Child Abuse Inquiry

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I welcome the tone adopted by the Home Secretary. It is absolutely right that survivors must have confidence in the work of the inquiry. May I press her on the matter of the Kincora boys home in Northern Ireland? In her statement, she has said that she will not expand the terms of reference to cover Kincora, but I understand that she wrote to the First Minister of Northern Ireland last week to say that if there was not enough co-operation from the security services, she would seek agreement to bring that matter inside the terms of reference. Will she make it clear what is likely to happen in that regard?

[Mrs May]

I am not able to look ahead and see how this is going to progress, but I am clear that we need to ensure that Sir Anthony Hart has all the information he needs to be able to undertake his investigation into Kincora. I have made it clear today that we need to ensure that nothing happens to allow any information or any individual to slip between the cracks in terms of the work of the two inquiries. We will be talking to the panel inquiry about what needs to be put in place to ensure that information can be exchanged where it is relevant to both inquiries, precisely so that people will not slip between the cracks as a result of there being two inquiries.

UK Drugs Policy

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

What the hon. Gentleman says is absolutely true. In a sense, this is not a party political matter: people from across this House and the other place believe that we should have an evidence-based approach, rather than an approach that for too long has been dictated by fear, particularly fear of the tabloids. It is important to have this debate.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her award, even though, as I was nominated for it, I feel some frustration. It has been a great pleasure to work with her on this issue. Her voice is, and I hope will continue to be, very valuable in this place. Will she confirm that many newspapers are now coming out in favour of change, and that the public want change? Today, The Sun shows that roughly two thirds of people want a reform of drugs policy.

[Caroline Lucas]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being nominated, and I am sure he will win next time. His point is incredibly important. Until now, politicians often thought that they were reflecting public opinion, but they are now massively behind it, as the poll in The Sun absolutely demonstrates.

It strikes me that a time of austerity, with the Government seemingly looking under every last stone to find money to save, is an odd time not to consider drugs policy, given that so much money is invested in the current drugs regime. Yet drugs policy seems to be completely divorced from the usual considerations about public spending and the good use of taxpayers’ money, and we simply have no proper public mechanism for knowing whether the money spent on the so-called war on drugs has been put to good effect.

No one now buys alcohol in unmarked bottles from the back of a pub—that would be dangerous and unnecessary—but for 40 years we have left our children to do exactly that with drugs. There is no denying that drug misuse has the potential to wreck lives, but surely it is time to be honest about the damage caused by the drug laws, which can cause a proliferation of criminality and public harm. The entire drugs trade has been handed over to the worlds’ racketeers and gangsters. The drugs market has soared, and that has brought untold misery. Essentially, the current market is almost wholly uncontrolled.

From speaking to young people in my constituency, it is clear that many of them can get hold of drugs far more easily than alcohol, which is surely wrong. When someone tries to get hold of alcohol, they at least have to show an ID card if they are thought to be under age. Drug dealers do not care about someone’s ID or anything else; they care only about their profits. I believe that the current policy is based on a deliberate ignorance about the effect of drugs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Wollaston]

May I make a little progress and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman?

I would like to focus on cannabis for a moment—that is the issue I have most correspondence about—and on its harms. Cannabis is often presented as somehow a harmless product, and if we compare it with alcohol and consider the numbers of deaths and injuries, alcohol undoubtedly currently causes far greater harm in our society. However, before we assume that it must therefore be acceptable to legalise cannabis, I want to focus a little on its harms. In the short term, there is double the risk of a car crash for people driving under the influence of cannabis, and in the longer term, one in six young users will become dependent. It simply not true to say that cannabis is not a drug of dependence—it is.

For me, this is about the impact of cannabis on young users and teenagers, because they will double their risk of a psychotic illness. In my career I have met many families and young people whose lives have been completely devastated as a result of psychosis—I come to this debate from that viewpoint and my real concern about what psychosis does to people, because many of them did not recover. That is particularly important for those who have a family history of psychotic illness. For example, if someone has a first degree relative with a history of schizophrenia and they start using cannabis as a teenager, they will double their risk of a psychotic illness from 10% to 20%—a significant increase.

[Dr Huppert]

It is always interesting to listen to the hon. Lady, and I do not think anybody is trying to make the case that drugs, legal or illegal, are harmless. Does she accept, however, that because we make it an illegal system, we cannot do what has been done in California, for example, where medicinal marijuana has allowed the breeding of strains of marijuana that are less psycho-harmful?

[Dr Wollaston]

That is why I want to see the longer term results from Colorado and Washington state, and whether as a result of that system the harm to young people from cannabis is reduced. Personally, I think it is too early to say what the effects will be, but I will be following the results closely. If I see clear evidence of harm reduction, I will completely change my approach to this issue.

People often write to me and say, “Well look at Portugal where there has been a reduction in drug use”, but the Czech Republic, which has the same approach in not prosecuting people for personal use, has one of the highest levels of cannabis use across Europe. We must be careful about how selectively we quote from the evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who was an advocate of this cause well before it was fashionable. It is good to see him in his place still arguing for it. I also echo his praise for the fantastic work that my right hon. Friend the Minister has done, which means that we have now heard praise for his work from all parties present in the Chamber, even though some representative parties that are not here have been rather more critical of the stance he has taken. It is also good to hear a degree of unanimity in the comments expressed today. There are some differences, but they are in the nuances. There is not a principled difference; all the speeches have broadly called for change to our policies.

My belief is that the so-called war on drugs has simply not worked. What it has done is cause more harms than it has alleviated. That has been clear for quite a long time, and I and my party have long called for reform. It is not about being hard on drugs or soft on drugs; it is about being smart on drugs and doing the right thing. Of course drugs are harmful. Whether they are legal or illegal, and whether they are prescribed or not prescribed, tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, cocaine and heroin are all harmful things. They all cause harms—to people who take them, to other people and to society. The model for so long in this country and in many parts of the world has been based on the idea that when it comes to some substances—not tobacco and alcohol, but the other ones, for historical reasons—our aim should be to stop people taking them. The idea is to reduce the number of users, rather than looking at the harms the substances cause. That is the wrong goal and it has not worked.

Drug use is still high, with millions of people regularly breaking the law, which is not an effective disincentive. Hon. Members can talk to many police officers about this, but frankly it makes the law look silly when 4 million people a year are committing a criminal offence, of whom 100,000—randomly selected, but with somewhat more from poorer communities and black and minority ethnic groups—get arrested, with a few unlucky people, again disproportionately poorer people and those from black and minority ethnic groups, being thrown in jail. It does not work.

[Stephen Phillips]

I may come to this if I am lucky enough to catch your eye in due course, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I do not think anyone else has made this point, but does it not also cause a lack of respect for the criminal law when every year 4 million people regularly break what is regarded as the criminal law for something that they do not think is a criminal offence?

[Dr Huppert]

Absolutely. If we asked people what sort of sentence it should be possible to get for having a spliff, they would not think that many years in jail was proportionate. I know that that does not always happen, but the maximum sentence in this instance brings the law into disrepute.

[Ms Abbott]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that politicians might just be behind public opinion on this question? A major tabloid paper reports today that it has polled its readers, who believe there should be a review of the legislation.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, as I said in an intervention. Politicians are behind, at least in what they are prepared to say. Another survey two years ago—I cannot remember which paper ran it—showed that 77% of MPs thought we should have reform, as long as they knew they would not be named in the survey and asked to introduce it. Politicians should have the courage of their convictions, and the public’s convictions, and take action.

I shall pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who chairs the Health Committee. We have indeed seen a reduction in the raw numbers—she is absolutely right—but I think that is largely because people are taking new psychoactive substances. We are seeing a huge increase in people taking legal alternatives, rather than illegal substances. The perversity of that is that we have pushed people to take substances whose safety we know less about. We know less about the harms and we are probably increasing the risk to those people very substantially. We should also look at the system. Smoking tobacco is more harmful than chewing khat, but why would we make the dangerous one legal and the not-so-dangerous one illegal? It seems like a very strange thing to do.

As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I was delighted that the Chair, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is sadly not in his place, agreed when I kept insisting that we should have a look at this issue. We undertook a detailed study and we heard from experts around the world. We concluded, on a cross-party basis, a key objective:

“The principal aim of Government drugs policy should be first and foremost to minimise the damage caused to the victims of drug-related crime, drug users and others.”

That is a call to completely rethink how we do drugs policy: to focus on reducing the harm, not on how many people do things that we badge as illegal.

The Home Secretary of course rejected the report’s findings and just carried on with business as usual, but we had one key victory. We secured agreement for an international comparators study, which has been worked on by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) and, now, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention. That is what has come out today, and although there is a serious gap where some of the conclusions ought to be—one feels that one is being led towards something, only to find a missing paragraph saying what one should do—it is very clear. The fundamental point is that sounding tough does not matter. The rhetoric does not make any difference; it is about outcomes. The study says:

“Looking across different countries, there is no apparent correlation between the ‘toughness’ of a country's approach and the prevalence of…drug use.”

That is key. If being tough actually reduced drug use around the world, we would have to look again, but it simply does not work. It creates extra harms, so the argument falls down.

What does work? There have been lots of academic studies. The thing that most reduces drug use is having a more equal society. Solving that may be beyond the scope of this debate, and certainly beyond my scope in the time I have left, but that is what will work—not tough laws, but a more equal society. Yet we continue with the tough approach. Every year we spend millions of pounds jailing something like 1,000 people for no offence other than possession. We are not talking about people who have burgled; we are talking about simple possession offences. They are not dealers; they are not doing worse things. Jailing them does not help them to deal with their addiction; if anything, it makes things worse for them and takes money that we could spend helping them instead of punishing them.

It is therefore really good progress that we now see acceptance from the Government that a tough drugs policy does not reduce usage. Contrary to what the Home Secretary said to the Home Affairs Committee, the Government have finally accepted that in Portugal decriminalisation and a focus on treatment have not led to more drug use.

We have the Minister on board, but we need to get the Home Secretary to agree to go ahead. We spend vast amounts of money on a drugs policy. Estimates vary between £3 billion and £10 billion a year, depending on which costs are included. Times are tight, so we should spend that money effectively. We should use police resources effectively, too. If police are kept busy dealing with simple possession offences, that is time and effort that they cannot use to settle violent or acquisitive crime, or indeed the gang crime that our war on drugs is fuelling. That is why so many police officers have spoken out.

The chief constable of Durham, Mike Barton, has argued for the decriminalisation of class A drugs, highlighting the fact that prohibition has put billions of pounds into the hands of the criminals he is supposed to be fighting. Many others say the same, including Chief Constable Tom Lloyd, my own former chief constable:

“Drug dealers all over the world are laughing at law enforcement…I want the end of prohibition and the start of control and regulation so we don’t have dealers on the street.”

He has also highlighted the harm done to young people, because for a huge proportion of them, their first contact with the law comes from being stopped and searched for drugs offences. When someone is convicted, according to Tom Lloyd:

“It seems hypocritical to saddle a young person with a criminal conviction that could blight their lives”.

Such people often have problems getting jobs and travelling in the future. This causes huge problems. Because of our criminalised system, we have no control over what drugs are cut with—and these cutting agents are often worse than the drugs themselves.

We also have huge problems with discrimination. For black and minority ethnic groups, the use of harder drugs is lower, but arrests are higher and they are twice as likely to proceed to court than white people. That is not right; we should not be doing that. With more than half of stop and searches being for possession, even the Home Secretary has acknowledged the problems that can result from that.

We need a new system, focusing on treatment, education and rehabilitation and dealing with the harms caused by drugs. How we pay for that is a challenge. The answer is to take money from the criminal justice system. We need to divert the money from spending on policing and prison towards spending on helping people to break their addiction. My party has called for exactly that, continuing to spearhead those calls. At our party conference in October this year, we had a new crime policy paper, which picked up on this issue. It called for a transfer of powers from the Home Office to the Department of Health, saying that drug addiction is a health problem and should be seen as such. We should make sure that people are not sent to prison for personal possession; we should move towards decriminalisation. We propose having a royal commission to take an overall view of what we do and to keep an eye on what is happening with cannabis in the US and Uruguay. I agree with the hon. Member for Totnes that it is too early to be certain about the outcomes; we need to keep an eye open.

[Stephen Phillips]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the US, and earlier in his very powerful speech he mentioned the difficulty some young people have with being criminalised over the possession of drugs. Does he regard it as an oddity, as I do, that a person could be denied a visa to go to the United States, in some parts of which marijuana can be bought and smoked quite legally, just because they have a criminal conviction in this country for having used cannabis?

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right; I agree completely with his point. We are blighting people’s lives for no good reason, and many do not think it is proportionate.

It is not just my party that has pushed for this change for a long time. Many other Members have called for reform, like the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). We have heard the clear view of The Sun in a very strong editorial just this morning, stressing that we cannot continue with the status quo. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said when he was Secretary of State:

“We have been engaged in a war against drugs for 30 years. We’re plainly losing it. We have not achieved very much progress.”

The former head of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller called for us to acknowledge the truth that

“much…of the vast expenditure on the so-called ‘War on Drugs’ has been fruitless.”

The noble Lord Lawson, with whom I disagree on many things, said:

“I have no doubt that the present policy is a disaster.”

Then there is the Prime Minister. When he was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2002, along with the hon. Member for Newport West, he voted to recommend

“that the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma”.

The Prime Minister used to be a reformer. When he ran for the Tory leadership, he said:

“Politicians attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator by posturing with tough policies and calling for crackdown after crackdown. Drugs policy has been failing for decades.”

All those voices are on side; we need to bring the Prime Minister back. Portugal has been a huge success. When we visited, we found that the new drugs policy was supported across the parties, and by the police as it helped them to deal with crime.

Let me make two last points before concluding. In 2016, the UN General Assembly will hold a special session on drugs in 2016, providing a key chance to change the global system in respect of drugs policy. This is key, and there are calls from around the world. Britain is leading the way in the calls for reform, but unfortunately not in an official capacity—it is the all-party parliamentary group on drugs policy reform that is seeking to co-ordinate Ministers around the world. The Government should support this change.

I echo the calls of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention to look again at marijuana as a medicine. The evidence is that it can be a very effective medical remedy, dealing with many diseases, including MS and glaucoma, and easing the side-effects of chemotherapy and HIV/AIDS treatment. This can help improve people’s lives, so clearly we should look at it as a medical intervention. This country has followed the wrong approach for 40 years. It has not worked, and it is time to change.

Foreign National Offenders (Removal)

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Of course I understand people’s frustration on the issue. It is this Government who have put in place a specific team, for the first time, to trail and find those absconders and it has been successful in two thirds of the cases it has dealt with. Obviously, we want that to improve but at least we have taken that step.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Paragraph 3.19 of the NAO report talks about the benefits of the EU prisoner transfer agreement. The Ministry of Justice estimates that there will be a further 4,500 removals and £110 million saved. Does the Home Secretary agree that such close working with the European Union is an essential part of what we have to do to deal with the problem and that people who would like to walk away from the European Union will make it much harder?

[Mrs May]

The prisoner transfer agreements are an important element of dealing with the issue. As my hon. Friend will know, there are still some countries in which we need to finalise the agreements and their approach. The prisoner transfer agreement is an important step and a useful tool and that is why it was one of the measures on the list of those to which we wanted to opt back in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have received representations in relation to the Kincora inquiry. Sir Anthony Hart is undertaking an inquiry. At the moment, I am looking at the best means of ensuring that the most thorough investigation and inquiry possible relating to the events at Kincora take place. I have not yet come to a decision on whether to bring that within this inquiry, or to make it possible for it to happen within the Kincora inquiry in Northern Ireland, but the aim of us all is the same: to make sure that the issue is investigated thoroughly and that all the elements that need to be addressed are addressed.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Home Secretary will be aware of the failure of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre in the Project Spade case, where 2,500 names of people buying child abuse images were passed on by the Canadian police but not looked at. A doctor at Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge was abusing children and was on that list. Had CEOP acted with the powers it already had, a number of children would not have been abused. What does the Home Secretary have to say to those children about the failure of the police on her watch?

Electronic Communications

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Data Retention Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.

The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which passed into law last week, was a necessary response to a European Court of Justice judgment that called into question the legal basis on which we require communications service providers in the UK to retain communications data. The judgment was handed down in April this year, not August as the explanatory memorandum accompanying the regulations incorrectly states—an administrative error for which I apologise to the House.

Communications data—the who, where, when and how of a communication, but not its content—are crucial for fighting crime, protecting children and combating terrorism. Indeed, Members will have seen the recent reporting on the National Crime Agency’s child abuse investigation, which led to more than 600 arrests and the protection of more than 400 children. The NCA has confirmed that much of the operation would have been impossible without access to communications data. Where an investigation starts with an internet communication, as in online child sexual exploitation cases, for example, communications data will often be the only investigative lead. The loss of such data would have been potentially devastating and would have impacted seriously on the ability of the police, law enforcement agencies and security and intelligence agencies to investigate crime, uncover terrorist links, protect children, solve kidnappings and find vulnerable people in danger. I am therefore extremely grateful for the support shown in both Houses for the passage of the Act. I put on the record my thanks to right hon. and hon. Members—and in particular to the Opposition—for the constructive way in which they engaged in the debates.

However, as was made clear last week, secondary legislation is required to cover the detail of the operation of the data retention regime and to ensure that the appropriate processes and safeguards can be applied to the retention of such data. That approach mirrors the existing position, in which the detailed data retention regime is set out in secondary legislation. That has worked well for a number of years. It is to those regulations that our attention must now turn.

Members will be aware that a provisional draft of the regulations was published before the legislation was introduced. The regulations before the House today are substantially the same as those which have been available for scrutiny and examination. I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for considering and reporting on them. I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie), the Chairman of that Committee, for arranging an exceptional meeting to consider the regulations.

Before turning to the content of the regulations, let me deal with the discussion that took place during the passage of the Act about the speed at which the legislation was being passed. Without revisiting those debates today, I will briefly explain why we consider it necessary for the regulations to be passed before the summer recess.

To ensure a strong legal basis for continued retention by service providers, we need to get the regulations in place before the House rises. The regulations ensure that the data to be retained are subject to appropriate safeguards, and the communications service providers concerned will welcome the certainty that the regulations bring.

The Act gives the Secretary of State the power to issue a data retention notice to a communications service provider, if he or she considers the retention to be necessary and proportionate. The regulations made under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 revoke and replace the 2009 data retention regulations. In large part the regulations replicate the obligations placed on providers under the 2009 regulations. In particular, they set out the types of data that can be retained. As was made clear during the debates on the Act, the list goes no further than the existing regulations. Crucially, the regulations set out the nature of the controls that must be placed on the data, both to ensure that they are adequately protected while they are being retained and to ensure that they are appropriately deleted at the end of that period.

The regulations also ensure that service providers are not penalised financially as a result of complying with a notice or the regulations. That is in line with previous practice and is a fair way of ensuring that the data are retained effectively and that there is no distortion of the communications market, given that obligations may be placed selectively. The regulations contain transitional provisions for the continued effectiveness of a notice under the 2009 regulations, until a new notice is given under the new regulations. We will work closely with providers in the coming months as they make the transition to the new regime.

As I highlighted to the House, the regulations contain additional safeguards. They differ from the 2009 regulations only in the context of those additional safeguards. They provide for data to be retained for a maximum of 12 months and allow the notice to specify that different types of data may be retained for shorter periods, where appropriate. If it is not proportionate to retain certain data for a full 12 months, a lower period can be chosen. The 2009 regulations provided for a blanket 12 months, although the directive on which they were based allowed for periods between six and 24 months.

The regulations also provide for a number of issues which must be considered before a retention notice is issued. I wish to assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I take our responsibilities seriously, scrutinising in detail any case for imposing a data retention notice to ensure that it is necessary and proportionate. It is with equal care and attention that we will approach our obligation to keep such notices under review.

The Home Office has always worked closely with communications service providers prior to serving a data retention notice, and the regulations enshrine this existing best practice in law by requiring the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to consult the provider affected. As I have previously explained, the regulations will ensure that the data are subject to appropriate safeguards and controls. Those who followed the scrutiny of the draft Communications Data Bill, including some Members in the House this afternoon, will be aware that there was some uncertainty as to the extent to which the Information Commissioner would oversee the integrity and deletion of retained data, as well as their security. The regulations therefore clarify that the Information Commissioner will oversee all elements of the protection and security of the data. We have discussed this with the commissioner and will provide him with the necessary additional resources to carry out this vital role.

Finally, the regulations amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to enable the creation of a data retention code of practice. That will allow us to provide further guidance to communications service providers on how to implement their obligations under a mandatory data retention notice and the regulations.

The House may wonder why certain other changes that we agreed to make are not given effect in the regulations. Separately, we will also update the data acquisition code of practice under RIPA to make it clearer that the officer authorising access to the data should be independent of the operation, and to ensure that consideration is given to the level of intrusion where there may be concerns relating to professions that handle privileged information. I know that that has been of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The House will have the opportunity in due course to review and comment on both draft codes of practice. In addition, we have announced that a number of public authorities will lose their access to communications data under RIPA and we will bring forward secondary legislation in the autumn in this regard. Hon. Members who followed the discussions about the draft Communications Data Bill will be aware that communications service providers are also able to retain communications data on a voluntary basis under a code of practice made under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The regulations apply the same security safeguards and access restrictions to data retained under that code.

As right hon. and hon. Members know, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act will be repealed on 31 December 2016. Any notices made under the Act and the regulations will similarly fall away. The Government have begun the process of a wider review of investigatory powers and it is right that there should be a full and proper debate on the threats, capabilities and, of course, safeguards that govern the use of such powers. I am sure the House will agree that that should include a wider public debate on the issues.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I am sure the Minister will agree that for that public debate and a review to take place, we need good statistics and information. One of the few things that seems to be missing from the previous regulations and the new ones is a section about statistics. Will he confirm that there will be the same or stronger requirements on public communications providers to keep good statistics on such data and how they are used? How will those will be provided to the Government, who will then publish them?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting this aspect. As he knows, in the debates last week we underlined the need for greater transparency and reporting of information about the use of the powers under the Act. I can assure him that we will take that forward. He will be aware, too, of the requirement on the interception of communications commissioner to report on a six-monthly basis—I know that was of concern—to assure the House and the public about the use of the powers under the new Act. Therefore, I expect that providers of information and communications service providers retaining that information would provide data to facilitate transparency and to ensure that the public are informed about the use of the powers under the Act.

As has been made absolutely clear over the past week, this legislation merely preserves the status quo. The Act passed last week and the regulations before the House today do not extend or create any new powers or obligations on communications companies that go beyond those that already exist; they simply ensure that the communications data that have been retained by the communications service providers will continue to be available to ensure that the police, the law enforcement agencies and the security and intelligence agencies have the capabilities they need to protect the public and keep us safe. I commend the regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I will speak to the regulations only briefly. I think that there are a couple of points worth making. It is interesting to compare the debate we are having now with the one in 2009. Back then, no time at all was given to discuss the regulations, which were moved without debate by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). Some Members who have expressed concern about these regulations voted in favour of the previous ones, even though they covered rather more. There was a debate in a Committee that lasted for 62 minutes, and it is very interesting to see how roles have changed. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who was then the Minister, said that they did not go far enough and that we needed to collect much more information from communications providers—he mentioned Facebook, but we can date the debate by his references to Bebo and Myspace as the other key providers. He was essentially calling for the Communications Data Bill—the snooper’s charter—that part of the Government, or at least the Home Secretary, wanted to see.

In 2009 there was also a very nice speech from the hon. Gentleman who is currently the Minister. He took a very strong stance that RIPA should be used only to combat serious crime and for the protection of national security. I do not know whether he has told the Home Secretary that that is the Conservative position, because it seems to have changed somewhat—we have moved on very slightly. We also heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) saying, “Yes, communications data are important, but we need some more safeguards.” In fact, the safeguards he itemised have largely been delivered in these new regulations, so I am glad that we have made progress.

There is concern, as expressed in the debate we had last week and by the public, about the idea that more information could be collected. For example, there is a concern that this could open the door to the collection of web logs and many other elements. It is worth having a look at the schedule to these regulations, which lists all the things that can be collected, and comparing it with the previous regulations. They are exactly the same—not a single word in the current regulations was not in the regulations introduced five years ago. On that basis, it is fairly clear that there are no new powers and that no new information—web logs, for example—can be collected.

However, there have been a number of other changes. The Minister highlighted the fact that we have taken the opportunity to move from saying that all data must be collected for 12 months to saying that it must be collected for up to 12 months. I very much welcome that, because I think that there are a lot of data that can be of great use the next day, the next week or perhaps the next month, but which are not needed for the full 12 months. We also have—I do not think that the Minister referred to this—a higher standard of data integrity and security required. The wording has been changed from requiring data to be stored in a way that is as good as it had been stored to requiring the best that is available, so the requirement for data integrity and security is actually tighter. Of course, the Secretary of State is required to keep that under review.

The one thing that there is not enough of—this is why I am pressing the Minister—is the idea of transparency. I want him to ensure throughout that as much information as possible is available. He and I have discussed how long the data can be kept for and how much of it is used in the 11th month available and so forth. That information must be available for all usages throughout the year so that we can make the right decisions. Wherever we draw the line, there will be some information on the other side of it. We want to make an informed and rational decision. I hope that he will ensure that all the notices make sure that those data are collected, as the interception of communications commissioner has also called for.

These regulations represent a step forward from the previous regulations. They collect no new information, but they tighten it very slightly. I hope that the House will pass them so that we can continue to collect the data that protect our security, with that slight extra tweak on civil liberties.

Police Reform

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He refers, of course, to a case that involved not just misconduct hearings inside the police but the Crown Prosecution Service considering the potential for charges and criminal investigation. Of course, the changes I have announced would make no difference to any criminal investigations, but if misconduct hearings were to be heard in public, that would make a difference. As for his last point about the importance of ensuring that people can have confidence that complaints and misconduct issues are being dealt with properly, that absolutely underpins the reforms.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Home Secretary is absolutely right to praise the work of the vast majority of police forces, but also right to highlight the need for public confidence and to make sure that the few rogue police officers do not do down all the others. May I press her on one particular point? She said that police officers would not be able to retire in order to avoid misconduct hearings. Will that have any application to the wide number of ongoing historic inquiries? Will retired police officers be required to come and say what they know?

[Mrs May]

It is important that we do this because one concern that the public had was that they had seen police officers who were under suspicion or potentially subject to misconduct hearings being able to retire or resign and those misconduct hearings were stopped. We have been very clear that in those circumstances, misconduct hearings should continue and if an officer would have been struck off, they should go on the list so that they will not be employed by another force. The measure I have announced is part of ensuring that that can take place. We have also, of course, taken some action on the IPCC’s powers for people to attend interviews. The question of what is said when someone attends an interview is another issue, but we have already taken some steps as regards these historic cases.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

As the House has heard, communications data are information relating to the who, when, where and how of communications, but not to their content. These data are crucial to the work of both law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies.

As a result of the recent European Court of Justice judgment, we need to ensure that communications companies in the UK continue to retain this key information. The Bill will replace the data retention regime currently set out in the UK’s Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009, and preserve the status quo in relation to the retention of data, while responding to certain points made in the European Court judgment. Let me make it clear that the Bill will not create any new powers or obligations on communications companies beyond those that already exist.

Clause 1 will create a power for the Secretary of State to give notices to communications service providers to require them to retain relevant communications data. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already made clear, the Bill does not enable the retention of any data which cannot already be retained by communications service providers under the existing data retention regulations.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that there will be no change for data retention by overseas providers and that overseas companies will not be ordered to retain data?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have said, the law will be exactly as it now stands. My hon. Friend will know that there are provisions relating to extraterritoriality, and we will come on to the relevant clause later. He will understand that we have a relationship with communications service providers in the UK about their retention of data and that, in the regime under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Security Service, the police and listed bodies can make specific requests for the purposes set out in RIPA.

It is important to stress that those defined purposes are contained in existing law. To emphasise a point I made on Second Reading, the Bill is not about extending the current situation. Although the European Court of Justice commented on the data retention directive, we had already legislated in a number of ways to ensure that issues of proportionality and necessity are considered in framing requests. We have obviously reflected carefully on the judgment; hence some of the provisions, which I am sure we will come on to in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I just want to ensure that I understand the Minister’s answer. Perhaps I did not phrase my question well. Does the clause provide the power to issue a retention notice to an overseas provider in respect of information that is flowing overseas? That would be something new and I would be grateful if he could rule it out. That is not currently the practice and I hope that he will confirm that it will not be the practice.

[James Brokenshire]

It is certainly not our plan or intention—indeed, it is not part of our process—to make those sorts of requests. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we make requests for communications data to be retained by companies in the UK. He knows of the processes and the safeguards that exist in respect of the specific requests that are made by the different agencies, and of the tests that need to be satisfied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

I am grateful. I will keep my contribution as short as possible, because other Members want to get on to some of the more important amendments to clause 6 and it is clear that there is no appetite to divide the Committee on this matter.

As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said, it is worrying that, all too often, the “economic well-being” head has been drawn so widely that many aspects of it could be seen as part and parcel of something that could fall within the ambit of RIPA and this Bill. One need only look at the controversy around the alleged bugging of the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, by the National Security Agency, if the Snowden reports are to be believed. On the grounds, presumably, of economic well-being, there was an opportunity to listen to particular conversations. That is not a healthy state of affairs.

Many of the public concerns about the Bill that are close to all our hearts reflect an understanding and an appreciation from many of our constituents that certain intelligence needs to be picked up, but the process needs to be necessary and proportionate. Therefore, trying to draw a narrow view—not an overly restrictive view, but as narrow a view as possible—will command more public confidence.

“Economic well-being” is one of the various heads that come under the auspices of RIPA—the 2000 Act that controls most of the surveillance that is dealt with in the Bill. Rather worryingly, permissible purposes under the Bill, as under RIPA, will include

“any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (g)) which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State.”

That is almost a Henry VIII-type provision that relates to the issue of public confidence that is close to all our hearts.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Knowsley that we should be trying to define the terms more narrowly. Perhaps now is not exactly the right time to do it, but I hope we will be able to do so in the months and years ahead when it comes to having a fully fledged Bill on these very important matters.

I agree that we have to look at economic well-being as focusing on the security of the critical national infrastructure, defence contracts and—something close to my own heart—the stability of the UK currency, banking and financial systems, particularly with the ongoing and likely to become more acute issue of cybercrime, and cyber-security issues that will come as part and parcel of that.

I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer. It is important that we put some of these concerns in place. As I say, they have a more general bearing on the idea that if we are to get a sense of public confidence about this sort of legislation, we need to try to define it as narrowly as possible rather than having broad definitions in place. I think that that is what the right hon. Gentleman had in mind in tabling the amendment and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Dr Huppert]

I have heard several comments that clause 3 does not need to be in fast-track legislation, and it does not relate to an impending emergency, but I would not like to see it removed. It is a good, pro-civil liberties, pro-privacy clause, which just trims down what was always quite a bizarrely broad definition. It restricts the issuing of interception warrants on grounds such as national security—fair enough; serious crime—or the UK’s economic well-being, which is a broad concept, as was being discussed. The wording is taken from article 8(2) of the European convention on human rights, which is why we have that idea, but it could be interpreted broadly. There have been a number of discussions about whether, for example, it would enable lawful intercept to be used to find out what other companies are bidding against British companies. That is something that I think the House would be clear now is simply not acceptable—the Government have a stated policy on that—but it is not excluded by law. I think we would all say that it is simply not appropriate, so I am pleased that we are taking the opportunity of this legislation to trim this down; to try to make sure that it is only economic well-being as it relates to national security.

I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but I have a number of issues with it. In particular, I am concerned that some of the language around

“the conduct of defence contracts”,

and the

“manufacture and design of UK defence systems”,

sounds worryingly as though it is saying that the House believes that it is okay to have interception to win defence contracts against a foreign bidder, or to make sure that we do well. I hope that that is not what is intended.

[Mr George Howarth]

indicated dissent.

[Dr Huppert]

The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, so that is clear. But I would be very worried about anything that suggested that.

[Mr Howarth]

My concern was not to empower interception for those purposes, but to empower countermeasures in cases where hostile states or hostile individuals sought to break into those systems. I think I did say that. As I said, I do not claim for one moment that it is a perfectly worded amendment, but that was my intention.

[Dr Huppert]

That is helpful. There is general agreement, but it was something that struck me when I read the amendment earlier this morning. I note that there are not many Members in the Chamber. Sadly, the House is often like that, however much time has been given for debate or however much notice.

There is a question as to whether it is helpful to define economic well-being. It may be that it is just too hard. Perhaps scholars of the future will look at this discussion and many others to try to work out what is meant. It should relate to things that would be catastrophic; where the effect of failing to stop something would be equivalent to a national security problem or a serious crime. It is that sort of level.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

There is a huge amount of concern that the legislation as it was previously and has been presented today could be used for political or industrial purposes. For example, it could be used to intercept information when a trade union was organising industrial action. Is his reading of the amendment such that it could be used in a situation such as the miners’ strike of 1984-85?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I do not know the answer to the hon. Lady’s question. That would seem inappropriate if it was about a trade union problem. If it was about ensuring that there was not a catastrophic failure of national infrastructure, there might be some grounds, but I would be alarmed if it was used for what were clearly political arguments. From my perspective, the miners’ strike would seem to be an inappropriate use of anything like this. I do not think we should ever see anything like that.

[Mr Howarth]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) that it was certainly never my intention that it should be used for the purposes she described. I believe strongly in free trade unions and can think of no circumstances in which the state should intervene in that way.

[Dr Huppert]

I am always delighted to enable two Labour Members to talk to each other. Having facilitated that conversation, and as I agree with what both of them said, I will end my remarks there.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 allows the Secretary of State to issue interception warrants and allows those warrants to be served on persons who can assist in giving effect to them. Anyone who is providing a public telecommunications service who is served with a warrant is obliged to give effect to it. It has always been the case that that applies to any company that offers services to customers in the United Kingdom, irrespective of where it is based.

The territorial extent of RIPA has perhaps never been as explicit as it should have been. As a result, some overseas companies have started to question whether they are obliged to comply with warrants that are served on them. Our judgment is that that situation has reached a dangerous tipping point, and that it is necessary to put it beyond doubt that RIPA applies equally to public telecommunications services that are located overseas and those that are headquartered in the UK.

The clause makes clear Parliament’s intention that RIPA should have extraterritorial jurisdiction. It does that in three ways. First, it specifies that an interception warrant may be served on a company that is located overseas, and that a company providing telecommunications services to customers within the United Kingdom, but which is located overseas, has a duty to provide assistance when served with that warrant. Secondly, it specifies that a notice that is issued under section 12 of RIPA may be given to a company that is providing telecommunications services to customers within the UK, but that is located outside the UK. Such a notice would require the company to put in place the necessary infrastructure to give effect to interception warrants. Thirdly, it specifies, as has always been the case, that a notice under section 22 of RIPA for the provision of communications data may be served on a company outside the UK.

The clause specifies the means by which the serving of a warrant or the giving of a notice may be effected. It also makes clear the obligation to comply with a warrant or notice, and the means by which that obligation may be enforced.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the Minister make clear what consequences the clause might have for overseas providers? Is there any possibility that a section 12 order could require a foreign company to install surveillance equipment on its network? Does the Minister have the powers to do that?

[James Brokenshire]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on surveillance techniques. However, I restate clearly that the Bill and, in particular, clause 4 do nothing more than is already the case in respect of the requirement to serve notices and the ability to issue warrants to overseas providers.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The approach we have taken is to promote co-operation, and stating as clearly as possible that the legislation has extraterritorial effect is a key part of that. Ultimately, given the clarity provided in the legislation, a company that did not comply with a warrant or notice served on it would be open to court challenge.

[Dr Huppert]

Perhaps my previous question was not clear. A number of companies are concerned about the important issue of how section 12 orders would be interpreted. RIPA currently deals with powers to enable companies to make lawful intercepts. Will the Minister confirm that if a company—a webmail provider, or whoever—can provide legal intercept, he is not claiming powers to require them to put specific equipment on their networks?

[James Brokenshire]

Perhaps I did not explain this clearly to the hon. Gentleman, but we are not intending to add additional powers to compel. I suppose he is trying to elicit whether the measure is a means of getting more data retained outside the UK—he raised that point in the previous debate on this issue, and again I may be misunderstanding him. I reassert that the Bill contains nothing that in any way extends the existing reach of section 12 of RIPA. Other than reasserting the position on extraterritoriality, it does not in essence change section 12 at all. If that does not answer his point, he may wish to write to me on the matter.

The clause provides that where a warrant has been served on a company outside the UK, the law in the country where the firm is located must be taken into account when determining whether it is reasonably practicable for that company to give effect to the warrant. The clause also makes it clear that the court should consider what steps the company has taken or could take to avoid such a conflict arising. It does not extend the powers of law enforcement or security and intelligence agencies. It simply puts beyond doubt the fact that sections 11, 12 and 22 of RIPA apply to telecommunication service providers that are based outside the UK but provide services to customers in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who is a fierce defender of the rights of individuals. I hope he agrees that if we can build on the attitude I have described from one of the most senior providers, then, by consensus, we ought to be able to set an example of an agreed arrangement whereby providers can be satisfied that they are assisting the law enforcement authorities in a proper, open and legitimate way, with no question of their being party to underhand arrangements.

Finally, may I apologise to the House for my late entry to this important debate, and, indeed, for my attire? I spent the entire day at the Farnborough air show, where the screaming of fast jets must have excluded the noise of my telephone ringing repeatedly from Downing street, offering me an alternative way to serve the nation.

[Dr Huppert]

I have two questions and I would be grateful if the Minister provided a written response to them, to ensure we get a clear answer. First, may we have a written confirmation that there would be no power to force foreign companies to install surveillance equipment on their networks if they are able to provide the intercept that is needed? Secondly, will he confirm the impact of subsection (4) and make it clear that, if a foreign company is under an obligation not to provide such data—if it would, in fact, be a criminal offence for them to comply—no such requirement would be made by the Government? That would put people in the invidious position of having to face criminality on one front or the other. If the Minister wrote to me with confirmation on those points, that would be very helpful.

[James Brokenshire]

I will respond briefly to the points made in the debate. On the latter point, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) will have noted the reference I made to companies’ reasonable ability to comply and the consideration that would have to be given in particular to conflict of law issues, but I will see if I need to supplement that in some way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Watson]

I completely agree. It has been mentioned that there have been few MPs in the Chamber for some of the debate—the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who has been in his place all day, reflected on that. The honest truth is this: are we really surprised at that, when Back-Bench MPs have been treated in this way by the Executive, when MPs did not even know that this Bill would be published until last Thursday and when they had 47 minutes to table amendments when the business motion was passed last night? Thankfully the Speaker has said that he would accept manuscript amendments today, under these unusual circumstances. If it is baffling for Back Benchers, how on earth can our constituents have any comprehension or faith in today’s process?

What our amendment would do is simple. It does not ask for a report—I know that the shadow Minister has said we can have a report, but that is not the same as discussing clauses in Committee and allowing elected representatives to tease out the issues. He knows what this is: it is a fudge, and it is an unacceptable one. What I am saying is that we should give the Government the benefit of the doubt tonight with a six-month sunset clause, which would give us plenty of time to discuss a Bill in the proper way.

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood, and to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). I hugely admired his stance on the Digital Economy Act 2010, just before I became an MP, when I watched as he stood alone against his own Government, who were trying to ram a piece of legislation through the House in something like an hour or 90 minutes—he will, I am sure, remember the exact time. He had Liberal Democrat support, but we lost every vote on that occasion. I hugely admire him, and I saw his articles in The Guardian on that occasion and his frustration at not getting responses to letters from those on his own Front Bench, although that is perhaps an issue for him.

I have to tell the Committee that I am tempted by what the hon. Gentleman said about looking back in six months’ time. It sounds quite attractive—[Interruption.]

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) to come to order.

[Dr Huppert]

Thank you, Mr Hood.

What the hon. Member for West Bromwich East set out is very tempting. I hear what he said and he made a strong case. However, although I have huge respect for why he is trying to achieve that, I am worried about what it would actually mean, because to get a new piece of legislation through in time it would, essentially, have to start now. I looked up the Identity Documents Act 2010—the first Act passed by this Government—which got rid of identity cards, something I am very proud of. It was obviously much easier to deal with, because it was getting rid of something, rather than creating something, so less scrutiny was necessary—we know what it is like not to have something. That was introduced in May and was not passed until December. It was very short—14 clauses, so only slightly longer than this one will be once we have added a couple of clauses. It took quite a long time to get it through the House, so if we were to get a replacement Act through in time, we would have to start now.

[Mr Watson]

May I parry the hon. Gentleman with another Act? The Academies Act 2010 was introduced on 26 May and received Royal Assent on 27 July. The complex Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill had First Reading on 15 July 2010 and received Royal Assent on 16 December. If we can pass legislation in three days in an emergency, it is not beyond the wit of man and woman to pass legislation in six months.

[Dr Huppert]

I agree that it could take six months, which is shorter than the normal time scale, but it still means that we would have to start very soon. I passionately want to see—I think the hon. Gentleman and I agree completely on most of the issues around this space—something better than what we have with RIPA and with lawful intercept. I am clear about that. I have outlined on other occasions where I would like to see substantial improvements, some of which we have secured now but the vast majority of which we have not. But I do not think that that work can be done in time. Even if we were to wait until after the summer, we would still have a very short period to get a Bill through on the normal timetable. That is my big concern. I do not think that we could have the review that the Royal United Services Institute is doing at the Deputy Prime Minister’s request. I do not think that we can have the review that we all want to see from David Anderson QC, who has done such a great job. We would not be able to have that done in time. What we would find—I know that this is not what the hon. Gentleman wants to see—is that it will be exactly the same Bill being taken through again at a slightly slower pace.

[Mr Raab]

The hon. Gentleman is trying very hard on this. I am stuck with the very basic point of why, if he and other Members can vote through something in three days, we could not possibly wait six months at least to improve it substantially this side of a general election. Is that not what his constituents and mine would expect of us doing our day-to-day job in this House?

[Dr Huppert]

As I have said, I would be very happy to stay longer and have a less rushed Bill. We need to get this passed properly, with enough time to get the review going before the summer. I am happy to stay here next week; I have said that quite publicly and I have said it in this place. I take my hon. Friend’s point on that issue.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

Let me make a little more progress. The type of change that I want to see is fundamental to how RIPA works. I wish to have a system that retains communications data for a very short period—a week or a month—so that we can find out, say, what happened just before somebody died yesterday. It should not be available for any longer unless a preservation order is applied for. That sort of system would massively reduce the amount of evidence that is kept on people, but would allow it to be available for those very serious cases that all of us want to see investigated. That is the sort of system that I would like to see, but that is not an easy thing to write down. It would take many, many months of work to try to write that into a form that we can make work.

There is another problem, which runs right at the base of this. It is what I hope to talk about when we get on to the next collection of amendments, my new clauses 3 and 4. The Home Office simply does not have evidence on how this information is used and for what purposes. As I understand it—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the only information on how communications data are used is based on a two-week snapshot survey of police forces. What sort of crime is it? We know that data are used and we know of many examples. It is only that small survey that tells us exactly what sort of things they are used for. We need to have that data to make a sensible decision. The more data we retain, the more things we can do to combat crime, but the more invasive it is. We cannot set a sensible balance without that data. The Home Office urgently needs to collect that data but it will not have it in the next couple of months.

I worry—I have seriously considered and agonised over this—that what is being suggested would not put us in a better place. The alternative to having a Bill that started almost straight away would be to wait a bit longer—until November—and have a new Bill. We could use that time to get a bit of information for a review, but then we would again be forced to fast-track the legislation. We would go through exactly the same process, with not that many Members here debating it, and we would have exactly the same problems. That would not help and would not take us to where I want to be, because I am passionate about getting rid of the awful system that we have and coming up with something better. As I said earlier, we can have more security, more civil liberties and more protection, which is something that I have debated on many occasions.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I promised the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) that I would give way to him first. I will then give way to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), and then I will stop, because I want to let others speak.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I do not wish to be unkind, but the hon. Gentleman is confusing me. He says that he would sit until next week to ensure that we considered the Bill properly. I agree with that, but it will not happen. However, what is the difference between that and having a six-month sunset clause? That would give us six months in which to hold a consultation and a debate. The Government would then have the opportunity to bring forward legislation in the light of the responses received during the consultation.

[Dr Huppert]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point is that we simply do not have the time to make that happen. We cannot take account of the detailed reviews that are necessary. I totally accept that we could do a bit more, but it would not fundamentally change where we are. It would not allow for the data collection and information gathering to work up much better proposals, which is what we need to make progress.

[Jim Sheridan]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is already a significant amount of criticism from people north of the border about the purpose of this place. If the Bill goes through in the time scale suggested, other people will say, “What is the purpose of that place down there when they do not even have time to scrutinise the legislation?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

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

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

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

[Mr Straw]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Huppert]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Legal certainty for transparency reporting—

‘(1) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended as in subsection (2).

(2) In section 54 (Tipping-off), after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section in respect of any disclosure, it shall be a defence for that person to show that the disclosure was made as part of an aggregated statistical disclosure covering a period of time greater than six months.”’

This amendment would provide a defence against the “tipping-off” offence, which has been cited as a reason why companies cannot release transparency reports. This amendment would allow statistics to be made available at six monthly (or greater) intervals.

[Dr Huppert]

These are, I hope, two unobjectionable new clauses, which seek clarity from the Government about what is intended in respect of the transparency reporting. One challenge we have faced for a very long time in this area is the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, very little information is kept by the Home Office or any of the other bodies about what exactly this information is used for, how many pieces of information are collected by different people and what the reasons were. This is a very frustrating state of affairs.

When we looked at the draft Communications Data Bill, we found that there was just a two-week snapshot survey of a few police forces—it was not even all of them—asking about the purposes for which communications data are used. For that reason, I have for a long time wanted proper transparency reporting from the Government and all the organisations—some companies, such as Google, already do this as far as they can—so that we know what is being done and we can make an informed decision about whether it is being done appropriately.

Currently, we have well over 500,000 requests for communications data every year. In order to judge whether that is a large or a small number, we need to know why they were made. We also need to know—we simply do not know this at the moment—how many people it relates to. Do those 500,000 requests relate to more than 500,000 people, or are there, in fact, 20 requests, say, relating to one person? We simply do not have that information.

This is not just a concern that I and various others have raised; it is something that the interception of communications commissioner raised in his 2013 annual report, in which he said:

“In my view the unreliability and inadequacy of the statistical requirements is a significant problem which requires attention.”

We must fix this; it is very important that we know. It was a bit of a shock to find, for example, that only 11.4% of requests were for national security. The vast majority were to prevent or detect crime or to prevent disorder. We should have that information available; we should know. Partly because of the lack of it, the commissioner highlighted the fact that he simply had to estimate various parameters that he was supposed to be investigating. He also said that he was concerned about “significant institutional overuse” and that the figure was “a very large number” that had

“the feel of being too many.”

We need to have the information available and published, so that we can make a proper decision.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I warmly endorse what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that if more examples were given of a collated nature—such as those we read about frequently in individual criminal court cases—about the vital role that such data play, that would go a long way to allaying unnecessary public suspicion about the importance of having such data available for the forces of law and order?

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Unfortunately, the approach taken for, I believe, many decades has been not to tell people. We have always been told, “We can’t tell you what’s being done at the moment, but we need more.” If we were told and there were transparency, the public could make a much more sensible judgment about what was needed.

New clause 3 highlights what I would expect to see as part of new transparency reporting. It contains requirements to ensure that information is available about the offence being investigated, so that we can find out if it is about children applying to the wrong school or speeding offences, as opposed to national security matters, how long the data have been requested, so that we can work out how long they should be kept for—is it usually used after a week or a year?—and what sort of data they are, so that we know whether we are talking about reverse directory look-ups or rather more personal information. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me that that is his intention.

I should say that both my new clauses were inspired by Big Brother Watch, which I have been working with on this whole Bill and which particularly wanted to make these points clear. New clause 4 deals with the problem that a number of organisations feel they cannot publish their transparency reports and say what they have been asked to do for fear of violating the legislation against tipping off. I understand why there is a concern. The Government do not want companies to say, “The following things we are reporting to the Government, but these things are perfectly safe; we will not tell the Government about them.” We want companies to be able to publish that anonymised information, so I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that companies can safely publish it as part of their transparency reports without fear of being prosecuted.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reassurances on both those aspects.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for tabling these new clauses to enable a debate about transparency and the information provided in the exercise of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. He will know that the Government—the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—announced last week that we intend to introduce annual transparency reports relating to the exercise of powers under RIPA. That report will provide as much detail as possible, but without undermining the effectiveness of the agencies or posing a risk to national security.

The point I would make to my hon. Friend is that if we had individual companies giving details, that might give an indication to those who would do us harm, who might ask themselves, “Well, which ones aren’t doing that and which direction should we go in?” This therefore has to be done with care, given the nature of transparency, but I endorse his point about the need for more information to be provided, so that the public and this House can have confidence in the utilisation of the powers set out in the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

Yes, we have had annual surveys, but the question is what more can be done to strengthen the process? That is something that the interception of communications commissioner raised in his last report and that we are now reflecting on, especially with regard to the detail that can be provided through the transparency report.

[Dr Huppert]

The Minister talked about that two-week snapshot from 2012. Is that the most recent survey that looked at the age of the data? Does he agree that it would be really helpful to have more up-to-date information about the age of the data are that used?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend argues for a different approach. He talks about a limited period and then about the need to safeguard that information following an event. I do not agree with him on that, as that is a separate debate. However, I agree that where we can see accurate data being provided, we seek to surface that as much as possible as part of the approach on transparency.

As the commissioner made clear in his report, the Home Office was working with him to improve the statistics collected by public authorities. He identified a number of further elements in his report, including the total number of applications submitted, the total number of items of data requested, the total items of data broken down by statutory purpose for which they were required and the total items of data broken down by crime type or other purpose for which they were required, which is the point that my hon. Friend has just made.

We are working with public authorities to ensure that most of these statistics are already being collected by them, and are progressing work to agree on the relevant practicalities such as agreed nomenclature that would enable those that had not already been collected to be collected. Transparency is important in ensuring continued public trust in the agencies and police forces that have been granted intrusive powers. However, transparency does have limits. We should not commit to such transparency that would publicise police and other sensitive investigative methodology, because explaining exactly how our investigators do their job will naturally lead to terrorists, criminals and others who wish us harm knowing how to avoid detection. We must also be careful not to weigh down investigators with too much bureaucracy such that they cannot perform the important function of preventing and detecting crimes and keeping us safe.

[James Brokenshire]

In highlighting case studies, my hon. Friend makes an important point. A number of case studies involving serious murders have already been referenced in the debate this evening. Indeed, the shadow Home Secretary highlighted a case in which a young person who was safeguarded was effectively prevented from killing themselves. Such examples highlight the absolute import and value of communications data and the way in which our emergency services, police and others rely on them, not just to solve crime and to protect the public from those very real threats that we understand from a criminal law and a counter-terrorism perspective, but to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm. The ability to identify where someone may be through tracking the communications data can literally be a matter of life and death. My hon. Friend is therefore right to suggest we can draw on case studies to provide greater explanation. In the appalling Soham murders, for example, communications data were instrumental in bringing those responsible to justice. Such cases highlight the significance of the use of the powers.

I recognise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, but I am unable to accept his new clause tonight. I can make it clear, however, that I do not resist increased transparency; indeed, it is the reason we have agreed to bring forward annual transparency reports. Such a level of detail can be considered in different ways, and in amending the code of practice on the acquisition and disclosure of communications data later this year, we can ensure that the appropriate text is included in statutory guidance, for example. Parliament will have a chance to return to the issue soon in that context. There are perhaps other ways in which we can reflect further on getting the balance right.

My hon. Friend made another point that may in fact relate to section 19 of RIPA, rather than to the section he suggested, concerning the illegality of disclosing the existence of a warrant under that section. To do so would risk exposing the existence of an interception capability and, crucially, the potential lack of such a capability, which would indicate to criminals and terrorists, who may wish to exploit such a gap, which communication services they may be able to use to conduct their illicit activities without detection. I believe that my hon. Friend seeks to ensure that where such a disclosure is made as part of an annual transparency report issued by the major service providers, a defence will be available to them in any subsequent legal proceedings.

The Government believe that, as at present, it is for the interception of communications commissioner to publish the total number of interception warrants. The commissioner has expressed his concern about the nature of the transparency reports, particularly with reference to requests for communications data. In his annual report for 2013, the commissioner is clear that statistics from transparency reports should “be treated with caution” as they may “lead to misleading comparisons”. Indeed, it would not be helpful to the public for there to be numerous sources of information on the number of requests or warrants when there is a lack of clarity and consistency as between each source. We are doing everything that we can, working with the independent commissioner, to improve the transparency of how such powers are used, but the additional provision would not help to give the public greater clarity, so I invite my hon. Friend to withdraw new clause 3.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for his comments. The move towards greater transparency will benefit us all, including the Home Office. I do not quite agree with some of the points that he made towards the end of his speech. Many companies are doing well publishing transparency reports, which is helping to move the agenda forwards, but in the interests of time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Effect and justiciability of this Act

‘For the avoidance of doubt and notwithstanding sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, this Act shall have effect and shall be construed as having effect and shall be justiciable by the courts of the United Kingdom.’—(Sir William Cash.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Sir William Cash]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am grateful to be called at this late hour. This new clause is important. I look to the Home Secretary; she knows exactly where I am coming from and where I am going. She may believe that we will be defeated on this new clause, but nothing will prevent me from making the point, which is that the Bill could become pointless. The difficulty, which she understands—I am sure that her advisers have already explained it—is simply that clauses 1 and 2 will enable the Home Secretary to serve a data retention notice on public telecommunications operators and to make secondary legislation governing such notices. However, there is a real possibility that the precise meaning of the European Court of Justice’s Digital Rights Ireland judgment has the effect of potentially eviscerating the Bill.

Professor Peers of Essex university draws attention to the objection by the Court to the requirement to retain all communications data. The fact that the directive required all data to be retained from all subscribers was indeed the first of the considerations taken into account by the Court in arriving at the conclusion that the directive was disproportionate. The problem is that it is within the framework of European law. This Bill is within the scope of EU law and so is the charter of fundamental rights, and the general principle of EU law will continue to apply. What that means in practice is very simple: sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 have the effect of ensuring that the retention directive, its replacements and all that follows from it are and have to be implemented in UK law. The United Kingdom also has an obligation under the voluntarily enacted 1972 Act to accept the jurisdiction of the European Court.

The European Court has already adjudicated on this matter, but the problem is that within the framework of this Bill there are grave uncertainties that have already been expressed by myself and others during these proceedings. The bottom line is therefore whether we are to make uncertainty more uncertain by providing for a situation in which we enact a Bill that might be challenged by the European Court through arrangements that some people who do not like its provisions might decide to entertain. If they do so, it will go back through the Court of First Instance and then the Court of Appeal before going to our own Supreme Court and being referred to the European Court of Justice. As with the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which was struck down by our own High Court in pursuance of the European Communities Act 1972, which is a voluntary Act, the net result if the European Court of Justice makes such a determination will be that the United Kingdom will be faced with this Bill being struck down as enacted.

I do not need to say any more, because I have made the point throughout our proceedings. I implore the Government to take note of the new clause, which has been carefully considered by some very senior lawyers, both academics and practising lawyers. They are convinced that the Bill is at risk and so, as I did with the enactment of the Lisbon treaty, I tabled a provision that said that notwithstanding the European Communities Act the charter of fundamental rights would not apply. The Home Secretary might smile now, but I have to say to her that that is now a serious choice for the Government. Either they except the charter of fundamental rights or, through amendment of the 1972 Act, they should ensure that the charter of fundamental rights does not apply. That also applies to these provisions and I need say no more for the moment. I sincerely trust that the Minister will give a positive response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

At the end of this rather long day, I want to reflect briefly on where we are in this area. There is a tension between privacy and security. As I have said, it is not a question of having one or the other; we can have both. I do not believe that those who are more concerned about security want to ride roughshod over privacy and civil liberties. Equally, those of us who are passionate about privacy and civil liberties care about security. We can have both and we need to work on both. There will be differences in the relative weighting that we place on each.

Let me go back to 2012, when we had the Home Secretary’s draft Communications Data Bill, which was the son of the previous Government’s interception modernisation programme. The Home Secretary has been very clear that she believes that we should have that Bill. We, as partners in the coalition Government, insisted that it be only a draft Bill. A Committee went through it carefully—a process that took many months—and we vetoed it because the Committee was very critical. Had we not had that process, there may well have been no need for this piece of fast-track legislation, because we would have had the communications data Bill and it would have covered many of the things that were required. However, it would have been far more intrusive and of questionable security value.

All that was before the Snowden period, when we found out what was happening. What has the House done to reflect the concerns that people have about privacy, data and surveillance? We have had one debate in Westminster Hall, which I managed to secure, in which neither Front Bencher supported the calls for massive reform of RIPA, although many Members from all parties did so. There has been one Bill in the House on this subject, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). Of course, like most private Members’ Bills, it did not make any progress. This House has failed to have the discussions and debates that have happened in the US, Germany and many other places.

That leads directly to the scepticism about the Bill that many people feel. There is a track record and people have developed concerns over many years. For decades we have had claims from the Government, again and again, about what is needed for security. So many clichés—the old lines: if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear. Every reference to everything is justified by a reference to terrorists or paedophiles. Of course those matter and are serious, but they are not the same as proper evidence-based arguments about what is needed and is proportionate.

I understand the concern that many members of the public and in the House feel about this subject and this legislation, but the Bill deals with a genuine problem and replaces existing powers that the state already has with powers that are the same or lesser. Ministers have been clear that that is the intention. There is no question that somebody in the future will look back at this debate and believe there has been any intention to widen powers, and time after time we have heard that on the record. There has been debate about whether the law can be challenged under the ECHR. It can certainly be challenged; laws can always be challenged, and if it turns out that there are problems with it, I am sure they will be addressed. However, I do not think that will happen.

On the flipside, we have covered what would be a genuine crisis to ensure that we can continue with our security levels, and we have made extra gains that put us in a better place from a privacy and civil liberties perspective. The sunset clause will focus people and force the review to happen, and we will finally get a proper long-term detailed piece of work on how we can have better legislation. That will take years to get right, but we must get it right.

We have a privacy and civil liberties oversight board to ensure that those concerns are seriously considered as policy is developed and looked after, developing the existing role of David Anderson QC. The Bill will be more powerful than he has been able to be. A senior diplomat will try to come up with a better way of dealing with the international problems that we are all struggling with. We would all like a better model, and pushing ahead with that will make a big difference. We will see reductions in access. Fewer organisations will be able to get access to information which, coupled with a reduction in the maximum time limit for which data can be held, will mean more protection for all of us overall. We will have transparency reports so that we know what is going on and why, and can have far more informed debates here and in public.

This has not been an easy process and I pay tribute to everybody involved, of all different views. I had the privilege of being involved in a number of those discussions, and it has been difficult for many people in this House. However, I think the Bill has dealt with security problems while boosting—a bit at least to start with—privacy and civil liberties. As has been reported in many places, this will be seen in years to come as a time when the House said, “We must tackle this and ensure we get it right.”

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (Business of the House)

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend needs to recognise—I am sure he does—the sensitivity and importance of communications data and how they are used for the prosecution of offences, and of interception and how we have reached a tipping point, which is why there is a need for urgent legal certainty and clarification in the light of the European Court judgment. We face two serious and urgent problems relating to both communications data and interception: first, the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice has called into question the legal basis on which we require communications service providers in the UK to retain communications data; and, secondly, the increasingly pressing need to clarify the application of our laws on interception, so that communications service providers that provide services to people in the UK are in no doubt that they are covered by the laws, irrespective of where they are based.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Home Secretary was rather less than clear at the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, so will the Minister provide clarity? What would happen if instead of passing the Bill now, we passed it in September? Is there a definite risk, and if so, what risk do we definitely face?

[James Brokenshire]

There is a risk in relation to co-operation on the use of the powers; indeed, there may be legal challenge. The House must face up to the prospect that the powers we use—they are constantly used by our law enforcement agencies—are at potential risk, and we are seeking to address that risk through the Bill this afternoon.

That is why the Government have decided that a fast-track process is appropriate. We have not done so lightly; we would not consider the Bill in this way unless we thought that there is a real risk to such capabilities. We believe that the issues have reached a dangerous tipping point, and that we must act now. If we do not enact the Bill before the summer recess, we face the real prospect of a serious degradation in the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to investigate crime, preserve national security and protect the public. That is why the Bill requires a fast-track approach.

The motion provides for some nine hours of debate on the Bill. If the House approves the motion, we will move directly to the debate on Second Reading, which will take us to no later than 5 pm. The Committee of the whole House will follow until 9 pm, with the debate on Third Reading concluding no later than 10 pm. The motion also provides for programming of the later stages of the Bill in this House on consideration of Lords amendments.

I fully appreciate the restrictions that today’s timetable imposes. However, given the very specific issue that the House is being asked to consider, we are satisfied that the House—and, in due course, the House of Lords—will have sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill properly. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the Bill does no more than maintain the status quo, and that it contains a termination provision, meaning that it will lapse at the end of 2016. I welcome Opposition Front Benchers’ continued support for expediting the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which is important on two fronts. We have tabled new clause 2 to provide a six-month review, which would be some time in December this year or in January next year. It would look at how the Act passed by this House and the other place had operated up to that time, as well as at other factors that the Minister may have examined following the European Court of Justice’s consideration and the lapsing of the current legislation.

We will then be into a general election campaign, and my hon. Friend will know that in the event of our being elected to government, we will look at some of the wider issues as a matter of course. I hope that we can accept the Government’s understanding of the emergency and help them to cover that emergency, while also leaving scope for looking at how the Act operates in practice. If other new clauses are agreed to today, we would also then be able to consider the wider issues about which I know right hon. and hon. Members have concerns.

Bluntly, investigations into online child sex abuse, major investigations into terrorism and into organised crime, the prevention of young people from travelling to Syria and many issues relating to attempted terrorist activity have depended on and will continue to depend on the type of access that we need through the Bill.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the right hon. Gentleman provide some clarification? In the event of a Labour Government —it is very hard to predict what will happen—will he assure us that if the review recommends changes to provide more privacy and civil liberties safeguards, he will want to implement them?

[Mr Hanson]

We are currently discussing the programme motion and the allocation of time, and I am trying to indicate to the House—including the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, Ministers—that we will support the motion, even though we are disappointed that there was not an earlier and more thorough examination of the Bill.

We recognise that, in the interests of fighting terrorism, child abuse and serious organised crime, the Government are seeking powers to meet their current obligations in the light of the judgment in April. On this occasion, the Government will have our support, and we hope that there will be an opportunity later today to consider in detail some of the new clauses that we have tabled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

To follow on from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), I think that we are looking at a third category: a piece of legislation that is being renewed, but that has fallen into disrepute over the years in which it has been used. That is why this Bill is more important than a simple renewal.

There is an emergency—a legal emergency—but it started on 8 April. It was eminently predictable because, as far back as 2010, the European data protection supervisor said that the data retention directive was

“without doubt the most privacy invasive instrument ever adopted by the EU”.

Data retention has been struck down in Germany and Romania, and there have been difficulties in other countries. The two requests to the European Court of Justice came not from bogus organisations, but from the Irish High Court and the Constitutional Court of Austria. Those were therefore serious revisions and it was entirely probable that we would find ourselves in the situation that we are in today.

Why has it taken three months? Why was the legislation not pre-prepared? Why was the deal with the Labour party not struck in advance? My understanding is that there was an argument inside the Government between the two halves of the coalition. That argument has gone on for three months. What the coalition could not decide in three months, this House has to decide in one day. That seems to me entirely improper.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Davis]

No, I am going to be very fast and finish on this point.

Parliament has three roles: to scrutinise legislation, to prevent unintended consequences and to defend the freedom and liberty of our constituents. The motion undermines all three and we should oppose it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I would have thought that our fundamental duty was to protect the freedom of the individual. As it happens, I support the Bill. However, if I may say so politely to the Minister, he owes us a bit more of an explanation when he sums up.

It is fair enough if the Liberal party, with its traditions, has objected to many parts of the Bill. There should have been long arguments and objections. Why can we not just be told about them?

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will finish my point.

If it takes three months to agree to something in the coalition, the Government should come back to us honestly and say, “It has taken all this time. We have finally come to an agreement. Here it is.” What is the urgency? It seems extraordinary that, on a matter as fundamental as the freedom of the individual, we are rushing things so much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I intend to speak only briefly. I think that there is an urgency to passing this legislation, and I have spoken to a number of organisations and companies involved, who confirm there is a problem. I do not think, however, that that case was made by the Minister or by the Home Secretary yesterday at the Home Affairs Committee, and I hope that when summing up the debate they will give us something more to go on so that people can be persuaded that there is an emergency, not just that that is said to be the case.

A couple of comments have suggested that there may have been disagreement in the coalition about how to deal with this issue, and for the record and the interest of the House, I confirm that there is a disagreement. The Home Secretary was clear in her statement that she would like to bring forward the draft Communications Data Bill, which we managed to kill off. There is clear disagreement on that, and I am sure we will continue to explore that matter.

I accept all the concerns about the shortage of time, and I for one would be happy to stay longer into the recess to discuss the Bill. It is worth recognising, however, that when the data retention regulations were brought through this place, a total of no minutes were allocated for debate in this Chamber, and a total of 62 minutes were allocated for debate in Committee. That is what happened when the regulations were originally brought in many years ago, and it is interesting to note who voted for them on that occasion, but now thinks that they are heinous.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Yes. The commissioner currently reports annually on these matters, and the Opposition proposal, as I understand it, is that he would report on a six-monthly basis. He would, therefore, not just be looking at the situation, but reporting on what was happening. Were he to find that there was any extension of powers, that would be made clear to people. However, I remain of the opinion, because this is what we intend, that the Bill is purely about enabling the powers that we have today to be continued in future.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

There is debate about whether the powers are new, and I personally do not think they are, but will the Home Secretary give the assurance I tried to get from her yesterday, when perhaps I was not clear enough in asking for it? If she were asked to sign a warrant—these are mostly warranted powers—which involved a power that it was obvious to her would not have been available other than from this Bill, would she refuse to sign it on the basis that a new power had inadvertently been created?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is always possible for there to be court challenges and legal challenges to our legislation and to individual decisions. The Government have gone to some lengths to ensure that the legislation before us is compliant with the European Court judgment, with European law and with our own legal framework.

[Dr Huppert]

The shadow Home Secretary said that this will be the start of a debate about privacy and security, and those of us who have been campaigning on this issue for many years welcome her conversion. Does she accept that the debate has already started and that many of us have been pushing the issue for some time, much as we welcome her addition to it?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman can always be relied on to pop up in these debates. I have heard that his support for the legislation has made some in this House question whether it is strong enough. Surely it cannot be, if he is supporting it.

The hon. Gentleman will know that I made a speech 12 months ago in which I talked about the need to strengthen the system for commissioners and for oversight in this area, and that I made a further speech at the beginning of March in which I raised specific issues about online security and liberty. The Deputy Prime Minister also made a speech that week which raised some of these issues. I am concerned because I think that, overall, the Government have not responded to some of the challenges. They still have not recognised the wider need for public debate and reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I will do my best to comply with that, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Laughter.] Sorry, I meant to say that I will indeed definitely comply with that.

This is a difficult issue for those who, like me, have massive concerns about civil liberties and privacy. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). We do not always agree on these issues, but I care passionately about the abuse of surveillance that has taken place, and seeing the state have more control. I expressed that view when we got rid of the draft Communications Data Bill in calling for our only debate to consider the post-Snowden situation, and in the digital Bill of rights that my party passed. There is much we need to do, and I have called for many years for reform of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and of other legislation such as the Telecommunications Act 1984, which has some really amazing powers in section 94. I therefore start off instinctively concerned about anything proposed in this way.

Communications data and lawful intercept are very important, although we need improvements in how they are dealt with—for example, communications data should be collected for a much shorter time. We could have a system of retention for a short period followed by preservation orders to address many of the concerns raised. Accessibility should be limited; there is definitely too much access with 500,000 requests a year. I believe we should have judicial warrants for lawful intercept, as that is a much better way to proceed. We can improve those measures, but we need them because it is clear that we face a problem now.

I raised this issue on 8 April when the Home Secretary appeared before the Home Affairs Committee on the day of the European judgment. I pressed her on the matter and she insisted that the regulations were still valid. I understand why she feels she has to say this, but I do not think it is correct. I think the Home Office is continuing on a hope and a prayer, and at some point that will end, and that is the emergency that persuades me. I am also very aware of the circumstances around the lawful intercept drop-off. That is true and I have spoken to many people, so I do not entirely trust the Home Office when it says there is a problem in some areas. I think the Home Office is largely to blame because of the way it has conducted itself in its interactions with other companies. When we considered the draft Communications Data Bill, we expressed concern that the way the Home Office misportrayed what companies were saying might drive some of them overseas, and we have seen that.

On new powers, the data retention regulations are as before but with more constraints; the Bill is slightly less powerful than what it gets rid of. Is lawful intercept a new power? We have had interesting discussions about whether we knew it was applicable overseas, and when we considered the draft Communications Data Bill we published a report that highlighted the fact that it appeared to impose no limits on the telecommunications operators to whom it applied. We heard from different companies about how they complied with the requests they receive. That should not be a surprise given that two years ago we published a report on that. I know that other hon. Members have been here longer. We knew this measure was there; it is not a new power.

What is not allowed is what was in the snoopers charter—the draft Communications Data Bill. We will not allow website logs; that is clearly not allowed by anything in that provision. There is nothing in the Bill that would allow domestic companies to be forced to collect information on third-party overseas companies, which was in the Communications Data Bill. Such things are not allowed and will continue not to be allowed.

There are safeguards, and if it were not for those there is no way I would support the Bill. I have called for these safeguards for many years. The Liberal Democrats made them a condition of acceptance of the Bill, and I am pleased that we have secured them. There is a sunset clause with no possible extension, and the RIPA review, which we desperately need.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to remarks from those on the Opposition Front Bench, it is not only the passage of time and the advance of technology that has discredited RIPA?

[Dr Huppert]

My hon. Friend is partly right. RIPA was an improvement on no regulations, but it gave far too much power to far too many people, and we needed to fix that situation much earlier. The approach taken by the previous Government to try to collect more and more powers with the interception modernisation programme and so forth is not the right way to go.

We have a number of safeguards. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board that I and other hon. Friends have been mentioning for a while is an important safeguard and will be written into law. We are reducing by hundreds the number of bodies that are able to get direct access to data. Councils used to be able to get direct access to communications data to find out whether somebody was applying to the right school for their child. That is no more. This Government are ensuring not only that councils cannot get direct access, but that they also have to get a magistrate’s say-so. We have annual transparency reports—a key requirement—and the trimming of powers for access to communications data. A huge amount in the Bill provides safeguards and we are in a better place as a result, although we are not in a perfect place. I would like to see a much more substantial rewrite of RIPA, with many more limitations and a new approach. That is what I hope we will get from the RIPA review. We would certainly want any improvements that could be implemented to be implemented.

People often talk about the trade-off between security and privacy or civil liberties. I do not think it is a trade-off; I think we can have more of both at the same time. The Bill preserves the security we currently have, which is a good thing, and, because of the safeguards and the changes, it actually supports privacy and is a pro-civil liberties measure. The Guardian highlighted the fact that the Bill could

“prove a major opportunity to bring the relentless rise of the surveillance state under democratic control.”

The Independent said that:

“the law may in fact, in a few years, benefit the civil libertarian cause.”

Having seen sustained assaults over many years on this issue, I support that and hope we can achieve a better balance.

Student Visas

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee for his comments. He is right about the issue of interviewing those who are intending to come to this country to take up student positions through the student visa system. In the past year, we have conducted 100,000 interviews to root out abuse, identify those who do not necessarily have the language skills and provide that extra check. In respect of the continuing providers, we have stepped up announced and unannounced visits to check what services they are providing, and we are considering further what steps may need to be taken in relation to any re-procurement of the services to place safety and security right at the heart of the system.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Abuse is clearly unacceptable, and the Minister is right to be firm on those who cheat their way in, and on those organisations that actively help people to defraud the system. But we must not forget that around the world people are listening to the tenor of the debate here and the rhetoric that is used. Will the Minister make it clear, both now and in the future, that we still welcome bona fide students and that we are still open for business and will not take action against universities unless there is evidence that they are complicit in some of this fraud?

[James Brokenshire]

As I said in my statement, we have not taken this action lightly, and it has been based on visits to the various institutions and a detailed examination of the evidence before us. We seek to attract the brightest and the best, but my hon. Friend should be aware that applications from students sponsored by universities rose by 7% in the year to March 2014 and applications from students going to Russell Group universities by 11%. It is right that we focus on preventing abuse and that we have a rigorous system that seeks to attract genuine students to this country while ensuring that those who should not be here are rooted out.