I will begin with that last point on Amendments 85A and 85B. The Government believe that the power is necessary for the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but we are conscious of the terms of the report made by the Delegated Powers Committee. We are still reflecting on those comments and intend to respond in due course. I hope that that will give some satisfaction to the noble Lord. The matter is still under consideration and no final view has been arrived at.

I now turn back to the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. By way of background, your Lordships will be aware that, last November, the Prime Minister announced additional protections for the communications of Members of Parliament and Members of other legislatures, including the Scottish Parliament and the assemblies. Clause 26 sets out the requirement for the Prime Minister to approve the Secretary of State’s decision to issue a warrant to acquire communications sent by a Member of Parliament or intended for a Member of Parliament. Again, I use the term “Member of Parliament” to embrace Members of the other legislative assemblies referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy.

Amendment 43A would remove the role of the Secretary of State from the warrant authorisation process where the Wilson doctrine is engaged—I will come on to the Wilson doctrine in a moment—which would in fact reduce the safeguards for parliamentarians. In line with the commitment given by the Prime Minister last November, the Bill provides a triple lock where warrants concern a parliamentarian’s communications: they must be authorised by the Secretary of State, agreed by the Prime Minister and authorised by a judicial commissioner.

I will not rehearse again the arguments for the double lock at this point, but it is important to remember that it was endorsed by the Joint Committee of Parliament that scrutinised the draft Bill and that, following amendments made in the other place, it enjoyed cross-party support. The triple lock for parliamentarians simply adds an extra layer of checks to this important process. It is difficult to see what possible benefit would accrue from removing one of those checks—that is, the Secretary of State—which would also serve to undermine the accountability of the Secretary of State to Parliament for the activities of the agencies that the Secretary of State oversees. In view of that, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 45 would provide a role for the First Minister of Scotland in approving warrants to acquire communications sent by or intended for a Member of the Scottish Parliament. However, we do not consider that it would be appropriate for the First Minister to have a role in approving a decision taken by the Secretary of State on what is a reserved matter.

As to the operation of serious crime warrants, which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, might have had in mind, particularly in Scotland, it is of course for Scottish Ministers to determine what additional safeguards they wish to provide in relation to parliamentarians. That is a devolved matter within their competence, and the same may in due course apply in the context of the Welsh Assembly—or, indeed, any other assembly that is set up.

The effect of Amendment 44 would be to provide for the Prime Minister to inform the relevant legislature that such a warrant or warrants has or have been issued—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beith. Noble Lords will be aware that the Wilson doctrine, as it is termed, followed from a statement made by the then Prime Minister that, as a general policy, there would be no tapping of MPs’ telephones—but that, if there was a need to make a change to this general policy, the Prime Minister would, at a time of his choosing and when the national security situation allowed, make a Statement in the House. That is what is encompassed within the Wilson doctrine.

In a Written Ministerial Statement last November, the Prime Minister again confirmed that the Wilson doctrine continued to apply. He went on to explain the Government’s position on the Wilson doctrine and how it would apply in the 21st century. In his Statement, the Prime Minister was clear that the Wilson doctrine does not place an absolute bar on the interception of parliamentarians’ communications and confirmed that he would be consulted should there ever be a requirement to target a parliamentarian under a warrant issued by a Secretary of State. As has been noted, particularly as a result of the changes in the other place, the Bill now goes further by providing that the Prime Minister must provide explicit authorisation for a warrant to target a parliamentarian’s communications.

I understand that every Administration since 1966 has confirmed that the Wilson doctrine remains in place. This Government have done so on numerous occasions in Parliament. The doctrine includes the Prime Minister’s commitment to inform the relevant legislature, at a time of his choosing and when national security allows, should there ever be a change to the general policy. There has been cross-party agreement on this issue for more than 50 years. In view of the Prime Minister’s statement, and the stringent safeguards in the Bill, which go further in statute than was previously provided for, no further statutory provision is considered necessary.

[Lord Beith]

Does that not make for a very limited interpretation of the Wilson doctrine? For the Prime Minister to have to come and make a Statement to the House, it would have to be, “It is now the Government’s policy to intercept the communications of MPs generally, or widely, and this represents a change in policy”. That is the only way I can understand the doctrine working in the way that the Minister described.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I concur with the observation of the noble Lord. It would have to be a change to the general policy that prompted a Statement to Parliament. It is not the use of the statutory powers that will ever prompt a Statement to Parliament. Indeed, if a parliamentary Statement were required in those circumstances, it would essentially undermine the purpose of these investigatory powers.