Investigatory Powers Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Keir Starmer ExcerptsThursday 28th April 2016
(8 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 April 2016 - (28 Apr 2016)
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 741, in clause 194, page 148, line 36, at beginning insert—
“( ) There shall be a body corporate known as the Investigatory Powers Commission.
( ) The Investigatory Powers Commission shall have such powers and duties as shall be specified in this Act.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 742, in clause 194, page 148, line 40, at end insert—
“(1A) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner must appoint—
(a) the Chief Inspector, and
(b) such number of inspectors as the Investigatory Powers Commissioner considers necessary for the carrying out of the functions of the Investigatory Powers Commission.
(1B) In appointing investigators the Investigatory Powers Commissioner shall—
(a) appoint an individual only if the Investigatory Powers Commissioner thinks that the individual—
(i) has experience or knowledge relating to a relevant matter, and
(ii) is suitable for appointment,
(b) have regard to the desirability of the investigators together having experience and knowledge relating to the relevant matters.
(1C) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) of subsection (2B) the relevant matters are those matters in respect of which the Investigatory Powers Commission has functions including, in particular—
(a) national security;
(b) the prevention and detection of serious crime;
(c) the protection of privacy and the integrity of personal data;
(d) the security and integrity of computer systems and networks;
(e) the law, in particular, as it relates to the matters in subsections (2B)(a) and (b);
(f) human rights as defined in section 9(2) of the Equality Act 2006.”
Amendment 743, in clause 194, page 149, line 23, at end insert—
“(7A) The Chief Inspector is an Inspector and the Chief Inspector and the other Inspector are to be known, collectively, as the Inspectors.”
Amendment 744, in clause 194, page 149, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) to the Investigatory Powers Commission are to be read as appropriate to refer to the body corporate, the Investigatory Powers Commission, and in so far as it will refer to the conduct of powers, duties and functions, those shall be conducted by either the Judicial Commissioners or the Inspectors as determined by this Act or by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, consistent with the provisions of this Act.”
Amendment 753, in clause 196, page 150, line 21, leave out “Commissioner” and insert “Commission”.
Amendment 754, in clause 196, page 150, line 38, leave out “Commissioner” and insert “Commission”.
Amendment 755, in clause 196, page 151, line 18, leave out “Commissioner” and insert “Commission”.
Amendment 756, in clause 196, page 151, line 41, at end insert—
“(4A) The powers and functions specified in this Part will be exercised by the Inspectors under the supervision of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, except in so far as those powers are powers of the Judicial Commissioners specified in Parts 1 to 8 of this Act.”
Amendment 749, in clause 196, page 151, line 43, after “Commissioner”, insert “or Inspector”.
Amendment 757, in clause 197, page 152, line 28, leave out “Commissioner” and insert “Commission”.
Amendment 758, in clause 197, page 152, line 35, leave out “Commissioner” and insert “Commission”.
Amendment 789, in clause 199, page 154, line 11, leave out “Judicial Commissioner” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commission”.
Amendment 790, in clause 199, page 154, line 18, leave out “Judicial Commissioner” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commission”.
Amendment 794, in clause 200, page 154, line 34, leave out “Commissioner” and insert “Commission”.
Amendment 795, in clause 200, page 154, line 34, leave out “and the other” and insert “, the”.
Amendment 796, in clause 200, page 154, line 35, after “Commissioners”, insert “and Inspectors”.
Amendment 797, in clause 200, page 154, line 41, leave out “Commissioner” and insert “Commission”.
Amendment 798, in clause 201, page 156, line 38, leave out “Judicial Commissioners” and insert “the Investigatory Powers Commission”.
Amendment 799, in clause 201, page 156, line 41, leave out “Commissioner” and insert “Commission”.
Amendment 800, in clause 201, page 156, line 47, leave out “Judicial Commissioners” and insert “the Investigatory Powers Commission”.
Amendment 802, in clause 201, page 157, line 7, leave out “Judicial Commissioners” and insert “the Investigatory Powers Commission”.
Amendment 803, in clause 201, page 157, line 11, leave out “Judicial Commissioners” and insert “the Investigatory Powers Commission”.
Amendment 816, in clause 202, page 157, line 43, leave out “Judicial Commissioner” and insert “the Investigatory Powers Commission”.
Amendment 817, in clause 202, page 157, line 44, leave out “Commissioner” and insert “Commission”.
Amendment 818, in clause 202, page 157, line 45, leave out “Commissioner’s” and insert “Commission’s”.
Amendment 829, in clause 202, page 158, line 1, leave out “Judicial Commissioner” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commission”.
Amendment 819, in clause 202, page 158, line 1, after “Commissioner” insert “or Inspector”.
Amendment 820, in clause 202, page 158, line 4, after “Commissioner” insert “or Inspector”.
Amendment 821, in clause 202, page 158, line 8, after “Commissioner” insert “or Inspector”.
Amendment 822, in clause 202, page 158, line 10, leave out “Commissioner’s” and insert “Commission’s”.
Amendment 823, in clause 202, page 158, line 15, leave out “Commissioner” and insert “Commission”.
Amendment 825, in clause 204, page 158, line 39, leave out “Judicial Commissioners” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commission”.
Amendment 826, in clause 204, page 158, line 40, after “such”, insert “funds”.
Amendment 827, in clause 204, page 158, line 40, after “determine”, insert—
“necessary for the purposes of fulfilling the functions of the Investigatory Powers Commission under this Part”
Amendment 828, in clause 204, page 158, line 41, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) In determining the sums to be paid to the Investigatory Powers Commission pursuant to subsection (1), the Treasury shall consult the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.”
Amendment 830, in clause 204, page 158, line 42, leave out “Commissioner” and insert “Commission”.
Amendment 831, in clause 204, page 158, line 43, leave out “Judicial Commissioners” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commission”.
Amendment 832, in clause 204, page 159, line 3, leave out “Commissioners’” and insert “Commission’s”.
New clause 19—Funding, staff and facilities of Intelligence and Surveillance Commission—
“(1) The Treasury must, after consultation with the Intelligence and Surveillance Commission as to number of staff and in light of the extent of the statutory and other functions of the Commission, provide the Commission with funds to cover—
(a) such staff, and
(b) such accommodation, equipment and other facilities, as necessary for the carrying out of the Commissioners’ functions.
(2) The staff of the Intelligence and Surveillance Commission must include—
(a) independent technical experts, and
(b) independent legal experts.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to provide the ISC with funds to cover its staff, facilities and accommodation. It would also require that the ISC staff include technical and legal experts.
Keir Starmer
We come to part 8, “Oversight arrangements”. Clause 194 deals with the appointment of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The second set of amendments to the clause deal with appointments; I will deal with them when we come to that group.
There are numerous amendments in the first group, but they all relate to the structure of the oversight mechanism, because the structure set out in the clause is considerably different from that proposed by David Anderson in “A Question of Trust”. His recommendation 82 was that there should be a new independent surveillance and intelligence commission. In its scrutiny, the Joint Committee on the draft Bill asked why that had not been done, because, according to its recommendation 51,
“the work of the oversight body will be significantly enhanced by the creation of a Commission with a clear legal mandate.”
That was the clear view of David Anderson. The Joint Committee asked why that recommendation was not carried out. The Government response, as I understand it, was that it is too costly. At the moment, that is the only basis suggested for not acting on David Anderson’s recommendation, or that of the Joint Committee.
Our view is that such a commission, with a “clear legal mandate”, would be far better. Unless there is some significant difference in costs, there seems to be no good reason for not having it. Will the Minister tell us what calculations lie behind the suggestion that one model would be very costly and the other not so?
This issue was raised by the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office when it gave evidence on the structural divide that it thought there should be between the judicial function and the audit function. In its written and oral evidence, it said it would be more appropriate for those functions to be split, so that the same group of individuals did not look at both aspects. The amendment would create a commission with a clear legal mandate. It would split the functions in a way that those who exercise those functions at the moment think is appropriate. It also challenges the suggestion that the only reason not to implement the recommendation is that it is too costly.
I intend to press the matter to a vote. I will press amendment 741, and if I lose that vote, I will take a view on pressing the others, as there are so many of them, but for the record, I stand by all the amendments.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
I thank the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras for setting out his case. He will be glad to know that there is more to this than mere cost. I say “mere”, but Ministers and parliamentarians have a duty to ensure we do not burden the Exchequer with unnecessary cost. My primary argument is focused on that. The amendments would only put us in the same position as we will be in under the Bill, but at greater cost.
The Home Office estimates that at least an extra £500,000 would be needed to staff and finance the proposed body. That is not an insignificant sum, which is why the Government are urging restraint when pursuing what might seem an entirely rational, reasonable and logical conclusion. I accept that a number of the bodies and individuals mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman would support the thrust of these amendments.
Keir Starmer
Is there a breakdown of the £500,000, given that this is, in broad terms, a structural proposal, rather than a numbers proposal ?
The Solicitor General
The impact assessment published alongside the Bill contains the figure. It is supported by that document, so there has been empirical research. I do not have the full figures, but I imagine that the research is based on estimates of staffing levels. The body would also have to deal with new corporate functions, such as human resources, IT, non-executive directors and procurement, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows well from his experience as Director of Public Prosecutions. This would be a non-departmental public body similar to, say, the Crown Prosecution Service. As an independent body and a key part of our constitutional arrangements for the prosecution of crime, it would obviously need that structure to maintain its independent role.
The amount of money is not insignificant, and the question I must ask is: what would the measure achieve? I remain unconvinced that it would achieve anything more than the current proposal does, because the powers and duties of the proposed body would remain exactly the same as the commissioner’s responsibilities, and the number of inspectors, technical experts and judicial commissioners employed by the organisation would remain exactly the same.
The Solicitor General
I respect the hon. and learned Lady’s point. I answer it by making the important point that we have stronger oversight if the body is able to look at everything from initial authorisation right through to implementation. The dialogue that can occur will therefore be much more immediate and focused, because the body will have a fuller and deeper understanding of the process. We end up with a body that is independent and flexible and will gain the public confidence that she and I want it to.
The worry is that if we pursue the attractive—seductive, almost—course proposed by the hon. and learned Lady and others and separate the powers, we will end up breaking the important links between the executive and judicial functions epitomised by the Bill. I say “links” in a neutral sense, and not in the sense that one can unduly influence the other—far from it. Rather, the Bill allows for the check-and-balance approach that epitomises the British constitution and its organic development over the centuries in a modern and relevant way. As a Tory, I am proud to stand here and argue for those values.
I want to deal with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s functions and the amendments seeking direct negotiation with the Treasury, rather than the Secretary of State, on the resources necessary for the commissioner to fulfil their functions. I think I am on safe ground in saying that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would warmly welcome not having to be involved in negotiations with the Treasury wherever possible, but I believe that removing his or her function from this negotiation would be an error.
There will be much more familiarity with the work of the IPC at the Home Office than at the Treasury, so the Home Office can make a far more accurate assessment of the resources that the IPC will need. That is important in ensuring that the IPC is properly resourced. Importantly, there can be meaningful challenge by the Home Secretary if they believe that the IPC is asking for too big a budget and is not providing proper value for money.
I do not think it is right or fair to say that the independence of the new IPC will be somehow compromised if it receives funding through a Secretary of State, because plenty of other non-departmental public bodies receive funding via that route, such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons. It is not an unusual or uncommon position, and we would have heard about it if there was an issue with the compromising of those bodies’ ability to act.
The Treasury has made clear in its guidance, “Managing public money”, that
“Functional independence is compatible with financial oversight”.
I am glad to say that the current oversight commissioners have repeatedly made clear in their annual reports that they have always been provided with enough money to undertake their functions. The same route of complaint will be available to the IPC, and I know that Parliament would take a keen interest if there was any suggestion by the new commissioner that the IPC was under-resourced. For those reasons, I respectfully ask Members to withdraw their amendments.
Keir Starmer
I intend to deal with funding under clause 208. I appreciate that new clause 19 is in this group, but that is probably only because it contains the word “commission”, so I will deal with it at a later stage. However, I have listened to what the Solicitor General said.
The amendments are supported by the Interception of Communications Commissioner, who was most concerned about the structural division of the two functions. The Solicitor General says that there are advantages in being able to do an end-to-end review, and that it brings focus; I can see that. If it were an end-to-end review of someone else’s work, that would be a good thing. The structural problem is that, within that end-to-end process, the same team takes the steps and does the overseeing. That is more than just a philosophical issue. It is a practical issue with how oversight works. I am therefore unpersuaded.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that Jo Cavan, the head of the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office, not only covered that in her written evidence, but was asked about it by me in her oral evidence to the Committee. She reiterated the position that we set out very strongly.
Keir Starmer
I know that the Interception of Communications Commissioner feels very strongly on this point. I think that he raised it in evidence, and he has certainly raised it with me. For that reason, I will press amendment 741 to a vote. I will review my position on the remaining amendments, depending on how that vote goes.
The Chair
For clarity, we will divide on amendment 741 now. We will then go on to amendments 735, 736, 740, 737, 738 and 739, which the hon. and learned Gentleman may wish to discuss. If he feels like moving the others, he may do so at that time.
The Solicitor General
We have prayed in aid Jo Cavan’s comments quite a lot, and I think it is interesting that she said:
“It is really important for the commissioners to work very closely with the inspectors and technical engineers and so on who will carry out the post facto audits.”
I am arguing that this is supervision of the agencies’ work, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point would be stronger if it were purely about the commission itself.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to have been reminded of Jo Cavan’s evidence. The Solicitor General is right: there is a mixture of functions, and the oversight has to operate in quite a flexible way in relation to the different functions. However, this is a structural issue, and I therefore press amendment 741 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 735, in clause 194, page 148, line 36, leave out “Prime Minister” and insert “Lord Chancellor”.
Amendments 735 to 739 would require that Judicial Commissioners are appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Commission under the Constitutional Reform Act 2003.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 736, in clause 194, page 148, line 36, after “appoint”, insert
“in accordance with the procedure set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2003”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 735.
Amendment 740, in clause 194, page 149, line 4, at end insert—
“(2A) The Prime Minister may make an appointment under subsection (1) only following a recommendation by—
(a) the Judicial Appointments Commission;
(b) the Judicial Appointments Board of Scotland; or
(c) the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.”
Amendment 737, in clause 194, page 149, line 5, leave out subsection (3).
See the explanatory statement for amendment 735.
Amendment 738, in clause 194, page 149, line 12, leave out subsection (4).
See the explanatory statement for amendment 735.
Amendment 739, in clause 194, page 149, line 14, leave out subsection (5).
See the explanatory statement for amendment 735.
Keir Starmer
The amendments are fundamental and important, because one of the main features of the Bill is the role of the judicial commissioners and the role, therefore, of judges in the double lock. The Home Secretary made a great deal of introducing that judicial element when the Bill was published in draft form, and again when it came back before the House in its current form. The Government have repeatedly and understandably emphasised that point throughout the scrutiny process. The amendments are focused on the appointment of the judicial commissioners. The way in which senior judges are appointed in this country has evolved over time, but we now have a clear and agreed way that has gone through numerous processes and consultations, with numerous recommendations on how it should properly be done.
We welcome the fact that, following the pre-legislative scrutiny, the provisions in clause 194 have been amended, but it remains the case that the Prime Minister will appoint the judicial commissioners, which is most unusual. The change from the draft Bill is that the Prime Minister must now consult the Lord Chief Justice. That is a step in the right direction, but it is fundamental, under our unwritten constitution, that judges are appointed independently of the Executive and those in political positions, and are not appointed by the Prime Minister.
The step of requiring the Lord Chief Justice to be consulted does not go as far as the Joint Committee on the draft Bill wanted. It recommended that the Lord Chief Justice be responsible for appointing the commissioners, to “ensure public confidence”. It was clear about how the separation of powers should operate in this important field. The Joint Committee also recommended:
“The Judicial Appointments Commission must also be consulted to ensure that the appointments procedure is fair and transparent.”
It wanted a move away from the Prime Minister making the appointments to the Lord Chief Justice doing so, drawing on the Judicial Appointments Commission, which was set up to ensure the transparency and independence of the appointments regime.
In short, the Prime Minister should not be involved. The Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office agrees, stating in its evidence to the Joint Committee:
“It is inappropriate for the Judicial Commissioners to be appointed by the Prime Minister”.
It, too, said there should be a role for the Judicial Appointments Commission. As I said, the Judicial Appointments Commission has evolved over time. It was set up to ensure the independence of the judiciary, by requiring vacancies to be advertised and published, with the criteria for appointment and so on.
The changes proposed in the amendments are ones of principle that are rooted in the separation of powers and in line with the view of Lords Constitution Committee on judicial appointments. That Committee has affirmed that judicial independence is a basic constitutional principle, and it found wide agreement among those that gave evidence to it that the appointments process must be designed in such a way as to reinforce judicial independence and that judges should not be appointed through a political process.
The amendments are fundamental to the how the judicial commissioners are to be appointed. If there is to be public confidence in the double lock, judicial commissioners should be appointed independently, in accordance with the understanding and arrangements under our unwritten constitution.
Keir Starmer
I take the point that there is no point in people who have gone through the Judicial Appointments Commission process once going through it again. In fairness, we have put forward several options for the appointment process and, to be clear, I prefer the one in which, having consulted the Judicial Appointments Commission, the Lord Chief Justice, rather than the Lord Chancellor, makes appointments.
Mr Hayes
That is helpful, because the hon. and learned Gentleman has qualified the point that I was going to come on to make. The amendments could take the Lord Chief Justice out of the process altogether, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not want that—indeed, he has confirmed as much. However, there is also a point to be made about the practicalities and effectiveness of the system, which Lord Judge commented on when I questioned him on 24 March. I asked,
“in terms of the appointment of the judicial commissioners, would the Judicial Appointments Commission be a better place to appoint them, or do you rather like the model we have come up with?”
He said that
“I much prefer the model you have come up with”,
and finished by saying:
“There is no point whatever in involving the Judicial Appointments Commission, ignoring the fact that it has got far too much to do anyway and not enough people to do the work.”––[Official Report, Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2016; c. 73, Q237.]
I will not comment on the arrangements or resources of that body, but on a different occasion, when speaking in particular about the Prime Minister’s role in the proposals, Lord Judge described that as a “perfectly sensible system.”
It is therefore clear that there is a view that the arrangements being put in place are a reasonable balance between the Executive and the judiciary, and that changing them would not necessarily lead to greater effectiveness or practicality. The people being appointed will already been through Judicial Appointments Commission process, as the hon. and learned Gentleman generously said. It is also important that we are clear about lines of accountability and the character of independence. To an extent, that reflects the broader debate that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General stimulated. It is important that there is separation between the roles of the people involved to avoid any sense of patronage, and that the Prime Minister continues to play a role, to affirm the significance of the Executive’s engagement in everything that we are discussing in the Bill.
That is a much broader point. Although I do not want to go back into all of this, Committee members will be aware that the double lock that we have created is itself a compromise. On one hand, there is the position adopted by those who are sceptical about judicial involvement in the business of issuing warrants—the former Home Secretary Lord Reid, for example, and a number of Members of this House, including some from my own party. On the other, there are the recommendations of David Anderson, who is clear that in order to add more validation to the process and insulate it from challenge, it is important to create a role for the judiciary. Given that balance, which is a pretty finely tuned one, I am reluctant to take the Prime Minister out of the business of appointments.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Lady ascribes to me a lack of willingness to hear the argument, which I have made clear is not a feature of my approach to the provisions, and a certain stubbornness. Far be it from anyone to accuse me of that. I am not insensitive to that argument, as I have emphasised.
Mr Hayes
I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman in a second, but I draw attention again to the Joint Committee’s view on the matter, because he quoted it. I think that we are reaching a common view on this; we are certainly journeying towards accord. The Joint Committee said:
“We do not think that appointment by the Prime Minister would in reality have any impact on the independence of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and Judicial Commissioners. In modern times, our senior judges have had an unimpeachable record of independence from the executive and we believe any senior judge appointed to these roles would make his or her decisions unaffected by the manner of appointment.”
In the witness sessions, former Home Secretaries made it clear that in their direct experience of similar matters, they had seen no sign of the judiciary being intimidated to the point of subservience when faced with the views of the Executive.
There is an argument for fine-tuning, and that is almost where the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West is heading. There are a range of amendments in this group, and in a sense some are more radical than others, as the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras has acknowledged. He and the hon. and learned Lady have placed some emphasis on, if I may put it this way, one or two of the more modest changes that have been suggested, and that is not falling on deaf ears on the Government Benches. However, I resist the fundamentalist view—not represented in this case, I think—that somehow the Prime Minister’s involvement is undesirable because it compromises judicial independence.
Keir Starmer
The Solicitor General actually made a powerful case in favour of the amendments with his intervention, and I am reflecting on that. This is about choosing from a pool of judges who have all the necessary characteristics and competencies and deciding which of them will oversee the Secretary of State. That is a very powerful argument for saying that it should not be the Prime Minister for that deployment. I suppose what I am saying is this: what, over and above the other qualities that they have already proven, is needed in this case? There is the expertise; there is the knowledge of the area. Those are all matters that the Judicial Appointments Commission or the Lord Chief Justice would have strong views on, and probably better views than the Prime Minister, because they are closer to the judges on a day-to-day basis. What is special about this? It is a decision about which of these high-quality judges, with all the competencies, will oversee the Secretary of State. That is why the decision should not be with the Prime Minister.
Mr Hayes
I understand the point. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the Lord Chief Justice cannot appoint, because of creating what I described as patronage, but the Solicitor General’s point is that it is important that he can be involved, looking at deployment, for the reasons that we have both given.
In truth—I think it is fair to say this—the exact details of the appointment process, which the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to explore further, are still under consideration. It is very important that all stakeholders are involved in designing an appropriate process. I am not sure that we would want to detail that in a Bill, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand, because this is a matter of judicial operational decisions as much as anything else.
I think we are getting to the place—perhaps in a slightly meandering way, but it is fairly late in our consideration of the Bill and a little opportunity to meander is always welcome, or perhaps not, as I can tell from your stern glance, Mr Owen—where we all agree that a balance needs to be struck between Executive involvement and judicial involvement. I think we are now getting to a place, notwithstanding that the amendments do not actually say this in the way they are grouped, where we agree that the Prime Minister needs to be involved to cement or secure that relationship between the Executive and the judiciary, and we are coming to a synthesis about the respective roles of some of the players.
At this juncture, having meandered, I can tell that you want me to draw my remarks to a swift conclusion, Mr Owen.
Mr Hayes
My hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point and, at an earlier stage of consideration of the Bill, that issue was raised. Will there be enough of these people? Will they want to do the job? This is an important new responsibility. It can hardly be argued, as some outside this place and perhaps even some in this place have tried to do, that the Home Secretary cannot cope with the numbers of warrants, and then simultaneously say that these people will rush forward to consider these matters in the heat of the moment and the dead of night. My hon. and learned Friend is right to say that there is an issue about people being willing to play this part in the double lock, and I would not want in any way to be complacent about that. It is important that the system is sufficiently streamlined, but rigorous, to ensure that people can practically do what we ask of them—she is right to make that point.
The difference between us now seems to be probably a slightly more refined version of what the amendments suggest. The difference now boils down to when and how the Prime Minister is involved, and on what basis he is involved in respect to the advice that he is given. We have already amended the Bill to make it clear that the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland will be consulted, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West said. Therefore, there has been some movement in the direction of those who felt that the measure needed to be more balanced; but, the hon. and learned Lady and, I think, the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras are now saying that we need to recalibrate it one more time. We will not accept the amendments at this juncture, but I hope that both the content and the tone of what I have said will have suggested to all concerned that we are not unresponsive to these matters of detail and no doubt there will be further opportunity to discuss them.
Keir Starmer
I think this has been an occasion on which there has been a willingness on both sides to adapt, or look again at, their positions. Having listened to the debate, I think there is a powerful argument for saying that the Judicial Appointments Commission and its full process should not apply. One reason is that a judge has been through it and there is no need to retest their competencies. These are going to be very senior members of the judiciary and, almost certainly, from the smaller group within that who have experience handling the sort of material they need to handle to carry out the function of the judicial commissioner. That is going to be a small group of judges, and probably those who have sat on the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and dealt with other similar types of procedures. This is a question about which of those judges, who have all those competencies and experience, should oversee some of the functions of the Secretary of State. It is troubling, from an appearance point of view if nothing else, if the Prime Minister acts by consulting only the Lord Chief Justice.
Keir Starmer
In a moment I will, but I shall just finish my point. I know the Lord Chief Justice and I can imagine how that consultation would go. He would make a very powerful case and would not easily be dissuaded from his candidate.
I was going to press the amendment, but I am now not going to because of our discussion. On reflection, I wonder whether a possible approach would be for the Prime Minister to make an appointment only following a recommendation by those listed under subsection (3)(a) to (e). That would mean that the Lord Chief Justice would recommend the judge that they consider to have the skills and experience to do the particular job. The Lord Chief Justice would know about that and, with respect, the Prime Minister would not know about it in the same detail. The Prime Minister would, therefore, not be able to make an appointment that had not been recommended by the Lord Chief Justice and step outside that, but on the other hand, the Prime Minister would not be forced to make an appointment. That is because it is a recommendation, not a requirement, and so in a particularly contentious case the Prime Minister may say no.
There is an issue of appearance. These judges will have made decisions at the highest level, both for and against the Government. I can see how there would then be the temptation for some to look at the track record of a particular judge and say, “I can see why it is them.” Doing things in this way—I readily accept that this suggestion is not one of the amendments—would mean that the Lord Chief Justice had a more powerful role. In the end, it would be a recommendation role and there would be no appointment without a recommendation from the Lord Chief Justice, but they would not mandate the decision maker, which would remain the Prime Minister.
I simply put that idea forward. It is not one of the amendments. I will not press the amendments because at this stage further consideration probably needs to be given to exactly how the process will operate, if it is to be changed at all. I will now give way and I am sorry for not having done so sooner.
Mr Hayes
The difference between us is becoming even narrower. It seems that we are speaking about what the hon. and learned Gentleman has described as appearance. In saying that, I do not want to minimise the importance of this issue, but he will know that Lord Judge, when challenged on the issue of compromising independence, was clear. He said:
“There is no danger whatever.”––[Official Report, Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2016; c. 74, Q236.]
The reality is that independence would not be compromised, but I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point on how these things look, and I will consider that in the spirit he suggested it.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister. In the circumstances, I will not press the amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 194 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 195
Terms and conditions of appointment
Joanna Cherry
I beg to move amendment 745, in clause 195, page 149, line 34, leave out “three” and insert “six”.
Mr Hayes
Disraeli said that a precedent embalms a principle, and the amendment is certainly not unprecedented, since we are once again considering the issue of economic wellbeing, as we have done with some frequency. Familiarity is almost always desirable, but I am not sure that the same can be said of repetition, which can often lead to tedium, so I will not repeat the argument about that. Let me therefore deal with the other amendments.
Amendment 748 has a probably unintended consequence. At the moment, judicial commissioners must—I use that word advisedly—not act in a way that they consider prejudicial to the public interest. The amendment, perversely, reduces that, so that they should have “due regard” to the public interest. It is a weakening of the public interest. I am not sure that that was the intention, but it is certainly the consequence of the amendment, which can be dismissed accordingly.
That leaves me with the point that the hon. and learned Lady made about privacy and the integrity of personal data. Proust said—he was speaking of prejudices, but this could be applied here—that at their “moment of novelty…fashion” lends things a “fragile grace.” On first acquaintance the amendment has such grace, but on closer examination the fragility becomes evident, because this is not by any means the best place in the Bill to advance that defence of privacy. A better argument, championed by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, but supported by the hon. and learned Lady, would be to consider privacy at the early part of the Bill, which might then have ramifications for the whole of the rest of the Bill if an appropriate clause were constructed.
I have argued that privacy runs through the Bill and that it is an intrinsic part of the connection—the harmonious union that we seek to create in this legislation—between defence of personal interest and the capabilities of those missioned to keep us safe. The hon. and learned Gentleman put the case, right at the outset, that there was an argument for something more fundamental, which explained that relationship more explicitly through some clause. I put it to the hon. and learned Lady that that would be a much better place.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I remind the Committee that the way I saw it was that there should be some overarching clause that would apply throughout the Bill, and thus to this clause and all others.
Mr Hayes
I may have been judging the hon. Member for Hove harshly. If the Solicitor General is right that that is the misapprehension, I understand why the hon. Gentleman is making the case he is making. It is essential that we clearly set out the expectations for the exercise of the oversight function, as the Bill does.
Returning to the issue of common sense and what is self-evident, I say to the hon. Gentleman for at least the third time, and possibly the fourth, that there is always debate about how much is on the face of a Bill and how much is reserved either for the common sense of those who do what the Bill asks of them or for the supporting documentation, guidance and so on. We have had that debate a number of times. It is often important that what might appear as “self-evident” or common sense is placed on the face of the Bill, as the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras has repeatedly asked me to do.
Keir Starmer
I simply remind the Committee that what my hon. Friend the Member for Hove said was, “This is what Sir Stanley said, would you care to comment on it?” In fairness, there is no criticism of the Minister in any of this. My hon. Friend is simply saying, “This is the witness’s evidence. What do you make of it?”
Investigatory Powers Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Keir Starmer ExcerptsThursday 28th April 2016
(8 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 April 2016 - (28 Apr 2016)
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 773, in clause 198, page 153, line 6, leave out from “aware” to the end of line 9.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 765, in clause 198, page 153, line 6, leave out
“if the Commissioner considers that—”.
Amendment 766, in clause 198, page 153, line 8, leave out subsection (1)(a).
Amendment 767, in clause 198, page 153, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 774, in clause 198, page 153, line 10, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
‘(2) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner may decide not to inform a person of an error in exceptional circumstances.
(3) Exceptional circumstances under subsection (2) will arise if the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by a significant prejudice to—
(a) national security, or
(b) the prevention and detection of serious crime.”
Amendment 778, in clause 198, page 153, line 11, leave out “may not” and insert “must”.
Amendment 779, in clause 198, page 153, line 12, after “has”, insert “not”.
Amendment 780, in clause 198, page 153, line 12, leave out “significant”.
Amendment 768, in clause 198, page 153, line 14, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 781, in clause 198, page 153, line 14, leave out “has” and insert “may have”.
Amendment 782, in clause 198, page 153, line 15, leave out “not”.
Amendment 769, in clause 198, page 153, line 19, leave out subsection (4)(a).
Amendment 783, in clause 198, page 153, line 19, leave out
“and its effect on the person concerned”.
Amendment 784, in clause 198, page 153, line 20, leave out
“contrary to the public interest or”
and insert “seriously”.
Amendment 770, in clause 198, page 153, line 24, leave out subsection (4)(b)(iii).
Amendment 771, in clause 198, page 153, line 25, leave out subsection (4)(b)(iv).
Amendment 785, in clause 198, page 153, line 26, at end insert—
‘(4A) In subsection (4) any publication will be considered “seriously prejudicial” where it would involve a significant risk to the life or of serious physical injury of any person.”
Amendment 788, in clause 198, page 153, line 39, leave out subsection (7).
Amendment 776, in clause 198, page 153, line 45, leave out paragraph (b).
Amendment 772, in clause 198, page 154, line 3, after “public authority”, insert
“or a telecommunications operator”.
Amendment 777, in clause 198, page 154, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).
Keir Starmer
We deal here with error reporting. The structure and arrangement of the clause distinguishes between serious and other errors. There is a definition of “serious” in subsection (2), and a provision in subsection (3) indicating that a breach of the European convention on human rights
“(within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998) is not sufficient by itself for an error to be a serious error.”
The Joint Committee considered the measures and recommended that the Government review the error reporting threshold. The Government said that they accepted that recommendation, but for my part, I have not seen anything further to that acceptance. In other words, I am not sure that anything about the review has been set out. If I am wrong, I will not pursue the point, but although the Government have accepted the principle of a review, I have not seen the outcome of that review.
In relation to the threshold, the amendments are intended to achieve a number of things. One is to make it clear that a breach of a convention right should be regarded as a serious error, irrespective of what follows from it. We obviously welcome the fact that in clause 198, the Government have responded to recommendation 57 by the Joint Committee, so that commissioners are now capable of exercising the function of error notification without the involvement of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. That is a response to the Joint Committee, I think, and it is welcome.
However, the Joint Committee suggested that as well as informing those affected by the errors and providing them with adequate information, there should be an ability to refer matters directly to the IPT where unlawful conduct has been identified. In other words, there should also be a power to go to the IPT directly. That was recommendation 66, and it is not reflected in any revision to the clause. It would be an important means of pursuing and preventing further violations involving errors about which it was not in the public interest to inform individuals, but which none the less ought to be brought to the attention of the IPT. We notice that the Government have not made that change, and I would be interested to hear the reasons. David Anderson also supported the ability of an independent oversight body to refer cases to the Crown Prosecution Service or lodge a claim directly with the IPT, again as a way of ensuring an element of direct access. Those issues relate to the first few subsections of clause 198.
Mr Hayes
Let us think for a moment about reality. I have never regarded myself as a prisoner of reality, for to imagine is to be human, is it not? But every Member of this House is from time to time approached by members of the public and others whose imagination has got the better of them. Among the skills that one develops as a Member of Parliament is the ability to discern the occasions on which that could either become a matter of embarrassment or absorb undue resource.
These amendments, which would create an obligation to send notification to anyone who had a complaint, however realistic or imaginary it might be, would surely not be a helpful addition to the sense of the Bill. I am sure that this is not the hon. and leaned Gentleman’s intention, but if he thinks through the ramifications of shifting the threshold as the amendments would, and requiring individuals to be notified as a matter of course of any error, no matter how small, he will see that the burden placed on those who are determined to deal with significant errors would be significant, undesirable and, in my view, unacceptable.
Keir Starmer
I think the Minister is making two points. One is on the imagined wrongs of members of the public, and the other is on the burden created if notification is required for all errors. The second point is, of course, a powerful submission. On the first, the imagination of the affected person does not make a material difference. This pertains to errors found by the commissioner, so surely only the second point—that it is an undue burden—is relevant.
Mr Hayes
Yes indeed. I have not sought to patronise the hon. and leaned Gentleman during the Committee’s proceedings, but there is quite a difference between 19 years’ experience as an MP and rather fewer. If he thinks through what an error of transposition, the mistyping of a digit in a telephone number or a typographical error might lead to in misassumptions on the part of those with vivid imaginations, I think he will understand the point I am trying to make. Notification of those kinds of petty errors, as the amendment would require, is not only unnecessary but would lead to undesirable consequences.
Keir Starmer
The Minister really does have to give up the habit of suggesting that the way we probe and push the Government on, say, the threshold between serious and ordinary errors has to do with inexperience. Many of us have huge practical experience of the operation of the sorts of powers in the Bill. I dare say I have looked in greater detail at the provisions of the Acts that preceded this Bill than many people on this Committee. I do not say that in self-congratulation; it has been a burden. I have looked at these kinds of provisions in detail over very many years. Part of the purpose of this exercise is to push. The Minister makes a good point on the difference between the thresholds, but if we sit on our hands and never push, this process does not work. That has nothing to do with experience.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Gentleman is being excessively sensitive. I was not commenting on his experience, expertise or diligence on these matters generally. I was drawing attention to the fact that those of us who have served as Members of Parliament and have dealt with the consequences of the misinterpretation that can unfortunately arise from the most minor of matters—we have all been there in our surgeries, and I think we all know what I mean—have learned that very well intentioned provisions can lead to misassumptions and even fuel vexatious complaint. I am not questioning the hon. and learned Gentleman’s right to probe—indeed, I welcome it, and he has exercised it with diligence and courtesy—but the amendment could have the unintended consequence of fuelling the kind of misassumptions and consequent vexatious complaints that we have to deal with by the nature of our job, and be quite discerning about, too.
Mr Hayes
I did not expect such a full debate on this matter, but it seems we are going to have one, Mr Owen. Imagine that a minor or technical error was notified to the individual concerned during the course of an active investigation. That has the potential to compromise the way the investigation proceeds. Relevant errors can be minor—I accept the hon. and learned Lady’s point—but the real issue is that the commissioner will have the expertise and independence to assess the relevance of the facts and decide what is in the public interest. If we are to have an oversight arrangement that affords the commissioner that kind of authority, to oblige publication as the amendment proposes would add little and might do much worse, which would be undesirable.
The intention behind amendment 776 is unclear to me. Removing subsection (8)(b) would mean that, contrary to what I just said, the commissioner would not be obliged to publish the number of relevant errors. I think that subsection is important, because we want to know the number. We are all interested in the reporting regime’s transparency and we are having a very informed debate about this part of the Bill. I am sure that that was not the intention, but it might be the effect.
Keir Starmer
I confess that one reason why I decided not to press amendments 772 and 777 was that when I looked at this group of amendments late last night, I realised that some of them would not have the effect that I intended. This is not a criticism, but for the record and as the Minister knows, the resources and back-up we get our respective positions on the Committee differ markedly. The Opposition work at pace with the resources we have, and occasionally on returning to amendments I have realised that they should not have been proposed.
Mr Hayes
I can tell that I struck a raw nerve with the hon. and learned Gentleman earlier and I want to try to rebuild the bridge that leads us back to the warm relationship we enjoy. Notwithstanding all that I have said, the clause could be perfected and I would like to look at it in the round to see what more we can do. Both the hon. and learned Lady and hon. and learned Gentleman heard my reservations about the amendments as drafted—indeed, he generously acknowledged that there are some imperfections in the amendments, which is often the way when drawing them up as a shadow Minister, as I know only too well—but they are designed to probe and they have done that successfully.
Notwithstanding my certainty on the point I made about detail, we can look at the clause in the round and make improvements. On that basis—the Bill has a long way to go—I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister for the content and spirit of his remarks. I was intending to press at least one amendment in the group, but in the circumstances I will not do so. We can all reflect on the wording of the clause, so I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 775, in clause 198, page 153, line 38, at end insert—
“(c) provide the person with such details of the submissions made by the public authority on the error and the matters concerned pursuant to subsection 198(5) as are necessary to inform a complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 791, in clause 199, page 154, line 21, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
“(3) In any circumstances where the Commission has identified a relevant error pursuant to section 198, the Commission must give such documents, information or other material as may be relevant to the investigation of the error to the Tribunal.
(4) The duty in subsection (3) shall be exercised without request from the Tribunal.”
Keir Starmer
I can be brief. The short amendments would provide that when a person is notified so that they can pursue a remedy if so minded or advised, they are given sufficient detail to do so. I think they are self-explanatory.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
It is a pleasure to reply on these amendments. In the spirit of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s remarks, I will deal with them as quickly as I can.
The amendments are about a submission prepared by a public authority for the commissioner that relates to an error being shown to an individual affected. With respect, I do not think that is necessary or desirable and I will set out three reasons for that. First, the IPC is already required to provide to the person such details of the error as the commissioner considers necessary. If that test is met by any information provided to the IPC in the course of the submissions made pursuant to clause 198(5), the Bill already requires that the judicial commissioner provide those details to the person. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Secondly, I am concerned that the amendment might inhibit disclosure to the commissioner. The submission is intended to assist the commissioner in deciding the seriousness of the error and the impact of disclosure; as such, it will contain a full and frank admission of how the error occurred and what measures have been put in place to prevent it from happening again. If the public authority knows that any submission it makes will be provided to an individual, out of necessity, to preserve the secrecy of its operating systems and methods, it may need to be less candid in its submission to the commissioner. That will force the commissioner to take a decision on whether it is in the public interest for an individual to be informed without, regrettably, knowing the full facts behind the matter.
Finally, if a case is brought to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, disclosure of the relevant material will occur during the proceedings in the normal way. If the IPT thinks that any part of the submission should have been disclosed, it can order that to be so disclosed. The tribunal is best placed to rule on what should or should not be disclosed as the case progresses, rather than what I would regard as inappropriate disclosure before the initiation of proceedings.
Amendment 791 would remove the requirement for judicial commissioners to consult the Secretary of State before releasing information to any public authority or other person. I have made the point before and make no apology for repeating it that, given the responsibility of the Executive for the protection of the public, it is right that the Executive be given the opportunity to express an opinion on where the public interest lies. For those reasons, I respectfully invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 198 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 199
Additional functions under this Part
Joanna Cherry
I beg to move amendment 792, in clause 199, page 154, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) A Judicial Commissioner may refer to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal any matter the Commissioner considers may have involved the unlawful use of investigatory powers.”.
This amendment would give the Judicial Commissioners power to refer issues of concern to the IPT without having to rely on a complaint being made.
The amendment, which would insert a new subsection in clause 199, was proposed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and is jointly tabled by the Scottish National party and the Labour party. It would give the judicial commissioners power to refer issues of concern—matters that came to their notice and about which they were concerned—to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal without having to rely on a complaint being made.
Under the Bill as drafted the unlawful use of investigatory powers may not receive sufficient scrutiny, because often the subjects of surveillance will be unaware of it and so not in a position to make a complaint. The amendment would improve the safeguards in the Bill by addressing that problem so that where judicial commissioners are aware of a concern, they can refer it to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The judicial commissioners decide whether to approve the issue of warrants and are well placed to identify issues of systemic concern and of law requiring resolution by the tribunal. They are, in fact, much better placed to do so than those subject to surveillance, because they have an overview of the whole picture. It is therefore sensible to permit them to refer matters of concern to the tribunal.
The amendment is in line with a number of recommendations made during prelegislative scrutiny. Recommendation 66 of the Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill was that
“The Judicial Commissioners should be able to make a direct reference to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal where they have identified unlawful conduct following an inspection, audit, investigation or complaint.”
Recommendation 16 of the Royal United Service Institute’s report, “A Democratic Licence to Operate”, says:
“The judicial commissioners should have a statutory right to refer cases to the IPT where they find a material error or arguable illegality or disproportionate conduct.”
The Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office, in written evidence to the Draft Bill Committee, made similar recommendations.
In their response to prelegislative scrutiny, the Government did not accept those recommendations, but they appear to have agreed that judicial commissioners should have this power, as it is referred to in the draft codes of practice. For example, the draft code of practice on interception of communications states:
“The Commissioner may, if they believe it to be unlawful, refer any issue relating to the use of investigatory powers to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal”.
However, there is no express power to do this in the Bill. We argue that the referral power needs to be set out clearly in the Bill for two reasons.
First, such an important power should be in primary legislation, rather than in a draft code of practice that may be subject to revision after the passage of the Bill through Parliament. If it is in the Bill, any change to the power in future would be subject to greater parliamentary scrutiny, requiring the amendment of primary legislation rather than the mere revision of codes of practice. Secondly, providing for the power in codes of practice but not in the Bill creates uncertainty, which the amendment would resolve. Without the amendment, there may be a lack of certainty about whether the judicial commissioners have what would be a crucial power, and it could be argued that the codes of practice cannot create such a power without it being in the Bill.
The confusion over those issues could be resolved in a straightforward manner by the Government accepting the amendment. Their general response to prelegislative scrutiny referred to the fact that courts and tribunals do not usually have the power to carry out investigations on their own initiative, but the amendment would not give the tribunal that power; rather, it would give the judicial commissioners the power to refer an issue to the tribunal, which the tribunal would then investigate on the initiative of the judicial commissioners. In support of that approach, I note that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal explains on its website:
“The Tribunal adopts an inquisitorial process to investigate complaints to get to the truth of what has happened in a particular case, unlike the adversarial approach followed in ordinary court proceedings.”
I suggest that that approach is appropriate in situations such as those envisaged in the Bill, where the victims of the measures will not have knowledge of them but the judicial commissioners will. They may therefore refer to the IPT, and because the IPT is an inquisitorial rather than an adversarial body, it is well placed to investigate a referral from the judicial commissioners. I ask the Government to take on board the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended and indicate that they will agree to it.
Joanna Cherry
I hear what the Minister says. I wonder whether the amendment might benefit from tightening up, perhaps by making the referral body the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. I will give it further consideration, but for the time being I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 199 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 200 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 201
Annual and other reports
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 808, in clause 201, page 156, line 37, leave out “the Prime Minister” and insert “Parliament”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 801, in clause 201, page 157, line 3, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 809, in clause 201, page 157, line 6, leave out “the Prime Minister” and insert “Parliament”.
Amendment 810, in clause 201, page 157, line 13, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
“(6) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner must lay a copy of the report before Parliament together with a statement as to whether any part of the report has been excluded from publication under subsection (7).”
Amendment 811, in clause 201, page 157, line 19, leave out “The Prime Minister” and insert “The Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.
Amendment 812, in clause 201, page 157, line 19, leave out “Investigatory Powers Commissioner” and insert “The Prime Minister”.
Amendment 813, in clause 201, page 157, line 22, leave out “Prime Minister” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.
Amendment 804, in clause 201, page 157, line 23, leave out
“contrary to the public interest or”
and insert “seriously”.
Amendment 805, in clause 201, page 157, line 27, leave out subsections (7)(c) and (7)(d).
Amendment 815, in clause 201, page 157, line 28, leave out subsection (7)(d).
This amendment would delete “prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of any public authority whose activities include activities that are subject to review by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner” as grounds for excluding a part of a report issued under this Part from publication.
Amendment 806, in clause 201, page 157, line 30, at end insert—
“(7A) In subsection (7) any publication will be considered “seriously prejudicial” where it would involve a significant risk to the life or of serious physical injury of any person.”.
Amendment 807, in clause 201, page 157, line 40, leave out
“if requested to do so by the Prime Minister”.
Keir Starmer
It is welcome that the Government have accepted and implemented recommendation 67 of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, which was for the annual report to include information on the use and oversight of investigatory powers. However, it is disappointing that there is no provision to require the number of errors to be included in the annual report. A moment ago, in resisting an amendment to a previous clause, the Minister said that the errors could be included in the report; perhaps that should be a requirement under the clause—just the number of errors, of course, not the details. Similarly, there is no requirement for the number of requested authorisations to be reported. That information is vital in gauging the proportion of requests that are granted; without it, the stringency of the double lock cannot realistically be assessed.
The amendments would require that the report be made directly to Parliament and would tighten up clause 201(7), which is very similar to the clause we were looking at a moment ago. Like previous amendments, amendment 804 would leave out the words
“contrary to the public interest or”
and would tighten the test by replacing “prejudicial” with “seriously prejudicial”. Amendment 805 is consistent with previous amendments in that it would remove our old friend “economic wellbeing” from the clause. Amendment 807 speaks for itself.
The annual reporting provisions are a step in the right direction; we acknowledge that the Government have taken action as a result of the Joint Committee’s recommendations. We have tabled these amendments to suggest that more could be included in the report, that the reporting should be directly to Parliament and that exclusion from publication should be subject to a stricter test than the one currently set out in clause 201.
Mr Hayes
Let me address a couple of factual issues. Clause 198(8)(a) refers to
“the number of relevant errors of which the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has become aware during the year to which the report relates”.
The number of errors must be published by dint of that requirement. That is what I was referring to.
Mr Hayes
It is reinforced, for the sake of accuracy, by clause 201(2)(a), which has further details on
“the number of warrants or authorisations issued, given, considered or approved during the year”.
I entirely agree that it is important that scale is dealt with in the way the hon. and learned Gentleman requests.
I am quite sympathetic to the amendment. This is one of those discussions in Committee that boils down to—I have used the phrase “boils down to” once, so for the sake of Hansard, I will change it, because I do not like to repeat myself. This discussion can be reduced to—boiling has the effect of reducing, as all those who are cooks will know—a debate about what it is in the codes and what is in the Bill. As the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly says, the Joint Committee looked at this. I have its recommendation before me. He is right to say that the Committee wanted more information about the records kept in this regard.
In essence, as the hon. and learned Gentleman generously suggested, the Government have responded by publishing the draft codes of practice, which address these matters. The amendment would put these matters in the Bill. My argument for rejecting the amendment is that it is adequate for them to be in the codes. We are back to the debate of what we put in the Bill and what we put in supplementary material.
I am not unsympathetic to the amendment. I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman will want to continue this discussion. I am not sure I want to vote in favour of the amendment today, but in the spirit that I have tried to adopt throughout the consideration of this part of the Bill, I reassure him that the Government remain open-minded to how we get this right.
This is new territory, but not in the sense that there has not previously been oversight. Rather, the reforms to oversight made by the Bill are of some significance. We are in the business, as a Committee and as a Parliament, of considering exactly how to construct that oversight in an effective way. On that basis, I am prepared to listen to argument. I will not accept the amendment, but I am open to further consideration. I hope, given the tone and content of what I said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Keir Starmer
Again, I am grateful to the Minister for his observations. I record my appreciation that on occasions when we have pressed matters, both the Minister for Security and the Solicitor General have indicated a willingness to look again at clauses or provisions with a view to changing or perfecting them. That is a useful part of the process. I gauge that my chances of success in improving the clause are greater through that process than by pressing the amendment to a vote.
Keir Starmer
Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I rise to speak to amendment 814, in clause 201, page 156, line 42, after “authorisations”, insert “requested and”
This amendment would require the Annual Report to include information on the number of requests for warrants or authorisations made.
I have spoken to this amendment in the round and therefore will not say anything more about it.
The Chair
The amendment is not moved.
Clause 201 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 202 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 203
Information gateway
Joanna Cherry
I am grateful for that. We have had a lot of debate about these issues already, and I am very grateful to the Solicitor General for indicating that he is going to look at them seriously. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 203 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 204
Funding, staff and facilities
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 833, in clause 204, page 158, line 41, leave out
“The Secretary of State must”
and insert “The Treasury must”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 834, in clause 204, page 158, line 42, leave out
“and subject to the approval of the Treasury”.
Amendment 835, in clause 204, page 158, line 43, after “with”, insert “funds to cover”.
Amendment 836, in clause 204, page 159, line 3, leave out “Secretary of State considers”.
The amendments 833 to 836 would remove the role of the Secretary of State in determining the funding, staff and facilities to be afforded to the Judicial Commissioners, leaving this to the Treasury and the IPC.
New clause 17—Remuneration or allowances for additional directed oversight functions—
“The Treasury shall make available such remuneration or allowances as necessary to meet the requirements of section 197 (Additional directed oversight functions).”.
Keir Starmer
The provision deals with funding, staff and facilities. The Solicitor General has mentioned funding already. We agree with the Joint Committee on the Bill that it is wrong for the budget and resources available to the judicial commissioners to be set solely by the Secretary of State when the primary function of the commissioner is reviewing decisions taken by them. The Solicitor General mentioned other arrangements by which budgets are set for independent oversight bodies, but these particular commissioners oversee the Secretary of State’s decisions. That is the whole point of the double lock, and that compromises the situation. The Government’s response to this recommendation indicated that they might be willing to consider a role for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner in helping to set the budget. Will the Solicitor General update us on whether that response is now complete and rejected, or whether it is still a consideration that the Government are dealing with? The Opposition’s amendment is straightforward and would improve matters by putting them entirely in the hands of the Treasury, in consultation with the commissioner.
New clause 17 is the freestanding clause that says the Treasury
“shall make available such remuneration or allowances as necessary to meet the requirements of section 197.”.
It is an in-principle position because of the particular function of the judicial commissioners, which is unlike those of the other oversight bodies. The Government have indicated a willingness to look at a different arrangement involving the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. We think that would be the right way forward, and new clause 17 would provide for that to happen through the involvement of the Treasury.
Mr Hayes
Given the commitment I made earlier to consider closely the construction of these arrangements and, in particular, to the detailed consideration about the role of the new body and its independence, I fully understand why the hon. and learned Gentlemen has raised this issue. I hesitate to cite my experience again. Last time I did that, I fed the caricature that I have been desperately trying to persuade the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West is just that—a parody—through all my kindness, generosity and sensitivity to her concerns. Notwithstanding that hesitation, I have to say that from all my experience as a Minister, the last people you want to involve in these things is the Treasury.
Keir Starmer
In my role as Director of Public Prosecutions, I had to engage with the Treasury. I, therefore, do have that experience, so I join the Minister in that sentiment.
Mr Hayes
I knew we would soon get on to common ground again. It took only a few minutes for the ship to go back on to an even keel. I worry that exposing the IPC to direct negotiation with the Treasury, when I suspect that the Home Office would have a closer relationship and understanding of the IPC and of the Treasury, would serve no good purpose. I can see why in theory it would reinforce independence, and I think that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman was getting at; that it is important that the IPC is not seen as merely the creature of the Home Office, and that funding reflects that independence.
I can see where the genesis of the argument springs from but, in practical terms, it would be much more straightforward for the Home Office to assist the IPC by taking the lead in the negotiations. Treasury involvement will ultimately be necessary in order to get sufficient funding for the IPC. Certainly, in terms of the assessment of resources and so on, the intimacy of the relationship between the Home Secretary, her officials and the IPC will be critical to ensuring that the budget is properly constructed and adequate for the job.
For that reason, and in the interests of brevity, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 837, in clause 204, page 159, line 4, at end insert—
‘(3) The staff of the Judicial Commissioners must include independent technical experts.
This amendment would ensure that judicial commissioners have access to technical experts.
The amendment speaks for itself. It is proposed to ensure that technical expertise is available to the judicial commissioners.
Mr Hayes
Here we can find common ground, in that we entirely agree that it is right that the IPC and the judicial commissioners have access to the right technical expertise. That is essential, certainly on an ongoing basis and, one might argue, particularly at the outset. This is going to be a new process and, while these will be very experienced judges, they will be dealing with matters that they have not had to deal with previously. However, I am not sure that the amendment is necessary to achieve that.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that clause 204 provides that the Secretary of State must consult the IPC about staffing, accommodation, equipment and other facilities that are necessary. Of course, that will mean a proper consideration of technical expertise, and I am happy to confirm that now. That process would provide the commissioner with the chance to make it clear if they believe there is a requirement for particular staff and how they want those staff to be employed. It may be that at different points in the work, different levels of technical expertise are necessary. Some of that might require full-time employment of technical experts. On other occasions, I suspect that they would want to consult technical experts on an ad hoc basis. That flexibility would not only add to the official use of resource but add to the effective completion of their functions.
To give one further assurance, I want to be very clear that, should such representations be made to the Secretary of State—we talked in the debate on the previous amendment about the Home Office being the point of contact with our paymasters, the Treasury—it is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would consider that the commissioner did not need the resources requested. While it would not be appropriate to create a statutory obligation in the Bill to provide detail of what staff should, or should not, be employed—because it is important that the commissioner makes that judgment on a discretionary basis—I can give an assurance that the commissioner will be equipped as they need to be.
The matter might also be one that changes over time. What the IPC considers necessary at a given point in time might reflect its caseload or even case history—it might feel that extra expertise needs to be taken on, depending how things change. We have all said that all such matters that we are considering are highly dynamic, so I want to allow that extra discretion, not least for that reason.
On that basis, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw his amendments, because I think we are again on the same page.
Keir Starmer
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and it is now on the record, so on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 204 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 205
Power to modify functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Joanna Cherry
I wish to oppose the clause, in relation to submissions I made earlier about clause 196.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 843, in clause 208, page 160, line 13, after “determination”, insert
“or ruling or decision, including relating to a procedural matter”
and leave out
“of a kind mentioned in section 68(4) or any decision of the tribunal or a kind mentioned in section 68(4C)”
This amendment makes clear that all decisions, determinations and rulings can be appealed on a point of law.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 841, in clause 208, page 160, line 31, leave out subsection (6).
The Bill provides that an appeal on an error of law will only lie when an appeal raises an important point of principle or practice or there is another compelling reason to grant leave. This amendment would remove this restriction and create a right of appeal against any error in law.
Keir Starmer
The amendments relate to the grounds for appeal. The Bill provides that appeal on an error of law will only lie when an appeal raises
“an important point of principle or practice, or…there is another compelling reason to grant leave.”
The two amendments would remove that restriction and create a right of appeal against an error in law.
The history and background of this is that David Anderson raised the issue in his report last year. He suggested that appeals be permitted on an error of law. When it scrutinised the Bill at the tail end of last year and the beginning of this year, the Joint Committee agreed that an appeal should be permitted on any error of law. It is right that appeals should be allowed on errors of law, so that they can be corrected, and so that the right decision is arrived at on the right legal analysis.
The Government have refused to amend the Bill in the light of those recommendations, maintaining that there needs to be an important point of principle or practice or another compelling reason for granting leave. That is unpersuasive. David Anderson and the Joint Committee were absolutely clear—they were right—that an appeal should lie where there is an error of law.
The Solicitor General
I am afraid that I am not persuaded by the amendments. I am concerned that within the Bill the IPT and the appellate court already have the significant discretion necessary when granting permission to appeal. I am worried that the amendments will have a detrimental effect. There is a risk that we will end up with appeals in cases where there is no significant point of law, and that is frankly a waste of everyone’s time and resources.
I want to deal with the background to clause 208. The Bill represents a significant step. The only route of appeal currently available to complainants from decisions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is by reference directly to the European Court of Human Rights. For the first time, we have established a domestic right of appeal, which will enable parties to seek redress here in the UK court system. That will also enable appeals to be heard more quickly. I think we would all agree that that is a massive step forward. Appeals will be heard by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, or the Court of Session in Scotland or the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, and ultimately it will be possible for appellants to seek permission to appeal from the appellant court to the Supreme Court.
I understand the sentiment behind the amendments, but there has to be balance and I think our approach is right. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal or relevant appellant court will be able to grant permission to appeal if it considers that it would raise
“an important point of principle or practice”,
or additionally, if there are any other compelling reasons to grant leave. That gives the courts an appropriately wide discretion when deciding whether permission should be granted. That makes it possible for any case that raises a significant point of law to be dealt with at appellate level.
As hon. Members are no doubt aware, this type of restriction is not unusual. Our approach in the Bill is directly modelled on restrictions that apply to judicial reviews from decisions of an upper tribunal—that is civil procedure rule 54.7A. I consider that the same restrictions should apply to appeals from the IPT.
It would be helpful for me to take the opportunity to put on record the number of cases that were considered by the IPT in 2015. Two hundred and nineteen cases were considered, of which 47%—nearly half—were deemed to be frivolous or vexatious; 30% were given a “no determination”; 17% were out of the IPT’s jurisdiction, withdrawn or not valid; 3% were out of time; and only 4% were found to have any merit to them.
Therefore, although creating an appeal route is very important—I am proud that we are doing that—not having any limits on that route would mean, I am afraid, a considerable amount of taxpayer money and court and agency time and resources frankly being wasted on continuing to manage and defend cases that, sadly, have no grounding in fact or merit in law. That is why I think the appeal route as currently delineated will still allow important cases that need further judicial scrutiny to progress.
Therefore, to strike the right balance, having broken new ground with the domestic right of appeal, I commend the clauses unamended to the Committee and urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Keir Starmer
The Solicitor General is right that this is an important step forward, but it also needs to be the right one. I am not convinced that the point about frivolous and vexatious applicants has any bearing or substance, because there has to be an appeal on a point of law and it can be allowed only on a point of law. Therefore, if it is on a point of law, it is difficult to argue that it is frivolous and vexatious. Of course, the amount of those should be reduced—they waste a great deal of time—but this amendment would not increase the number of frivolous and vexatious cases, nor would it give them any grounds for success.
This important point was pressed by David Anderson and the Joint Committee, and I wish to press this amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 842, in clause 208, page 162, line 22, at end insert—
“(6) After section 68(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, insert—
(1A) Any hearing conducted by the Tribunal must be conducted in public, except where a special proceeding is justified in the public interest.
(1B) Any determination by the Tribunal must be made public, except where a special proceeding may be justified in the public interest.
(1C) A special proceeding will be in the public interest only where there is no alternative means to protect sensitive material from disclosure.
(1D) Material will be sensitive material for the purposes of this section if its disclosure would seriously prejudice—
(a) national security, or
(b) the prevention and detection of crime.
(1E) Publication for the purposes of this section will be seriously prejudicial if it would lead to a significant threat to life or of a serious physical injury to a person.
(1F) The Tribunal shall appoint a person to represent the interests of a party in any special proceedings from which the party (and any legal representative of the party) is excluded.
(1G) Such a person will be known as a Special Advocate.”’
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 20—Power to make declaration of incompatibility with a Convention right—
“(1) Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5), after paragraph (f), insert—
‘(g) the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.’”
This new clause enables the IPT to make a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act.
New clause 21—Openness and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal—
“(1) Within 12 months of the coming into force of this Act, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for an independent review of the procedures of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to be placed before Parliament.
(2) The Treasury will provide such funds, remuneration or allowances as necessary for the Independent Reviewer appointed to produce his report pursuant to section (1).
(3) The Independent Review in section (1) must consider—
(a) the capacity of the Tribunal to afford redress to individuals when compulsory powers are exercised unlawfully, including in a manner incompatible with Convention Rights protected by the Human Rights Act 1998, and
(b) the conduct of Tribunal hearings and the production of Tribunal decisions which are open, transparent and accessible, except in so far as can be justified in light of a serious risk to life or of physical injury of any person, seriously prejudicial to—
(i) national security, or
(ii) the prevention and detection of serious crime.”
Keir Starmer
We have a long-standing principle of openness and open justice in this country. Case law as long as my arm sets out the importance of open justice. I readily accept that that principle, which we all adhere to, is more difficult to achieve in this field than in other fields, but with these amendments we are really arguing about the default position, not the automatic position.
On page 240 of his report, David Anderson recommended that the IPT be changed—I recognise what the practice is—
“to make open hearings the default and disclose the fact that closed hearings have taken place”.
The Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill recommendation 74 is that, when making a decision on whether part of a hearing should be open or not, the tribunal should apply a public interest test.
This amendment would make open hearings the default position, which was David Anderson’s preference, but to have a mechanism to change the default position to closed proceedings. It is important that we keep to the principle of open justice. People fought for it for many years, and it is one of the central planks of our justice system. A default position that proceedings are open is in keeping with that principle; the default position set out in the Bill is not. For those reasons, I will press this amendment.
New clause 20 deals with declarations of incompatibility, and speaks for itself. It would amend section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to give the IPT the power to make a declaration of incompatibility. Where there is a problem with legislation and convention rights that cannot be resolved during interpretation, the IPT would have the power to make a declaration of incompatibility, which would then trigger a dialogue with Parliament about what, if any, modifications or alterations to legislation should follow. That has proved worthwhile and effective so far under the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Solicitor General
In prefacing my remarks on the hon. and leaned Gentleman’s arguments, I, too, pray in aid my strong and long-held commitment to open justice. Like him, I practiced it for many years, and I believe fundamentally in it. However, as a parliamentarian, I have come to accept that there are occasions, which need to be very carefully prescribed, when that principle has to be departed from, but that must only be in cases where there is a clear public interest and a necessity that everybody would understand. That is why every time these matters arise—whether it was when the Special Immigration Appeals Commission was created nearly 20 years ago, or when the Justice and Security Act 2013 created closed material proceedings three or four years ago—they are the subject of very intense debate and proper scrutiny. I therefore welcome the opportunity to look closely at the position with regard to the new provisions in the Bill.
The amendment seeks to amend section 68 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to provide that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal must hold its proceedings in public unless closed proceedings are in the public interest. As has been outlined, the amendment would restrict the circumstances in which that can take place and would require the appointment of special advocates.
First, on the necessity, we are in something of a transitional period, but I will give the Committee some reassurance. Rule 9 of the tribunal rules, pursuant to section 69 of RIPA, currently states that all proceedings, including oral hearings, should be held in private. The problem is that the rules have not been updated to take into account changes that were introduced by the tribunal many years ago. There was a ruling in the 2003 Kennedy case, which is reported at IPT/01/62 and IPT/01/77, that the tribunal has the discretion to order that hearings take place in public. Happily, since then, in practice the IPT has regularly held open hearings, and copies of its judgments delivered in open proceedings are publicly available on its website.
Keir Starmer
I am not sure that the Solicitor General is right about that. The declaration of incompatibility arises only where the primary legislation requires an outcome that is incompatible with the convention right. By definition, the legislation in place overrides the convention right, which is what bounces it back to Parliament. Technically, he is probably wrong about that. There cannot be a remedy; that is why the amendment is needed.
The Solicitor General
I am interested in that argument, although I am not entirely persuaded by it. I am afraid that the amendment would be a problem across the piece. If courts of lower record could issue declarations, obviously I would not be arguing the point. It would be unusual for us to single out the Investigatory Powers Tribunal as sui generis in this instance.
To return to the point that I was developing, under section 68(5) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the IPT is required to make a report to the Prime Minister in the event that it makes a determination in favour of a person that arises from any act or omission made by or on behalf of the Secretary of State. In such circumstances—this may be a helpful and practical point—the Government would of course be required to consider whether legislative change was needed. De facto, our position would be very similar to the result of the declaration of incompatibility.
For example, the IPT recently decided in the Belhaj and Saadi cases, both public judgments, that the regime for certain intrusive surveillance of legally privileged material contravened article 8. I know that this is a slightly different point from declarations of incompatibility pursuant to section 19, I think—I am sure Hansard will help me—of the Human Rights Act 1998. The tribunal is already making findings on the compatibility with rights under the convention.
Finally, I will deal with the question of review of the tribunal. As Committee members will know, the use of investigatory powers has been the subject of extensive reviews, to which we have referred repeatedly in this Committee’s deliberations. None of those reports recommended the wholesale change to how the IPT operates that the amendment suggests. Bearing in mind that we have ongoing and detailed scrutiny and important and recent reviews, I do not believe that we will get added value from a further review. The new clause would also require that any independent review must consider two issues.
The IPT can of course make clear any concerns that it might have about the operation of the tribunal. The tribunal published a report only recently, and it did not express any concerns about its effective operation, so I do not think that a further review will add anything. I believe that the key concerns identified in the amended clause have been and are being addressed. On reasons of lack of necessity, I therefore submit that the new clause would not take us any further. On that basis, I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the amendments and new clauses.
Keir Starmer
I will not press new clauses 20 and 21, but I will press amendment 842 to a vote on the open justice principle.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Investigatory Powers Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Keir Starmer ExcerptsTuesday 26th April 2016
(8 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 April 2016 - (26 Apr 2016)
The Chair
Before we start, I advise Members wishing to table amendments for consideration during next week’s sittings to do so by rise of House on Thursday. Before we get into business, I would also like to welcome Sir Simon Burns to the Committee. He has been a good egg and stepped in for the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who unfortunately is poorly.
Clause 138
Power to issue bulk acquisition warrants
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 673, in clause 138, page 109, line 30, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) the Secretary of State considers the requirements of section 141 are met by the warrant,”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 688, in clause 156, page 122, line 17, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
“(d) the Secretary of State considers the requirements of section 161 are met by the warrant,”.
Keir Starmer
It is a pleasure to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I, too, welcome the right hon. Member for Chelmsford and thank him for helping the Committee with its work.
We turn to clause 138, which deals with the second of the bulk warrants that we are discussing, the bulk acquisition warrants. I will start where I started with the last bulk power by observing the breathtakingly broad nature of this one. The communications data that can be subject to a bulk warrant are the what, where and how of a communication without disclosure of the content, as well as a person’s location, the type of equipment used and the duration of its use. The data can therefore paint a detailed picture of somebody’s life, so accessing it is a significant interference with privacy.
Clause 138 involves the bulk acquisition power that was first avowed in November last year, only about six months ago, making it one of the more recent avowals. At the time, David Anderson told the BBC that
“the law was so broad and the information was so slight that nobody knew it was happening”,
adding that it was
“so vague that anything could be done under it”.
David Anderson and others are concerned about the breadth of the power. For that reason among others, I repeat the call for more work on the operational case. I will not go over the points I made last Thursday in your absence, Ms Dorries, but where a newly avowed power is as broad as this one, the need for an operational case is heightened.
The power is not limited to those overseas, which is a material difference from the bulk power that we considered at the tail end of last week. If there is to be such a bulk power, the safeguards are extremely important, but here we run straight into the same problem as we did with the last bulk power: although clause 138 includes a necessity and proportionality test, it bites on very broad objectives. In clause 138(1)(a), we see that the Secretary of State can issue a bulk warrant if she
“considers that the warrant is necessary—
(i) in the interests of national security, or”,
under subsection (2),
“(a) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime, or
(b) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”.
The same very broad powers apply to the issuing of a very wide bulk warrant.
Last time we considered bulk powers, I was able to go to the code of practice, which gave more detail about the necessity and proportionality test. In this case, paragraph 4.5 of the code of practice does not add much to what is on the face of the Bill. The Government might want to consider whether necessity and proportionality are dealt with consistently in the codes for each of the bulk powers. There is more detail in paragraphs 9.3 and 9.7, the latter of which is telling:
“More than one operational purpose may be specified on a single bulk warrant; this may, where the necessity and proportionality test is satisfied, include all operational purposes currently in use. In the case of bulk acquisition, BCD relevant to a number of operational purposes may be acquired on a single warrant. In the majority of cases, it will therefore be necessary for bulk acquisition warrants to specify the full list of operational purposes.”
This is another case where, in truth, few warrants will cover many operational purposes, yet the constraints of clause 138 are simply by reference to the interests of national security, to preventing or detecting serious crime and to the interests of economic wellbeing so far as they touch on the interests of national security.
I repeat and reassert the points made on the previous bulk warrant measure. Lifting some of the more detailed analysis of the safeguard and test from the code into the Bill is required to make clause 138 meaningful. That is made good in clause 141, which states:
“In specifying any operational purposes, it is not sufficient simply to use the descriptions contained in section 138(1)(a) or (2), but the purposes may still be general purposes.”
The other point made about this warrant is that it applies not only to the retention or obtaining of data but to the examination of those data. I repeat the point I made last week about the Tom Watson and David Davis case, which is currently being heard. The question in that case is whether there are specific safeguards for access when data are retained, and the proposition accepted by the divisional court is that the safeguard should be for serious crime and that there should be a degree of judicial oversight. The Court of Appeal will now form its own view on that, but the Bill’s safeguard for examination is without any teeth, because the test for examination is the test of necessity, as set out in clause 138, coupled with the test of clause 141, which says that simply citing the national interest, preventing crime, et cetera, is not enough, but that general purposes may be sufficient.
Clause 151—I am skipping beyond clause 138, but one has to see these three things together—is shorter than clauses in other parts of the Bill that address bulk powers, and it simply sets out:
“For the purposes of section 150 the requirements of this section are met in relation to the communications…obtained under a warrant if any selection…is carried out…for the specified purposes…and the selection…is necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances.”
Those purposes relate back to clause 141, which says that, although someone seeking a warrant cannot get away with simply citing national security and serious crime, they do not have to go much further. On analysis, the test for examining for selection data that have been obtained under this wide bulk power is, in fact, a necessity and proportionality test that is no different from the test applied to the holding of the data in the first place. In other words, there is no differentiation between the test for holding, retaining or acquiring the data and the test for examining it at some later stage. I made that point last week, and it arises again in relation to this very wide bulk power.
The only other thing I will say at this preliminary stage is that I think I am right in saying that, in relation to this bulk warrant, there are no specific provisions for legal professional privilege, for the correspondence of MPs or for journalistic material. That has cropped up in our previous discussions and I think the Solicitor General is giving further consideration to whether, in some circumstances, the fact that there is a communication with a lawyer, even though the content is not there, may need at least some reconsideration in terms of how it is dealt with in the Bill.
Therefore, I will not go into long submissions on legal professional privilege, but it is essentially the same point, namely the assumption that if it is not pure content no privilege attaches and no concerns arise may be misplaced. I have asked the Solicitor General and the Security Minister, to take this point under the umbrella of consideration when he looks again at legal professional privilege.
Against that background, the amendments really speak for themselves. They are tightening amendments intended to sharpen the test in clause 138, which, as I say, at the moment is breathtakingly wide.
The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)
I again welcome you to the Chair, Ms Dorries.
I will start by saying that it is vital that the whole Committee understands two points—I think it does, but I will amplify them for the sake of the record. The first is that access to communications data is vital to securing our safety. Communications data play a critical role in almost all the major investigations in respect of terrorism and a very large part in the work of the law enforcement, security and intelligence services. That much is a given.
The second point is that the powers in the clause are not new; they are routinely used for the purposes that I have described. When you were last in the Chair, Ms Dorries, the shadow Minister said:
“As the Minister has said, it is a good thing that the powers that had previously been exercised by the security and intelligence services are now avowed on the face of the Bill.”––[Official Report, Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, 12 April 2016; c. 92.]
He is right: it is important that, for the first time, these powers are brought together in a single piece of legislation, making them more understandable, more transparent and more comprehensible.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman also said, it is vital that there are appropriate safeguards in place. Consideration of the clause and the amendments this morning enables us to explore the adequacy of the safeguards and, as we have discussed in previous debates, whether what is already in the Bill is sufficient. In that context, he is right to draw attention to the code of practice. Paragraphs 9.7 and 9.8 describe the particular circumstances that might apply in respect of a bulk acquisition. The code of practice emphasises that a test of necessity and proportionality must be applied to all these matters, but also makes it clear that the operational purposes of the warrant are salient, too.
Ms Dorries, we had a debate in your absence about whether the operational case should be explored in more detail at the outset. Like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I will not reprise that debate, but for your benefit I will say that, in essence, the case he made was that there should be some independent means by which we test the validity of that operational case. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, who speaks for the Scottish National party, made essentially the same case. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General and I, having listened to what they said last week, reflected upon it and discussed it, can see that there is some merit in that argument. I will not say more than that today, but I thought their case was reasonable and we might want to look at it.
Of course these matters are sensitive, because as soon as we start to explore operational matters related to the security and intelligence services, we get into that area of what we can and cannot put in the public domain. That is a challenging tightrope—I suppose all tightropes are challenging by definition, but to walk the one between protecting the public interest and protecting the capacity and effectiveness of our security services is particularly challenging. Nevertheless, the case that the hon. and learned Gentleman made about the need for greater scrutiny is interesting.
When it comes to the work we are considering today, it will be beneficial for the Committee to look again at the operational case for bulk powers, which sets out how bulk data are used. Not only does paragraph 5.1 clearly make the case that
“The power to acquire and analyse bulk data is crucial to the security and intelligence agencies’ effectiveness”,
but it also says that those powers are used alongside others, and where others are more appropriate, bulk is not used as a default position—an important point to make, because I think there is a misassumption that that may not be the case. It also says that the capabilities are used to deal with
“high-priority and…emerging threats from individuals not previously known to the security and intelligence agencies”
and that they are vital to disrupting threats of that kind. Fundamentally, it says that they are
“often the only means to acquire intelligence about overseas and online threats to the UK.”
The code of practice then sets out the essential character of those powers, which I will sum up by saying that often in dealing with those threats and deciding how best to counter them, the intelligence and security agencies will have mere fragments of information; they will need to search widely to piece together from those fragments sufficient information to clarify the nature of the threat and to put into place the measures to deal with it; and the collection of data in that respect is fundamental to the work of GCHQ in particular. The idea that that is done without specificity, in a capricious way, is completely at odds with the mission of those organisations, with the safeguards in place here and with common sense. It is not in the interests of anyone to collect data beyond the purpose that I have described, to piece together information, to facilitate better investigation of threats to our national security.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister for laying out the background and the way in which the warrants will operate. He makes a powerful case for putting some of that detail in the Bill, because if that is the actual operation, nothing could impede its effectiveness if something more specific is put in the Bill—obviously not the specifics of every operation, but something better than the very general test in the Bill. That would not cut across the operation of the warrants and would be consistent with their use as the Minister describes it.
Mr Hayes
That is the essence of the case the hon. and learned Gentleman makes in his amendments, but before I come to that I want to take this opportunity to set out some of the broader arguments. I am sure that members of the Committee do not need to be disabused of this, because they are extremely well informed and have read the Bill with a scrupulous diligence that is quite impressive, but the wider public may have a misconception about the nature of the powers and what they are there for. I have already dealt with the misconception that these powers are new; they certainly are not, but let me put that into even sharper focus.
In 2010, a group of terrorists were plotting attacks on the UK, including on the London stock exchange. The use of bulk communications data played a key role in the MI5 investigation, allowing investigators to uncover the terrorists’ network and to understand their plans. That led to the disruption of their activities and successful convictions against all the group’s members. This is not an academic debate; it is not a common room discussion among civilised people who take due care of these matters. This is about the day-to-day threats we face and how we counter them. These powers have been and are used to disrupt threats precisely as I have described.
Keir Starmer
In a sense, we are on common ground here. Clause 141 adds to clause 138 and, as the Minister says, indicates that what is set out in clause 138(1)(a) and (2) is not sufficient, but if what comes after the comma—
“but the purposes may still be general purposes”—
is the case, there is no indication of the specific matters that must be listed. More is given in the code, and one has to remember that it is against that operational case that the judicial commissioner then conducts his or her analysis of necessity and proportionality. That is why it is so important. The question is really whether some of what is in the code of practice should not be lifted into the provisions of clause 141.
Mr Hayes
Let me draw my remarks to a conclusion so that we can move on with appropriate alacrity, having set out the broad argument. There are two points. The first is whether more of what is in the code should be put in the Bill and whether that would be helpful. The judgment to be made is whether the Bill is sufficient as it stands. Is the amendment unnecessary because of the requirement that a warrant be issued lawfully and the proper constraint that that places on those who make that decision? Secondly, going back to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s case about the operational case, given that there will be a stringent internal process to ensure that any warrant presented to the Secretary of State is compliant with the statutory requirements, could we say more about the operational purposes?
A combination of those two things would entirely satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Government are sensitive to all those considerations. Of course we understand the need to balance capability against safeguards, and as I said at the outset, I am mindful of the strength of the argument used when we last met about how we could be clearer about legitimising the operational case. I will leave it at that and invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister for the way that he has set out his case and his indication of the Government’s approach. The question of safeguards is extremely important: it is vital for the Committee and the House to get it right. Rather than press these amendments, I will wait to see what response, if any, the Government make to the general case that I have made on a number of occasions about the balance between the code and the Bill and reserve my position for later stages of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Hayes
I beg to move amendment 614, in clause 138, page 110, line 8, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment leaves out provision that is not relevant in the context of bulk acquisition warrants.
This is a technical amendment and I do not intend to make a great fuss of it unless anyone wants to ask me for more detail.
Amendment 614 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
The hon. and learned Lady, speaking for the SNP, made some important points and I want to pick up on one of them—a nagging concern on which clarification would be helpful. The bulk warrant process under this chapter and others presupposes two stages; first the acquisition of the data and then the examination of the data. I have already made my submission that, broadly speaking, the second stage ought to have a higher threshold than the first stage, for obvious reasons.
It is important to understand that there are actually four steps in a classic case. The first is obtaining data. The second is the first stage of the filtering or triage to deselect or not select all the data that are not needed. Jonathan Evans made a very powerful case on that stage, describing how clearing away all the data that the security and intelligence services do not need to consider, so that they can focus on what they do need to consider, is a major part of the task. The third stage is selecting the data they need to consider. The fourth stage is the examination of that selected material.
It is worrying that there is no reference at all in the Bill or in the code—I will be corrected, if I am wrong about the code, but I have looked—to the middle stage of filtering. We saw earlier that for comms data, when others had obtained them pursuant to a Secretary of State’s retention order, there were specific provisions for filtering. Here, for bulk powers, there are none—there is no mention of filtering in the Bill. Is it intended that the examination provisions serve two purposes—first, the filter purpose and secondly, the more specific access purpose? If so, what is to be specified in the warrant when it comes to operational purposes for examination? Is it the operational case for filter or the operational case for access? I suspect they would be different things. The operational case for filter would be, in the main, to move out of the way data that do not need to be looked at, and I am persuaded of the need for that. That would be one operational case, quite broad in nature; but the operational case for access would necessarily need to be more specific.
I am genuinely concerned that those steps are not apparent in the Bill. If they are implied, it would helpful to have on the record how the Minister sees that the provision covers the various steps. Without making the argument again, this point reinforces my argument that the test for examination of data ought to be higher than the test for acquisition or for filter. This is a very specific issue, but it is nagging because it is not in the Bill, whereas earlier on, there were clear provisions dealing with filter and how the filtering arrangements would work.
Mr Hayes
We have covered a lot of ground and rightly so, because this is an important part of the Bill and an important clause.
The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras is right to say that there are several parts to the process. Paragraph 9.8 of the draft code of practice says:
“As well as being necessary for one of the operational purposes, any selection for examination of BCD must be necessary and proportionate.”
Paragraph 9.9 goes on to talk about the selection of those data, saying:
“In general, automated systems must, where technically possible, be used to effect the selection of BCD in accordance with section 151 of the Act.”
It talks about the filtering system and who should be authorised to be engaged in it, as well as the selection of data being categorised
“under the specified operational purposes”
and that the methodology used should remain
“up to date and effective.”
It then says that that process should be in accordance with the relevant provision of the legislation—clause 138, which is the point we are at in our considerations.
It may be that the code of practice could say something more about the stages the hon. and learned Gentleman described and set out the process slightly more chronologically, as he did, where that chronology is helpful to explanation. I understand that argument, but what is absolutely clear is that the whole of the process must be lawful and reinforced by both the fundamental test of necessity and the clarity provided by the operational purposes. I think that is the assurance that he seeks. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but I suspect that he was alluding to the possibility that the middle process—as he put it—might be less rigorous in respect of its relationship to the operational purpose. Perhaps that is not what he meant—but if it is, I can assure him that that is not the case.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that explanation. I read into the Minister’s observations and the code that triaging or filtering is part of the examination process—it must be, by definition—and is therefore subject to the further requirements of examination. It is helpful to have how it works on the record, but it would be helpful to have that set out in the code, so that it is clear. The remaining concern is that there is a danger that for filtering purposes what is said about the operational case may be fairly general, but for access it may not be. There are two aspects to examination and there is a danger that the warrant either says too little or too much, depending on which purpose one is dealing with. I suspect that that will happen in most cases, because this is going to be a common process.
Mr Hayes
That is an extremely well made point, because the case made for the warrant has to be sufficient to persuade the Secretary of State that it is right to issue it. The case made out for the warrant has to be sufficiently specific to colour the rest of what occurs, to help to define the process the hon. and learned Gentleman describes. However, to return to the argument I made in the earlier debate, by its very nature the collection of bulk material is about taking fragments of information that one then pieces together through this process. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that a balance has to be struck between that specificity and the very virtue that comes from broader examination of data. Where we might be able to reach common ground, as he put it, is on the character of the explanation in the draft code of practice. Perhaps we can set down what I have just said and what the hon. and learned Gentleman has requested in a slightly different way, which would help the first examination of the information. I hope that is of assistance.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West has again added to our considerations with the thoroughness of her analysis, for which I am grateful. She quoted Burns, to which I shall return later.
Access to bulk communications will be limited to security and intelligence agencies; it must be for an operational purpose specified in the warrant and be necessary and proportionate. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, it must be for one or more considerations of national security, serious crime or economic wellbeing where it is linked to national security. On that we agree, but the clause makes it crystal clear that the operational purposes must relate to one or more of the grounds for which the warrant is considered necessary. For example, if a bulk acquisition warrant is issued in the interests of national security and for the purposes of preventing or detecting serious crime, every specified operational purpose on that warrant must be necessary for one or both of those two broader purposes. Operational purposes must also include more detail than the statutory grounds, to ensure that the Secretary of State is provided with a granular understanding of the purposes for which the selection examination may take place. If the Secretary of State does not consider every operational purpose to be necessary, the warrant may not be issued. Therefore this is not a permissive process—far from it. It is designed to determine all that happens after the issuing of a warrant.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 680, in clause 141, page 111, line 35, after “specify”, insert—
“by name or description the person, persons or single set of premises to which it relates and”.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 681, in clause 141, page 111, line 39, leave out—
“but the purposes may still be general purposes”
and insert—
“and any specification must be described in as much detail as is reasonably practicable”.
Amendment 682, in clause 141, page 111, line 39, leave out “but the purposes may still be general purposes” and insert—
“The descriptions must specify—
(a) a basis for the reasonable suspicion that the target is connected to a serious crime or a specific threat to national security,
(b) a high probability that evidence of the serious crime or specific threat to national security will be obtained by the conduct authorised, and
(c) the manner in which all less intrusive methods of obtaining the information sought have been exhausted or can be shown to be futile.”
Amendment 683, in clause 141, page 111, line 41, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Keir Starmer
Ms Dorries, you permitted me to stray into discussion of clause 141 and therefore I will be brief on this amendment, because the point that I was making was that the specific operational purposes required under subsection (4) of the clause are still general, and the purpose of these amendments is to rectify that position. The best example of that is amendment 681.
The point that I made last week is that if there is to be movement on clause 141, as I suggest there should be, what we should try to do is to draft a clause that would be workable in practice and that I hope would reflect practice as it is.
I will say no more about it, because, as I say, I strayed into discussing these amendments when I was dealing with clause 138.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
It is a pleasure, Ms Dorries, to serve once again under your chairmanship.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, we echoed some of these arguments last week in relation to bulk interception warrants. I will say two things. First, we respectfully submit that the amendments are unnecessary. There are also some technical deficiencies within them, and I have some concerns about those.
As we know, what we are talking about—this is perhaps my first opportunity to say this—is fragments of initial intelligence. That is what bulk acquisition is all about. It is about taking those fragments and then being able to identify potential subjects of interest that might pose a threat to the UK.
Limiting the examination of data collected under a bulk warrant to circumstances in which an operation or investigation is already under way, or tying a warrant to individual persons or premises, would mean that a bulk acquisition warrant just could not be used in that way, and it almost goes without saying that it would then severely limit the capabilities of the security and intelligence agencies to keep us safe.
Clause 151—helpfully, we have already jumped to clause 141—is also an important clause. It makes it clear that selection for examination may take place only for one or more of the operational purposes specified in the warrant.
Keir Starmer
I, too, went to clause 151, expecting a further safeguard, but all one gets in subsection (2) is the repetition and reference back to clause 141. That is the point that I hope I am consistently making. We do not get a graded safeguard that ups the threshold at each stage; we get a threshold that refers back to the previous threshold.
The Solicitor General
I take the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point; it is one that we understand. Again, however, I must make the point that at the point at which warrants are served in this context, it is not possible to know what part of the data that is being collected will be examined and for what purpose. Therefore, the question of detail is not a question of reluctance on the part of the authorities—it is just about practicability. It is not possible, of course, to anticipate that.
May I just deal with amendment 683? Under the Bill, a warrant will only include the operational purposes for which it may be necessary to examine the data. The Bill makes it clear that that may include all of the possible operational purposes for which data may be selected for examination. The effect of the amendment would be to require all possible operational purposes to be specified on a warrant, regardless of whether they were necessary. I am sure that that is not the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but that was the point that I was making about the amendment perhaps not quite achieving the purpose for which it was tabled.
Having said that, I would argue that in clause 141, in combination with clause 151, we have an adequate and sufficient safeguard to ensure sufficient granularity when applications are made. It will not be good enough for the authorities simply blithely to quote “national security”; there will have to be greater granularity in applications. I would say that that is clear from the Bill, and combined with the code of practice I think there is enough here for hon. Members to be reassured that this process is not a mere rubber-stamp exercise and is a proper and effective safeguard.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West made remarks in her interesting speech about the United States experience. It is important that I briefly put on record the important distinction between the United States regime of collecting domestic telephone records, which was pursuant to the Patriot Act—that has now been repealed by Congress—and the particular powers under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 1978, as amended. Those powers are what the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board addressed in its reports in July 2014 and more latterly this year.
Those powers to collect the content of electronic communications from targets outside the US are germane to the questions in this debate. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security said, the American board clearly found that there was value in and an important role for that particular programme. It is important that we take care to draw distinctions between different functions.
The Solicitor General
I share that anxious concern, which is why I think we not only have avowal here, but an enhancement of safeguards. There is no doubt about it: the Bill represents a dramatic improvement on blithe reliance on the 1984 Act, to which the hon. and learned Lady correctly referred, and then nothing ever being said or debated in this House or the other place about the extent of those powers and the important judicial safeguards we have here.
Underpinning all that—this is within the code of practice—is the oversight of the commissioner, who will be able to inspect and review and ensure that the powers are not being abused in a way that the hon. and learned Lady and I would find abhorrent. It is always a pleasure to hear a Scot quote the great Unionist Robbie Burns—[Laughter.] As a great patriot, he would have shared the Government’s anxiety to ensure that the security of our citizens is protected in a proportionate and necessary way. I therefore think that the clause strikes the right balance.
Keir Starmer
Granularity is a great word, and increasingly popular. It implies something crunchy and grain-like. I have made this point, but though clause 141(4) says that it is not sufficient to simply say “national security”, it does not say much else, and therein is the nub of the problem that the amendments are intended to correct.
I have made my submissions. I heard what the Minister said and I have listened carefully to the Solicitor General. We have been over the territory. I will not press the amendments at this stage, but I may be minded to at a later stage, because getting this issue right is critically important. It may be better if we try to get it right before that stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I rise to speak to amendment 522, in clause 148, page 116, line 10, at beginning insert—
“Where such a warrant is to be given to a person outside the United Kingdom, the warrant shall be served at that person’s principal office outside the United Kingdom where it is established, for the provision of services. Where it is considered unfeasible or inappropriate in the circumstances,”.
The Home Secretary confirmed at second reading that a UK agency would only serve a notice on an overseas entity that is capable of providing assistance under the warrant. UK agencies today routinely use secure means of communication to transmit notices directly to the main office of overseas CSPs.
This amendment and amendment 523 to the next clause are similar to amendments I tabled to other clauses dealing with overseas service and implementation of warrants, including bulk warrants. I have already outlined our concerns and will not repeat them. I will not press the amendments as I have previously withdrawn similar versions. We may revisit this issue when we get to the overarching matter of the oversight provisions that may address some of the concerns of some of the companies that will be affected by these wide powers.
Keir Starmer
I rise to speak to amendment 523, in clause 149, page 116, line 43, at end insert “which for a relevant operator outside the United Kingdom shall include—
(a) any steps which would cause the operator to act contrary to any laws or restrictions under the law of the country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services, or
(b) where a warrant could be served pursuant to an international mutual assistance agreement or subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”
This amendment clarifies the reasonableness test for overseas CSPs.
The amendment deals with conflict of law in similar provisions to the previous amendments, and for the same reasons I do not intend to press it.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
New clause 15—Safeguards relating to items subject to legal privilege—
‘(1) Section [Authorisations in relation to items subject to legal privilege] applies, with the necessary modifications, in relation to an application for a bulk acquisition warrant as it applies in relation to an application for an authorisation under Part 3.
(2) Section 135 [additional safeguards for items subject to legal privilege] applies, with the necessary modifications, to the selection for examination of communications data obtained under a bulk acquisition warrant as it applies to the selection for examination of intercepted content obtained under a bulk interception warrant.”
Keir Starmer
I have raised this issue before so I will not take much time on it now. I said previously and heard no contrary position put in the debate that in this chapter dealing with bulk acquisition warrants there is no specific provision for legal professional privilege for journalistic material or for communications with MPs. The Bill contains no guidance on how those categories of material are to be protected, if at all. New clause 15 deals with legal privilege. I have previously made points on the subject and I know the Solicitor General is looking at legal privilege generally. I simply ask that this be taken under the umbrella of consideration of privilege, so that however it is applied throughout the Bill there is consistency of approach that safeguards privilege properly. I do not intend to push the amendment to a vote at this stage.
The Solicitor General
I will briefly reiterate the Government’s position. We believe there is a logical basis for the differentiation at this point, before the examination stage, as it is at the examination stage that the particular sensitivities of the occupations of journalist, lawyer or parliamentarian come into play. We are dealing with an earlier stage.
Keir Starmer
My concern is that acquisition and examination are dealt with in the same warrant, so I think we are dealing with access. It probably does not affect the second point about how it is dealt with generally. The point is that these warrants do provide for examination.
The Solicitor General
There are, in fact, two stages. The code deals with sensitive professions at the examination stage. There are those two important stages, to which I have referred. The other aspect of the debate is when an obviously sensitive piece of information, namely a fact that a person has communicated with a lawyer, becomes privileged is a subject of ongoing discussion. It is more than an interesting point; it is an important point. There is a very respectable argument for saying that although the data might be sensitive, it might not attract LPP, but we need to discuss it further.
I can reassure Members at this stage that the protections for legal professional privilege in the draft bulk communications data code of practice mirror the protections that the divisional court deems appropriate. We are clear that the application of protections at the point of selection for examination is the correct approach. In the context of bulk communications data, we do not think that applying additional safeguards at that stage would be effective or necessary.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I rise to speak to amendment 687, in clause 152, page 119, line 17, at end insert—
‘(2A) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section in respect of any disclosure, it is a defence for the person to show that the disclosure was in the public interest.”
Again, I can be brief. The framework of safeguards and provisions relating to offences are pretty well the same throughout the bulk powers, and we have been across this territory before. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for a defence for whistleblowing activities. We have discussed it in Committee and I do not intend to press the matter to a vote. It is the subject of ongoing discussions and will need to be dealt with in an overarching and consistent way throughout the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I am sorry, Mr Dorries. It is my fault. We had a very late night last night on other matters. I should have notified you this morning about who is to be leading on each of these provisions, and I did not do that. If it helps the Committee, I can indicate that when we get to each of the bulk powers, the clause that introduces the bulk power will be subject to considerable debate for obvious reasons. I anticipate, although I cannot say with certainly, that the pattern will be pretty similar to the one we have just seen, and that as we go through the following clauses we will go at much greater speed.
I have been trying to divide the work between me and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West. We had agreed that she would lead on this clause, and she was just checking with me that that was my understanding. I apologise. We were tied up in another debate yesterday and I did not give you notice as I should have done, Ms Dorries.
Joanna Cherry
I can confirm that that is what the hon. and leaned Gentleman and I agreed. I apologise for any inconvenience caused by my momentary inadvertence, Ms Dorries.
The Scottish National party’s approach to chapter 3 of part 6, which deals with bulk equipment interference and is introduced by clause 154, is to oppose the inclusion of bulk equipment interference warrants in the Bill until such time as a proper and adequate operational case has been produced. I will speak at some length on this matter because it is of great importance.
I remind hon. Members that when I spoke earlier this morning I said that David Anderson had reached
“no independent conclusions on the necessity for or proportionality of…bulk equipment interference”.
In paragraph 8d of his supplementary written evidence to the Joint Committee in January—he reminded us in his supplementary written evidence to this Committee in April that he still holds this view—he said that he reached no independent view
“on the necessity for or proportionality of…bulk equipment interference…which in view of pending IPT litigation and the limited nature of my remit…I touched upon only briefly in my report…The remarkable potential for this capability is evident from the Snowden allegations relating to the hacking of and implantation of malware into systems operated by persons not themselves suspected of wrongdoing”.
Hon. Members will recall that last Thursday I addressed the issue of how bulk equipment hacking could cause severe problems for our security services. I gave examples of how in the past it has led to the outage of the internet in Syria. I also referred to modern defence systems and said that it could disrupt the radar and photonic systems of our fighter pilots in Syria, which could result in danger not only to them but, perhaps more importantly, to civilians on the ground. All of us, no matter which side of the debate on bombing Syria we were on, want to avoid that.
Similarly to chapter 2 powers, the use of targeted hacking by the agencies was only very recently acknowledged by the Government through the Home Office’s publication of an equipment interference code of practice, although it made no mention of bulk hacking capabilities, which are now to be put on a statutory footing by part 2 of the Bill. The scope of a bulk equipment interference warrant, as outlined in clause 154, is astonishingly broad and will pave the way for intrusions over and above those revealed by Edward Snowden, pinpointing hacking as the modus operandi of surveillance. As with bulk interception, clause 154—particularly subsection (1)(c)—and the clauses that follow provide that the main but not sole aim of the warrant must be to facilitate the obtaining of overseas data, but that does not prevent data on UK residents being collected as a subsidiary objective or in pursuit of the main aim. I addressed that issue at some length on Thursday last week, so I do not wish to take up the Committee’s time by unnecessarily addressing it again.
The bulk hacking warrants under clause 154 will authorise interference with any equipment whatever, because of the definition of equipment in clause 156. The provisions will afford interference with any equipment whatever for the purposes of obtaining communications equipment data or information. They will enable bulk warrants to be issued in the interests of national security or economic wellbeing, or for the prevention and detection of serious crime. The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras and I have already spoken at some length about those grounds, so I will not reiterate those points. I shall simply repeat what I have said before: I am concerned about the economic wellbeing ground and that the prevention and detection of serious crime ground is not rooted in reasonable suspicion.
The Home Office has told us that, as bulk equipment interference has previously been practised under the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which it says allows for interference with property or wireless telegraphy, the powers in the Bill are not entirely new. The Home Office also says that the intelligence services can acquire a warrant under the 1994 Act to search a property or intercept a person’s phone calls. There is, though, no mention in that Act of bulk or mass equipment interference.
Chapter 3 of the Bill, which begins with clause 154, is therefore very much an innovation on the outdated Acts, such as the 1994 Act. There is a significant expansion of such powers as already exist. Indeed, the Snowden documents revealed that even British intelligence agencies expressed concern that such mass hacking practices as had taken place to date, purportedly under the 1994 Act, might be illegal. If the British intelligences agencies are themselves concerned about the legality of the powers under which they are currently operating, that is all the more reason for us to scrutinise carefully the legality of the powers set out in chapter 3.
Having looked at the clock, Ms Dorries, I am mindful of the fact that the Committee rises at 11.25 am. I have to be in the Chamber soon for Justice questions, so I wonder whether this might be an appropriate point at which to pause. I will perhaps have a little more to say when the Committee sits again this afternoon.
Investigatory Powers Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Keir Starmer ExcerptsTuesday 26th April 2016
(8 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 April 2016 - (26 Apr 2016)
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to welcome you back to the Chair, Mr Owen. Before the Committee adjourned for lunch, I was addressing clause 154, which is the opening clause of chapter 3 of part 6 of the Bill and deals with bulk equipment interference warrants. I explained that the Scottish National party wishes to see these provisions removed until such a time as the Government have produced what we consider to be an adequate operational case.
Bulk equipment interference is often described colloquially as hacking or bulk hacking. The guide to powers that accompanied the draft Bill made it clear that bulk hacking is a significant step beyond conventional surveillance powers, and remarked that bulk equipment interference is
“used increasingly to mitigate the inability to acquire intelligence through conventional bulk interception and to access data from computers which may never otherwise have been obtainable.”
Labelling mass interception powers as conventional is a bit odd when the Bill avows them for the very first time. The quote I just read out also underlines the fact that the Bill makes a considerable demand for unbridled access to all information. That is particularly worrying in the light of the very broad definition of “equipment” that is found in this part of the Bill. I am sure you will forgive me for skipping forward slightly, Mr Owen, but this does relate to clause 154. Clause 173 defines equipment as
“equipment producing electromagnetic, acoustic or other emissions or any device capable of being used in connection with such equipment”.
That is very open-ended and could even include cars and aircraft, which relates to the analogy with fighter aircraft that I made earlier. We are concerned that the power is open to potential abuse—not necessarily, as I have said before, by the current Government, but possibly by future UK Governments, as well as by other states that will follow our lead in legislation—because there is such loose language.
Following scrutiny of the draft Bill, the Intelligence and Security Committee reported that
“the Committee has not been provided with sufficiently compelling evidence as to why the Agencies require Bulk Equipment Interference warrants”
and
“therefore recommends that Bulk Equipment Interference warrants are removed from the new legislation.”
Before we adjourned this morning, I alluded to the fact that David Anderson QC had expressed concern about bulk equipment interference and said that he had not addressed the necessity and proportionality of such a power.
Despite what the ISC said, the power for bulk equipment interference warrants remains in the Bill. My argument is that that is rather concerning because bulk hacking, as I will call it, is by its very nature indiscriminate, as acknowledged in the draft Bill’s explanatory notes, which state that
“bulk equipment interference is not targeted against particular person(s), organisation(s) or location(s) or against equipment that is being used for particular activities”.
Instead, systems, services and software that have been carefully constructed to provide security are intentionally corrupted by bulk hacking to impose the eyes and ears of the intelligence agencies on every phone call, text message and web click.
To use an analogy from the offline world, granting this power would be equivalent to allowing the secret services to break into an innocent person’s house, bug it and leave broken windows for anyone else to get in, without the person knowing it has happened. The problem with the digital world is that the data can be rich and revealing, as I said this morning on communications data. Most of us put everything online nowadays, and our equipment will therefore be like a filing cabinet, with diaries, calendars, video archives, photo albums, bookshelves, address books and correspondence files.
Digital forced entry entails not only intrusion into highly personal spaces but control over those spaces. The individual who has hacked into a piece of equipment can not only access what is stored on it but add or delete files, send messages from it masquerading as the person to whom it belongs, turn it on or off and covertly activate cameras and microphones. It really is quite extraordinarily intrusive.
We heard about that in evidence on 24 March, when Eric King referred to GCHQ’s Optic Nerve programme, which involved hacking into webcams. Whatever one might think of it, many people use webcams for sex chat online. I am not talking about people who abuse children, which is obviously utterly reprehensible. Many consenting adults send indecent images to one another online using webcams. If they are doing that in the privacy of their own homes, and it is not illegal or hurting a child, I do not see any problem with it.
GCHQ’s Optic Nerve programme broke into individuals’ privacy. Such extraordinary power over the private lives of citizens fundamentally alters the relationship between citizen and state. If we allow this to go ahead without a proper operational case, it could breed distrust in law enforcement, which could have significant repercussions for the rule of law.
The equipment interference and bulk hacking envisaged in clause 154 have security repercussions. I alluded to those last week, so I will not go into detail. However, if we create a weakness in a piece of equipment in order to let the good guys—the security services—in, that weakness exists as a portal for the bad guys, as in criminals and terrorists, to get into the same equipment.
There are serious security concerns about bulk interference. This power is especially excessive, dangerous and potentially destructive. It is one of the most intrusive powers in the Bill, and it jeopardises the privacy of ordinary, innocent people who live in these islands. SNP Members urge fellow members of this Committee and parliamentarians to follow the Intelligence and Security Committee’s advice and remove these bulk equipment interference powers from the Bill until a convincing case has been made for not only their utility but their necessity and proportionality.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I, too, welcome you back to the chair, Mr Owen. This bulk power is, like the others, very wide. Equipment interference includes what is commonly known as hacking, which can be done remotely or by attaching monitoring devices to computers or communications equipment. As has been mentioned, equipment is defined very broadly, covering anything that produces electromagnetic or other emissions. The power is therefore very wide.
It is unsurprising that the ISC was initially sceptical and that David Anderson has raised a number of concerns. I will not repeat the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, who spoke for the SNP, but I want to draw attention to the relationship between this bulk power and thematic warrants, which was one of the concerns raised by David Anderson.
If one looks at the structure of clause 154(1), skipping for the moment subsections (2) and (3), and lays it alongside clause 88, the similarities in the description of the warrant are apparent. Part 5 deals with equipment interference and targeted warrants; chapter 3 of part 6 deals with bulk equipment interference warrants. Clauses 154 and 88 are very similar in structure and scope—the difference is that clause 90 qualifies clause 88. The difference we are discussing is that we have, in essence, the same power for equipment interference, but we do not have the qualification of the subject matter that is clause 90. We have already discussed clause 90 at some length and, for a targeted power, it is itself extremely wide.
The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)
On the specific point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman in relation to the connection between clauses 90 and 88, in contrast with the matters we are now discussing, the whole point about clause 90 is that it deals with the particularity associated with warrants that are by their nature targeted, whether individually or thematically as a group some of which are known to the intelligence services. Bulk matters are by their nature less particular, so could not be subject to the same qualification.
Keir Starmer
I am not making the argument that those warrants should be subject to the same qualification. I am drawing attention to the fact that clause 90 is what, in essence, turns clause 88 into a targeted or thematic warrant, rather than a bulk warrant. The qualification is left out in connection with clause 154, which deals with a bulk power. I am not suggesting that one borrows clause 90 into this chapter, because otherwise we would simply be rewriting the same provision.
The point I am making is that the concern about clause 90 in relation to themed warrants was that it was a very wide provision in its own right. I think David Anderson went as far as to say that it was hard to see what could not, in truth, be caught within a thematic warrant under clause 90. We have a very wide power there, drawing attention to the breadth of the power under clause 154, which is everything over and above what is already a thematic warrant power under clause 90. That indicates why an operational case is so important in relation to the bulk power. One has a very wide bulk power that is distinguished from what is already a very wide thematic power. That reinforces the need for an independent evaluation of an operational purpose that makes the case for this even wider power.
As far as the safeguards are concerned, clause 156 is, in familiar terms, referencing necessity and proportionality, but to the wide national security grounds falling under subsection (2)—the familiar phrasing. It is the same scheme for these warrants. Then, skipping forward to clause 161, there are the same limits on operational cases, so one has a very wide necessity and proportionality test for the warrant in the first place, then a reference back, in essence, to the same test when getting to the requirements that must be met by warrants. I have made this case this morning and, I think, last Thursday, so I will not repeat it further.
I want to draw attention to the breadth of the power and to underscore why a better and evaluated operational case is needed when one is going on beyond what is already a very wide thematic warrant.
Mr Hayes
We had a lengthy debate on these matters this morning, but it is worth repeating. It was Proust who said:
“A powerful idea communicates some of its strength to him who challenges it.”
On that basis, I am hoping to communicate still more of the strength of my argument as a result of amplifying it, but with appropriate brevity, I hope. Let us be clear: bulk powers matter. They matter for the reasons I set out earlier, and that case is made—convincingly, in my judgment—in “Operational Case for Bulk Powers”, which was published by the Government in response to the criticisms of those who considered these matters early on and felt there was a need for greater explanation of the case for them.
Bulk equipment interference is particularly addressed on page 6 of that document. It says:
“This involves the acquisition of communications and equipment data directly from computer equipment overseas. Historically, this data may have been available during its transmission through bulk interception”.
This is the key point:
“The growing use of encryption has made this more difficult and, in some cases, equipment interference may be the only option for obtaining crucial intelligence. As with bulk interception this is an overseas collection capability.”
We are here talking about a power that is used at present, and is of growing significance to our agencies in combating the threat that they face.
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, has made clear that
“the requirement for a balance to be drawn between the urgent need of the Intelligence Agencies to safeguard the public and the protection of an individual’s privacy and/or freedom of expression”
matters. It also stated:
“We are satisfied that with the new E I Code, and whatever the outcome of Parliamentary consideration of the IP Bill, a proper balance is being struck in regard to the matters we have been asked to consider.”
The evidence that we have before us suggests, and I use that judgment as an example, that those who oversee these matters gauge what is already happening, and what is proposed, to be appropriate. Having said that, it is important that we test those arguments closely in this Committee—that is part of the Committee’s purpose, after all.
The hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. and learned Lady drew attention to David Anderson’s remarks. David Anderson asked why equipment interference warrants were required, given the possible breadth of targeted thematic warrants of the kind that have been discussed. I say this: clear and important distinctions between bulk equipment interference and targeted thematic operations are set out in paragraph 4.38 of the draft equipment interference of the code of practice.
Members will be able to study that code in detail, but for their convenience, bulk equipment interference includes the additional safeguards of the bulk regime and is an important capability in its own right. Both bulk equipment interference and targeted thematic equipment interference operations can take place at scale if the relevant criteria are met. However, targeted equipment interference warrants are limited by the need to assess proportionality at the outset. A bulk equipment interference warrant is likely to be required in circumstances where the Secretary of State is not able to assess the extent of every interference to a sufficient degree at the time of issuing the warrant. The additional access controls at the examination stage are required to ensure the necessity and proportionality of any interferences that cannot be assessed fully at the outset.
It seems to me that that is the essence of this argument. Both have their place, and both are subject to checks and balances, and to safeguards and protections. In terms of the effect of those safeguards, I think we can all conclude, based on the evidence before us and what we know is already happening and is proposed in the Bill, not only that what is happening now is proportionate and reasonable, but that the Bill goes even further in adding to those safeguards.
In essence, my argument is pentadactyl—it has five fingers. First, this power is necessary; secondly, it is already in existence; thirdly, those who oversee these things have gauged it to be necessary and proportionate; fourthly, the Government have responded to early scrutiny by tightening safeguards through the codes of practice and explaining them more fully; and fifthly, the Bill goes still further than all the existing good practice. That seems to me to be a persuasive argument.
Keir Starmer
My purpose is not to explain why it is not. That is not always the purpose of these interventions. We are probing the adequacy of the safeguards, which is the proper role of the Committee.
I had marked up that paragraph in the operational case, because, as the Minister has said, it makes the case that, at the outset, certain assessments of necessity and proportionality cannot be made. It says in terms:
“The additional access controls at the examination stage are required to ensure the necessity and proportionality of any interference that cannot be assessed fully at the outset.”
I know that I have said this before, but I really want to make it clear. At the outset, the test of necessity and proportionality is against the operational case and the operational case is specified in the terms in clause 161(5), which takes a familiar form: the operational case cannot be so general that it is merely national security, but it can be general. We have been around that circle, but that is the test at the outset and I have made my comments about that.
The problem is that the test is the same when it comes to examination. Under clause 170, which deals with the safeguards in relation to examination, selection is defined as proportional and necessary so far as it is in accordance with the test in clause 161. This point is central to what is said in the operational case. If the test were different at each stage, I would accept that the argument was logically right, but the test is in fact the same. I see that as a deficiency and I am probing for clarity.
Mr Hayes
I acknowledge that it is certainly true that much rests on the operational case. In all our sermocinations, it has been clear to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman has identified that as crucial in advancing his argument that we need to provide still more transparency. He has done so in a reasonable way, because he acknowledges that there is a line to be drawn between the explanation of that case and revealing what cannot reasonably be said publicly because it would compromise the work of the agencies. I acknowledge that.
Of course, what the hon. and learned Gentleman did not say, although he knows it—perhaps he felt that there was no need to say it—is that the warrant must be deemed to be necessary for one of the core reasons: national security, serious crime or, where it is linked to national security, economic wellbeing. Access to the data must be deemed to be necessary on the grounds of the operational purposes. There is a test at each stage of the process and, in my judgment, that test is robust, but I again acknowledge that there may be a virtue in being clearer about the operational case. I was making a point about existing power—that power is currently available through the Intelligence Services Act 1994. Therefore, it is not new, but the safeguards are. Drawing those together in a single place, and therefore allowing the more straightforward exploration of both their purpose and their effect, is certainly new.
Above and beyond that, the oversight that is given additional strength in the later part of the Bill is there to ensure that all that is done meets the test that we have set, in terms of protecting private interests and so on. I acknowledge the argument about the operational case being a powerful one, but I think the structure of what we have put together stands scrutiny.
There is another argument that has not been used much in the Committee. In a sense, I hesitate to explore it now because in doing so I may be opening a hornets’ nest, but I am not a timid Minister, so why would I not want to face the stings that I might unleash? It is necessary to make the language future-proof, as far as one reasonably can. One of the criticisms of what we are doing—bringing the powers together in a single Bill, creating safeguards of the type we are building, trying to be as comprehensive as we can in this legislation—is that, because of the rapidly changing character of technology and the resultant effect that that has on both the threat and our ability to counter it, this legislation may be relatively short-lived.
If we look, albeit with the benefit of hindsight, at what has happened previously, we see that the legislation that the Bill replaces has, for the most part, been iterative—it has been a response to that dynamism. The language in the Bill is designed to be as carefully constructed as possible to allow the Bill to stand the test of time. Central to that is the advent of the double-lock mechanism, which should ensure that the powers are not misused by a future Government. That relates to something the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West said in a previous sitting of the Committee. I think she argued that I cannot bind the future, and I said, with some reluctance, that that was true.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 695, in clause 156, page 122, line 34, leave out subsection (2)(b).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 696, in clause 156, page 122, line 37, leave out subsection (3)
Amendment 697, in clause 156, page 122, line 47, at end insert—
“(6) Where an application for the issue of a bulk equipment interference warrant includes the activities set out in section 154(4)(b) it may only be issued if the Secretary of State considers that selection for examination or disclosure is necessary for the purposes of—
(a) a specific investigation or a specific operation, or
(b) testing, maintaining or developing equipment, systems or other capabilities relating to the availability or obtaining of data.”
Keir Starmer
These amendments are intended to tighten up clause 156. I will not take up a great deal of time on them. These amendments go to the intervention that I was making which was too lengthy to do justice to the point, but it was such an important point that I want to go through it one more time. If I am right about it, I hope that others will listen and take this away. If I am wrong about it, I will not repeat the argument. The proposition about which I am concerned is as follows. If one looks at subsection 156(1) then, as set out in the “Operational Case for Bulk Powers”, the test that the Secretary of State is applying at the outset will be applied in some,
“circumstances where the Secretary of State or Judicial Commissioner is not able to assess the necessity and proportionality to a sufficient degree at the time of issuing the warrant.”
So that is the test. To issue a bulk equipment interference warrant, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that it is to “obtain overseas-related communications”, as set out in clause 156(1)(a); that it is necessary on the broad grounds—of which the Minister just reminded me—of national security, preventing crime and promoting economic wellbeing, as set out in paragraph (b); and, as paragraph (c) sets out, that it is proportionate. Clause 156(1)(d) continues the stages that the Secretary of State must carry out, and requires that the Secretary of State considers that,
“(i) each of the specified operational purposes (see section 161) is a purpose for which the examination of material obtained under the warrant is or may be necessary, and
(ii) the examination of such material for each such purpose is necessary on any of the grounds on which the Secretary of State considers the warrant to be necessary”.
So at the outset the Secretary of State is considering necessity against the broad canvas of national security. She is also considering the operational purposes and asking herself whether such a warrant is necessary against those operational purposes, and going on to the examination of whether it is necessary on any of the grounds on which the Secretary of State considers the warrants to be necessary. The Secretary of State is taking into account the operational purposes and applying a necessity test to this. That is the test applied at the outset, and that is the test that the operational case understandably says may be difficult to apply in certain circumstances. I do not quarrel with that, and I understand why that might be the case.
Going on to clause 161, what are the operational purposes which the Secretary of State is to take into account and test necessity against? There the operational purposes are requirements of the warrant, and they go beyond the provisions in clause 156(1)(b) or (2) and may be general. So the Secretary of State has in mind a very broad national security issue, and then the operational purposes, and asks herself whether it comes under both of those heads. The second head can be a general one. We have quarrelled about that—or argued about it or made points about it—but those points remain as good or as bad as they were the last time they were made. The point I am seeking to make is that the “Operational Case” suggests—and this may indeed be the case in practice—that at the examination stage some higher or different test is applied, and that that adds a safeguard. Again, if there is something in that then I hope that somebody will take this away and think about it, and if there is not then I will not repeat it. My concern is that clause 170(1), on the safeguards relating to examination of materials, states:
“For the purposes of section 168, the requirements of this section are met in relation to the material obtained under a warrant if—”
which is followed by a number of requirements, including:
“(b) the selection of any of the material for examination is necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances”.
Clause 170(2) states:
“The selection of material obtained under the warrant is carried out only for the specified purposes if the material is selected for examination only so far as is necessary for the operational purposes specified in the warrant in accordance with section 161”.
So the test for selection for examination is curtailed by the provision in sub-paragraph (ii) that it is only so far as is necessary for the operational purposes specified in the warrant, as set out in clause 161. I accept that “specified” means the warrant at the time of selection of material, as set out underneath. For the record, I therefore acknowledge the possibility that the operational case may be differently described at the time of the second test. However, on the face of it, the same test is being applied at the examination stage as was applied by the Secretary of State. That is the cause of my concern and the reason why, in my argument, some further thought must be given to strengthening the threshold when it comes to the access provision. Because the only way that the operational case can be different at the point of selection of material from the point at which the Secretary of State is involved, is if it has been modified, which means it has not gone through the same procedure as the warrant in the first place. That is the real cause of concern. I have labelled it that but I do not think that on the intervention I made it as clear as I should have done.
If there is a material difference in the test, that ought to be spelled out in the Bill and it is not. The amendments are intended to tighten up the specifics in clause 156. I will not press them to a vote but I have read this into the record because it is a matter of concern. There is either an answer, which means I am wrong about this and should stop repeating my submission, or it is something that others need to take away and have a serious look at in terms of the test.
Mr Hayes
I am not sure that we need to rehearse the general arguments in respect of bulk again—they have been well covered in earlier considerations—except to say this. It is critically important that the agencies maintain the ability to use these powers for economic wellbeing, where, according to the Bill, these are tied to national security. That was a point that was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire at a very early stage on Second Reading.
On that basis alone, one would want to resist the proposed amendment. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman has made some more tailored arguments that deserve an answer. Let us just deal with the tests. There are two tests. There is the test contained in clause 158, where the Secretary of State and the commissioner must be satisfied that it is necessary for data required under the warrant to be examined for specific and specified operational purposes.
In clause 170, the analyst examining the data must be satisfied that the examination of a particular piece of data is necessary for a particular operational purpose. So there are two tests that are designed to be appropriate at different points in the process. That is why the list is written as it is. Does that satisfy the hon and learned Gentleman?
Keir Starmer
I hear what the Minister says and I will be brief. The only reference to operational purposes in clause 170 is to the operational purposes on the warrant. Therefore, they will be the same operational purposes as were before the Secretary of State, unless the warrant has been modified. Maybe I should just have said that in the first place and made it a lot shorter, but that is the nub of the problem as I see it.
Mr Hayes
Yes, the point of that further analysis is that the analyst must be confident that the particular work relates to those specified operational purposes. The reason that that further work is done down the line, as it were, is to ensure that there is no digression from the stated operational purposes, and that in that sense this is an important further safeguard.
Let me give an example to illustrate. The Secretary of State may consider that it is necessary for the data required under the warrant to be examined for two or three purposes. The analyst needs to say which particular purposes relate to a particular search. Therefore this is a refinement of the work of the analyst to ensure that it is true to the intention of the Secretary of State in authorising the process. This is an illustration of Committees of this House at their best: we are digging deep down, in very fine-grained detail. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be convinced by what we are trying to achieve.
Keir Starmer
I will reflect on what the Minister has said and in the meantime will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 698, in clause 157, page 123, line 3, leave out from “must” to end of line and insert “determine”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 699, in clause 157, page 123, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
Keir Starmer
Having tested the patience of the Committee on the point I was labouring on the last amendment—which I think is important, even if I am alone in that—I can indicate that these and the other amendments following in this chapter are all similar to previous amendments. I will deal with them quickly.
Amendments 698 and 699 deal with the test for the judicial commissioner. If it is helpful, I can indicate to the Solicitor General in advance that, having been round the track on this issue, I am not going to repeat the arguments or press them to a vote, because of the discussions we have been having.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I rise to speak to amendment 700, in clause 158, page 123, line 35, leave out from second “period” to second “the” in line 36 and insert “of 48 hours after”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 701, in clause 158, page 123, line 35, leave out from second “period” to second “the” in line 36 and insert “of 24 hours after”.
Amendment 704, in clause 162, page 125, line 32, leave out from “period” to third “the” in line 33 and insert “of 48 hours after”.
Amendment 705, in clause 162, page 125, line 32, leave out from “period” to third “the” in line 33 and insert “of 24 hours after”.
Amendment 706, in clause 162, page 125, line 35, leave out “6 months” and insert “1 month”.
Amendment 710, in clause 165, page 128, line 24, leave out “ending with the fifth working day after the day on which” and insert “of 48 hours after”.
Amendment 711, in clause 165, page 128, line 24, leave out “ending with the fifth working day after the day on which” and insert “of 24 hours after”.
Keir Starmer
The amendments deal with the periods during which an urgent warrant is valid. They are serial in the sense that they are the same as the provisions I tabled for approval warrants in urgent cases for other bulk powers. I will not press the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I rise to speak to amendment 689, in clause 161, page 125, line 9, after “describe”, insert “precisely and explicitly”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 690, in clause 161, page 125, line 10, at end insert “including the method and extent of the proposed intrusion and the measures taken to minimise access to irrelevant and immaterial information.”
Amendment 691, in clause 161, page 125, line 11, after “specify”, insert “by name or description the person, persons or single set of premises to which it relates and”.
Amendment 702, in clause 161, page 125, line 15, leave out from “(2)” to end of subsection and insert
“and any specification must be in as much detail as is reasonably practicable”.
Amendment 692, in clause 161, page 125, line 15, leave out
“but the purposes may still be general purposes”
and insert
“; the descriptions must specify—
(a) the basis for the reasonable suspicion that the target is connected to a serious crime or a specific threat to national security,
(b) the manner in which all less intrusive methods of obtaining the information sought have been exhausted or can be shown to be futile.”
Amendment 703, in clause 161, page 125, line 17, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Keir Starmer
I have already drawn considerable attention to clause 161(5), to which these amendments pertain. I have made my submissions. In the same manner in which I did not press earlier amendments and notwithstanding the importance I attach to these issues, I will not press the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I rise to speak to amendment 707, in clause 164, page 127, line 20, at end insert—
“(c) may only be made if the Secretary of State considers it proportionate to the operational purposes specified in the warrant.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 708, in clause 164, page 127, line 34, at end insert—
‘(8A) A minor modification—
(a) may be made only if the Secretary of State or a senior official acting on behalf of the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary on any of the grounds on which they consider the warrant to be necessary (see section 121(1)(b));
(b) may only be made if the Secretary of State considers that it is proportionate to the operational purposes specified in the warrant.
(8B) Except where the Secretary of State considers that there is an urgent need to make the modification, a minor modification has effect only if the decision to make the modification is approved by a Judicial Commissioner.”
Amendment 709, in clause 164, page 127, line 34, at end insert—
‘(8C) In a case where any modification is sought under this section to which Clause [NC2 Items subject to legal privilege] or Clause [NC11 Confidential and privileged material] applies section 97 (approval of warrants by Judicial Commissioners) applies to a decision to modify a warrant as it applies in relation to a decision to issue warrant (and accordingly any reference in that section to the person who decided to issue the warrant is to be read as a reference to the person who decided to modify it).”
Keir Starmer
I have tabled a number of amendments to modification provisions throughout the Bill. The Minister has indicated that the Government are considering how the modification provisions will work throughout the Bill. In the circumstances, I will not press the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I rise to speak to amendment 712, in clause 169, page 132, line 3, at end insert—
‘(3A) Material obtained via a warrant under this Part may only be shared with overseas authorities in accordance with the terms of an international information sharing treaty.”
This familiar amendment would ensure that data can be shared with overseas authorities only in accordance with the terms of an international information-sharing treaty. It is the same as an amendment I tabled to a similar clause, so I will not rehearse the arguments in favour of it. I will not press the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I endorse much of what the hon. and learned Lady said, and I will not repeat it. These are very wide powers. As she pointed out, they are probably the widest of the bulk powers, because the Bill makes it clear that the nature of the set is such that the majority of individuals are unlikely to become of interest to the intelligence service in the exercise of its functions. So we are talking about some of the widest powers. I acknowledge that this legislation would put existing powers on to a clear statutory footing, and that is welcome for the same reasons that I have outlined on other occasions. However, scrutiny is needed when powers that were not avowed in the past are first avowed and then put on to a statutory footing.
Clause 174(2) says:
“‘personal data’ has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 1998”.
In that sense, it is consistent with the way in which personal data are dealt with in other legislation. The Information Commissioner’s Office provides guidance on the meaning of personal data. Just so that this can be clear for all Committee Members and for the record, according to the guidance issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office:
“Personal data means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified—
(a) from those data, or
(b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller,
and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual”.
So it is the data themselves, and it is a wide range of data. It is any expression of opinion about that individual, and any indication of the intentions of the data controller.
One of the examples that the Information Commissioner gives is:
“A manager’s assessment or opinion of an employee’s performance during their initial probationary period will, if held as data, be personal data about that individual. Similarly, if a manager notes that an employee must do remedial training, that note will, if held as data, be personal data.”
That is very wide-ranging. There is a tendency in these debates to think that data are simply numbers or locations—specific hard pieces of data—but here we are talking about opinions about individuals.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I am conscious of people’s sensitivity about their personal data, particularly sensitive data, but does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that we ought to consider this issue in the context of the legislation? These data are there to be used for a specific investigatory purpose, and only that purpose. They are not meant to be used for any other purpose. Indeed, if they are used and disclosed, there are very many provisions about unlawful disclosure and the serious criminal penalties for that, which we examined at the beginning. Is that not the safeguard for people that we need to distinguish the use and abuse of material that is collected?
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention. There is a particular sensitivity about health and mental health records. The very fact of their being retained, examined and filtered—because that is what will happen—is of huge concern to many people. That is why the amendments suggest that they be either excluded or subject to a higher test to prove that it is really necessary. Although it was not formal evidence, the Committee had a briefing session with the security and intelligence services where the question arose whether they do in fact access health records. In those exchanges, the answer was, “No we don’t, at the moment.” When I asked why, in those circumstances, it was necessary to have this power, the answer was: “Because we can’t rule out that at some future date it might be necessary to get these records, in circumstances that we cannot foresee at the moment—so we would not want to restrict the ability to get them.”
That was an honest answer about the way that these records are dealt with. In formal evidence, the answer was that the internal guidance does subject accessing mental health records to a higher threshold. In a sense, the agencies have thought this through for themselves. They have recognised the extra sensitivity of such records and have their own internal processes to make sure that they are applying a higher test. That is a good approach.
Joanna Cherry
I remember the evidence that the shadow Minister alluded to. Does he agree with me that, notwithstanding the fact that agencies are telling us that they take steps to be more sensitive in relation to mental health data, the very fact that mental health data are going to be scooped up and available to others may act as a disincentive to certain members of the public to seek assistance with their mental health problems?
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention. I am concerned about that issue; that is why we need to give particular care and attention to the operation of these bulk powers in relation to sensitive personal data—and mental health data are among the most sensitive. In a sense, the second set of modifications that we will come to later is aimed at putting in the Bill what is in fact current practice. Therefore it would not inhibit what the security and intelligence services are doing, but would make it clear to citizens that a safeguard is in place and reduce their anxiety about the extent of the use of these bulk powers.
I will say more about that when I get to the amendments, but they are issues that go to the breadth of the bulk personal datasets that we are now dealing with.
Mr Hayes
On the issue of medical records and the very sensitive data associated with them, and mindful of the remarks of the hon. and learned Lady and the hon. and learned Gentleman, we will be dealing with that issue when we discuss amendment 715. I do not want to spend too much time on it now, except to say that I, too, am aware of the obvious and profound issues associated with intrusion in that area. We will discuss them at greater length when we discuss the amendment, but I hear what is said. It is important that we study those matters with appropriate care, given that they are of such profound sensitivity.
Moving to the thrust of the argument and the content of the debate, the thrust of the argument is in two parts. First, why do we have this power and how is it used? Secondly, what are the safeguards—the measures in the Bill and those that already exist—that constrain the exercise of those powers, in the ways we all want, in the interests of good practice, privacy and so on? Let us deal with those in turn.
To deal with the first, it might be appropriate to start with the ISC, because it has been cited. It said in its privacy and security report that the powers in part 7 of the Bill are an
“increasingly important investigative tool for the Agencies”.
It is important to point out that this part of the Bill does not provide any powers to the security and intelligence agencies. Bulk personal datasets may be acquired through investigatory powers such as interception and they may be shared by Government Departments or industry. The only purpose of part 7 is to ensure that where agencies hold bulk personal datasets, the data are subject to robust privacy safeguards as information acquired under the bulk powers in the Bill. That is an important new step and an important safeguard.
It is probably fair to say that, in that sense, this is not a power at all but a process. The powers are about the safeguards. The Bill introduces important new requirements in that sense, but it would be more accurate to describe bulk personal datasets as a matter of process and a matter of practice rather than as a power.
The reason that that information is stored in such a way is pretty clear. It can help to identify individuals who threaten our national security or may be of other intelligence interest and, significantly, to eliminate suspicion of the innocent without using more intrusive techniques. As with so many of the bulk issues that we have debated, that is often about the use of techniques that are, by their nature, subject to stringent safeguards and that obviate the need to use more intrusive methods to reach the same destination. Of course, that can establish links between subjects of interest to better understand a subject of interest’s behaviour and, in the course of an investigation, we can verify facts that lead us to identify those who seek to do us harm.
It is simply the case that the security and intelligence agencies would not be able to keep pace with the scale of events that are occurring in an increasingly interconnected world if we did not have access to those datasets. It would take longer to exploit lead intelligence and increase the risk of something being missed or misunderstood. It would lead to intelligence failures and, in the worst cases, to the loss of life.
It is unquestionably the case that curbing the use of bulk personal datasets would hinder the agencies, but I would go further. I think it is fair to say that doing so would endanger this country and its people. I know that that is not the intention of anyone on this Committee or anyone considering the Bill, but it is important to emphasise that these are powers for a purpose, and that purpose is the safety of the British people through the effectiveness of those missioned to keep them secure.
Mr Hayes
My right hon. Friend, who is a distinguished Member of this House, a former Minister of note, a sagacious figure now on the Back Benches, bringing that experience and quality to our considerations—what a delight it is to have him join us on this Committee—is right.
I was responding to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire accordingly that the debate about whether material is put in the Bill or in supporting documentation comes down to this point: those who wish to place things in the Bill do so because they want to firm them up, to make them more sure and certain. Of course, for much of what we wish to do it is vital that we pursue that course. Those who argue for material in supporting documentation do so on the basis exactly as my right hon. Friend says: that it allows greater flexibility. In an area as dynamic as this—I hinted at this earlier, but will make the point once more—I would have thought the argument for flexibility holds a great deal of water.
The last thing I want is to pass the Bill into law and for it to become an Act of which we can all be justly proud—every member of the Committee will deserve a certain credit—only to find that events have moved on and we are stuck with an excessively rigid Act incapable of being changed easily as needed.
Keir Starmer
Just to put this in context, when we talk about legal professional privilege, journalistic material and MPs’ correspondence, it is absolutely clear the Government have thought this through and put it on the face of the Bill, where they think it is relevant. We cannot get away with it—nobody can backslide into an argument that, in other areas, it is more flexible to put the measures in statutory instruments. Things like legal professional privilege have been thought through. Moves have been made by the Government—and I have acknowledged them—and it should be on the face of the Bill. I think the Minister knows that, because he has put it in the Bill in other areas and that is the right way to deal with that sort of material. Of course, it is more flexible, but in the end we would have a very thin, short, one section Act if we really wanted full flexibility. That is not the way forward.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. I do not want to be patronising in any way. I think for a beginner he has made a very promising start. That has been in part characterised by the consistency of his argument. One of the arguments he has used since we began this consideration is that the Bill needs, throughout its clauses, to be consistent. He is right in saying that, while we have made considerable progress in considering and dealing with the issue of the legal profession, there may be more work to do in respect of journalists and Members of Parliament.
With that thought—I do not want to exhaust the patience of the Committee any longer—I will sit down.
Question put, that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 721, in clause 177, page 136, line 21, leave out subsection (3)(a)(iii).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 722, in clause 178, page 137, line 25, leave out subsection (5)(a)(iii).
Keir Starmer
I foreshadowed these amendments when we were discussing clause 174. The way we have sought to deal with records—“patient information”, as it is defined under the National Health Service Act 2006—is to take them out of consideration altogether, which would prevent a warrant that would cover those records being issued. Amendment 721 simply leaves out subsection (3)(a)(iii) and amendment 722 removes the corresponding subsection in clause 178. There is very little I can add to the argument that I put before in relation to those. I will say more when we get to the second group of amendments about the test that is to be applied.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Gentleman may take it, in the spirit that I made my earlier remarks, that the Government are always happy to consider these matters carefully. All of this section of the Bill requires us to be mindful of the sensitivity of the material with which we are dealing, and I think the purpose of the amendment is to explore that sensitivity—I understand that. While I am not minded to accept the amendments, I am clear that in gauging all of those things, we are open to argument, willing to listen and determined to frame a Bill that reflects the considerations of the Committee, that is capable of uniting this House in a shared purpose, that is credible with the wider public, and that provides those missioned to keep us safe with the powers they need. With that reassurance, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 715, in clause 177, page 136, line 43, at end insert—
“(5) No warrant shall be issued under this section for material relating to “patient information” as defined in section 251(10) of the National Health Service Act 2006, or relating to “mental health”, “adult social care”, “child social care”, or “health services” as defined by the Health and Social Care Act 2012.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 718, in clause 177, page 136, line 43, at end insert—
“(5) Subsection (6) applies where a warrant application under this section relates to ‘patient information’ as defined in section 251(10) of the National Health Service Act 2006, or relating to ‘mental health’, ‘adult social care’, ‘child social care’, or ‘health services’ as defined by the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
(6) The Secretary of State may issue the warrant only if they consider that—
(a) there are exceptional and compelling circumstances that make it necessary to authorise the retention, or (as the case may be) the examination, of material referred to in subsection (5); and
(b) specific arrangements have been made for the handling, retention, use, destruction and protection against unauthorised disclosure of such material.”
Amendment 716, in clause 178, page 138, line 2, at end insert—
“(8) No warrant shall be issued under this section for material relating to “patient information” as defined in section 251(10) of the National Health Service Act 2006, or relating to “mental health”, “adult social care”, “child social care”, or “health services” as defined by the Health and Social Care Act 2012.”
Amendment 719, in clause 178, page 138, line 2, at end insert—
“(8) Subsection (6) applies where a warrant application under this section relates to ‘patient information’ as defined in section 251(10) of the National Health Service Act 2006, or relating to ‘mental health’, ‘adult social care’, ‘child social care’, or ‘health services’ as defined by the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
(9) The Secretary of State may issue the warrant only if they consider that—
(a) there are exceptional and compelling circumstances that make it necessary to authorise the retention, or (as the case may be) the examination, of material referred to in subsection (5); and
(b) specific arrangements have been made for the handling, retention, use, destruction and protection against unauthorised disclosure of such material.”
Amendment 717, in clause 192, page 147, line 36, at end insert—
“(5A) A direction under subsection (3) may not be made for material relating to ‘patient information’ as defined in section 251(10) of the National Health Service Act 2006, or relating to ‘mental health’, ‘adult social care’, ‘child social care’, or ‘health services’ as defined by the Health and Social Care Act 2012.”
Amendment 720, in clause 192, page 147, line 36, at end insert—
“(5A) A direction under subsection (3) may only be made for material relating to ‘patient information’ as defined in s.251(10) of the National Health Service Act 2006, or relating to ‘mental health’, ‘adult social care’, ‘child social care’, or ‘health services’ as defined by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 if the Secretary of State considers that—
(a) there are exceptional and compelling circumstances that make it necessary to authorise the retention, or (as the case may be) the examination, of such material; and
(b) that specific arrangements have been made for the handling, retention, use, destruction and protection against unauthorised disclosure of such material.”
Keir Starmer
These amendments are on material relating to patient information as defined in section 251(10) of the National Health Service Act 2006 or to mental health, adult social care, child social care or health services as defined by the Health and Social Care Act 2012. They would subject material in those categories to the higher test set out in amendment 718. We have had interventions on what the test should be, why people should be concerned and so on.
A number of Committee members will have had the opportunity—I have, in my work—to see mental health records, adult social care records, child social care records and health service records. Those records often contain highly confidential material and information. I will take an example from child social care. A child may be reporting and having recorded some of the most grotesque offences that have happened to them, in an environment where it is hoped that the right relationship will be built up through the process of child social care—in other circumstances, adult social care—so that they obtain the best care possible. Persuading people into that sort of relationship, so that they can get the support they need, is not easy, as anyone who has experience in this area will know.
Unless those who are most vulnerable see protection for them on the face of the Bill, there is a real likelihood that they will not feel sufficiently protected to even come forward. Getting children to engage with child social care is the devil’s own business in many difficult cases. There are many reasons why children do not engage. If children, vulnerable adults and those with mental health problems cannot see clear protection on the face of the Bill that applies to them—not in a flexible way—it would be a retrograde step in relation to all the good work going on in other parts of the forest on offences such as child sexual exploitation.
To be clear, the amendments are not intended to prevent the security and intelligence services from accessing those records if, in certain circumstances, they are needed. The amendments require that a higher threshold is applied and that a better case is made for the circumstances being exceptional and compelling. As I am sure the Minister for Security and Solicitor General have observed, the language in the amendments is borrowed from the protection in the Bill elsewhere for legally privileged material. I therefore hope the test is workable and applicable to this sensitive information.
I stress just how sensitive the material within some of these records will be and how important it is that people see on the face of the Bill protection for them. I have heard the way the Minister for Security and Solicitor General have dealt with this, and I will listen to what they say now, but I do not think that what is said about this protection in the code of practice is either in the right place or sufficient. Paragraph 4.11 is very general in its guidance, even in the code of practice. In my argument, the test should be set out in the Bill and then the code of practice would give guidance as to how the test is to be applied on a day-to-day basis as and when it arises.
Mr Hayes
The amendments relate to the question of whether warrants under this part of the Bill should ever allow the retention or examination of bulk personal datasets relating to various forms of medical information. The hon. and learned Gentleman qualified that to some degree by saying that he could see how there might be occasions on which health data were relevant to an investigation, but he rightly asked whether the safeguards were adequate and whether constraints on storage and use of that kind of information were in place.
Let us look first at the safeguards that are already contained in the Bill. These safeguards already ensure that no bulk personal datasets would be retained or examined unless it was appropriate to do so. Specifically, under the Bill, the security and intelligence agencies may retain and examine a bulk personal dataset only for the statutory purposes outlined in the Bill. Each warrant is subject to the double lock, and so must be approved by both a Secretary of State and a judicial commissioner. Each retention of a bulk personal dataset by the intelligence agencies is considered individually based on a strict consideration of necessity and proportionality. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner will also oversee the acquisition, retention, use or disclosure of bulk personal datasets by the agencies. The draft code of practice, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, makes clear that, when considering whether to retain and examine bulk personal datasets, the agencies will assess the degree or extent of the intrusiveness which retaining and examining the datasets would involve—that is to say, the degree or extent of interference with individuals’ right to privacy.
The draft code says more than that, though. It also makes clear that when considering whether to apply for a warrant in this class, agencies must consider factors such as whether the nature or the provenance of the dataset raises particularly novel or contentious issues, or whether it contains a significant component of intrusive data—I mentioned this in an earlier discussion. An agency would need to apply for a specific bulk personal dataset warrant if it sought to retain such a dataset comprised of medical records. None the less, notwithstanding those safeguards, which I felt it was important to outline, I can see why this matter warrants careful consideration. Before I go into that consideration, however, I want to say the following. I am prepared in this specific instance to confirm that the security and intelligence agencies do not hold a bulk personal dataset of medical records. Furthermore, I cannot currently conceive of a situation where, for example, obtaining all NHS records would be either necessary or proportionate.
That is where my note so far prepared ends, but I want to go further. Before I do, in order to build anticipation and excitement, I give way to the hon. and learned Lady.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister and glad he finds the amendment persuasive, although I suspect not persuasive enough to vote for it. I will therefore withdraw it, but I appreciate the spirit in which he makes his submissions in this important and sensitive area. I will withdraw it with a view to working with the Minister to see whether—
Mr Hayes
I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has said this, but just for the record, I think he agrees with me—I am delighted he is going to withdraw his amendment—that it is conceivable that there are circumstances in which access to some health data might be helpful to the agencies. We can agree that as a baseline against which we can chart the rest of this process.
Keir Starmer
From memory, the services could not at the moment envisage a circumstance in which they would need it, but they would not want to rule out the possibility that it might arise at a future date.
The Solicitor General
An example could be a group of terrorists who are involved in an explosion and sustain burns. Medical evidence about where they attended—the fact that they had attended a local A&E—could be relevant to that particular operation. That is the sort of category that we are thinking of.
Joanna Cherry
On the example that the Solicitor General has just given, does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that such information could be obtained with a far more targeted warrant?
Keir Starmer
It may well be that it could be dealt with in a more targeted way. As a general proposition, where targeted powers can be used they should be used. That is a theme that goes through the Bill and the code.
The Solicitor General
I can clarify: let us imagine a scenario where there is an unidentified individual or we do not know the identities of the people. We know that an atrocity has taken place, but we do not have names, so targeting is more difficult. It is an exceptional case, but there is that possibility.
Keir Starmer
These are all hypotheticals. I think the services themselves have said that they have not needed such powers yet, and we can speculate as to what the situation might be. However, I accept as a general proposition that the focus ought to be on the threshold test for accessing information. For the record, in relation to adult and child social care, there would be a concern not only for the vulnerable adult and child but among those providing the care, because they will be expressing their opinions in these reports and they would be concerned that that remained confidential. That highlights why we need to work on this position. However, for the time being, I look forward to that work and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I rise to speak to amendment 723, in clause 179, page 138, line 5, leave out from “must” to “the” in line 6 and insert “determine”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 724, in clause 179, page 138, line 22, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 534, in clause 179, page 138, line 23, at end insert
“but a Judicial Commissioner may not approve a warrant unless he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is both necessary and proportionate to do so”.
This amendment would clarify the judicial review process by ensuring that both the process and underlying facts of an interception of communications warrant are considered by a Judicial Commissioner.
Keir Starmer
These familiar amendments deal with the judicial test, which crops up on a number of occasions in the Bill. In the light of our ongoing discussion about the test, I do not intend to press the amendments.
The Chair
The amendment is not moved.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I rise to speak to amendment 725, in clause 180, page 138, line 41, leave out from second “period” to second “the” in line 42 and insert “of 48 hours after”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 726, in clause 180, page 138, line 41, leave out from second “period” to second “the” in line 42 and insert “of 24 hours after”.
Amendment 730, in clause 184, page 141, line 10, leave out from “period” to end of line and insert
“of 48 hours after the”.
Amendment 731, in clause 184, page 141, line 10, leave out from “period” to end of line and insert
“of 24 hours after the”.
Amendment 732, in clause 184, page 141, line 12, leave out “6 months” and insert “1 month”.
Amendment 713, in clause 187, page 143, line 29, leave out from second “period” to second “the” in line 30 and insert “of 48 hours after”.
Amendment 714, in clause 187, page 143, line 29, leave out from second “period” to second “the” in line 30 and insert “of 24 hours after”.
Keir Starmer
In the light of our discussions about the urgent provisions, which are similar throughout the Bill. I will not press the amendments.
Keir Starmer
I rise to speak to amendment 727, in clause 181, page 139, line 10, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Again, I will not press this amendment as it is in a similar form to an amendment to another part of the Bill.
The Chair
The amendment is not moved.
Amendment made: 628, in clause 181, page 139, line 32, at end insert—
‘(7A) An intelligence service is not to be regarded as in breach of section 175(1) or (2) where it retains or (as the case may be) examines a bulk personal dataset in accordance with conditions imposed under subsection (3)(b).”—(Mr John Hayes.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 626.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I rise to speak to amendment 728, in clause 183, page 140, line 35, leave out from “178(5)(a)” to end of line and insert
“and the purposes must be specified in as much detail as is reasonably practicable”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 729, in clause 183, page 140, line 36, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Keir Starmer
The amendments, like earlier amendments, would require more specific operational purposes. In light of the discussions and exchanges we had earlier, I will not move the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I rise to speak to amendment 733, in clause 186, page 142, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) may be made only if the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary for the purposes of the warrant”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 527, in clause 186, page 143, line 16, at end insert—
“(12) Any modification which constitutes the adding or varying any matter must be approved by a Judicial Commissioner in accordance with section 179.”.
This amendment adds the requirement to obtain approval from a Judicial Commissioner for any modification which constitutes the adding or varying (but not removing) any matter for each type of warrant.
Keir Starmer
We are in the familiar territory of modifications; the provisions of clause 186 are very similar to others that we have covered in great detail. For those reasons, I shall not move the amendment.
Immigration Bill
Keir Starmer Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Brokenshire
The contribution we are making stands in very positive terms compared with what other European partners are doing. This is about identifying the right people to deploy so that we have the best effect, and that is precisely what we are doing.
I am conscious that I have spoken for an extended period, and I want other right hon. and hon. Members to get into the debate. For the reasons I have given, the approach proposed in amendment 87 is not the right one. As the selection of amendments notes, the amendment engages financial privilege, and the Speaker identified some of the issues that that raises in terms of the reasons we give the House of Lords.
Under amendment 87, we could end up relieving pressure on developed countries in Europe that have the means to support children, instead of helping developing countries that are under real pressure and that do not have the capacity to support them. The best answer is upstream intervention before children at risk try to come to Europe.
The Government are committed to making a full contribution to the global refugee crisis, particularly by helping children at risk. We strongly believe that our approach of resettling children at risk and their families directly from the region will have most impact on safeguarding vulnerable children. The significant aid package in Europe, and our practical and logistical assistance to front-line member states to ensure vulnerable children are properly protected wherever they are in Europe, is the correct way to approach this issue.
The UK can be proud of the contribution we are making, which stands comparison with any. We are doing everything we said we would to provide aid and to resettle vulnerable refugees. We are already making a real difference to hundreds of thousands of lives.
I recognise the sincere feelings of those who support amendment 87. We share the objective of identifying and protecting children at risk, but I firmly believe that the approach I have set out provides the best way to support our European partners, help vulnerable refugee children and provide the biggest impact for the contribution this country can make.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Labour Peers and the many Cross Benchers who brought these amendments before the House today. The amendments raise important issues, and none more so than amendment 87.
Amendment 87—the so-called Alf Dubs amendment—was tabled by Lord Dubs. As many people know, Lord Dubs arrived in this country in 1939 as an unaccompanied child under the Kindertransport system, so he speaks with particular authority. The vote in the House of Lords was won by 100 votes, reflecting the long campaign to change the position on unaccompanied children in Europe. That campaign has been supported by Members of this House, along with non-governmental organisations and charities. The matter was first raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who put it to the Prime Minister in September 2015. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has continually raised it, and I pay tribute to her work. I also pay tribute to Save the Children for raising this issue so much over the last year.
The issue is comparatively simple to state: hundreds of thousands of families across the world—millions of people in total—are fleeing their homes. The refugee crisis we are witnessing is on a scale we have not seen since the second world war. The Minister spoke of the devastating effect of war on so many people. We have become familiar with the images of families making treacherous journeys—often across the Mediterranean—but I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say we are all still shocked every time we see footage and images of desperate families making those desperate, treacherous journeys.
Catherine West
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, given the emails and anguish-filled letters we receive as constituency MPs, there seems to be a lack of urgency among Government Members, which, to me, reflects the fact that they are out of touch with how the country really feels about this issue?
Keir Starmer
The number of constituents who have contacted me and other Members—I am sure that this is true across the House—about the plight of refugees in the last 12 months has been considerable. Many of those communications—again, I am sure that this is the same for many Members—are individual, rather than part of mass campaigns. These people have real concerns, and they usually say, “What can I do? I don’t think the Government are doing enough. Can I send money or clothes?” Many have said, “Can I take somebody in?” or even, “Can I adopt?” There is therefore a very powerful feeling out there that more needs to be done about refugees.
I have spoken of the hundreds of thousands of families —the millions of people—fleeing their homes.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. He has been to the camps in France, and I have been to the Calais camp. Much of the help there is given by individual British people who make the journey over or who organise trips, often providing substantial amounts of aid. Our constituents’ view is clear, and the Government would be wise to listen to it this evening.
Keir Starmer
I have been to the camps in Calais and Dunkirk, and, like many other people, I was shocked. I have discussed that with the Minister and with the Minister with responsibility for refugees, and what I have tried to get across—this is important in relation to the amendment—is that when I went to Dunkirk, there were 3,000 individuals, including many children, living in a swamp in flimsy tents in the freezing cold. There were eight volunteers doing their level best to help in the camp, but there was not an official in sight, apart from two gendarmes on the gate, and all they were doing was preventing pallets from being brought in. I know things have changed—I did say that when I went, and I have never been slow to acknowledge when steps have been taken—but there needs to be a reality check about the ability of children in those camps and elsewhere to access the advice and help they need to make a claim.
Mr Burrowes
I have similarly visited Dunkirk, where I was appalled by the inhumane conditions, and no one should walk by. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman have any details about deliverability if the Dubs amendment is passed? How many unaccompanied minors will come to this country, and when? How will that operate?
Keir Starmer
As the hon. Gentleman will have seen, the amendment proposes a scheme for taking children, and that is important. I accept that there needs to be a proper scheme and that things need to be done properly. As with any other scheme, accommodation, schools, healthcare and so on have to be put in place for anybody who arrives. The proposal is therefore for a scheme, rather than just a set number of children without a scheme.
I want to move on. I have described the hundreds of thousands—
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Keir Starmer
I will make some progress, if I may, and then I will of course take further interventions.
I have described the situation for millions of families travelling across the world, but we are now dealing with children making such treacherous journeys on their own. It is estimated that there are 26,000 of them in Europe. I met four of them in Glasgow when I visited there. The children—two girls and two boys—were from Iran, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. They told me their very powerful stories about their trip across to Europe.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the story he has recounted gives the lie to or shows the inappropriateness of the Government’s position in that we cannot possibly expect children to be treated the same as adults?
Keir Starmer
I would put it this way: in this country, we recognise that children cannot access their rights without significant help and the position is exactly the same in Europe, but such help is not in place and that is not happening. The stories that I heard from the four children in Glasgow were typical of those of the thousands of children who are arriving alone, frightened and with absolutely nothing.
There is the chilling statistic—from my point of view, this is a telling statistic—that 10,000 of those children are thought to be missing. That figure comes from Europol. I have done a lot of work, as I recognise have a lot of other people in the House, to try to combat sexual exploitation and trafficking. There is a shared concern that many of these children will become, if they are not already, victims of sexual exploitation or trafficking. That is the real concern driving Lords amendment 87. It is a small but important contribution to dealing with the refugee crisis, which is testing our humanitarianism.
For my part, I have applauded the Government’s resettlement scheme—I have spent time, both in Glasgow and in Colchester, with Syrian families who have arrived under the scheme—but we simply cannot ignore the children who have arrived in Europe. As has been said, they are right here, right now, and they are in a desperate and vulnerable position. The Government are not saying that nothing needs to be done, or that they are perfectly catered for and are not at risk. The Government recognise that something needs to be done and that they are at risk, but the Government are still resisting Lords amendment 87.
The Minister put this in terms of risk and of not encouraging children to take risks. I want to address what is sometimes expressed as the pull factor absolutely fairly and squarely. The first thing to say is that, on analysis, there is flimsy evidence to support the pull factor one way or the other. The other thing is that any discussion of a pull factor should be held in a vacuum. We have been here before in relation to rescues in the Mediterranean. On one view, people argue that such rescues are a pull factor, but we all recognise that it would be abhorrent to leave people to their fate in the Mediterranean on the simple proposition that rescues might encourage others to cross the sea.
We therefore have to be absolutely honest with ourselves about what we are saying about the pull factor in relation to the 26,000 children, of whom 10,000 are missing. The pull factor argument is that we must abandon them to their fate on the basis of an unproven theory that if we did something by taking them, others might be encouraged to come. In stark terms, that is the pull factor. I reject it, many Members of the House reject it and we should all, rightly, reject it.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I hesitate to intervene on my hon. and learned Friend’s excellent speech, but does he wonder why we did not hear about the pull factor when this country took in 50,000 Ugandans, 30,000 Cypriots or 20,000 Vietnamese? We now have such a situation in Europe. A child died at the Piraeus camp in Greece when I visited just a few weeks. It was absolutely awful. That this Government are really doing what they are doing for the sake of immigration issues is a scandal. Is that not really why we are discussing the pull factor?
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his very powerful intervention, which puts the pull factor in its proper context. The pull factor argument that has been deployed is not attractive in a country that has been as tolerant as this country has in providing support for those fleeing persecution. In the end, the argument boils down to saying that we will leave people to their fate for fear of encouraging others to follow in their footsteps. The Minister talked about distressed people fleeing war-torn zones. That is the context in which the argument is being applied, but this case is worse because the pull factor is being applied to children. The boy I met in Glasgow was 14 when he made his journey, and he is typical of many in that respect.
Tim Farron
The hon. and learned Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. On the pull factor, I agree with him that the evidence is at best mixed. In the sense that I found any kind of pull factor in the camps I visited in northern Greece, in the islands or in Calais and in meeting refugees who have been settled in Cologne, it was that Europe is a peaceful, decent, stable place where people can raise their children without fear of their being killed. We should be proud of such a pull factor.
Keir Starmer
The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point. I know that he has been very supportive of the campaigns in that respect. Certainly, several people I talked to in Calais and Dunkirk—stuck in camps that were appalling when I saw them—spoke in glowing terms about the rule of law and human rights, and our proud tradition in relation to refugees.
I have listened to the Minister. Not only on this occasion but every time that we have debated this, I have applauded and acknowledged the steps that the Government have taken. I accept that any steps taken must be proper steps within a proper scheme so that they work properly. However, not taking the vulnerable children who are in Europe—right here, right now—is simply not good enough.
This afternoon, an email pinged into my inbox from a rabbi in Kentish Town, one of my constituents, which I want to read to the House:
“As the Jewish community celebrates the…Passover, we remember not only our own journey to freedom, but all those who are not free.”
He urged me to support Lords amendment 87 and other amendments. He certainly speaks for many of my other constituents, as I am sure he does for those of many hon. Members from across the House.
Among those on the Opposition Benches, there is strong support for Lords amendment 87. I know and acknowledge the fact that Conservative Members have real concerns, which they have raised repeatedly, about our not taking in this group of vulnerable children who need our help now.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I was particularly moved by yesterday’s article by the former Archbishop, Rowan Williams. He compared the action being taken now with how we responded to the plight of children during the second world war. Does my hon. and learned Friend not agree with him that supporting the Dubs amendment
“is an opportunity for us to live up to the best of our tradition in Britain of reaching out a hand to help the most vulnerable”?
Keir Starmer
I speak for Members from across the whole House when I say that history will judge how we respond to this historic crisis, which is of proportions that have not been seen since the second world war. This is the challenge of our time, and whether we rise to it or not will be the measure of us. We have the clear evidence of thousands of vulnerable children, and we now need to act to take 3,000, as proposed in the amendment. I say to Conservative Members who have campaigned and spoken out on this that now is the moment to do something about it to make a real difference by voting with us on amendment 87. I urge all Members to do so.
Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
We have talked a lot about pull factors, but it is worth remembering for a moment the push factors: the children as young as seven who are being forced on to the frontline in Syria, or the children raped in conflicts that are so horrific that aid workers I have worked with over 10 years are telling me that the situation is the most horrendous they have ever witnessed. These are children in Europe right now. I applaud the Government’s record on the humanitarian support they have given to Syrian civilians in the region—in Syria—and some of the efforts we have made in Europe, but tonight is surely the moment that we have to go just that little bit further. I hope my hon. and learned Friend agrees with that point.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention. It reminds us that applying the “pull factor” argument in relation to refugees is inappropriate because they are, by definition, people who are fleeing persecution across borders and taking journeys that are treacherous and dangerous. When we see families or children making those journeys, we all think of our own families, and think of the circumstances and the desperation that lie behind those desperate acts. In those circumstances, it is of course very important to take into account the push factors.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware of the Minister’s statement that we will take more children from in and around Syria. He has been arguing, as have others, about the 3,000 children to be taken from within Europe. Clearly, all of us in this House care very strongly about all vulnerable children caught up in these awful situations. Does he believe that there is a choice between taking one category before the other? Should we be taking more from Syria as well as the 3,000? How would we decide, given our ability properly to look after unaccompanied asylum-seeking children?
Keir Starmer
I support the statement that was made last week about up to 3,000 children being taken from the region. However, it should not be an either/or when we have a refugee crisis on a scale not seen since the second world war. This is a limited and proportionate number—3,000 children who are in desperate need in Europe right now. I, for my part, do not subscribe to the categorisation of vulnerability. I think that any child alone, fleeing across a border having made a treacherous journey, is vulnerable wherever they have found themselves. Certainly all the children I have spoken to—those in the camps and those who had made it to this country—were very vulnerable, not only when they started those journeys but when they made them. It is not an either/or.
Keir Starmer
I will give way, but I am conscious that lots of other people want to get in, and by taking interventions I am holding them up.
Nusrat Ghani
This is a very sensitive and difficult issue. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned vulnerability. Surely the most vulnerable children, families and communities are not those in Europe but those closest to conflicts.
Keir Starmer
I am sorry, but I really do not want to go down this path. One of the 10,000 who has disappeared and may be subject to sexual exploitation or trafficking right now is extremely vulnerable, and I am not going to categorise him or her as being any more or any less vulnerable than a child who may be in a camp elsewhere, vulnerable though they are. Hon. Members across the House have approached this with principle and with humanity, and there has been a shared cause of concern in many of the debates we have had. The “pull factor” argument whereby we leave people to their fate lest others follow, or the idea that we categorise the vulnerability of children, are not points well made in a debate that is usually conducted in a framework of real principle.
Richard Fuller
On the absolute ban on the detention of pregnant women, which I support, I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises the tremendous change that the Government have made, and are making. Will he reassure me and others that if pregnant women are made a category for exclusion from detention, that will not create a precedent for other groups to have a similar level of exclusion?
Keir Starmer
I hope that I made it clear that I support the Government’s changed position and recognise how far they have gone; I simply said that it is not enough. I do not think this sets a precedent. We are talking about a particular group. All those in immigration detention are vulnerable in one way or another, but it has long been recognised that pregnant women are a particularly vulnerable group within that group. This amendment speaks only to them, and therefore should be taken in those terms.
Amendment 60 deals with overseas domestic workers. This is a very important matter because it concerns another very vulnerable group, many of whom are abused by the households who employ them and find it very difficult to escape that abuse. When the Bill that became the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was going through this House, the Government, under pressure, commissioned the Ewins report. That report was clear in its conclusion that overseas domestic workers should be able to change employer and to apply for further leave for up to 30 months, and that they should be informed of their rights. The basis of the amendment is to support the Ewins conclusions. The driving theme behind the report in putting forward those proposals is that Ewins said that they are the only practical way out of abuse for this very vulnerable category of workers. There is more to be done on overseas domestic workers, and amendment 60 addresses a very thin slice of the problems they face. However, I urge all Members to support it.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
For me, as a parent, the decision on whether to support the amendment made to the Bill in the other place on the resettlement of unaccompanied children in Europe reduces itself to simple questions. If I were separated from my children—if they were destitute in a foreign country, cold, hungry and far away from home—what would I want for them? Would I be content for them to be at risk of violence and exploitation, often sexual in nature, or would I want them to be offered safe haven with the desire that they be looked after and reunited with family members in due course? Those questions are, to my mind, rhetorical. They admit of sure and certain answers. I greatly regret that those are not answers that—with the best of motives, I accept—the Government appear to be willing to give.
Let us, for a moment, leave out of the equation what seems to me to be the grave inconsistency between arguing, on one hand, that the country has a role at the heart of the EU, and yet refusing, on the other, to shoulder the burden of the fact that Europol estimates that 10,000 unaccompanied refugee children went missing in Europe last year after they had been registered with the authorities in the countries in which they found themselves. Let us leave out of the equation the fact that the true number of minors subjected to abuse, exploitation and violence is, self-evidently, far higher. Let us even leave out of the equation the fact that, as the former Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out in a national newspaper over the weekend, doctors report that as many as half of unaccompanied African boys in the EU require treatment for sexually transmitted diseases—diseases almost certainly acquired from sexual exploitation during their passage to Europe. Let us also forget about those children we do not know about who have died cold and lonely deaths in Europe or the Mediterranean, driven from their homes and separated from their parents and loved ones, usually through no fault of their own.
Let the House instead reflect on our history in this, the greatest migration challenge in my lifetime, and on how we have behaved in the past. In that respect, the contribution that this country has always made to doing the right thing—to providing a home for children who have been driven from theirs by war and conflict—is unmatched. Exceptional times call for exceptional measures. That was the case with the Kindertransport programme, which benefited those who would undoubtedly have lost their lives in the holocaust had this country not acted in the run-up to the second world war. It was the case with those who fled Uganda after Idi Amin decided to expel them. It was the case with those who fled Vietnam and Iran in the late 1970s and the early 1980s. But now, apparently, either we should not act or we cannot act, using our heads as well as our hearts; to do so would simply encourage more children to make the dangerous journey to Europe. So says the Minister, and I accept that he has a point. That point does not, however, answer the point that these children are already in Europe, and that they are at risk as I stand here and speak to the House.
I do not doubt for a moment the Minister’s desire, and that of the Government, to do the right thing. I do doubt, based on what I have heard in the House this evening, that that is what we are proposing to do. As I have said, these children are already in Europe. They are alone, and far from their families. They are cold, frightened, hungry and frequently without help or access to those who might help or protect them. Their lives are miserable and brutish, and at least half of them have experienced or seen violence that we can only dream of in our nightmares—or, rather, hope that we do not.
Of course, the announcement last week, welcome as it is, that we will take 3,000 children from Syria and elsewhere who have not already made the dangerous journey to Europe was a good one, in the best traditions of recognising the obligations that this country enjoys in times such as the present—obligations that were recognised in January, and to which the announcement adds. That is no comfort to the children who are already in Europe, who have fled war and conflict that have torn their lives apart, and who need our help now. Those children are in Calais; they are on the Greek-Macedonian border; they are at the Gare du Nord in Paris and Midi station in Brussels; and they are sleeping rough in Berlin, Rome, Skopje and Vienna. Tonight they will sleep in fear, and tomorrow they will wake to the hopelessness to which their position exposes them. Today, in this House, we can do something. We cannot solve all their problems, remove all their troubles, or take from their consciousness the memory of the horrors that they have witnessed and endured, but we can do something.
That something is not to disagree with their Lordships on this amendment. That is the something that I can and will do, by joining the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) in the Opposition Lobby this evening. This is not an easy decision, or one that I have taken lightly, but it is the right decision, made of a conviction that I have reached after searching my conscience, as I pray other right hon. and hon. Members will search theirs. The House should support the Lords in their amendment and vote against the motion to disagree.
Investigatory Powers Bill (Ninth sitting)
Keir Starmer ExcerptsThursday 21st April 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 April 2016 - (21 Apr 2016)
Joanna Cherry
The amendments, which were tabled by the Scottish National party and the Labour party, are part of the broad objective of altering clause 91 so that authorisation of warrants is carried out by judicial commissioners rather than the Secretary of State. There has already been quite lengthy argument about the general principle so I will not go into that in great detail. The amendments also deal with the grounds and circumstances in which warrants may be issued and attempt to tighten the safeguards in the clause.
Amendment 405 would amend the grounds on which warrants may be issued, adding at the end of subsection (5)(b) a reference to reasonable suspicion of serious crime taking place. That pertains to an argument I made in relation to part 2 of the Bill, which is that the grounds for issuance of a warrant should require reasonable suspicion. It will also be recalled that I argued that the economic wellbeing grounds should be removed from the Bill in relation to part 2, and I renew that argument in relation to this clause for the same reasons. There seems to be some tautology. As either the Joint Committee on the draft Bill or the Intelligence and Security Committee commented, it is difficult to see how
“the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom so far as those interests are also relevant to the interests of national security”
can really mean anything above and beyond the interests of national security. Amendment 406 would therefore remove subsection (5)(c).
Amendment 463 would remove subsection (6), while amendment 465 would include a requirement of proportionality and a technical assessment in the consideration that is given to the issuance of a warrant. Amendment 465 would require that less intrusive methods have been used or considered and a technical assessment of proportionality accounting for the risks of the conduct proposed. Those requirements would apply when applications from the intelligence service, the Chief of Defence Intelligence and law enforcement are considered. In order to consider whether a warrant is necessary and proportionate, not only the intrusion but the methods will need to be assessed. The amendment would require the judicial commissioner, supported by independent technical expertise, to assess the proportionality of the conduct proposed in targeted equipment interference applications.
There is good reason behind the amendment. Again, I hark back to some of the more general concerns that were expressed by myself and the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras. When malware is deployed there is often a risk of contagion, at home as well as overseas. We have had a recent and dramatic demonstration of that: the Stuxnet virus was believed to be an American-Israeli cyber-weapon intended to hack a single Iranian uranium enrichment facility. What happened instead was that it infected Chevron, the energy giant, and many other companies, as well as Microsoft PCs around the world.
That is a good illustration of how hacks intended for what we might call “good purposes”—to protect the public—can have unintended consequences. I believe that the phrase used by those in the know is the risk of hacks spreading into the wild. Technical experts have explained to me that the risk of hacks spreading into the wild cannot be overstated. In fact, a professor of security engineering at Cambridge University, Ross Anderson, wrote to the Science and Technology Committee about this very issue, saying—he did not mince his words— that
“It is only a matter of time before interference with a safety-critical system kills someone”.
The amendment would address these serious issues by making sure that we do not take the potentially dangerous and counterproductive step of hacking where other less intrusive and safer methods have been used, and that a technical assessment of proportionality accounting for the risks of the hack being proposed is carried out in advance.
The practice of equipment interference leads to the stockpiling of software vulnerabilities, which in turn puts millions of users of software at risk, and those millions of users of software are our constituents, the citizens of the United Kingdom, people who use these sorts of devices day in and day out for all sorts of aspects of their personal and professional lives. These hacks, if not used only where strictly necessary, and if there is not a proper technical assessment in advance, risk opening up the equipment of ordinary members of the public to criminals and fraudsters rather than just the intelligence agencies. Underlying the amendment is the idea that it is vital that when deciding whether to grant a warrant, the judicial commissioner should understand and account for the proportionality of the proposed interference methods before authorising them.
There is also the risk that hacks can malfunction, with severe consequences for critical infrastructures and even international relations. Whatever one thinks of Edward Snowden’s revelations and the propriety of them, the fact is that he put a lot of material into the public domain and we would be remiss if we did not consider that. He has revealed that malfunctions of hacking by the National Security Agency in America were responsible for the outage of the entire internet in Syria in 2012, which may have caused simultaneous flight-tracking issues and led Government and opposition forces erroneously to blame each other for the incident. That sort of thing could be a danger to our forces.
I went to a fascinating briefing yesterday morning about photonics. Before I went into the briefing, I did not really know what photonics was, because I am not a scientist by background, but I went along because there is a lot of research into photonics development going on in Scotland, particularly at Heriot-Watt University, which is in my constituency. One of the fascinating things that I learned at this briefing on photonics from a speaker from BAE Systems was how photonics—in layperson’s terms, laser technology—can now “zap” on to the visor of fighter pilots the information they need vis-à-vis radar and the like, so that they do not have to look down at a screen when they are looking for a target. If hacking goes wrong, those sophisticated technologies, which are needed for the defence of this country, may themselves go wrong and that may lead to the deaths of innocent civilians, which we all, regardless of which side we took in the vote last December, want to avoid in any bombing in Syria.
There is a high degree of public interest in the proportionality of hacking methods, and the security of data and the safety of citizens both at home and abroad are very real issues. The debate surrounding the Apple against the FBI case in America centred on whether the methods required to hack one particular device were proportionate, given the security consequences for all owners of iPhones. In the United States, the decision in that case was rightly entrusted to an independent judge.
Amendment 465 is crucial because of the potential damage to computer security and the corresponding vulnerability to criminal elements that results from hacking, as well as the potential dangers for our forces fighting abroad and for civilians. The use of various hacking technologies poses clear risks to those they are used against and to the wider public, which requires the addition of a technical proportionality test. I hope the Government are prepared to consider the amendment seriously.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I echo your sentiments in relation to Her Majesty the Queen. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
I have little to add to the hon. and learned Lady’s comments in support of the amendments, other then to outline why they were tabled. Clause 91(1) sets out the power to issue warrants, and paragraphs (a) and (b) outline the familiar necessity and proportionality tests, which bite on the very wide provisions of subsection (5). The Secretary of State therefore has to consider whether issuing a warrant is necessary for one of those broad purposes—
“national security…preventing or detecting serious crime, or…in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”.
That is obviously a broad necessity test, and proportionality is assessed by reference to the same grounds. The provision is over-broad, which matters because the double lock works only if a judicial commissioner has scrutiny of the Secretary of State’s decision. If the Secretary of State’s decision is so wide, the judicial commissioner’s scrutiny will be correspondingly wide. That matters particularly in relation to the targeted examination warrants, which will be used where a wider bulk power has been exercised in the first place. The amendments would tighten the necessity and proportionality tests, giving them real practicality and effect.
The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Owen, particularly on the auspicious occasion of Her Majesty’s birthday. The Solicitor General and I are members of a diminishing group who still hold to the spirit, and perhaps even the actuality, of the divine right of kings.
Chivalry forbids me from paying but scant attention to the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West spoke to amendments not in this group. I will not spend too much time responding to what she said, but I might be able to respond to her a little when we come to the next group.
Mr Hayes
I am happy to draw to the attention of any future Investigatory Powers Commissioner the fact that that is not the case and will not be under the Bill. Of course the hon. and learned Lady is right: whether this is a good or a bad thing I leave it to others to judge, but I cannot bind future Governments. However, we can certainly consider and reconsider ways in which the message can be reinforced during the passage of the Bill. I do not want to go too much further, but I think that the signal I am sending will have been seen by people on this Committee and elsewhere.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record, because there is concern. If the intention or purpose is not as has been suggested, will he give consideration to how that fact can find form in the Bill and be clear for all to see, just as the record will be clear?
Joanna Cherry
Before I make my position on the amendments clear, it was remiss of me not to add the sincere good wishes of the Scottish National party to Her Majesty the Queen on the auspicious occasion of her 90th birthday.
When we looked at similar issues under part 2, we did not push the matter to a vote, and that is the course of action I wish to follow at this stage. I will withdraw the amendment now, but no doubt the whole issue of judicial warrantry will be revisited on the Floor of the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 465, in clause 91, page 70, line 18, leave out from “include” to end of line 19 and insert—
“(a) the requirement that other proportionate methods of obtaining the material have been tried without success or have not been tried because they were assessed to be bound to fail, and
(b) the requirement that a risk assessment has been conducted by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s technical advisors with regard to the specific equipment interference proposed, accounting for—
(i) the risk of collateral interference and intrusion, and
(ii) the risk to the integrity of communications systems and computer networks, and
(iii) the risk to public cybersecurity.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 415, in clause 93, page 71, line 35, leave out from “include” to end of line 36 and insert—
“(a) the requirement that other proportionate methods of obtaining the material have been tried without success or have not been tried because they were assessed to be bound to fail, and
(b) the requirement that a risk assessment has been conducted by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s technical advisors with regard to the specific equipment interference proposed, accounting for—
(i) the risk of collateral interference and intrusion, and
(ii) the risk to the integrity of communications systems and computer networks, and
(iii) the risk to public cybersecurity.”
Amendment 435, in clause 96, page 74, line 13, leave out
“whether what is sought to be achieved by the warrant could reasonably be achieved by other means”
and insert—
“(a) the requirement that other proportionate methods of obtaining the material have been tried without success or have not been tried because they were assessed to be bound to fail, and
(b) the requirement that a risk assessment has been conducted by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s technical advisors with regard to the specific equipment interference proposed, accounting for—
(i) the risk of collateral interference and intrusion, and
(ii) the risk to the integrity of communications systems and computer networks, and
(iii) the risk to public cybersecurity.”
Keir Starmer
One of the advantages of us all—me included—straying beyond the strict limits of the previous set of amendments is that there is nothing I can meaningfully or helpfully add on amendment 465, which would tighten the necessity and proportionality test for the reasons already articulated. I will say no more other than to indicate that I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Mr Hayes
As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, we have covered the ground pretty exhaustively. Essentially, the amendments would change the language of the safeguard, requiring that alternatives must either be tried or be discounted because they were “bound to fail”. In the end, “bound to fail” is clearly too high a hurdle. Investigating agencies would have to waste time and resources, and interfere unnecessarily with people’s equipment trying out alternative ways to gather intelligence that they thought were likely to be successful and not bound to fail.
The amendments would require that in deciding to issue an order the Secretary of State or law enforcement chief must take into account the technical cyber risk assessment by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Given GCHQ’s track record of dealing with cyber-vulnerabilities of the kind that I described earlier—I will not go into further detail about that—and given that the code of practice requires that
“Any application for an equipment interference warrant should contain an assessment of any risk to the security or integrity of systems or networks that the proposed activity may involve including the steps taken to appropriately minimise such risk”,
and that
“The issuing authority should consider any such assessment when considering whether the proposed activity is proportionate”,
I believe that these amendments are unnecessary. Accordingly, I invite the hon. and leaned Gentleman to withdraw them.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Joanna Cherry
I beg to move amendment 408, in clause 91, page 70, line 25, at end insert—
‘(10) Targeted equipment interference is only lawful if authorised under this Act.”
The amendment would require that targeted equipment interference cease to be conducted under the Intelligence Services Act 1994, the Police Act 1997 or indeed any other prior legislation, and instead be conducted under the provisions of the Bill. The Bill is a consolidated piece of legislation, and we tabled this amendment in the spirit of the Government’s laudable attempt to consolidate the legislation in this area. The amendment would ensure that equipment interference always benefits from the safeguards and oversight in the Bill. As we just set out, the Opposition parties want the safeguards to go further, but even if they remain as they are we would like them to apply to all targeted equipment interference. That would improve public accountability and clarify the state’s powers.
The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on the draft Bill expressed concern about the fact that agencies conduct several forms of equipment interference that are not provided for in the Bill, so it is not just Opposition Members who are concerned. The ISC said that
“certain IT operations will require a different standard of authorisation…than Computer Network Exploitation and that similar activities undertaken by the Agencies will be authorised under different pieces of legislation.”
It concluded that, if that remains the case, the Bill will have failed to achieve transparency; operations will remain secret and thus not be subject to clear safeguards. It recommended that
“all IT operations are brought under the provisions of the new legislation…with the same authorisation process and the same safeguards.”
The amendment reflects the Intelligence and Security Committee’s recommendation that all types of equipment interference should be governed under one clear piece of legislation. I will be grateful if the Government take it on board in the spirit in which it is intended.
Keir Starmer
Clause 93 is similar in many respects to clause 91, but obviously relates to the Chief of Defence Intelligence and is therefore shorter. It follows that the concerns that have been expressed by the Labour party, which I suspect the Scottish National party share, apply equally to the relevant parts of clause 93. I make that clear for the record, but it will not assist anyone to repeat them under the guise of clause 93.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 11—Confidential and privileged material—
‘(1) Where any conduct under this Part will cover or is likely to cover special procedure material, or relates to individuals handling special procedure material, the application must contain—
(a) a statement that the conduct will cover or is likely to cover special procedure material, or relates to individuals handling special procedure material, and
(b) an assessment of how likely it is that the material is likely to cover special procedure material.
(2) Where any conduct under this Part is likely to cover excluded procedure material, or relates to individuals handling excluded procedure material, the application must contain—
(a) a statement that the conduct will cover or is likely to cover excluded procedure material, or relates to individuals handling excluded procedure material, and
(b) an assessment of how likely it is that the material is likely to cover excluded procedure material.
(3) Where a warrant issued under this Part will cover or is likely to cover special procedure material, or relates to individuals handling special procedure material, the procedure set out at section 5 below must be followed.
(4) Where a warrant issued under this Part will cover or is likely to cover excluded procedure material, or relates to individuals handling excluded procedure material, the procedure set out at section 6 below must be followed.
(5) Further to the requirements set out elsewhere in this part, the Judicial Commissioner may only issue a warrant if—
(a) there are reasonable grounds for believing that an indictable offence has been committed, and
(b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation in connection to the offence at (a), and
(c) other proportionate methods of obtaining the material have been tried without success or have not been tried because they were assessed to be bound to fail, and
(d) it is in the public interest having regard to—
(i) the public interest in the protection of privacy and the integrity of personal data, and
(ii) the public interest in the integrity of communications systems and computer networks, and
(iii) the democratic importance of freedom of expression under article 10 ECHR to grant the warrant; or
(iv) the democratic interest in the confidentiality of correspondence with members of a relevant legislature; or
(v) the importance of maintaining public confidence in the confidentiality of material subject to legal professional privilege.
(6) Further to the requirements set out elsewhere in this part, the Judicial Commissioner may only issue a warrant in accordance with provisions made in Schedule 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and Schedule 5 of the Terrorism Act.
(7) An application for a warrant under this Part must not be granted where the information could be sought using a warrant under schedule 1 PACE, unless seeking this information under PACE would defeat the purpose of the investigation.
(8) Special procedure material means—
(a) special material as defined in section 14 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;
(b) correspondence sent by or intended for a member of the relevant legislature.
(9) Excluded material procedure has the same meaning as in section 11 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
(10) A warrant under this Part may not authorise any conduct undertaken for the purpose of accessing any material relating to matters subject to legal privilege.
(11) For the purposes of subsection (10), “legal privilege” means—
(a) communications between a professional legal adviser and their client or any person representing their client made in connection with the giving of legal advice to the client;
(b) communications between a professional legal adviser and their client or any person representing their client and any other person with or in contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings;
(c) items enclosed with or referred to in such communications and made—
(i) in connection with the giving of legal advice, or
(ii) in connection with the contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings;
(d) communications made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose are not subject to legal privilege.
(12) Where the purpose of the warrant is to conduct interference to obtain material that would normally be subject to legal privilege but that falls within subsection (11)(d), the interference and examination conduct authorised must relate—
(a) to the offence as specified under subsection (5)(a), or
(b) to some other indictable offence which is connected with or similar to the offence as specified under subsection (5)(a).”
Keir Starmer
I want to make some observations about this clause. I know that the Minister is looking at the way Members of Parliament are dealt with, but I want to put on the record what I see as the major limitations. The clause is intended to be additional protection when the purpose of a warrant for equipment interference is to obtain a communication sent by or intended for a member of a relevant legislature—so all our communication.
The first concern is that a warrant for equipment interference permits the obtaining of communications equipment data and other information, so the first observation about the clause is that there is no special provision for a warrant to interfere with an MP’s laptop to get secondary data or any other information. That applies to all of us. If a warrant were issued that touched on my equipment, as long as it dealt with equipment data and other information, there would be no need to consult the Prime Minister. I am not sure whether colleagues have appreciated that they could effectively be hacked without additional safeguard.
The second concern is that the added safeguard is when the purpose of the warrant is to obtain a communication. That is because communications are especially protected, but I remind colleagues that secondary data and equipment data may include the details of who has contacted whom, so if someone contacts an MP, the fact that they made that contact and who did so would not be protected. Here, the purpose is just to get a communication.
If the purpose was to achieve some other objective, but it was inevitable that communications between an MP and a constituent would be affected, clause 94 would not apply. I just wonder whether that needs a little further consideration because the protection for MPs’ communications ought to cover deliberate attempts to intercept a communication and also when it is likely to happen although the purpose is perhaps to intercept the communication of someone else. Those are real issues that I want to put on the record.
The other issue, which may be straightforward, is that clause 94 comes after the two powers we have seen in clauses 91 and 93, which deal with the Secretary of State’s warrants. It makes sense in that context, because it is the Secretary of State who consults the Prime Minister before acting. We will come on to equipment interference warrants that can be authorised by law enforcement officers. Those warrants will not go through the Secretary of State. It may be that clause 94 applies equally to those, and I suspect that it is intended to, because otherwise there would be another type of warrant that could touch on an MP’s unprotected correspondence; I cannot see that that is the intention.
If there is an easy an answer to this, I am happy to sit down and be corrected, but it seems that there are a number of ways in which the clause could be toughened up to achieve its desired objective.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Gentleman does a service to the Committee by raising this, because it is a matter of continuing discussion. I think the Committee recognises that there are particular groups of people—lawyers, journalists, Members—who, because of the character, particularity and importance of the work that they do, need to be dealt with in an appropriate and sensitive way. We are talking not only about those people but about the people who are in contact with them. In a journalist’s case it would be sources; in a Member’s case it would be constituents and others. He is right, too, to suggest that we need to ensure that we have a consistent approach across the Bill.
It is true that there is a level of intrusion associated with content that is not shared in other areas. Equipment data are less intrusive than content, and we have already considered why they are necessarily subject to less stringent safeguards. Nevertheless, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right that close examination of consistency in the Bill, in terms of how we deal with Members, is important. To that end, I hear what he says and will look at this again.
The conversation on this, in the Committee and more widely, needs to take full account of the proper assumption on the part of those who contact their Member of Parliament that any material they provide will be handled with appropriate confidentiality and sensitivity. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes that point well. It is a point that I have heard and will consider further.
Keir Starmer
I intervene to make sure that I have been clear enough on the second point, which is when law enforcement officers are issuing targeted equipment interference warrants. On my reading, the safeguard is the judicial commissioner, which is understandable. Clause 94 makes it clear that:
“Before deciding whether to issue the warrant, the Secretary of State must consult the Prime Minister.”
It is the consultation of the Prime Minister that is the added safeguard; I understand that. The problem with a clause 96 warrant is that it is not required to go to the Secretary of State. In other words, it goes from the law enforcement officer to the judicial commissioner, not via the Secretary of State.
One reading of clause 94 may be that it applies only to a clause 91 or clause 93 warrant. If that is right, there is no provision for consulting the Prime Minister if a clause 96 warrant is intended to obtain the communications of a Member of Parliament. There may be a simple explanation, but on the face of it that is a warrant that does not go via the Secretary of State, so clause 94 cannot operate in its intended way.
Mr Hayes
One of the most important things about the function of a Committee such as this is that we deal with minutiae, and rightly so. A bonus for this Committee is that, as its members know, I never feel entirely constrained by my notes. To that end, I want to emphasise that the Wilson doctrine of course applies to warrants issued by the Secretary of State. The hon. and learned Gentleman may well come back to me and say that greater clarity about the application of the Wilson doctrine in relation to the Bill is an important part of his argument, so for the record, and to make progress, I repeat that these are matters of ongoing consideration. I want to make absolutely sure that we get consistency, because the important thing about delivering certainty—I have argued throughout our proceedings that the Bill is about clarity and certainty—is that it is underpinned by consistency. In terms of the Wilson doctrine and the role of the Prime Minister in all these matters, I want to be absolutely confident that the measure can be and is applied to all the provisions we are considering.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95
Decision to issue warrants under sections 91 to 93 to be taken personally by Ministers
Amendment made: 257, in clause 95, page 72, line 33, leave out “the Scottish Ministers have” and insert
“a member of the Scottish Government has”.—(Mr John Hayes.)
Clause 95(2) provides that a decision to issue a warrant under Clause 92 must be taken personally by a member of the Scottish Government. This amendment corrects Clause 95(5)(b) so that it also refers to a member of the Scottish Government.
Clause 95, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 96
Power to issue warrants to law enforcement officers
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 419, in clause 96, page 72, line 36, leave out
“law enforcement chief described in Part 1 or 2 of the table in Schedule 6”
and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 420, in clause 96, page 72, line 37, leave out
“person who is an appropriate law enforcement officer in relation to the chief”
and insert
“law enforcement chief described in Part 1 of the table in Schedule 6”.
Amendment 421, in clause 96, page 72, line 40, leave out “law enforcement chief” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 422, in clause 96, page 72, line 42, leave out “law enforcement chief” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 423, in clause 96, page 73, line 1, leave out “law enforcement chief” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 424, in clause 96, page 73, line 4, leave out paragraph (d).
Amendment 425, in clause 96, page 73, line 7, leave out
“law enforcement chief described in Part 1 of the table in Schedule 6”
and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 426, in clause 96, page 73, line 8, leave out
“person who is an appropriate law enforcement officer in relation to the chief”
and insert
“law enforcement chief described in Part 1 of the table in Schedule 6”.
Amendment 427, in clause 96, page 73, line 10, leave out “law enforcement chief” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 428, in clause 96, page 73, line 14, leave out “law enforcement chief” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 429, in clause 96, page 73, line 17, leave out “law enforcement chief” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 430, in clause 96, page 73, line 20, leave out paragraph (d).
Amendment 431, in clause 96, page 73, line 23, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 432, in clause 96, page 73, line 29, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
Amendment 433, in clause 96, page 73, line 35, after “Where”, insert
“an application for an equipment interference warrant is made by a law enforcement chief and”.
Amendment 434, in clause 96, page 73, line 39, leave out subsections (6) to (10).
Amendment 436, in clause 96, page 74, line 16, leave out subsections (12) and (13).
Amendment 437, in schedule 6, page 213, line 15, leave out Part 2.
Amendment 460, in clause 101, page 78, line 2, after “service”, insert
“or to a law enforcement chief”.
Amendment 461, in clause 101, page 78, line 6, leave out subsection (2)(c)
Keir Starmer
The clause contains a power for law enforcement officers to authorise equipment interference warrants. That would be a significant power for the law enforcement chief and those officers to exercise. I have two observations to start with. First, the law enforcement chief authorises the warrant on an application from a person
“who is an appropriate law enforcement officer in relation to the chief”.
That is all set out in schedule 6, to which we will come shortly.
There is a big distinction between clause 96(1) and (2). Subsection (1) states:
“A law enforcement chief described in Part 1 or 2 of the table in Schedule 6 may…issue a targeted equipment interference warrant”
in the circumstances set out in the subsection relating to a serious crime. Subsection (2) applies to a law enforcement chief described in part 1 of the table in schedule 6, and provides for a targeted equipment interference warrant to be authorised if it is
“necessary for the purpose of preventing death or any injury or damage to a person’s physical or mental health”.
We have rehearsed some of this before, in the sense of whether there should be a threshold higher than simply “any” injury or damage, because that is on the face of it a very low threshold, given, on this occasion, to law enforcement officers. That is a real cause for concern.
Mr Hayes
There were many other opportunities to consider the judicial review point that the hon. and learned Lady makes. In fairness, she has been consistent in having doubts about whether those are the appropriate terms on which a judicial commissioner should consider these matters. There has been much discussion about that, including in some of the Committees that I referred to earlier. Regardless of the terms—you will not allow us to explore those in any great detail, Mr Owen, because they are not strictly pertinent to the clause or the amendment—the process whereby a law enforcement chief, supported by a judicial commissioner, obtains a warrant is, in my judgment, sufficient to guarantee proper practice. It is certainly in line with what we know currently works. I would have to be pretty convinced at this juncture to make such a radical change to the Bill, and frankly, I am not.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister. I do not intend to vote against the clause, but I have a nagging concern, which I will try to articulate. A communication in the course of its transmission is highly protected—the Secretary of State must sign off a warrant. The Secretary of State individually considers those warrants and we know the numbers. That is an understandably high level of protection for a communication in the course of its transmission.
Mr Hayes
These are fairly straightforward amendments. Like all the Government amendments so far considered, they are minor and technical. They do not serve to change the scope of the warrant approval process, but make clear that judicial commissioner approval will apply to all equipment interference warrants—in that sense, they are relevant to the debate we have just been having. They replace the phrase “warrant to be issued” in subsection (3) with “decision to issue a warrant”, to reflect more clearly that in urgent cases the warrant would already have been issued by the Secretary of State or a law enforcement chief.
Amendment 258 agreed to.
Amendments made: 259, in clause 97, page 75, line 6, leave out from “a” to “under” and insert
“decision to issue a warrant”.
See the note to amendment 258.
Amendment 260, in clause 97, page 75, line 8, leave out from “a” to “under” and insert
“decision to issue a warrant”.
See the note to amendment 258.
Amendment 261, in clause 97, page 75, line 10, leave out from “a” to “under” and insert
“decision to issue a warrant”.
See the note to amendment 258.
Amendment 262, in clause 97, page 75, line 12, leave out from “a” to “under” and insert
“decision to issue a warrant”.—(Mr John Hayes.)
See the note to amendment 258.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
We have been over the territory of the judicial test, and I do not intend to rehearse the arguments again, other than to say that in circumstances where an equipment interference warrant has been issued by a law enforcement chief—it has not gone through the Secretary of State—it is particularly important for the review by the judicial commissioner to be tight. All the arguments made earlier about the test are reinforced in cases that do not go to the level of the Secretary of State. Any arguments about deference are unpersuasive. There is a particularly powerful argument for tightening up the judicial test throughout the Bill, and I have raised that topic on a number of occasions. There is a particular need for that where a warrant has come about by a different route, without receiving the scrutiny that a warrant signed by the Secretary of State would have.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. We need not rehearse the arguments that we looked at in some detail a few days ago, but I will say what I said then: although the Bill covers those points, there is merit in considering the matter carefully, and I shall continue to give it anxious consideration.
The sliding scale approach, to coin a phrase, is clearly relevant. We must remember that the absence of the Secretary of State in the case of the other agencies is not a problem, because we want them to have integrity and operational independence. We must always remember that underlying principle. I am not criticising anyone, but that sometimes gets a bit lost in the debate.
Having said that, the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point is well made about the different considerations that would present themselves to the mind of a commissioner, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State and national security and all those factors are not involved. I need not, perhaps, add more to the debate on that; I simply commend yet another clause that covers the double-lock authorisation process and applies it for the first time to the area of warrantry in question.
Joanna Cherry
Amendment 439 pertains to the approval of warrants issued in urgent cases. Simply, the amendment would provide that an urgent warrant can be issued only where there is a reasonable belief that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of protecting life or preventing serious injury. That is a recurrent theme, which I have addressed previously, and I will not repeat the arguments.
Keir Starmer
Our amendment 440 is modest and would insert the word “immediately”. I need say no more than that.
The Solicitor General
May I deal with the amendments in reverse order? On amendment 440, I am happy to consider amending the relevant draft codes to make it clear that the notification of judicial commissioners should happen as soon as is reasonably practical. That wording is more appropriate than “immediately”, given that it may take some small period of time to draw together the materials that the commissioner would want to review when considering whether to approve the issue of a warrant. On the basis that we might return to this issue at a future date, I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press his amendment.
The amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, to which she spoke with admirable brevity, is well understood by the Government, and the arguments remain as they did in our debate on clause 22. We want to create a workable framework, and if we limit the grounds, my concern is that the scenarios and case studies I set out in that debate—the drugs case and the Daesh case—would not be caught. We have a clear definition of “urgency” in paragraphs 41 to 44 of the draft code. The draft code also has a helpful flowchart that clearly sets out the parameters within which those seeking such warrants should operate. For those reasons, I respectfully urge her to withdraw her amendment.
Joanna Cherry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 99
Failure to approve warrant issued in urgent case
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 441, in clause 99, page 76, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 442, in clause 99, page 76, line 12, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4A) Where the judicial commissioner refuses to approve an urgent warrant, they must direct that all of the material obtained under the warrant is destroyed, unless there are exceptional circumstances.”.
Keir Starmer
The amendment is minor, in keeping with the amendments that we have already debated on material obtained under warrants that are later cancelled or not authorised. The amendment would tighten the requirements in cases where a judicial commissioner refuses to approve a warrant; the reason for that is self-evident. We have rehearsed this territory to some extent.
The Solicitor General
I resist the amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that we have considered similar amendments in relation to clause 23 in part 2 of the Bill. With respect, it is not right to fetter the discretion of the judicial commissioners, who are experienced and senior members of the judiciary. They should be allowed to decide such matters on a case-by-case basis. The amendment prompts the questions of what might be meant by “exceptional circumstances” and of who would determine whether the threshold had been met in a given instance. I worry that that would just complicate the process. We are all agreed that commissioners will give each case proper consideration, and the commissioners will seek to serve the clear public interest in ensuring that material that should not be retained is destroyed. Well intentioned though this amendment is, it would add undue complication, and we oppose it for that reason.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 100
Items subject to legal privilege
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 499, in clause 100, page 77, line 3, after “items”, insert “presumptively”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 500, in clause 100, page 77, line 8, after “items”, insert “presumptively”.
Amendment 501, in clause 100, page 77, line 13, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) that compelling evidence indicates that the items in question consist of, or relate to, communications made for a criminal purpose such that it is necessary to authorise or require interference with equipment for the purpose of obtaining or (in the case of a targeted examination warrant) the selection for examination of those items, and”.
Keir Starmer
We again return to familiar territory. The amendment would provide an additional safeguard in relation to items subject to legal privilege. The structure of clause 100 is precisely the same as the structure of similar clauses addressing legal privilege that we have debated at some length. As I indicated last time we spoke on this subject, amendments 499 to 501 are those that the Bar Council suggests are appropriate to align the safeguard with its understanding of legal professional privilege. We have gone over this ground already. The clause and amendments have the same structure as earlier ones, and I do not think I will assist by repeating what I have said. I stand by the remarks that I made earlier.
The Solicitor General
Again, I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He is right to say that this is a repeat of arguments we had on another part of the Bill. As he has laid out his arguments by adopting his previous submissions, I do likewise on behalf of the Government. Recalling those briefly, my concerns about the dangers of over-definition remain. However, I do not want material that should not be caught by the Bill to be caught by it in any inadvertent way. We are talking about cases where the purpose of a targeted equipment interference or examination warrant is to acquire or examine items that are subject to legal professional privilege. We have additional protections that are a sufficient safeguard and strike that essential balance. For all the reasons I advanced previously, I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 101
Requirements which must be met by warrants
Joanna Cherry
I beg to move amendment 275, in clause 101, page 79, line 19, leave out “describe” and insert “specify”.
Joanna Cherry
I am very grateful to the Solicitor General. I leave the other two amendments to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras.
Keir Starmer
Amendments 452 and 453 speak for themselves. Concern has already been expressed about the general nature of the requirements that must be met by warrants; this is a further example under the head of equipment interference warrants. Clause 101(3) sets out in some detail what is required, and the amendments would tighten that up by requiring more precision and more matters to be explicitly stated. They are a version of other amendments tabled to corresponding provisions for other warrants.
The Solicitor General
To deal with the thrust of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument, we would say that the amendments are unnecessary because the draft statutory code of practice already requires an application for a targeted warrant to set out what the conduct is and how collateral intrusion is being managed, which is the really important public interest here. That should rightly be in the warrant application itself, and the detailed requirements should be in the statutory code; that was recommendation 5 in the report by David Anderson QC, so we are faithfully following his recommendation.
On the code of practice, the hon. and learned Gentleman will find the requirements under the heading “Necessity and proportionality”, particularly in paragraphs 3.26, 3.27 and 4.10, which deals with collateral intrusion.
I note that amendment 453 is part of this group, so I will speak briefly to that. We have concerns that I have expressed before in other contexts about the problem of the police being asked to exhaust alternative methods even where there is unlikely to be any effect. That is not only wasteful and costly, but could unintentionally lead to further undue intrusion into people’s privacy. For those reasons, I have grave concerns about that amendment.
Joanna Cherry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 102
Duration of warrants
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 635, in clause 102, page 80, line 21, leave out
“ending with the fifth working day after the day on which”
and insert “of 48 hours after”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 636, in clause 102, page 80, line 21, leave out
“ending with the fifth working day after the day on which”
and insert “of 24 hours after”.
Amendment 281, in clause 102, page 80, line 21, leave out “fifth working day” and insert “twenty four hours”.
Amendment 282, in clause 102, page 80, line 23, leave out “6” and insert “1”.
Keir Starmer
The clause deals with the duration of warrants, and amendment 635 deals with subsection (2), which is concerned with urgent equipment interference warrants that, because they are urgent, have not been through a judicial commissioner. Under the subsection, warrants cease to have effect at the end of five working days after the day on which they are issued. I have a number of observations on that. We touched on the urgent provision. Up until now in the Bill, the provision has been for urgent warrants to remain valid for three working days. For equipment interference, we leap to five. I would certainly like an explanation why. A warrant that allows interference with computers and laptops for obtaining communications and other information suddenly moves from three days to five—not just five days, but five working days. That means that on occasion it could be seven days, and with a bank holiday it could be eight days, so we are moving well beyond the realms of an urgent warrant.
This amendment is similar to one relating to other urgent provisions that aimed to bring the duration down to 24 hours. There is a real concern about urgent warrants and how long they last. Very strong justification is required for allowing an urgent warrant that has not gone through the double lock to continue for between five and eight days. If the Minister is not about to provide that, I hope he will accept the amendment.
Mr Hayes
Let me make a general point about something that has punctuated our discussions; it may to some degree satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman. The codes of practice are, of course, vitally important. They have metamorphosed over time and continue to do so, partly as a result of the scrutiny the Bill went through before it came to the House. The codes of practice are extremely detailed in respect of interference, as he will know, and on page 21 they deal with the relationship between equipment interference and privacy:
“Equipment interference agencies must not intrude into privacy any more than is necessary to carry out their functions or enable others to do so.”
The process by which an equipment interference warrant is authorised, and the subsequent use of that warrant, are properly constrained by those necessary requirements around intrusion and privacy. Notwithstanding that general point, the purpose of the amendments is twofold. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the first deals with the time before the judicial commissioner examines an urgent warrant. The second deals with the length of a warrant per se. Let me, for the sake of excitement, deal with them in reverse order.
The length of time that the initial warrant pertains was not challenged by any of the Committees that looked at the Bill, and there has been no great clamour or call about it, not least because of an understanding that these investigations or cases, as I said in an earlier debate, are often complex and dynamic; as they change rapidly, they require powers to pertain and continue over time. I will deal fairly dismissively—I do not mean that with undue contumely—with the second part of this short discussion.
Keir Starmer
I am curious. I understand that material has to be got together and the application made, but for other warrants it is three working days and for these warrants it is five working days. What is it about these warrants that requires the additional two days, which are not needed for other warrants where there is an urgent procedure? I am genuinely curious, because somebody drafted this deliberately.
Mr Hayes
Clause 102, on the duration of the equipment interference warrants, is the same as clause 28, on the duration of interception warrants. Urgent warrants must be approved by the judicial commissioner after three working days. The urgent warrant lasts for five working days, at which point it must be renewed or it will expire. My point is that is about practicality, rather than there being anything philosophical about it. It is purely an operational matter.
David Anderson, in his report, to which I drew attention and which am now struggling to find, although the Solicitor General is as ever at my service—[Interruption.] That comes as good news to him. In his report, David Anderson deals particularly with these matters on page 275, paragraph 14.69. Earlier I mentioned recommendation 37, that
“to the effect that serious crime warrants should have the same 6-month duration as national security warrants, responds to the recent comment of the IOCC that ‘there remains a strong practical case for increasing the validity period for serious crime warrants to six months’”.
That is the second of the two points that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West wanted me to address.
My view is that on duration we are in line with both sensible practice and the recommendations of the independent reviewer. On the time between the application and the engagement, we are simply dealing with practicalities.
Keir Starmer
I wish to help the Minister. One of the points I was making does not withstand scrutiny and I will not pursue it or press the amendment. I accept what is being said.
Joanna Cherry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 104
Modification of warrants issued by the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 638, in clause 104, page 83, line 17, at end insert—
“(8A) Section 97 (approval of warrants by Judicial Commissioners) applies in relation to a decision to make a modification of a warrant issued under section 96 as it applies in relation to a decision to issue such a warrant, but as if—
(a) the references in subsection (1)(a) and (b) of that section to the warrant were references to the warrant as modified, and
(b) any reference to the person who decided to issue the warrant were a reference to the person who decided to make the modification.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 639, in clause 104, page 83, line 18, leave out “Sections 94” and insert
“Section [NC11 Confidential and privileged material]”.
Amendment 502, in clause 104, page 83, line 22, at end insert—
“( ) Where section 100 (items subject to legal privilege) applies in relation to a decision to make a modification of a warrant as mentioned in subsection (2)(a), (c) or (d), other than a decision to which subsection (7) applies, section 97 (approval of warrants by Judicial Commissioners) applies to the decision as it applies in relation to a decision to issue such a warrant (and accordingly any reference in that section to the person who decided to issue the warrant is to be read as a reference to the person who decided to renew it).”
Amendment 640, in clause 104, page 83, line 23, leave out “Section 100” and insert
“Section [NC2 Items subject to legal privilege]”.
Amendment 641, in clause 104, page 83, line 35, at end insert—
“(14) Any modification which constitutes the adding or varying any matter must be approved by a Judicial Commissioner in accordance with section 97.”
Amendment 642, in clause 105, page 84, line 4, leave out from “period” to “which” in line 5 and insert “48 hours after”.
Amendment 643, in clause 105, page 84, line 4, leave out from “period” to “which” in line 5 and insert “24 hours after”.
Amendment 644, in clause 105, page 84, line 26, at end insert—
“(8A) Section 97 (approval of warrants by Judicial Commissioners) applies in relation to a decision to make a modification of a warrant issued under section 96 as it applies in relation to a decision to issue such a warrant, but as if—
(a) the references in subsection (1)(a) and (b) of that section to the warrant were references to the warrant as modified, and
(b) any reference to the person who decided to issue the warrant were a reference to the person who decided to make the modification.”
Amendment 503, in clause 105, page 84, line 33, at end insert—
“( ) Where, by virtue of section 104(10), section 100 (items subject to legal privilege) applies in relation to the making of a modification of a warrant pursuant to section 104(7), this section applies as if each reference in subsections (2) and (5) to (8) to a designated senior official were a reference to a Judicial Commissioner.”
Keir Starmer
The amendment relates to modification provisions similar to those in clause 30, which we discussed at some length last week. I will not go over the territory again, but all the arguments I made in relation to modifications under clause 30 apply equally to modifications under clause 105 and I will not take time by going through all the similar points. It is worth observing, however, that clause 104(2) lists in paragraph (a) to (f),
‘“The only modifications which may be made under this section”,
which cover practically all the matters that appear on the requirements of warrants, so it is an interesting use of the word “only”.
There is a substantive issue on which I would like an answer. When we were debating clause 30, I made the point that the test for a modification set out in clause 30(9) is a test of necessity and proportionality that only applies to major modifications, not minor ones. We have dealt with that and I will not go over it again, but it seems to me that the test for a major modification is, quite sensibly, whether it is necessary and whether the conduct authorised by it is proportionate. I was expecting to see in clause 104(4) a version of clause 30(9) and I did not. Perhaps the Solicitor General will explain why.
The Solicitor General
In this context, all modifications are considered major; that is the difference. I hope that helps.
Keir Starmer
Well, no. [Laughter.] I do not mean that disrespectfully, but the test in clause 30(9), which is in relation to major modifications, is whether the modification is necessary and whether it is proportionate. That is a sensible test. I accept that the test in clause 104(4) is in relation to all modifications, but one would expect to see the words “that the modification is necessary”, not
“that the warrant as modified continues to be necessary”.
The Solicitor General
In the context of EI, we are not making the distinction between major and minor, so the effect is that all modifications will be major. If there is a discrepancy, I am happy to look at the language again to make it absolutely clear. I hope that assists the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that indication. Otherwise, in relation to modifications, my points are essentially the same as I made on clause 30. I know the Solicitor General has agreed to look at and deal with at least some of the points I made last time; I ask him to take this modifications clause under the same umbrella when he looks at the modification provisions.
The Solicitor General
I will try to deal with this in short order. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the way in which he advanced his argument. It is in that spirit that I adopt the arguments I made previously. I simply make the point that under this clause we are dealing with safeguards that in my view do not undermine the important double lock standard.
I have some concerns about the amendments that relate to the judicial commissioner having to approve the decision to make modifications to EI warrants. The decision will already have been subject to the safeguard, so to require the judicial commissioner to authorise tactical operation day by day—indeed, minute by minute—is not necessary; in fact, it could be operationally damaging. The Government believe that the code makes clear, on the basis of the arguments we had before, the way in which the scope of the warrant needs to be addressed. Reading across, I would say that the safeguards in the code are helpful and clear.
Keir Starmer
One concern is that under subsections (9) and (10) as they stand there is no requirement for modification that touches on MPs or legal privilege to go to a judicial commissioner, which is at variance with the point that the Solicitor General just made.
The Solicitor General
The hon. and learned Gentleman anticipates the point that I was about to make. I am happy to consider whether subsections (9) and (10) need to be strengthened to put it beyond doubt that the double lock will apply in those contexts. I hope that that helps him. I have already made similar points on the thrust of these amendments and there is nothing more that I need to add at this stage other than to respectfully invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 105 to 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.— (Simon Kirby)
Investigatory Powers Bill (Tenth sitting)
Keir Starmer ExcerptsThursday 21st April 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 April 2016 - (21 Apr 2016)
Gavin Newlands
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. May I add to your comments that I will miss the exchanges with the hon. Member for North Dorset? I wish his replacement well.
Clauses 109 and 110 deal with issues about compelling a third party to provide assistance in the execution of a warrant and extraterritoriality, which is the subject of amendment 293. In speaking to the amendment, and to the clause more generally, I will unavoidably stray into matters relating to clause 110, as the two are inextricably linked.
Clause 109 provides the UK Government with the power to issue warrants that in turn force third-party organisations or individuals outside the UK to assist in acquiring information for the means of equipment interference. The clause states that
“any person whom the implementing authority considers may be able to provide such assistance”
can be served with a warrant to assist in carrying out a targeted hacking warrant. Under clause 110(2), this warrant may be served at a person’s principal office or specified address in the UK, or by making it available for inspection in the UK after appropriate steps have been taken to bring the contents of the warrant, and its very existence, to the attention of the person.
First, the problem here is the lack of judicial authorisation in this part of the process. Privacy International rightly points out that this compelled assistance will not be subject to judicial authorisation. Although law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies will have to seek a warrant to gain access to people’s devices and computers, it is correct that those authorities are not required to seek judicial approval to compel technology companies to assist in their investigations.
Secondly, we should be mindful of the difficulty that this places on any individuals or organisations who are forced to comply with the Government’s demands. These issues were heard by the Science and Technology Committee, where serious concerns were raised about the security implications of forcing companies to, for example, upload and install malware, as well as the fear that equipment interference could jeopardise their business model. The Science and Technology Committee took note of these issues and concluded that
“the industry case regarding public fear about ‘equipment interference’ is well founded.”
Amnesty International UK is deeply concerned about the dangerous precedent that this broad, aggressive power will set in forcing third-party companies to engage in hacking without any independent provision or scrutiny, and to do so in secret.
Thirdly, the extraterritorial measures in clauses 109 and 110 may cause more problems than they solve. That is why amendment 293, which stands in my name and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, seeks to delete subsection (3) entirely, thereby removing the extraterritorial aspect. If we serve hacking warrants on those outside the UK, what sort of message does that send to other countries? We need to be mindful that introducing this type of clause could open the floodgates for other countries to follow suit, which will ultimately have an impact on companies based in the UK. That point was articulated by Yahoo!, which said:
“Extraterritoriality encroaches on the sovereign rights of other governments and risks retaliatory action, including against UK CSPs operating overseas.”
On that point, the Government’s independent reviewer’s report suggests that, when countries seek to extend their legislation extraterritorially, those powers may come into conflict with legal requirements in the country in which companies being asked to comply with a legal request are based. Companies explained to the reviewer that they did not consider it was their role to arbitrate between conflicting legal systems. The protection of vital human rights should not be left to the goodwill and judgment of a company. The concerns of the industry were articulated in this perfect quote. The industry
“expressed concerns that unqualified cooperation with the British government would lead to expectations of similar cooperation with authoritarian governments, which would not be in their customers’, their own corporate or democratic governments’ interests.”
I shall finish with this comment from Yahoo! It states:
“The current legal framework comprises the law in the requesting country, law in the receiving country and the international agreements that connect the two.”
It is additionally possible that the requesting and receiving countries’ laws may be in conflict. For example, the receiving country’s law may outlaw the provision of content data outside their own legal process. It continues:
“Taken as a whole, this framework is fragmented, with gaps and conflicts which have gone unaddressed for many years. In this more global communications environment, this fragmentation has become more and more obvious and creates a patchwork of overlapping and conflicting laws which overseas and domestic UK CSPs must navigate in order to discharge their legal obligations to safeguard users’ privacy and to respond appropriately to valid requests for access to data… It also creates a complex environment for users to navigate and establish their privacy rights.”
This issue is global, and national laws cannot resolve global issues.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I will be brief. Members will have observed that the amendments in my name are in keeping with my previous amendments about implementation, service and extraterritoriality in relation to other warrants. I will not repeat the points I made then. The only one that is different is amendment 646, a simple proposed change to clause 109 that would add the provision:
“A warrant may be implemented only to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued.”
I think that may be implicit. If the Minister could indicate that that is his understanding, that might allay concerns and the amendment would not need to be pressed.
The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)
As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, we have been down this road before. I well recall discussing similar amendments to the targeted interception provisions in part 2. The Bill maintains the existing position in relation to extraterritorial jurisdiction and those obligations that apply to overseas companies. I am unhesitating in my view that overseas companies, because of their important role in communications, must do their bit to do the right thing, as I said previously and memorably. As a result, I will not tire the Committee by going into that argument in great detail.
Amendment 293 to clause 109 seeks to remove the ability to serve a warrant on an overseas provider and amendment 645 seeks to remove the ability to serve a warrant on an overseas provider when a mutual legal assistance agreement is in place. I draw the Committee’s attention once again to David Anderson’s comments in his report, in paragraph 11.26:
“There is little dispute that the MLAT route is currently ineffective.”
I will not quote it at length but he goes on to say that it is because it is too slow and so on. I do not think that those amendments are in line with either his view or mine.
The effect of accepting the first amendment is evident. It would mean we could serve an equipment interference warrant only on a provider based in the UK. The second amendment seeks to assert mutual legal assistance arrangements as the only route. For the reasons I have already given, that is not appropriate.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked, in the context of his amendment, whether that matter was implicit. Yes, it is implicit and I can confirm what he thought might be the case.
The arguments have already been made and, on careful reconsideration, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North will realise that his amendment and argument are pseudodox and will withdraw on that basis.
Keir Starmer
I do apologise, Mr Owen; I strayed on to amendment 646 thinking it was part of the last batch, so I have dealt with it and intend to withdraw it. My apologies.
Gavin Newlands
I shall do my best impression of her, Mr Owen, but I fear it will be inadequate.
I beg to move amendment 296, in clause 113, page 91, line 22, at end insert—
“(A1) Material obtained via a warrant under this Part may only be shared with overseas authorities in accordance with the terms of an international information sharing treaty.”
This amendment would require that information obtained via an equipment interference warrant is only shared with overseas authorities where a mutual legal assistance treaty has been put in place for the purpose of doing so.
Clause 113 deals in part with the overriding issue of information obtained through equipment interference being shared with overseas authorities. We should take note of the oral and written evidence submitted by Amnesty International on this point about the lack of any proper controls over intelligence sharing with foreign authorities. The human rights implications may be very serious indeed. For example, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent data being shared with an overseas authority when that might lead to the abuse, or possibly torture, of an individual or group. Surely we should set an example by ensuring that data gathering does not lead to torture; that should be the minimum standard expected of a civilised country such as ours.
However, if the SNP and Amnesty International are a little left-wing for hon. Members’ tastes, I give them the Intelligence and Security Committee, which also criticised the lack of clarity on this point when it noted that the Bill
“does not…meet the recommendations made in the Committee’s Privacy and Security Report that future legislation must set out these arrangements more explicitly, defining the powers and constraints governing such exchanges.”
The written evidence submitted by Yahoo! and others expressed concern that the Government’s apparently unilateral assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction
“will create conflicting legal obligations for overseas providers who are subject to legal obligations elsewhere.”
David Anderson has also noted the lack of detail in this section of the Bill. He called for information sharing with foreign countries to be subject to strict, clearly defined and published safeguards. His report states:
“The new law should make it clear that neither receipt nor transfer as referred to in Recommendations 76-77…should ever be permitted or practised for the purpose of circumventing safeguards on the use of such material in the UK.”
However, such safeguards and guarantees are notably absent from the Bill. Furthermore, the independent reviewer’s report described the international trade in intelligence between the “Five Eyes” partners—the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In so far as material gathered by the British services is shared with other countries, the report explained that the security services take the view that, under their founding statutes, information should be shared only if it
“is necessary for the purpose of the proper discharge of the security and intelligence agencies’ functions.”
When it is considered that the test is met, certain safeguards apply under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. However, the report concluded that
“in practical terms, the safeguards applying to the use of such data are entirely subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State.”
The 2000 Act and the codes of practice are silent on British services receiving or accessing information from foreign services, with security services limited only by the general constraints placed on their actions by various statutes. It was only during Liberty’s legal action against the security services in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal that limited information was revealed about the way in which the security services approach such situations. In its first finding against the agencies, the IPT held that, prior to these disclosures, the framework for information sharing was not sufficiently foreseeable and was not therefore in accordance with law. The tribunal held that, because the litigation had resulted in disclosures of information, the security services were no longer acting unlawfully when accessing information from the US. Based on the concerns that Amnesty International, Liberty and others have raised, the SNP has tabled amendment 296, which would insert a new subsection into clause 113. The language of the amendment is plain.
Keir Starmer
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s comments. On the sharing of information with authorities that may engage in torture or other serious ill-treatment, can the Minister confirm the long-standing practice that our security and intelligence services do not share information where there is a risk of torture, because of their obligations under other international treaties, and that this provision sits within that framework of assurances?
Mr Hayes
I can confirm that, and I can say a little more. My residual generosity is such that I take the view that these amendments are well intentioned, but they are unnecessary. Let me say why.
Clause 113 already provides that the Secretary of State must ensure that satisfactory and equivalent handling arrangements are in place before sharing UK equipment interference material with an overseas authority. The Secretary of State must determine that they provide corresponding satisfactory protections. Furthermore, those obligations sit alongside those in, for example, the consolidated guidance to intelligence officers and service personnel on the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas, and on the passing and receipt of intelligence relating to detainees, as well as the gateway provisions that allow for intelligence sharing in the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Security Service Act 1989.
In addition, the overseas security and justice assistance guidance provides an overarching mechanism that sets out which human rights and international humanitarian law risks should be considered prior to providing justice or security sector assistance. This is supplemented by the draft code of practice on equipment interference, which is clear about the safeguards on the handling of information. It seems to me that the protections, absolutely necessary though they are, are comprehensively dealt with by that variety of means, rendering the amendment unnecessary. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Gavin Newlands
I thank the Minister for his comments, and I am somewhat reassured, but I still do not understand the Government’s reticence about putting this in the Bill; it is only a sentence that is required. Nevertheless, we are minded to withdraw the amendment at this time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 114
Duty not to make unauthorised disclosures
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 649, in clause 114, page 91, line 42, after “not”, insert “without reasonable excuse”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 650, in clause 114, page 91, line 42, at end insert—
‘(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is in particular a reasonable excuse if the disclosure is made with the permission of the person issuing the warrant or the person to whom it is issued.”.
This amendment adds a “reasonable excuse” defence to the unauthorised disclosure offence in relation to equipment interference warrants.
Keir Starmer
I will deal with these amendments swiftly. They deal with the reasonable excuse defence and are similar to previous amendments. I foreshadow the amendments to clause 116, which essentially relates to the same issue as clause 114. Those amendments are about a public interest defence, which we have also debated already.
My two points remain. The first is the consistency of the reasonable excuse defence. In some clauses it is there and in others it is not, and I cannot see the logic of when it is in and when it is out. Secondly, the Minister has already agreed that there must be a route for those who want to expose wrongdoing, so that disclosures can be made in the public interest where necessary. I have been pursuing those two points, and they are the same for this provision. I do not need to elaborate further.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right to refer to arguments previously made. For the record, this morning I omitted to pay my own tribute to our sovereign lady on her 90th birthday, and I wish to add it here. I am sure that colleagues will indulge that observation, and hopefully this next observation too. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Security and I agree that the world is divided between cavaliers and roundheads. We know what side we are on: our hearts lie broken on the battlefield of Naseby—but that is perhaps for another day.
We contend that amendment 650 is unnecessary. Clause 115(2)(b) provides that a disclosure is permitted if it is
“authorised by the person to whom the warrant is…addressed”.
Disclosure can also be authorised by virtue of this clause within the terms of the warrant, which will have been agreed by the person issuing the warrant and by a judicial commissioner. It is much better for an impartial senior judge to take a view on what is reasonable than it is for, say, a junior official or an employee of a telecommunications operator, no matter how diligent they might be; none the less, it is important that such people can raise concerns without fear of prosecution. That is why clause 203, in part 8, provides for an information gateway so that whistleblowers can take their concerns directly to the commissioner without fear of sanction under the Bill.
It is right that the Bill’s provisions reflect the sensitive techniques of the equipment interference agencies and maintain that it will be an offence to disclose the existence of a warrant. It is a well known and well rehearsed argument that the techniques and details of EI capabilities must be protected. The amendments in the round seek to achieve something that I submit is already well catered for in the Bill, and on that basis I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 116
Offence of making unauthorised disclosure
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 496, in clause 116, page 93, line 39, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section in respect of any disclosure, it is a defence for the person to show that the disclosure was in the public interest.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 297, in clause 116, page 93, line 42, at end insert—
“(3A) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section in respect of any disclosure, it is a defence for the person to show that the disclosure was in the public interest.”
This amendment would provide a defence to the criminal offence of unauthorised disclosure in relation to a warrant issued under this Part. The offence includes disclosure of the existence and content of a warrant and disclosure of the steps taken to implement a warrant.
Keir Starmer
I have said all that I need to say on the amendment. Members of the Committee will appreciate that the amendment has been tabled for each of the offence provisions for the reasons I set out the first time we encountered it. That was dealt with by the Solicitor General, so I shall say no more about it at this stage.
Gavin Newlands
I will not detain the Committee long. I hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman says and broadly agree with it. I rise merely to point out the differences between the two amendments before us. The SNP’s amendment would insert an additional subsection that adds the additional defence and leaves subsection (3) in, whereas the Labour amendment removes that.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras. We are familiar with the arguments and our response is that the information gateway, which allows people to take concerns directly to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, caters for the public interest. For that reason I urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 117 and 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119
Bulk interception warrants
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to consider new clause 16—Review of Bulk Powers—
“Saving this section, Part 6 shall not come into force until—
(a) the Secretary of State has established an independent review of the operational case for bulk powers contained in sections 119 to 173; and
(b) the review has been published and a copy laid before each House of Parliament.”
Keir Starmer
New clause 16 is in my name and those of my colleagues. We come now to part 6 of the Bill; we are examining bulk warrants for the first time, and it is important that we take some time. Different types of bulk warrant are provided for in the Bill, and chapter 1 of part 6 deals with bulk interception warrants. We need to take time with these, because they are intentionally breathtakingly wide.
I remind members of the Committee that, as is set out in the code of practice, in contrast to targeted interception warrants issued under part 2, a bulk interception warrant instrument
“need not name or describe the interception subject or a set of premises in relation to which the interception is to take place”.
Chapter 1 also does not impose a limit on the number of communications that may be intercepted. For example, if the requirements of the chapter are met
“then the interception of all communications transmitted on a particular route or cable, or carried by a particular CSP, could, in principle, be lawfully authorised.”
That is directly from paragraph 6.2 of the code of practice. It gives a sense of how wide these bulk powers in the Bill are. When one has powers of such breathtaking width, there is a requirement for a high level of justification for their use, and I will come back after making some further preliminary points.
First, despite suggestions over the years that no enormous database would come into existence through the use of what, in truth, were bulk intercept warrants, it is now pretty clear that there is an enormous database, which is growing daily. Secondly, although it is right to say that bulk interception warrants are only authorised for overseas-related communications, the comfort we get from that is much more limited than might first appear. That is because, as the Joint Committee observed,
“given the global nature of the internet, the limitation of the bulk powers to “overseas-related” communications may make little difference in practice to the data that could be gathered under these powers.”
The ISC has confirmed that the Government considers that an “external communication” occurs
“every time a UK based person accesses a website located overseas, posts on a social media site overseas such as Facebook, uses overseas cloud storage or uses an overseas email provider such as Hotmail or Gmail—”
or searches on Google. Any communication that involves those external communications comes within the provisions of a bulk interception warrant. I accept that it cannot be targeted at somebody in this jurisdiction, but as I have said, the comfort that that gives is much more limited than might at first appear when one reads the legislation.
Thirdly, the sheer breadth of these warrants, if they are not carefully constrained, is capable of frustrating any meaningful review of necessity and proportionality. Those tests need to bite on something meaningful when one has a warrant as wide as these bulk warrants are potentially and in practice.
It is right to acknowledge that David Anderson, the ISC and the Royal United Services Institute panel all recommended that bulk powers should be set out in legislation, and they now are. They are avowed. The Bill sets them out and puts a framework of safeguards around them. That is welcome; it is as it should be and in accordance with those recommendations. If the Bill passes, it will increase accountability in relation to the exercise of these warrants, which until now have been exercised under implied powers without the safeguards in the Bill. But—and it is a big “but”—this is the first time that Parliament has had the chance to scrutinise those bulk powers. The argument that they already exist and are already in use is no answer to the need for close scrutiny, because until now the House has not had the chance to scrutinise them.
The first step in scrutiny is to consider the operational case, which sets out the overall need for bulk powers. An operational case was published by the Government alongside the Bill, which is welcome, but it is inadequate. It is a 47-page document and much of it is purely introductory. On average, only five pages are allocated to addressing the capabilities for each bulk power. There are four pages for bulk interception, seven pages for bulk equipment interference, six pages for bulk communications data acquisition, and five pages for bulk personal datasets. Each power is supported by a handful of one-paragraph case studies. We understand that further material has been provided to the ISC, but no formal assessment of that material and no report of the ISC has been made available to the Committee, although of course we heard the comments of the Chair of the ISC on Second Reading. Incidentally, we will be writing to him to ask him to outline the general nature of that material and what formal assessment the ISC made.
The operational case that has been published is inadequate, for the reasons that I have set out, and lacking any independent evaluation, which was a recommendation of the Joint Committee. The Labour party has been pushing for that evaluation from the start of the scrutiny of the Bill; it is why we tabled new clause 16. We say to the Government that it is not too late to carry out the evaluation that has been called for for some time. New clause 16 is not intended to delete clause 119 or to suggest that there could be no justification for bulk intercept warrants, particularly since they have been used. The intention is to put down a marker in saying that part 6 will not come into force until the Secretary of State has established an independent review of the operational case for the powers in clauses119 to 173—that is all the bulk powers, which is why it is a new clause rather than an amendment to clause 119—and the review has been published and before each House.
I want to pick up on some of the specifics of the clause. In clause 119(4)(c) and (d) it is clear that a bulk intercept warrant authorises not just interception but examination within the interception. That is extremely important, because one of the arguments that I have sought to make consistently is that the wider the power to gather, harvest or hoover up communications or data, the greater the need for thresholds and careful safeguards when that material is accessed. Under subsection (4)(c) and (d) the bulk intercept warrant provides not only for the interception of communications but for selection for examination—in other words, it deals with part 2 at the same stage as part 1, so it is important to pay careful regard to the safeguards in place. I will make the argument about safeguards when I get to clause 121, which sets out the necessity of the proportionality test; at this stage I am merely flagging up that we are talking about both the wider power and the access power and reminding the Committee that although there are some protections for the communications of those in the British islands, the protection does not extend to secondary data.
The only other point that I wanted to make at this stage relates to the code of practice, paragraph 6.12:
“Where a bulk interception warrant results in the acquisition of large volumes of communications, the intercepting agency will usually apply a filtering process to discard automatically communications that are unlikely to be of intelligence value.”
We saw last week express provisions for filtering arrangements in other parts of the Bill. As far as I can ascertain, there are no express filtering provisions in relation to bulk intercept warrants. For the record, what does the Minister say the power is for that middle exercise of filtering between the acquisition of the information and accessing it?
To be clear about how I think it is intended that that should work, the code of practice suggests later that what will happen in general, accepting that a huge volume of communications is likely to be affected by a bulk warrant, is that automated systems will be in place. On the scope of what we are talking about, paragraph 6.57 of the code of practice makes it clear:
“More than one operational purpose may be specified on a single bulk warrant; this may, where the necessity and proportionality test is satisfied, include all operational purposes currently in use. In the case of bulk interception, overseas-related communications relevant to multiple operational purposes will necessarily be transmitted and intercepted together under the authority of a bulk interception warrant. In the majority of cases, it will therefore be necessary for bulk interception warrants to specify the full range of operational purposes.”
That makes it clear that under one warrant, there are likely to be numerous operational purposes and a huge amount of data gathered. The idea that there will be one warrant for each operational purpose would be a misunderstanding of how the powers have been and undoubtedly will be used if the Bill is passed. It appears, from paragraph 6.59, that what will then happen is that
“automated systems must, where technically possible, be used to effect the selection in accordance with section 134 of the Act.”
There will be an automated filtering process.
These are very wide powers requiring close scrutiny and high levels of justification. Until there is independent evaluation of an operational case, the clauses should not come into force.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 651, in clause 121, page 98, line 9, leave out subsection (2)(b).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 652, in clause 121, page 98, line 12, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 653, in clause 121, page 98, line 26, at end insert—
‘(7) Where an application made by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State includes the activities set out in section 119(4)(c) or (d), a bulk interception warrant can only be issued if the Secretary of State considers that selection for examination or disclosure is necessary—
(a) for a purpose under subsection (8), and
(b) it is necessary to obtain the data—
(i) for a specific investigation or a specific operation, or
(ii) for the purposes of testing, maintaining or developing equipment, systems or other capabilities relating to the availability or obtaining of data.
(8) The paragraph 7(a) purposes are—
(a) the interests of national security,
(b) preventing or detecting serious crime or preventing serious disorder,
(c) the interests of public safety,
(d) protecting public health,
(e) preventing death or serious injury or any serious damage to one or more person’s physical or mental health,
(f) assisting investigations into alleged miscarriages of justice,
(g) where a person (“P”) has died or is unable to identify themselves because of a physical or mental condition—
(i) to assist in identifying P, or
(ii) to obtain information about P’s next of kin or other persons connected with P or about the reason for P’s death or condition, or
(h) exercising functions relating to—
(i) the regulation of financial services and markets, or
(ii) financial stability.’.
Amendment 674, in clause 138, page 110, line 1, leave out subsection (b).
Amendment 675, in clause 138, page 110, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 676, in clause 138, page 110, line 46, at end insert—
‘(11) Where an application made by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State includes the activities set out in section 138(7)(b) or (c), a bulk acquisition warrant can only be issued if the Secretary of State considers that selection for examination or disclosure is—
(a) necessary for a purpose within subsection (12), or
(b) that it is necessary to obtain the data—
(i) for the purposes of a specific investigation or a specific operation, or
(ii) for the purposes of testing, maintaining or developing equipment, systems or other capabilities relating to the availability or obtaining of data.
(12) A paragraph 11(a) purpose is—
(a) the interests of national security,
(b) preventing or detecting serious crime or of preventing serious disorder,
(c) the interests of public safety,
(d) protecting public health,
(e) preventing death or serious injury or any serious damage to one or more person’s physical or mental health,
(f) assisting investigations into alleged miscarriages of justice,
(g) where a person (“P”) has died or is unable to identify themselves because of a physical or mental condition—
(i) to assist in identifying P, or
(ii) to obtain information about P’s next of kin or other persons connected with P or about the reason for P’s death or condition, or
(h) exercising functions relating to—
(i) the regulation of financial services and markets, or
(ii) financial stability.’.
Keir Starmer
We spent some time on clause 119, but it was right to take time on that important provision. We now move to the safeguards. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said a moment ago and to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West. As we move forward, there needs to be some clarity on the basis.
In essence, our position is not to seek to reduce the capabilities of the security and intelligence services, which of course currently operate the powers in question under other authorisations. We seek to ensure that there is proper justification for bulk powers—hence new clause 16, which we will vote on at the end, which would delay the provisions from coming into force until an independent evaluation has taken place. I speak only for my party in saying that there is no intention to reduce the capabilities of the security and intelligence services. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any intention to do that on anybody else’s behalf, but I am simply making my position clear. I am not speaking for anybody else, because I should not.
Joanna Cherry
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the SNP proposal to put the powers to one side while an operational case is produced would not reduce the security services’ powers for the time being, pending the outcome of the court cases? They are already operating them, as we have heard, under section 8(4) of RIPA.
Keir Starmer
The hon. and learned Lady should not read into my observations any criticism of the approach that she has taken, or any suggestion that she or her party are seeking to reduce the capabilities of the security and intelligence services. I know her background and the work that she has done, and I know that would not be her position. I do not intend to impute that it is. I am keen to speak only for myself and my party.
The Bill brings a legal framework and definition to the powers, and a set of safeguards to go with the exercise of those powers. I think that is important. If the powers are to be exercised, I would rather they were exercised within a proper legal framework, with more effective safeguards than under the current framework. I think that is the only real difference of approach between us.
What we all have to bear in mind is not whether we personally have been persuaded by the case that the powers are justified, because we all have different experiences and backgrounds—I worked with the security and intelligence services for five years on very serious terrorist cases—but whether members of the public can have confidence that they are. That is why we have been pressing for further consideration and independent assessment of the operational case.
Clause 121 deals with the first part of the safeguards on the exercise of the bulk powers—the test of necessity and proportionality. The clause is in familiar form. Subsection (1) states that the Secretary of State has to consider
“that the main purpose of the warrant is one or more of the following…the interception of overseas-related communications, and…the obtaining of secondary data”
and then that
“the warrant is necessary…in the interests of national security,”
or on
“grounds falling within subsection (2)”
Subsection (2) adds that the warrant can be
“for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime, or…in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”.
I will not test the Committee’s patience by going over the same ground about the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom being relevant to the interests of national security. The point that I have made consistently on that applies just as much to clause 121, but I will not repeat it.
It is important to appreciate that the necessity of proportionality test set out in subsections (1)(b) and (2) has very broad criteria. When the Secretary of State is considering a warrant, clause 121(1)(d) requires him or her to consider that
“each of the specified operational purposes…is a purpose for which the examination of intercepted content or secondary data obtained under the warrant is or may be necessary”.
On the face of it, that provides some comfort. That is the examination part of the exercise, and it is important because it recognises the distinction that I have made between collating or bringing together data and accessing it. It relates to accessing, because it involves
“a purpose for which…examination…under the warrant is or may be necessary”,
which brings us into the territory of what the test is for examining the data that has been collected. As I said, the Bill states that the Secretary of State will consider
“each of the specified operational purposes”.
However, in clause 125(4), we get into a circular argument. It states:
“In specifying any operational purposes, it is not sufficient simply to use the descriptions contained in section 121(1)(b) or (2)”,
the two provisions to which I have just referred. It is not enough to say, “It is necessary for the operational purposes of national security or preventing serious crime,” or, “It is in our economic interests.” That is not enough,
“but the purposes may still be general purposes.”
That is all there is on the subject in the Bill. At the vital stage when we move from hoovering up or collecting communications to accessing them, the test of necessity and proportionality bites on something that is not quite as general as national security, which would not be much of a test at all, but could be not much more than that—“general purposes”. That is a cause for concern, which has prompted our amendments to tighten it up.
In crafting the amendments, we have had one eye on the code. I refer to paragraph 6.19, which suggests that some detail should be put in the application, stating:
“Each application, a copy of which must be retained by the applicant, should contain the following information:
Background to the operation in question:
Description of the communications to be intercepted and/or from which secondary data will be obtained, details of any CSP(s) and an assessment of the feasibility of the operation…
Description of the conduct to be authorised, which must be restricted to the interception of overseas-related communications…
The operational purposes for which the content and secondary data may be selected”.
What is envisaged in the code includes:
“An explanation of why the interception is considered to be necessary…A consideration of why the conduct to be authorised by the warrant is proportionate…An assurance that intercepted content and secondary data will be selected for examination only so far as it is necessary”
under section 134. Paragraph 6.26 of the code adds further guidance on necessity and suggests, at the bottom of page 43:
“For example, if a bulk interception warrant is issued in the interests of national security and for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime, every specified operational purpose on that warrant must be necessary for one…of these two broader purposes.”
So the code operates on the basis that the detail will be provided in the application, even though it is not necessary under the Bill. I would therefore have thought it would be hard for the Minister and the Government to resist the amendments, which would simply lift the requirement to include the detail in the application from the code and put it into the Bill, so that we and the public could be assured that the test would be stricter than the combined effect of clauses 121 and 125(4).
The Solicitor General
I have been considering the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about clause 125. Let me reassure him that the purpose of subsection (4) is to create, in the modern phrase, a greater granularity of approach when it comes to the basis of the application. That provision is in the Bill to prevent the authorities from just relying on generalities; the point is for them to go into greater specificity. I hope that gives the hon. and learned Gentleman some reassurance.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that indication, but I suppose it invites the comment that if that is the intention, it would surely be better to amend clause 125(4) to make it clear that the application must be specific, as set out in amendment 653, which would require the specific operation to be referred to. The amendment would take the spirit of the requirement in the code to set out the specific operational purposes and put it into the Bill so that everyone can see it.
Perhaps I am not making my point clearly enough. If in the end the necessity and proportionality requirements in the Bill for the bulk power and for access are no different, then no real distinction is being made between the two. I think a real distinction should be made in the Bill, to make it clear to everyone that at the point when material is to be accessed or examined, there is a higher threshold and a higher requirement to be specific. That would reflect what is in the code, and that is the spirit in which we tabled the amendments.
Mr Hayes
The spirit that the hon. and learned Gentleman describes is right. It is important that we specify the reasons for the use of these powers, as well as looking at specific operational cases in the way he set out in an earlier debate. The difference between us boils down to this: should that requirement be in the Bill or in the codes of practice? He has drawn attention to codes of practice, which are clear. He might also want to take a look at the operational case for bulk powers, paragraph 6.13 of which gives examples of operational purposes. They might include counter-terrorism operations to detect and disrupt threats to the UK, counter-terrorism operations to detect and disrupt threats overseas, cyber-defence operations, serious crime, security of agencies’ and allies’ operational capability, or security assurance to provide security awareness to the Government, members of the armed forces, Departments and so on. Therefore, there is more detail about what the purposes might be and why these powers are necessary. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that there is more coverage of that in the draft codes of practice, so the discussion we are having is not about the spirit—I think he is right about that, as I said—but about where the details should be specified.
Keir Starmer
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. In the end, this comes back to a debate we have touched on a number of times in this Committee. I hope we have been clear and consistent in the view that safeguards should be set out in the Bill. The code of practice is the proper place for the detailed implementation and guidance on those safeguards. Therefore, for the same reason as in our previous debate, I wish to press the amendment to a vote.
Mr Hayes
Before the hon. and learned Gentleman does so, I might be able to dissuade him. I am not against what he said as a principle. Of course, it has to be gauged on a part-by-part basis, but the principle he has just outlined seems pretty persuasive to me. I will talk about it with my colleagues and my officials. He makes an interesting distinction between safeguards and other technical matters of the kind Anderson describes, and I am not unpersuaded by that.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention, which was persuasive. Rather than pressing the amendment to a vote that I am not confident we would carry, I would rather continue dialogue that may lead to a changed approach, in whatever form, to how safeguards are dealt with in the Bill and the codes. I will say no more than that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 661, in clause 122, page 98, line 44, at end insert—
‘(4) Material obtained via a warrant under this Part may only be shared with overseas authorities in accordance with the terms of an information sharing treaty”.
I am sure it will be to the relief of many Committee members if I indicate that I anticipate that we will now move at greater speed, because each of the bulk powers sits within a framework of safeguards that is similar throughout the Bill. The amendment deals with warrants affecting overseas operators. We have rehearsed the arguments either way on more than one occasion, so I do not intend to repeat them.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 662, in clause 123, page 99, line 3, leave out
“review the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to the following matters”
and insert “determine”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 663, in clause 123, page 99, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 531, in clause 123, page 99, line 19, at end insert
“but a Judicial Commissioner may not approve a warrant unless he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is both necessary and proportionate to do so”.
This amendment would clarify the judicial review process by ensuring that both the process and underlying facts of an interception of communications warrant are considered by a Judicial Commissioner.
Amendment 677, in clause 139, page 111, line 3, leave out
“review the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to the following matters”
and insert “determine”.
Amendment 678, in clause 139, page 111, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 532, in clause 139, page 111, line 16, at end insert
“but a Judicial Commissioner may not approve a warrant unless he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is both necessary and proportionate to do so”.
This amendment would clarify the judicial review process by ensuring that both the process and underlying facts of an interception of communications warrant are considered by a Judicial Commissioner.
Amendment 533, in clause 157, page 123, line 16, at end insert
“but a Judicial Commissioner may not approve a warrant unless he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is both necessary and proportionate to do so”.
This amendment would clarify the judicial review process by ensuring that both the process and underlying facts of an interception of communications warrant are considered by a Judicial Commissioner.
Keir Starmer
The amendments are in a familiar form as they are the same as the amendments I have tabled for all the clauses that deal with the approval of warrants by judicial commissioners. The arguments are the same so I shall not rehearse them, save to say that we are moving to a different kind of warrant—a bulk warrant—and where the power is now avowed and the safeguards are being put in place, it is particularly important that the judicial commissioners’ scrutiny is tight. The amendments would provide that tight scrutiny.
Nevertheless, I am not going to persuade anybody who is yet unpersuaded by repeating the arguments. They are essentially the same and they have been consistent throughout the Bill. If there is to be any change on the judicial test, it needs to be consistent throughout the Bill, one way or another.
Mr Hayes
We have had this debate before. It is essentially about the authorisation process, the role of the judicial commissioner and the basis on which the judicial commissioner exercises judgment. Should we make further progress on reaching a synthesis on that matter, it will apply across the Bill, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. On that basis, I have nothing more to add.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 664, in clause 125, page 99, line 42, leave out
“but the purposes may still be general purposes”
and insert
“and any specification must be described in as much detail as is reasonably practicable”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 665, in clause 125, page 100, line 1, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Keir Starmer
Amendment 664 is very simple and straightforward. In the light of our exchange, I would simply like to put it on the table, as it were, to show the spirit in which it has been introduced. I will not press it to a vote, because this is a matter that we may be able to discuss further.
The Solicitor General
The hon. and learned Gentleman remembers the intervention I made earlier to help short-circuit it. We think it conveys that granularity, but we are prepared to engage in ongoing dialogue on that issue. I am grateful to him.
Amendment 665 would require that bulk interception warrants “must” specify all operational purposes. In the Government’s drafting, the word is “may”. I am sympathetic to the amendment, but I do not think it is necessary. The purpose of the clause is simply to clarify that a bulk interception warrant may include multiple operational purposes. That is necessary because overseas-related communications, which are relevant to multiple operational purposes, will necessarily be transmitted and intercepted together under the authority of a bulk interception warrant. In the majority of cases, it will therefore be necessary for bulk interception warrants to specify the full range of operational purposes in use at a particular time. I submit that the Bill is sufficiently clear on that point without the amendment. On that basis, I invite the hon. and leaned Gentleman to withdraw it.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 666, in clause 126, page 100, line 11, leave out “6” and insert “1”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 684, in clause 142, page 112, line 7, leave out “6” and insert “1”.
Keir Starmer
I will not take time with this amendment. We have been round the block with durational warrants on more than one occasion. It is the same issue of whether the warrants should run for six months or a shorter period. I have made my position clear, as, in fairness, have the Government. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Hayes
I beg to move amendment 610, in clause 128, page 101, line 24, after “requires” insert “(to the extent that it did so previously)”.
This amendment makes a minor drafting clarification (to address the case where, before its modification by virtue of clause 128(2)(b), a bulk interception warrant authorised or required only one of the activities mentioned in that provision).
This is a technical amendment; it is self-explanatory. Obviously, if any colleague wants me to explain it, I will, but I think that for the sake of brevity I will leave it at that.
Amendment 610 agreed to.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 667, in clause 128, page 101, line 39, at end insert—
“(c) may only be made if the Secretary of State considers that it is proportionate to the operational purposes specified in the warrant.”
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 668, in clause 128, page 102, line 5, at end insert—
‘(7A) A minor modification—
(a) may be made only if the Secretary of State or a senior official acting on behalf of the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary on any of the grounds on which they consider the warrant to be necessary (see section 121(1)(b)).
(b) may only be made if the Secretary of State considers that it is proportionate to the operational purposes specified in the warrant.
(7B) Except where the Secretary of State considers that there is an urgent need to make the modification, a minor modification has effect only if the decision to make the modification is approved by a Judicial Commissioner.”
Amendment 669, in clause 128, page 102, line 5, at end insert—
‘(7C) In a case where any modification is sought under this section to which section [NC2 Items subject to legal privilege] or section [NC11 Confidential and privileged material] applies, section 97 (approval of warrants by Judicial Commissioners) applies to a decision to modify a warrant as it applies in relation to a decision to issue such a warrant (and accordingly any reference in that section to the person who decided to issue the warrant is to be read as a reference to the person who decided to modify it)”.
Amendment 670, in clause 128, page 102, line 29, at end insert—
‘(14) Any modification which constitutes the adding or varying of any matter must be approved by a Judicial Commissioner in accordance with section 123.”
Amendment 685, in clause 144, page 113, line 32, at end insert—
“(c) may only be made if the Secretary of State considers that it is proportionate to the purposes specified in the warrant.”
Amendment 686, in clause 144, page 114, line 1, at beginning insert—
‘(8A) A minor modification may only be made—
(a) if the Secretary of State or a senior official acting on behalf of the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary on any of the grounds on which they consider the warrant to be necessary (see section 121(1)(b)).
(b) if the Secretary of State considers that it is proportionate to the purposes specified in the warrant.
(8B) Except where the Secretary of State considers that there is an urgent need to make the modification, a minor modification has effect only if the decision to make the modification is approved by a Judicial Commissioner.
(8C) In a case where any modification is sought under this section to which section [NC2 Items subject to legal privilege] or section [NC11 Confidential and privileged material] applies, section 97 (approval of warrants by Judicial Commissioners) applies to a decision to modify a warrant as it applies in relation to a decision to issue such a warrant (and accordingly any reference in that section to the person who decided to issue the warrant is to be read as a reference to the person who decided to modify it).”
Amendment 525, in clause 144, page 114, line 19, at end insert—
‘(13) Any modification which constitutes the adding or varying any matter must be approved by a Judicial Commissioner in accordance with section 139.”
This amendment adds the requirement to obtain approval from a Judicial Commissioner for any modification which constitutes the adding or varying (but not removing) any matter for each type of warrant.
Amendment 526, in clause 164, page 128, line 10, at end insert—
‘(14) Any modification which constitutes the adding or varying any matter must be approved by a Judicial Commissioner in accordance with section 157.”
This amendment adds the requirement to obtain approval from a Judicial Commissioner for any modification which constitutes the adding or varying (but not removing) any matter for each type of warrant.
Keir Starmer
These are familiar amendments to the familiar modification clause, which is similar to the other modification clauses. They are intended to serve the same purpose, which is to clarify, tighten, better define and regulate the modification process.
In light of the ongoing discussions about modifications in general, I take it that all the modification provisions come within the same further consideration that I know the Government are giving to modifications, and I will not say anything more about it. However, I cannot resist saying that subsection (6) perhaps gives an example of how one could achieve approval by judicial commissioners of all major modifications.
It is interesting that subsection (6) is markedly different to the provision in clause 30. In other words, some thought has been given by whoever drafted clause 128 to how one gets major modifications back through the judicial commissioner, but that was not a technique deployed in clause 30. I simply point that out because it perhaps gives further strength to my argument that that is the correct way of dealing with these modifications, not only in this clause but in all clauses, and to similar effect. However, as I have said, we have rehearsed these discussions and I will not add to them on modification.
The Solicitor General
I listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s last point with interest. He is right about our general approach to this area. What I would say in response to his proper analysis is that I think there are some technical deficiencies in the wording of amendments 667 and 685. I am just concerned that there is a lack of clarity, but that is part of what is ongoing. On that basis, I hear what he says and I am grateful to him.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Hayes
The amendments relate to major modifications to bulk interception, acquisition and equipment interference warrants, to add or vary operational purposes. In essence, they provide clarity, enabling an instrument making a major modification to a bulk warrant to be signed by a senior official where it is not reasonably practicable for the Secretary of State to sign it. For example, the Secretary of State might be out of the country, working elsewhere or otherwise unavailable. Such a modification, however, must be personally and expressly authorised by the Secretary of State before the senior official may sign the instrument. We are talking about a practicality, rather than a difference of emphasis or authority. The amendment replicates accepted and understood language used in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Hon. Members will understand that there may be occasions when the Secretary of State cannot actually sign the warrant and will delegate that to a senior official.
Keir Starmer
I do not stand in the way of the amendment, which I fully understand. To be clear, I think that the Minister said that the provision only applies when the Secretary of State has authorised the modification, but for whatever reason cannot actually sign it—being out of the country is an obvious example. Since the modification clauses may receive further attention, this may be dealt with anyway, but in the amendment I cannot see the provision that makes it clear that the Secretary of State will have authorised it, but that is probably my shortcoming rather than anything else. I understand the scheme and how it is supposed to work.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful. It is simply because I think we are in the territory where a senior official can make the modification, and therefore—
Keir Starmer
That answers the point and I will say no more about it.
Amendment 611 agreed to.
Amendment made: 612, in clause 128, page 102, line 17, leave out from beginning to “the” in line 22 and insert—
“( ) If it is not reasonably practicable for an instrument making a major modification to be signed by the Secretary of State, the instrument may be signed by a senior official designated by the Secretary of State for that purpose.
( ) In such a case, the instrument making the modification must contain a statement that—
(a) it is not reasonably practicable for the instrument to be signed by the Secretary of State, and
(b) ”.—(Mr John Hayes.)
This amendment enables an instrument making a major modification of a bulk interception warrant to be signed by a senior official in any case where it is not reasonably practicable for the Secretary of State to sign it.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 671, in clause 129, page 102, line 41, leave out
“ending with the fifth working day after the day on which”
and insert “of 48 hours after”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 672, in clause 129, page 102, line 41, leave out
“ending with the fifth working day after the day on which”
and insert “of 24 hours after”.
Keir Starmer
Again, this is familiar territory. The clause deals with the approval of major modifications in urgent cases and we quarrel over the time that should be allowed for the steps to be taken. We advanced the same arguments earlier today and they have not changed— nor, I think, will the outcome. We advance the principle that five days is too long and it should be a shorter period. The Government do not accept that principle. We advance the same argument about this safeguard as we do throughout about the basket of safeguards.
The Solicitor General
As the hon. and learned Gentleman’s arguments are the same, my arguments, as he anticipates, are the same. Bearing in mind the sensitive nature of these matters, we do not want decisions to be rushed and, accordingly, we resist the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 520, in clause 131, page 104, line 9, at end insert—
“(3B) Subsection (3) shall not be applicable where the person outside the United Kingdom has its principal office in a country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services with which the United Kingdom has entered in to an international mutual assistance agreement or is subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”
This amendment would exclude the extraterritorial provision in cases where any mutual assistance arrangement exists between the UK and the provider’s jurisdiction. This amendment would continue to enable government to seek voluntary assistance from CSPs in non-MLA countries.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 521, in clause 147, page 115, line 39, at end insert—
“(3B) Subsection (3) shall not be applicable where the person outside the United Kingdom has its principal office in a country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services with which the United Kingdom has entered in to an international mutual assistance agreement or is subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”
This amendment would exclude the extraterritorial provision in cases where any mutual assistance arrangement exists between the UK and the provider’s jurisdiction. This amendment would continue to enable government to seek voluntary assistance from CSPs in non-MLA countries.
Amendment 524, in clause 167, page 129, line 39, at end insert—
“(3b) Subsection (3) shall not be applicable where the person outside the United Kingdom has its principal office in a country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services with which the United Kingdom has entered in to an international mutual assistance agreement or is subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”
This amendment excludes the extraterritorial provision in cases where any mutual assistance arrangement exists between the UK and the provider’s jurisdiction. This amendment would continue to enable government to seek voluntary assistance from CSPs in non-MLA countries.
Keir Starmer
These amendments deal with the implementation of warrants. The implementation scheme is similar to that for other warrants. The amendments, as with previous similar amendments, have been tabled to restrict the arrangements because of concerns raised by those who may be required to assist in the implementation of warrants. As the Committee will have observed, the amendments are of same type and species as those previously discussed in relation to implementation of warrants and, again, I will not repeat the arguments about them.
Mr Hayes
The Bill maintains the existing position in relation to extraterritorial jurisdiction and the obligations that apply to overseas companies. I have said before and I happily repeat that it is right that companies providing communications services to customers in the UK should comply with UK law. That remains our position. On that basis, I resist the amendments and invite their withdrawal.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 528, in clause 131, page 104, line 23, at end insert—
“(7) A warrant may be implemented only to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued.”
This amendment would bring the implementation of warrants into line with section 16(8) of PACE 1984.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 529, in clause 147, page 116, line 6, at end insert—
“(6) A warrant may be implemented only to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued.”
This amendment would bring the implementation of warrants into line with section 16(8) of PACE 1984.
Amendment 530, in clause 167, page 130, line 12, at end insert—
“(7) A warrant may be implemented only to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued.”
This amendment would bring the implementation of warrants into line with section 16(8) of PACE 1984.
The Solicitor General
Again, we note that the amendments are similar to previous amendments. We still say that they are unnecessary. The clauses already provide safeguards so that any bulk warrant may be implemented only to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued. For example, in relation to bulk interception in clause 119(4) and (5), a warrant may only authorise conduct that is described in the warrant or conduct that
“it is necessary to undertake in order to do what is expressly authorised or required by the warrant”.
That clearly sets out the scope of the authorised conduct. Well intentioned though the amendments are, we submit that they are unnecessary.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 504, in clause 135, page 108, line 12, after “items”, insert “presumptively”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 505, in clause 135, page 108, line 14, at end insert “and
(c) where paragraph (b)(i) applies, compelling evidence indicates that the items in question consist of, or relate to, communications made for a criminal purpose such that it is necessary to authorise or require the selection for examination of those items.”
Amendment 509, in clause 135, page 108, line 22, leave out from “privilege” to end of line 25
Amendment 510, in clause 135, page 108, line 26, after “item”, insert “presumptively”.
Amendment 511, in clause 136, page 108, line 40, at end insert—
‘(3) Section 25 (items subject to legal privilege) applies in relation to an application for a bulk interception warrant as it applies in relation to an application for a targeted interception warrant.”
Amendment 512, in clause 171, page 133, line 38, after “items”, insert “presumptively”
Amendment 513, in clause 171, page 133, line 40, at end insert “and
(c) where paragraph (b)(i) applies, compelling evidence indicates that the items in question consist of, or relate to, communications made for a criminal purpose such that it is necessary to authorise or require the selection for examination of those items.”
Amendment 517, in clause 171, page 134, line 2, leave out from “privilege” to end of line 5
Amendment 518, in clause 171, page 134, line 6, after “item”, insert “presumptively”
Amendment 519, in clause 172, page 134, line 17, at end insert—
‘(2) Section 100 (items subject to legal privilege) applies in relation to an application for a bulk equipment interference warrant as it applies in relation to an application for a targeted equipment interference.”
Keir Starmer
These provisions deal with legal privilege, which we have dealt with on a number of occasions. I will not repeat the points I have made, but one concern I had about the previous clauses that dealt with legal privilege, among others, was that they distinguished between a situation in which the purpose was to obtain the legally privileged material and a situation in which the relevant communication likely to be included was subject to legal privilege. In other words, there was a situation in which the legally privileged material was deliberately targeted and a situation in which there was no intention deliberately to target legally privileged material, but it was accepted that what was targeted was likely to include such material.
In clause 25, the first time we looked at the matter, the distinction was important because the higher test in the Bill—exceptional and compelling circumstances—applied only to the situation in which legally privileged material was purposely targeted, and that test did not apply where it was not being targeted, but it might none the less be picked up because the items targeted would be likely to include material subject to legal privilege. I was uncomfortable with that distinction and I made my submissions at the time.
Curiously—this is understandable; it is not a criticism of different drafting hands in different parts of the Bill—when we get to clause 135, we have a version of the legal privilege provision that sets out in subsection (1)(b)(i) and (ii) both the purpose being to intercept or to obtain legally privileged material and the situation in which the use of the relevant criteria is likely to identify such items, so it sweeps up the targeted and the incidental, and then subjects both to the higher test.
For all the reasons I have set out, I do not think even that is enough, but when the Solicitor General looks again at all the provisions on legal privilege, I ask him to note that there is not even consistency through the statute, perhaps because it was differently drafted at different times. I cannot work out why under clause 25 incidental legally privileged material is not subject to the special test, but under clause 135 it is. I want to put that on the table and invite the Solicitor General to bear it in mind if he gives further consideration to how legally privileged material will be dealt with consistently through the Bill.
The Solicitor General
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks. First, we have the exceptional and compelling circumstances test in subsection (3)(b), which is consistent. Also, I think there is a slight misunderstanding about what we are dealing with, because the amendments seem to be predicated on the basis that targeted interception and equipment interference and then their bulk equivalents can be directly equated, but they cannot.
We have safeguards in place that we would say are strong. We are having a debate about that; I entirely concede that point. We are having a debate about items subject to legal profession privileges in circumstances where content collected under a bulk interception or equipment interference warrant is being selected for examination. That is the key stage. Before that, we are dealing with the stage of acquisition, not examination.
Keir Starmer
I am not sure that the Solicitor General is right; if he is, I apologise. This is a safeguard for a bulk warrant that allows for both gathering and access. In other words, the whole point—I go back to the beginning of part 6 of the Bill—is for a scheme that provides for the obtaining of interceptions on a bulk basis and their examination. They are dealt with in part 6. The warrants that are referred to would include an examination warrant.
The Solicitor General
May I correct myself? The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. I think I used the word “acquisition”. What I meant is that we are talking about when content collected under the terms of part 6, through an interception or equipment interference warrant, is being selected. The stage point about selection for examination is still important.
When content is being selected for examination for the purpose of identifying items subject to legal privilege, or selections such as under the distinction that we have discussed, clause 135, relating to the bulk interception provisions, is the relevant clause, together with clause 171, which deals with equipment interference provisions. That action requires approval from a senior official in the warrant granting department, only on the basis that they are satisfied that there are specific safeguards in place for the handling, retention, use and destruction of items that are subject to legal privilege. In addition, in circumstances when selection for examination is taking place for the purpose of identifying items subject to legal privilege, the senior official must be satisfied that the exceptional and compelling circumstances test that we have discussed is applicable. Furthermore, when an item that is subject to legal privilege is intercepted under a bulk interception warrant and is then retained following its examination, the investigatory powers commissioner must be informed of course.
My point about collection, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman gets it, is that meaningful safeguards must be applied at that key point, because one does not know what one is getting. That is the wording, and that is why there is that difference in clause 135.
Keir Starmer
I intervene only to say that I accept that it is a necessary evil of bulk powers that otherwise protected information will come within the bulk power at the point of retention, for want of a better word. Safeguards for MPs, for journalists and their sources, for constituents and for clients bite at the later examination or access point.
The Solicitor General
I am extremely grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. A lot of the material that is collected will never be examined. The key point is the next stage.
Briefly, the other amendments relate to the arguments about legal professional privilege, and the question whether there are circumstances in which material would not be covered by the iniquity exemption but would be of interest. We have discussed that point before, and I draw my remarks to a close on the same terms that we have discussed previously.
Keir Starmer
In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Investigatory Powers Bill (Eighth sitting)
Keir Starmer ExcerptsTuesday 19th April 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 April 2016 - (19 Apr 2016)
Joanna Cherry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74
Certain transfer and agency arrangements with public authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
There are matters relating to this clause on which I would like to press the Minister. This is the clause that provides for what is effectively the transfer of certain functions between the Secretary of State and other public authorities. The functions to be transferred are the functions in clauses 58 to 60, at which we looked in some detail last week: the filtering arrangements for obtaining data. As set out in clause 58, it is for the Secretary of State to maintain and operate arrangements. It is then for the relevant public authority, acting through a designated senior officer, to effectively carry out the exercise, using authorisations as and where necessary and appropriate. We discussed that arrangement.
Clause 74 provides for a transfer of functions of the Secretary of State—which I take to include establishing, maintaining and operating arrangements—from the Secretary of State to another public authority. That seems to me to cut through the thrust and the purpose of clause 58, which has a clear hierarchy to it: the Secretary of State, then the designated senior officer. Subsection (1)(b) is freestanding and transfers any function exercisable by a public authority back the other way to the Secretary of State, so there is a complete provision for a swap of roles. Subsection (3) indicates that:
“Regulations under subsection (2) do not affect the Secretary of State’s responsibility for the exercise of the functions concerned”.
Then schedule 5, in the back of the Bill, is referred to, but that does not add a great deal.
The question for the Minister is: how is it anticipated that these powers are to be exercised? On the face of it, this is an odd structure for a Bill to set out. This structure goes from the Secretary of State down to the relevant public authority, with the Secretary of State having a much wider role of setting up the arrangements, only for us to find, several clauses later, that it is possible to flip the functions and have the public authority making the arrangements. That seems to remove some of the formality and the safeguards intended by clause 58.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Gentleman, with his typical diligence—which is at least matched, by the way, by those on the Treasury Bench—has identified, quite properly, both the reasons for this clause and the character of the transfer of arrangements that it details. He accurately identified subsection (3), which emphasises that:
“Regulations under subsection (2) do not affect the Secretary of State’s responsibility for the exercise of the functions concerned”.
The transfer of arrangements will change neither the Secretary of State’s responsibility nor the process for authorising requests for data. It is about the technical running of the filtering capability. It is there to require flexibility; it might be appropriate at some future point for another authority to exercise the filtering function, but without responsibility moving from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will retain responsibility, but the operational running of the filter might change over time. This is essentially about future proofing.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister. I am not being pernickety; I just want to be clear. Subsection (3) appears to apply only to regulations under subsection (2), which I think is about changing the powers of public authorities lest they should not have the power to carry out functions on behalf of the Secretary of State. In other words, when the Secretary of State is modifying the powers available to a public authority, that comes within subsection (3). On reflection, I wonder whether sub-clause 3 should say “regulations under subsections (1) and (2) do not affect the Secretary of State’s responsibility”, because I think that is the thrust of what the Minister said.
Mr Hayes
That is not an unreasonable point, actually. Someone who read the Bill could certainly come to the same conclusion as the hon. and learned Gentleman. I will look at that from a drafting perspective, because it is important that we are clear. First, in all these matters, filtering arrangements take effect only as the result of a lawful process; the process for permission will not change. Secondly, that permission rests with the Secretary of State; I do not want there to be any ambiguity—as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests there might be—about which parts of this clause that affects. On re-reading the clause, I can see what he means, so I am happy to take it away and check whether the drafting needs to be amended in the way that he describes. In that spirit, and with that immensely generous offer, I hope we can move on.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 74 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76
Extra-territorial application of Part 3
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 150, in clause 76, page 59, line 26, after “Kingdom”, insert
“the notice shall be served at that person’s principal office outside the United Kingdom where it is established for the provision of services. Where it is considered unfeasible or inappropriate in the circumstances,”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 151, in clause 76, page 59, line 39, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) Subsections (1) or (2) of section 57 shall not be applicable where the taking of any steps by a relevant operator outside the United Kingdom—
(a) would cause the operator to act contrary to any laws or restrictions under the law of the country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services, or
(b) could be achieved via a notice served pursuant to an international mutual assistance agreement or subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”.
Keir Starmer
We return to familiar territory here, in relation to the extraterritorial application of authorisations under part 3. When I made my observations last week, I outlined the concerns that a number of service providers and tech companies have; I do not intend to repeat them.
Amendment 150 would tighten the service provisions in relation to the extraterritorial application of part 3. Amendment 151 would introduce a restriction that had the effect of not requiring a relevant operator outside the UK
“to act contrary to any laws or restrictions under the law of the country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services,”
or to take steps that
“could be achieved via a notice served pursuant to an international mutual assistance agreement or subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”
We reached this point last week in relation to provisions that were not dissimilar. The Minister made various points, both about service and about other provisions—particularly those relating to the way international mutual assistance agreements currently work. I will not press these amendments to a vote, for the same reasons as last week, but would indicate that the thrust and purpose of the amendments was to anticipate the agreements on extraterritorial application that it is hoped will be reached—particularly with the US—and that are being negotiated at the moment.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate I was not chairing the Committee, so this is very much my own impression of what went on. Lord Murphy was, as one would expect, very keen to accommodate the service providers and the Committee Clerks proposed several dates. We were grateful for the written evidence and formed the view we did, but it would have been nice if they could have fitted us into their busy schedules.
Keir Starmer
We probably will not gain much by arguing the detail, particularly as I was not there. The point that the service providers wanted to get across was that in principle they did want to give evidence. They gave written evidence. It was simply that the dates would not work for them as a group, rather than any unwillingness to share their concerns.
The Minister for Security raised a point about the Sheinwald arrangements and the progress being made. As I said a moment ago, these amendments are intended to foreshadow the—I hope—new world of working arrangements, which will cover not only evidence for use in prosecutions but the facilitation of the exercise of powers of this Bill in much faster time than some of the current mutual assistance agreements. The Minister made a further point about the differing views of the companies concerned. There are different views about some aspects of the Bill, but on the issues of extraterritorial application they speak with one voice.
There is an important broader issue to put on the table. As we move forward to international agreements, particularly with the US, it is very important that not only our Government but the US Government are comfortable with the arrangements, because whatever arrangements are put in place will be reciprocal.
Finally, may I hand a schedule to you, Ms Dorries, to the Minister and his team and to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West? I do not intend to speak at great length to this document, which was prepared for me. What it points out is the inconsistency in approach on extraterritorial jurisdiction. It is quite telling in a number of respects. It tracks whether there is extraterritorial jurisdiction, which clauses give rise to it, whether there is a reasonableness test or a reference to conflict of laws built in, whether it is enforced by overseas service providers, whether there is an international mutual assistance framework and whether there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult. What struck me when I went through the document was the inconsistencies. If they are intentional inconsistencies that can be defended, all well and good. I am simply bringing it to the Minister’s attention that we have found these apparent inconsistencies. If they are not intentional, it might be a good idea if somebody looked at them to tidy up the provisions and ensure that where they should be consistent, they are.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I am looking at the hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendment 150, and of course it is necessary to serve someone so that they get notice. The provisions of service are always about the substance of whether the person gets the notice. It is clear to me from the current drafting that if there were service in accordance with any of clause 76(3), the company would get notice. I have a few concerns about the amendment. I am very wary, because people often take points of service to disrupt a substantive issue. It would be unfortunate if people could take the point that they were not properly served and therefore not comply. Does “principal office” have a meaning in other jurisdictions? If there are different services, will “provision of services” cause confusion? What is the meaning of “unfeasible or inappropriate” and how will it be applied? I believe that the clause will maintain what is desired, which is that it will come to the company’s attention, so I am slightly concerned about the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for her intervention. I am not pressing amendments 150 and 151. They have been put forward to draw attention to concerns. The hon. and learned Lady made submissions last week about service in relation to civil proceedings under the White Book, which I noted and could see the sense of. I do not want to push amendment 150 and accept that “unfeasible” and “inappropriate” may not be the best way to articulate the point.
What underlies both amendments is a genuine concern on the part of those who, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, will be called on to assist in relation to warrants and who want clarity on how the procedure is to operate, what they are to do and what the safeguards are, in particular when they find themselves, as we mentioned last week, required under penalty of criminal proceedings in this country to do something that constitutes an offence in the country in which they are operating. That is a very real concern for them.
Mr Hayes
I shall deal as pithily as is possible with the points the hon. and learned Gentleman made. The first was his helpful contribution in the form of this schematic, to which I will not respond now. He would not expect me to as I have only just seen it. It might form part of my next letter to the Committee to explain why in different parts of the Bill these matters are handled in different ways. In doing so, I will implicitly consider his point about whether that is healthy eclecticism or unhappy inconsistency.
Secondly, it is important to point out that clause 76 essentially maintains provisions on extraterritoriality as they are now, replicating the arrangements under RIPA, clarified by the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right, but there is nothing new here.
Thirdly, there is a need to retain flexibility about where the notices are served. I take the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point that companies may take a view on these things, and sometimes those might be overlapping or conflicting views about different aspects of the Bill, but in those terms it is important to maintain a degree of flexibility about the communications data notice and where it can be delivered.
Fourthly, on the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about coming more speedily to an agreement that is more satisfactory than either current arrangements or those that might be delivered through a mutual legal assistance treaty, I can offer the Committee the assurance, as I have previously, that that work is under way. We are hopeful—indeed, confident—that we can achieve the sort of outcome that he has described. He referred, as I did, to the comments of David Anderson, which were critical of the mutual legal assistance treaty process on the grounds that it is slow. It is not always the best way of achieving the objective set out in the Bill, because it is not designed for that purpose but an entirely different one.
Finally, I would say that this is really important. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman is right that this is a particular part of a particular part of the Bill and so could be overlooked, it is important to understand that, in terms of the objectives we seek to achieve—that is, those of us who want the Bill to work well, which I think applies to the whole Committee—these powers are significant. Much of what happens is now happening overseas and much of the process by which we deal with overseas organisations is vital to the work of our security services and others. Dealing with extraterritorial matters is significant, but not straightforward. It is dynamic, for the reasons that we have both offered to the Committee. In that respect, I believe we have got the Bill about where it wants to be. I do not say that these things will not evolve over time, but for the purposes we have set out, the clause works.
As with all these things, I start from the perspective of wanting to be both convivial and conciliatory; both helpful and positive. I never ignore arguments put in these Committees or on the Floor of the House, as people know who know how I operate. The House has an important function in making government as good as it can be, and that is partly about the interaction and tension between Government and Opposition. Of course I am always prepared to listen, but I think we have got this right. With the appropriate humility, I suggest that we move on.
Keir Starmer
I indicated would not press the amendments at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Joanna Cherry
I oppose the clause. I hear what the Minister has to say, but I am not reassured by the Government’s approach. Harking back to something I said last week, I do not think that the Government have got the balance right, because in seeking to gather to themselves an extraterritorial application through United Kingdom law, there are hidden dangers.
If international companies are required to arbitrate between conflicting legal systems, it is leaving the protection of human rights to the good will and judgment of those companies. Companies such as the ones the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras mentioned have already expressed concerns to David Anderson, for his report “A Question of Trust”, that
“unqualified cooperation with the British government would lead to expectations of similar cooperation with authoritarian governments, which would not be in their customers’, their own corporate or democratic governments’ interests.”
In my view, the most appropriate way forward is to pursue the route, which I am pleased the Minister has assured us that the Government are well down, of mutual legal assistance agreements with other states. If we do not pursue that route in the way that both David Anderson and Sir Nigel Sheinwald recommended with appropriate alacrity, and instead rely simply on clauses such as this one, which are spread throughout the Bill, we will create real difficulty for corporate entities. We will also create difficulties for the international enforcement of human rights, which I consider a bit more important than difficulties for corporate entities, although we should not set the latter to one side, because they are significant. For that reason, notwithstanding the Minister’s assurances, the SNP opposes clause stand part.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 164, in clause 78, page 61, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) A Judicial Commissioner may issue a data retention warrant under this Part to authorise the retention of relevant communications data if the Judicial Commissioner considers that the authorisation is necessary and proportionate for one or more of the following purposes—
(a) in the interests of national security, or
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime, or
(c) for the purpose of preventing death or serious injury.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 165, in clause 78, page 61, line 10, leave out “A retention notice may” and insert “A data retention warrant must”.
Amendment 154, in clause 78, page 61, line 19, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 155, in clause 78, page 61, line 30, leave out “retention notice” and insert “retention warrant”.
Amendment 235, in clause 78, page 61, line 30, leave out second “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 156, in clause 78, page 61, line 32, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 157, in clause 78, page 61, line 33, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 158, in clause 78, page 61, line 34, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 159, in clause 78, page 61, line 36, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 160, in clause 78, page 61, line 37, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 161, in clause 78, page 61, line 38, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 162, in clause 78, page 61, line 41, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 166, in clause 79, page 62, line 26, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 220, in clause 79, page 62, line 26, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 168, in clause 79, page 62, line 28, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 169, in clause 79, page 62, line 30, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 170, in clause 79, page 62, line 31, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 171, in clause 79, page 62, line 32, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 172, in clause 79, page 62, line 33, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 173, in clause 79, page 62, line 35, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 174, in clause 79, page 62, line 35, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 176, in clause 80, page 62, line 38, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 198, in clause 80, page 62, line 40, leave out “back to the Secretary of State” and insert “to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for review”.
Amendment 335, in clause 80, page 62, line 40, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 177, in clause 80, page 62, line 41, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 178, in clause 80, page 62, line 42, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 180, in clause 80, page 63, line 5, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 181, in clause 80, page 63, line 6, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 199, in clause 80, page 63, line 7, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “the Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.
Amendment 182, in clause 80, page 63, line 7, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 183, in clause 80, page 63, line 8, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 200, in clause 80, page 63, line 10, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “the Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.
Amendment 201, in clause 80, page 63, line 12, leave out subsection (b).
Amendment 184, in clause 80, page 63, line 14, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 185, in clause 80, page 63, line 16, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 193, in clause 80, page 63, line 19, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 194, in clause 80, page 63, line 24, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 202, in clause 80, page 63, line 25, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.
Amendment 249, in clause 80, page 63, line 25, leave out “and the Commissioner”.
Amendment 186, in clause 80, page 63, line 27, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 187, in clause 80, page 63, line 28, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 188, in clause 80, page 63, line 30, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 203, in clause 80, page 63, line 31, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.
Amendment 197, in clause 80, page 63, line 33, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 189, in clause 80, page 63, line 33, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 204, in clause 83, page 64, line 13, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 210, in clause 83, page 64, line 13, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 205, in clause 83, page 64, line 14, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 206, in clause 83, page 64, line 15, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 211, in clause 83, page 64, line 22, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 207, in clause 83, page 64, line 23, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 212, in clause 83, page 64, line 27, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 213, in clause 83, page 64, line 28, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 214, in clause 83, page 64, line 31, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 215, in clause 83, page 64, line 32, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 216, in clause 83, page 64, line 34, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 217, in clause 83, page 64, line 36, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 218, in clause 83, page 64, line 37, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 208, in clause 83, page 64, line 38, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 370, in clause 83, page 64, line 39, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 372, in clause 83, page 64, line 40, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 209, in clause 83, page 64, line 41, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 219, in clause 83, page 65, line 7, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 221, in clause 83, page 65, line 9, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
New clause 7—Persons who may apply for issue of warrant—
“(1) Each of the following organisations may apply for a communications data retention warrant—
(a) a police force maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996,
(b) the Metropolitan Police Force,
(c) the City of London Police Force,
(d) the Police Service of Scotland,
(e) the Police Service of Northern Ireland,
(f) the British Transport Police Force,
(g) the Ministry of Defence Police,
(h) the Royal Navy Police,
(i) the Royal Military Police,
(j) the Royal Air Force Police,
(k) the Security Service,
(l) the Secret Intelligence Service,
(m) GCHQ, and
(n) the National Crime Agency.”
New clause 10—Requirements that must be met by warrants—
“(1) A warrant issued under this Part must name or otherwise identify the person or persons, organisation, premises, or location to which the warrant relates.
(2) A warrant issued under this Part must describe the investigation or operation to which the warrant relates.
(3) A warrant issued under this Part must relate to one or more of the following purposes—
(a) in the interests of national security, or
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime, where there is reasonable suspicion that a serious criminal offence has been or is likely to be committed, or
(c) for the purpose of preventing death or injury.
(4) A warrant may only be issued under this Part if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation or operation to which the warrant relates.”
Keir Starmer
I will not say, at this stage, that I am withdrawing all of those amendments.
Keir Starmer
It is a joke, Ms Dorries. We now come to a very important clause. In some respects, over the last part of Thursday and today we have been working backwards through the way in which the functions will be exercised, because clause 78 is the starting point in relation to communications data. It relates to the power to require retention of data in the first place, and everything we have discussed has been about how those data can be filtered and accessed after they have been retained. It is a very important clause.
I draw attention to the breadth of the clause, which states:
“The Secretary of State may by notice…require a telecommunications operator to retain relevant communications data if the Secretary of State considers that the requirement is necessary and proportionate for one or more of the purposes falling within paragraphs (a) to (j) of section 53(7)”.
The first thing that crops up in relation to the clause is what the test for retention is. The test is, of course, necessity and proportionality but the real question is: what does that necessity and proportionality bite on? That pushes us straight back to clause 53(7), which is problematic because it sets such a low threshold for these extensive retention powers.
There should be no doubt that this provision gives the Secretary of State the power to require the retention of a huge amount of data. There may be circumstances in which that is necessary and proportionate, but the test for whether that power is exercised is pushed all the way back to clause 53(7). To take an example that we touched on last week, extensive data can be retained
“for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime”—
any crime. Any crime of any level can trigger a power to retain data. The importance of the issue of retention over that of access is that at this stage it is about retaining the data of those who are not necessarily suspects or targets but anybody whose data come within the types that are intended to be retained. It is a very wide provision.
Sign-off is by the Secretary of State, so there is no double lock and no reference to a judicial commissioner here. The Secretary of State operates the powers, which are very wide. Clause 78(2) states that
“a retention notice may…relate to a particular operator”;
it may
“require the retention of all data or any”;
it may
“identify…periods for which data is to be retained”;
it may “contain…restrictions” and
“make different provision for different purposes,”;
and it may “relate to data” that are not even in existence at the time. These are very wide-ranging powers triggered by the test set out in clause 53(7), and that is a cause of significant concern. The retention period is 12 months, so this is an extensive hoovering-up exercise.
It is clear that the clause applies to internet connection records, because that is stated in subsection (9). We touched on internet connection records last week in relation to when internet connection records are to be accessed. Now, I touch on it for a different purpose: to highlight how all our internet connection records can be swept up in a data retention notice issued under this provision.
For that purpose, one obviously starts with the definition of internet connection record in clause 54(6)(a) and (b), which we looked at last week. I will not read it out again but just give some examples of what is intended to be included. I will do so in chronological order. The operational case for the retention of internet connection records was published in August last year. Page 3 made it clear that internet connection records are:
“a record of the internet services that a specific device connects to—such as a website or instant messaging application—captured by the company providing access to the internet”.
So that is within the scope of an internet connection record, as set out in the operational case of August 2015. An annexe setting out terminology and definitions was put in evidence before the Joint Committee in January this year, which made it clear that not only web and IP addresses are included, but names and addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, billing data, customers, users, and so on. In the explanatory notes to the Bill, paragraph 2.30, on clause 78(9) makes it clear that,
“communications data that can be retained includes internet connection records. Internet connection records, which are defined in clause 54(6), are a record of the internet services that a specific device connects to—such as a website”
That is therefore consistent with the operational case.
What is swept up under clause 78 are internet connection records, which means connections to the internet and websites to which any device has connected. When anyone uses a device to connect to a website, that is recorded by the provider and comes within the definition. It therefore comes within the retention order. That is what the clause gives the Secretary of State power to retain.
It is fair to point out that clause 54(4), which deals with accessing the data that are retained, says that the access through an authorisation can be allowed only if the purpose is to identify: which person is using the internet, which internet service is being used, where the person or apparatus whose identity is already known is, and so on. It is true to say that on the point of access there is restriction of the way in which internet connection records are accessed, but we need to be absolutely clear that for the purpose of retention, it is a record of all websites visited or accessed by a device.
Mr Hayes
I do not doubt that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General will deal with these points at some length, but is it not fair to say—the hon. and learned Gentleman is in the mood to be fair—that the two subsequent clauses both build a set of safeguards into the system and provide for a review of the system? There is further work in the Bill that caveats what might be taken to be the extremes of his argument.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention, and I accept that there are safeguards in subsequent provisions. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but on the face of it at least—I am not saying they are incapable of a review—the safeguards do not restrict the definition of an internet connection record in a way that would prevent websites visited being swept up in the retention order.
Keir Starmer
The message to my and all of our constituents is that, even if they are not a target, a record of the websites they have visited can be retained under a data retention order, and if retained will be retained for 12 months—every website they have visited. But if somebody later wants to access it, there is then a tighter test for that. The chilling effect of clause 78 is that the websites visited will be retained if a retention order is issued. We need to be absolutely clear about that. The tighter definition does not kick in until a later stage of the exercise, and that is a cause of real concern to our constituents, certainly to the people who have engaged with me on the topic, and to our fellows across both sides of the House.
Joanna Cherry
I note what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about web addresses being revealed. Is it not also the case that we see from the data released by the Home Office, after being pressed about its factsheet accompanying ICRs, that what will be revealed is not only web addresses and IP addresses, but the names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and billing data of customers—our constituents?
Keir Starmer
I cannot double check on my feet, but that sounds like the further evidence that was put before the Joint Committee when it was in the middle of its deliberations. In fairness, the Home Office did go beyond websites to include some, maybe all, of the matters to which the hon. and learned Lady just referred.
The way this will operate in practice is a cause of real concern. The Secretary of State, without the double check of a judicial commissioner, and operating against a low-level threshold—clause 53(7)—can issue a retention order that will permit the retention of a record of all the websites that somebody has visited. That record will then be kept for 12 months, albeit with a different test if it is to be accessed later.
The amendments—I think you have called them the first set of amendments, Ms Dorries—are intended to construct in the first instance a different framework around this power, because it is so extensive, and put it in the hands of a judicial commissioner rather than the Secretary of State. That would provide a greater safeguard in relation to clause 78, with independent oversight through the function of the judicial commissioner. Alternatively, amendments 152, 153 and 222 would give the Investigatory Powers Commissioner some oversight. In other words, the intention behind these amendments is to put some rigour and independence into the exercise of what is a very wide power that, in fact, is the starting point for the exercise of all the other powers under the parts of the Bill that we are now concerned with.
Anxiety has been expressed on a number of occasions about cost. Huge amounts of data could be required for retention under clause 78. The Government have estimated the cost at £170 million. That is considered to be a gross underestimate by those who will no doubt be called upon to actually retain the data. For those reasons, these amendments are intended to tighten up a clause that is very wide and very loose. It permits a huge amount of data to be retained, including websites visited by you, by me, or by our constituents.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to rise as part of this ongoing scrutiny, and to offer my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West brief respite in this Committee. It is also a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. It is great to follow the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who in his customary fastidious and engaging manner has covered in a short space of time all the aspects of many amendments. Some of that bears repeating, and I will speak to new clause 10, which is tabled in my name and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West.
My hon. and learned Friend spoke at length about the important role that the judiciary, in the form of judicial commissioners, should bring to this process. We do not think it is good enough that the Bill only proposes to use judicial commissioners to review the process used by the Secretary of State in making a decision. The Government may claim that it is important that the Home Secretary retains the power to issue retention notices to internet service providers, as it will ensure that democratic accountability is a salient feature of the process, but I do not accept that to be the case. In fact, I would argue that because of the political arena that any Home Secretary operates in, it is right that this power is handed to and delegated to an independent official such as a judicial commissioner.
It is also worth noting that we know very little of the various notices that the Home Secretary issues, and as such there is no possible opportunity to hold her to account for them. Building the role of judicial commissioners into this part of the process will help to ensure that we have appropriate checks and balances when it comes to the retention of communications data. This is vitally important, because it is the proper constitutional function of the independent judiciary to act as a check on the use of intrusive and coercive powers by state bodies, and to oversee the application of law to individuals and organisations. Liberty rightly points out that judges are professionally best equipped to apply the legal tests of necessity and proportionality to ensure that any surveillance is conducted lawfully.
I turn now to new clause 7. Schedule 4 provides a lengthy list of bodies that are able to access or retain data, including several Government Departments, such as the Department for Transport, and a range of regulatory bodies, such as the Food Standards Agency and the Gambling Commission. This suggests that access to communications data may be allowed for a range of purposes which may be disproportionate and inconsistent with the guidance offered by the European Court of Human Rights.
Keir Starmer
Clause 78 is important for all the reasons that I have set out, but at this stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gavin Newlands
I beg to move amendment 303, in clause 78, page 61, line 12, leave out—
“of all data or any description of data”
and insert
“of specified relevant communications data”.
Gavin Newlands
I am content to withdraw the amendments at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I rise to speak to amendment 152, in clause 78, page 61, line 36, at end insert “, and
(c) only when approved by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
(5A) In deciding whether to approve a notice, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must determine whether a notice is—
(a) that the conduct required by the notice is necessary for one or more of the purposes in section 53(7); and
(b) that the conduct required by the notice is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 153, in clause 78, page 61, line 38, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.
Amendment 222, in clause 83, page 64, line 21, at end insert “and
( ) the variation has been approved by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.”
Keir Starmer
For better or for worse, I spoke to these amendments during my submission on earlier amendments. I do not have any additional points and I will not press the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 175, in clause 79, page 62, line 34, at end insert—
“() the public interest in the protection of privacy and the integrity of personal data; and
() the public interest in the integrity of communications systems and computer networks.”.
Clause 79 sets out those matters to be taken into account before giving a retention notice, as well as likely benefits and the likely number of users. Amendment 175 would add two public interest matters to that list. My argument is similar to the one I made on other provisions. Where matters are to be taken into account, it is important that the protection of privacy and the integrity of personal data and of communications systems are specifically listed. I have moved to a position of thinking that an overarching privacy clause is probably the way to achieve this end; this is therefore a probing amendment and I will not press it to a vote.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful for the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman states his case. To put it extremely simply, we would argue that the public interest in the protection of privacy and in the integrity of personal data are already factored in by the provisions of the Bill.
First, proportionality must include consideration of the protection of privacy. Secondly, the integrity of personal data being such an important public interest is why clause 81 requires any retained communications data to be of at least the same integrity as the business data from which they are derived. A retention notice will therefore not be permitted to do anything that would undermine the integrity of the data that the operator already holds for business purposes. That is all I want to say about the matter, but I assure hon. and learned Gentleman that those important considerations are at the heart of the processes we have followed.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80
Review by the Secretary of State
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 179, in clause 80, page 62, line 40, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 190, in clause 80, page 63, line 7, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 191, in clause 80, page 63, line 8, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 192, in clause 80, page 63, line 10, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 195, in clause 80, page 63, line 25, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 196, in clause 80, page 63, line 31, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Keir Starmer
As members of the Committee will have observed, these tidying-up amendments are consistent with previous amendments that would have entrusted decision making to a judicial commissioner rather than the Secretary of State. We had the discussion in principle in relation to those earlier amendments, which I withdrew, and I will not repeat my arguments now, although I would like to return to them at a later stage.
Joanna Cherry
As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the amendments would require that review under clause 80 be by a judicial commissioner rather than the Secretary of State. Will the Government tell us why the provision of such a route of review would not, in their opinion, give the telecommunications providers greater reassurance that notices are not only lawful, necessary and proportionate but stable and legally certain? It seems to me that a review by a judicial commissioner, or at the very least by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, would provide that reassurance.
The Solicitor General
The hon. and learned Lady asks a perfectly proper question. I reiterate the position that we have taken in principle: the Secretary of State is the appropriate and accountable person to be responsible for reviewing retention notices. However, although the Secretary of State must be responsible for giving notices and must therefore be the person ultimately responsible for deciding on the outcome of the review, that does not mean that she or he can make the decision on the outcome of the review without consultation—far from it.
Clause 80(6) ensures that the Secretary of State must consult both the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the technical advisory board. The commissioner must consider the proportionality of the notice; the board must consider the technical feasibility and financial consequences of it; and both must consult the operator concerned and report their conclusions to the operator and the Secretary of State. Only then can the Secretary of State can decide whether to vary, revoke or give effect to the notice. That system provides rigorous scrutiny of the notice and maintains the accountability of the final decision resting with the Secretary of State. We therefore believe it is the best mechanism for review. Accordingly, I commend the unamended clause to the Committee.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 81
Data integrity and security
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christian Matheson
I seek the Minister’s guidance. Throughout our considerations, I have spoken of my fears whether data held under this Act are held securely. I hope that clause 81 will address many of my fears; I seek the Minister’s advice on whether it lays responsibility on communications providers to maintain those data securely. I simply reiterate my concern that when theft does take place, there has to be a consideration of an offence of unlawful possession of stolen data, on the basis that the communications provider that has suffered the theft would also be legally responsible for that theft when the provider is in fact a victim of the theft itself. Bodies that seek to obtain illicitly a person’s private communications data may try to make financial gain as a result. Is the Minister confident that clause 81 gives me the kind of assurances that I have been looking for on internet security? Is there sufficient deterrent, in terms of possession of unlawfully obtained data, that might be included later in the Bill?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in stating his concerns. I assure him that clause 81 contains the sort of requirements that he would reasonably expect. It sets out the matter clearly. It should be read in conjunction not only with other legislation that I have mentioned, such as the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Privacy in Electronic Communications Regulations 2003, but with clause 210, which provides for the Information Commissioner to audit the security, integrity and destruction of retained data, and the codes of practice to which I referred earlier. The provisions in the communications data draft code of practice go into more detail about the security arrangements.
We had a discussion some days ago about the existence of adequate criminal legislation. The Bill has a number of provisions that relate to those who hold data, and we discussed whether existing legislation could cover those who come into possession of the data unlawfully. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I will take the matter away and consider it, and come up with a proper considered response to his query.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 82 and 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84
Enforcement of notices and certain other requirements and restrictions
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 225, in clause 84, page 65, line 20, after “not”, insert “, without reasonable excuse,”.
There are two points to make here. One is to state the principle that reasonable excuse defences are needed to protect those who are exposed in wrongdoing. We had that debate last week and I listened carefully to the response given. The practical reason is the inconsistencies may be intentional, or they may be unintentional. Clause 73(1), under which unlawful disclosure is made an offence under part 3, has a “without reasonable excuse” provision. Clause 84, which is in part 4, does not. There may be a very good reason for that, but it escapes me at the moment. That is either a point that the Solicitor General can deal with now, or I am happy for him to deal with it later on. It may be just one of those things when you draft a long, complicated Bill, but there is an inconsistency of approach here, because reasonable excuse is sometimes written in and other times not, for no apparent reason.
Keir Starmer
Just to be clear, I do not need to be persuaded about the policy objective of a clause that keeps a retention notice safe. It is the policy objective of not having a “reasonable excuse” defence to the provision, which operates as an exclusion to the prohibition, of which I need to be persuaded. I do not need persuading about the prohibition for safety.
The Solicitor General
I was coming to that. We are talking about a duty here; the earlier clause the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to is an offence. That will, I think, explain the importantly different context.
To deal with the question of “reasonable excuse”, the problem is that once the information is out in the public domain, it cannot be withdrawn—whether that information has been introduced with good or bad intentions does not matter. It cannot be right for the Bill to allow a person to release sensitive information in that way and then subsequently rely on a “reasonable excuse”.
May I deal with clause 84(4), which is relevant to this provision? It provides an exemption where the Secretary of State has given permission for the existence of the notice to be revealed. The Government intend that such permission would be given, for example, where a provider wishes to discuss the existence of their retention notice with another provider subject to similar requirements. Should the operator wish to reveal the existence of the notice, they should discuss the matter with the Secretary of State, and in such circumstances permission is likely to be given. There will be those sort of scenarios, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand, and they will help improve the operational model.
My concern about using the “reasonable excuse” provision in the context of a duty would be that it would undermine the important policy objective that I have set out. For that reason I would urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I will withdraw the amendment. As to the difference between a duty and an offence, I understand that in principle, but I am pretty convinced that elsewhere in the Bill a breach of the duty becomes an offence, as otherwise it is an unenforceable provision, so I am not sure it is a distinction that withstands scrutiny. That being said, I am not going to press this to a vote. It would be helpful and reassuring if the Solicitor General would agree to set out the route by which a whistleblower brings this to attention. I think we have already agreed in general terms and it may come within the umbrella of the undertaking that has been given; if it does, all well and good. That would reassure those that have concerns about exposing wrongdoing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 223, in clause 84, page 65, line 21, after “person”, insert
“except the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or a Judicial Commissioner”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 224, in clause 84, page 65, line 26, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.
Keir Starmer
These amendments were consistent with earlier amendments that have now been withdrawn, the purpose of which was to put the decision-making power in the hands of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or the judicial commissioner. The other amendments having been withdrawn, I will not press these to a vote; they do not make sense within the unamended Bill as it now stands.
The Solicitor General
We have already discussed the importance of protecting the identities of those companies subject to data retention notices, but there are circumstances where a telecommunications operator should be able to disclose the existence of a retention notice. Clause 84 allows the Secretary of State to give them permission to do so. The amendment would ensure that a telecommunications operator could disclose the existence or content of a retention notice to the IPC without the need for permission to be given. I would say the proposal is unnecessary, because it is absolutely the Government’s intention to give telecommunications operators permission to disclose the existence and content of the retention notice to both the relevant oversight bodies—the IPC and the Information Commissioner—at the point at which a notice is given. In any event, clause 203 as drafted would permit the telecommunications operator to disclose a retention notice to the IPC in relation to any of his functions.
Amendment 224 would mean that the IPC, not the Secretary of State, would be granting permission for a telecoms operator to disclose the existence of the notice. In practice the Secretary of State would consider, at the point that a retention notice was issued, to whom the telecommunications operator could disclose the existence of a notice. It would not make any sense for this issue to be considered separately by the commissioner following the issue of a notice by the Secretary of State.
Further requests by a telecommunications operator to disclose a retention notice are likely to cover administrative matters, such as disclosure to a new systems supplier. Such matters should appropriately be considered by the Secretary of State. I think that explanation not only justifies opposition to the amendments, which I know are being withdrawn, but supports clause 84.
Keir Starmer
I have nothing further to add, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 226, in clause 84, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(2B) No notice shall be served under subsection (1) where the relevant telecommunications operator outside the United Kingdom.
(a) is already subject to a comparable retention requirement in the country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services, or
(b) where there is no comparable retention requirement under its domestic law, any extraterritorial requirement is limited to the making of preservation requests to the telecommunications operator.”
Committee members will understand why this amendment has been tabled. It reflects the concerns of those who will be caught by these provisions in cases where a comparable retention requirement exists in the country in which they are working. The provisions in this part of the Bill are unnecessary in relation to them. That is the amendment’s intention and purpose.
Mr Hayes
I think we can deal with this briefly. I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman: where it was neither necessary nor proportionate to attempt to retain data in another place, we would not do so, so that is very straightforward. All data retention notices that are given to telecommunications companies, whether here or abroad, must pass the test of necessity and proportionality. Where they did not do so, it simply would not happen, because it would not be necessary, so for that purpose the amendment is unnecessary.
The second part of the amendment would remove the ability to serve data retention notices on telecommunications operators in countries that do not have a comparable data retention regime. Of course, the fact that they do not have a comparable data retention regime does not necessarily mean that there are no data to obtain, and I think that this part of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s proposal would add rigidity where flexibility is needed. I accept that there are not always comparable systems, but that does not mean that no system of any kind prevails. Again, with the caveat of proportionality and the proven need established, I think it would be unhelpful to limit our capacity to take action as necessary in the way that he suggests. The same could be said of the third element of his proposal, which is about the preservation of data. When there are no data to preserve, this does not really apply, but when there are, we need at least the capacity, born of the flexibilities provided by the Bill, to take action as is necessary and reasonable.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that those who have the primary concern here will take some comfort from what is said about necessity and proportionality but, in practice, where there are comparable retention requirements in the country, it will rarely, if ever, be necessary or proportionate. Obviously, that will have to be determined case by case, or authorisation by authorisation, but I note what he has said on the record. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86
Extra-territorial application of Part 4
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 381, in clause 88, page 66, line 38, leave out “information” and insert “specified data”.
This amendment seeks to more clearly outline what material may be obtained by hacking.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 382, in clause 88, page 67, line 40, leave out from “6” to end of line 43.
This amendment requires that an examination warrant is required for the examination of all data, removing the exception of equipment data and the broad category of ‘not private information’ which is collected under bulk warrants.
Keir Starmer
We need to spend some time on this clause, because it is the one that deals with equipment interference under part 5. There are real concerns about the breadth of the clause, which provides for two kinds of warrant: a targeted equipment interference warrant and a targeted examination warrant. Those warrants allow interference with equipment, such as remote—not always remote—interference with equipment with your, my and many other people’s equipment, Ms Dorries, to secure any of the purposes under subsection (2).
The warrants allow others to interfere with our communications data equipment to obtain “communications”, “equipment data” or, to draw attention to subsection (2)(c), “any other information”—to hack into or interfere with equipment to obtain unlimited “any other information”. That is why the amendment seeks to limit subsection (2)(c) to “any other specified data”. In other words, the clause as drafted will in effect allow interference for pretty well any purpose, as long as it is to obtain information from your computer, my computer, my laptop, your laptop and so on. The provisions are very wide.
The equipment interference in subsection (4) includes interfering by
“monitoring, observing or listening to a person’s communications or other activities”
or
“recording anything which is monitored, observed or listened to.”
Let us pause there and reflect on how wide the provision is. In terms of invasion of privacy, that will put an incredibly powerful provision in the hands of those who will operate these measures.
Mr Hayes
I intervene merely because I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is as much a stickler for accuracy as I am and is perhaps even less prone to hyperbole than me. He will therefore want the Committee to consider the draft code of practice, particularly where it deals with exactly the matters to which he is referring. I will discuss this at greater length than an intervention will allow in a moment, but he will see in the draft code of practice a comprehensive list of qualifications to the breadth that he is outlining.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention. I have been referring throughout to the code of practice and its role. Consistent with the in-principle argument I have been making, the Bill and the code serve different functions. I understand the argument that a code is one way not only to give more detail to the provisions in the Bill, but to future-proof it. In other words, a code allows an approach that can be changed without amending the legislation.
As a matter of principle, though, I argue that where limits are to be put on the exercise of the power, and thus important safeguards are in place, they should be in the Bill. What should be resisted is a wide and generalised power in the Bill that finds constraint and limitation only in the code of practice. The extent of these powers should be set out in the Bill. The code of practice is the place for more detailed provision—provision that may change over time—and other obvious future-proofing techniques; it is not the right place for the limitations themselves.
Moving on, consistent with the earlier clauses on warrants, subsection (5) allows conduct in addition to the interference itself in order to do what is expressly authorised or required and any conduct that facilitates or gives effect to the warrant. I now want to take a bit of time on subsection (6).
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention. It is helpful to have such matters on the record so that others can follow how the clauses are intended to operate.
Returning to subsection (6), one of the welcome measures in the Bill is that clause 3(4) makes it clear that, when a communication is intercepted, interception includes the communication at
“any time when the communication is stored in or by the system”.
I know that sounds very technical, but it became a real issue in a number of cases in which the question was whether a voicemail that was accessed once it was on a voicemail machine was in the course of its transmission. If the answer to that was no, there was nothing unlawful about retrieving it, listening to it and publishing it. A lot of time and energy went into the interpretation of the relevant clause. One of the advantages of the Bill is that clause 3 spells out in no uncertain terms that communications are protected if they are intercepted in the course of transmission, including if stored either before or after transmission. That protects any communication, sent to us or anybody else, which is either listened to at the time or not, but is later stored either in a voicemail, on a computer or in any way. We all store communications all the time; it is very rare that they exist only in real time. That is a step in the right direction.
We then get to clause 88(6):
“A targeted equipment interference warrant may not, by virtue of subsection (3), authorise or require a person to engage in conduct, in relation to a communication other than a stored communication”.
It protects the communication and excludes its content from this part—I think that is the idea—but only half does the job and leaves quite a gap, in my view. We get back to the same problem. If there is equipment interference to obtain a communication, that communication would be protected from one of these warrants as long as it is in the course of its transmission. If it has arrived, it is not. If I am wrong about this I will stand corrected, but all of the good that was done by amending clause 3 will be undone by clause 88; the same ends could be achieved by using an equipment interference warrant, namely obtaining by interference a communication that is in the course of its transmission, either before or after it is sent.
Mr Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his humility in suggesting that he would stand corrected; I now stand to correct him. An equipment interference warrant would not allow interception of real-time information of the kind that he describes. He is right that to intercept that kind of information would require a different process, as we discussed earlier in our considerations. If further explanatory notes need to be made available to provide greater clarity about that I am more than happy to do so. I will talk more when I respond, before you rightly chide me for going on for too long, Ms Dorries.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister. If he could point to the provision that makes good the submission he has just made, then that will deal with this particular point. Just to be clear, subsection (6) is intended to ring-fence and exclude from one of these warrants communications the interception of which would
“constitute an offence under section 2(1)”,
but only in relation to communications in the course of their transmission in the real sense of the term, not including those that are “stored”. I put on the record—if this is capable of being answered, so be it—that “stored” in subsection (6) has the same meaning as in clause 3, which is intended to include stored communications within the prohibition. I will not take it any further; the Minister has my point, which is that one would expect subsection (6) to protect the same content that is expressly protected by clause 3(4), but it does not—unless he or somebody else can point to another provision that adds to subsection (6), though that would be an odd way of doing it.
I will move on. Subsection (9) defines targeted examination warrants. This is important because subsections (1) to (8) deal with targeted equipment interference warrants—warrants issued in a targeted way; the targeted examination warrant deals with examining material obtained by way of a bulk warrant. It therefore serves a different purpose. Subsection (9) is an extremely wide provision:
“A targeted examination warrant is a warrant which authorises the person to whom it is addressed to carry out the selection of protected material…in breach of the prohibition in section 170(4)”.
To understand that, we need to turn to section 170(4), which raises questions that relate to an argument I made earlier on another, not dissimilar, provision. It states:
“The prohibition…is that the protected material may not…be selected for examination if (a) any criteria used for the selection of the material for examination are referable to an individual known to be in the British Islands at that time, and (b) the purpose of using those criteria is to identify protected material consisting of communications sent by, or intended for, that individual or private information relating to that individual.”
That is intended to give protection to individuals known to be in the British islands, by placing limits on the examination of their material: in relation to their material or their communications one needs a targeted examination warrant to get around the prohibition in clause 170(4). The point I make here is similar to the point that I made before: this is temporal. Whether a person is in the British islands or not depends on where they are physically. I am protected so long as I am in the British islands, but I fall out of protection—as would everybody else—the moment I leave them, whether I am leaving for a day, a week, a month or a year. That is a real cause for concern, as is the wide definition of protected material that immediately follows in clause 88(9); amendment 382 would limit the extent of that definition by stopping the clause after the words “Part 6”, which are on page 67, line 40, of the draft Bill.
In conclusion, this is a very wide-ranging clause, and it contains insufficient safeguards—if there are safeguards, they should be in the Bill. There are questions on subsections (6) in (9), taken in conjunction with clause 170(4), that the Minister will have to deal with.
Joanna Cherry
I rise to support the hon. and learned Gentleman in his submissions on these two amendments. As we have just reached part 5, I want to take the opportunity to make some general comments on it. Powers to conduct equipment interference—or “hack”, which is the more generally used term—are new; they do not exist in any previous legislation. They therefore require significant scrutiny, by the Committee and by parliamentarians generally, before they are added to the statute book. By its very nature, hacking is an extremely intrusive power, because it grants the authority to see all past and future information and activity on a computer or other device. Beyond the implications for privacy, the potential ramifications for the whole country’s cyber-security and for fair trials mean that hacking should be used only as a tool of last resort. The SNP’s position is that stronger protections must be added to the Bill.
Mr Hayes
Having characterised the Scottish National party in a vivid and, in some people’s view, slightly too generous way, I will move on to the specifics of what the hon. and learned Lady said. She is right that there need to be important safeguards in respect of equipment interference. I do not think that there is any difference between us on that. She is right that GCHQ’s use of equipment interference powers—although they are more widely available, it is GCHQ that uses them particularly—are central to its purpose and of course must be lawful. She will be pleased to know that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal found them to be just that when it looked at the matter as recently as February of this year. Of course it is right, given the radical character of those powers, that we put in place all the right checks and balances. One might say that transparency and stronger safeguards are part of what the Bill is defined by.
It is important to emphasise in that context the draft codes of practice, which I drew attention to in a brief intervention on the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras. They are clear in two respects. I draw attention first, in general terms, to part 8 of the draft code of practice on equipment interference, which deals with handling information, general safeguards and so on, and secondly to the specific areas covered in part 4.10, which lists an extensive series of requirements for the information that a targeted equipment interference warrant should contain. I will not go through them exhaustively, Ms Dorries, because that would please neither you nor other Committee members. Suffice it to say that such a warrant should contain details of the purpose and background of the application, be descriptive and clearly identify individuals where that can be done. Those requirements also necessitate an explanation of why equipment interference is regarded as essential and refer to conduct in respect of the exercise of such powers, collateral intrusion, and so on. They are pertinent to the consideration of the clause.
There is always, as I predicted there would be in this case, a debate in Committee about what is put in the Bill and what is put in the supporting material. As you will be familiar with, Ms Dorries, having been involved in all kinds of Committees over time, Oppositions usually want more in Bills and Governments usually want more flexibility. Perhaps that is the nature of the tension between government and opposition. I have no doubt that were the Labour party ever to return to Government, the roles would be reversed; we would be the ones saying, “More in the Bill,” and that Labour Government would probably be arguing for more flexibility. The truth lies somewhere between the two: of course it is important to ensure that there is sufficient in the Bill both to ensure straightforward legal interpretation and to cement the safeguards and protections for which the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly calls, but in achieving those ends one must always be careful that specificity does not metamorphose into rigidity. Where we are dealing with highly dynamic circumstances, changing technology and, therefore, changing needs on the part of the agencies and others, rigidity is a particular worry.
In the Bill as a whole, and in this part of the Bill, we have tried to provide sufficient detail to provide transparency, navigability and a degree of resilience to legal challenge while simultaneously providing the flexibility that is necessary in the changing landscape. That is why the codes of practice matter so much, particularly in respect of this clause and these amendments, and it is why the codes of practice have changed in the light of the consideration of the Joint Committee of both Houses, and others. It is also why I predict—I put it no less strongly than that—that the codes of practice will change again as a result of the commentary that we have already enjoyed in Committee and will continue to provide over the coming days.
The need for equipment interference could not be more significant, and I will explain what it comprises. Equipment interference is a set of techniques used to obtain a variety of data from equipment that includes traditional computers, computer-like devices—such as tablets, smartphones, cables, wires—and static storage devices. Interference can be carried out remotely or by physically interacting with the equipment. Although equipment interference is increasingly important for the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, it is not new. Law enforcement agencies have been conducting equipment interference for many years, and I described the legislative basis for that in response to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West. It is probably fair to say that equipment interference is likely to become still more important as a result of the effect that changes in technology are having on other capabilities. I do not want to overstate this, but encryption, for example, is likely to make equipment interference more significant over time.
I will amplify the clarity with which I delivered my advice to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras. Warrants cannot be issued without specifying what information is being sought, and on that basis it is hard to see why clause 88 should be amended. Chapter 4 of the code of practice states:
“An application for a targeted equipment interference warrant should contain… A general description of any communications, equipment data or other information that is to be (or may be) obtained”.
Together, the provisions provide the issuing authority with the information it needs to assess an application and with the power to constrain the authorised interference as it sees fit on a case-by-case basis. Amendment 382 would extend the requirement to obtain a targeted examination warrant to circumstances where the agencies need to select for examination the equipment data and non-private information of an individual who is known to be in the British islands. I tend to agree with the argument made by the hon. Member for City of Chester in an earlier sitting of the Committee that it is right that there are particular provisions for UK citizens in what we do in this Bill, rather than with the argument made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West.
Keir Starmer
I just want to clarify my concern, because I think the Minister just said, “UK citizens”. I understand that the distinction is made between UK citizens and others. My concern about this provision is that, whether someone is a citizen or not, if they are physically outside of the British Isles they fall outside the protection. That has been my driving concern, or one of my driving concerns, here. There may be a good reason for this and there may be a longer explanation for it, but I was surprised to see in the Bill that the protection was not to British citizens or to some other description of people with the right of residence in this country, but in fact depends on whether someone is physically in the country or not. On my understanding, I lose the protection that is provided by this Bill in this and other provisions if I go to France for a short period of time.
Mr Hayes
To be fair to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Bill refers to people within “the British Islands”, so he is right, and there are very good reasons why enhanced safeguards should apply for the content of people in the UK. As he implied, we explored these issues in an earlier part of the debate.
I will conclude, but I want to do so on the basis of clarifying this matter, too. The subsection that the hon. and learned Gentleman described earlier makes it clear that when a warrant for equipment interference is used to examine a phone, the police can look at all data on the phone, including text messages, but not in real time. I wonder whether there has been a misunderstanding or misapprehension about this issue—either a mis- understanding about the meaning or misapprehension about the purpose.
I repeat this solely for the sake of convincing the hon. and learned Gentleman and others that we are doing the right thing. These are important powers with stronger safeguards with absolute determination to be clear about legal purpose; they can only be used when necessary and can only be used lawfully. They are fundamentally not new but a confirmation of what is already vital to our national interest and to the common good.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister for taking us through in some detail how the clause is intended to work with the code of practice. I reiterate my point that the essential safeguards should be in the Bill. Amendments 381 and 382 would not delete the provisions in clause 88; they would tighten the provisions in clause 88, and I intend to push both of them to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 384, in clause 89, page 68, line 13, leave out from “information” to end of line 15.
This amendment acknowledges that “data” relating to the fact of a communication or the existence of information has meaning and must not be exempt from privacy protections afforded to other categories of data.
This amendment deletes the words
“or from any data relating to that fact”.
It is important because an equipment interference warrant can permit interference with equipment data, as in clause 88(2)(b). As we have seen, clause 88(9) makes provision for protected material, the definition of which includes equipment data. Over the page, clause 89 deals with the meaning of “equipment data”:
“(a) systems data;
(b) data which falls within subsection (2).”
Subsection (2), broadly speaking, refers to systems data as identifying data that are included in, attached to or associated with a communication but that can be separated from it and that, if separated,
“would not reveal anything of what might reasonably be considered to be the meaning (if any) of the communication”.
That is a logical way of approaching it—data linked to a communication that can be separated from it, but if separated, they would not reveal the meaning of the communication. Thus, it does not undermine the special protection given to the communication.
Then the final part of clause 89(2), paragraph (c), says
“disregarding any meaning arising from the fact of the communication”.
As has been said today, the fact of the communication, in many respects, can be as revealing as the content. However, the provision goes on to say
“or from any data relating to that fact”,
which broadens even further the exclusion from protection intended for communications.
In that way, the clause undermines the very protection being given to communications, so this short amendment would omit the words that I have indicated, in order to limit the exclusion from protection for the communication.
Joanna Cherry
May I add my supportive comments? This is a joint amendment from the Labour party and the Scottish National party.
Mr Hayes
All these disruptions and delays are adding interest and variety to our affairs. There is a straightforward argument for why the amendment is unnecessary, which I will make. If that is insufficient to persuade the Committee, I will add further thoughts.
The straightforward reason why the amendment is unnecessary is that it would undermine the principle that the most robust privacy protections should apply to the most intrusive kinds of data. I simply do not agree with the hon. and learned Lady that, for example, systems data—the highly technical data that will be separated out as a result of the endeavours in this part of the Bill—are better excluded from those extra protections. The unintended consequence of the amendment—at least, I hope it is unintended—is that it would lead to disproportionate access requirements for less intrusive data. That would be unhelpful and could, through confusion, hamper the work of the services.
Keir Starmer
I want to be clear as to how clause 89 operates, because subsection (2) suggests it is an attempt to identify data associated with a communication that can be separated from the communication, but which, if separated, would not touch on the meaning of the communication, thereby protecting it. That is all good. That is a safeguard, which is supported and welcome, but after the comma, as I read it, disregarded from that protection is everything that follows on. At the moment, I do not follow how the amendment removes protection, because the last bit of clause 89(2)(c) after the comma disregards from the protection and thus leaves unprotected from the scheme of clause 89
“the fact of the communication or the existence of the item of information or from any data relating to that fact.”
If I am wrong about that, there is a problem with the amendment, but I understand that part of clause 89(2)(c) to detract from the protection that the subsection is otherwise intending to put in place.
Mr Hayes
Let me see if I can deal with that question specifically. Equipment data include identifying data. Most communications and items of information will contain information that identifies individuals, apparatus, systems and services, or events and sometimes the location of those individuals or events. Those data are operationally critical to the agencies, as the hon. and learned Gentleman understands. In most cases that information will form part of the systems data, but there will be cases where it does not.
The work that has been done to separate out and define data has been carefully designed to categorise logically the range of data generated by modern communications. Identifying data are operationally critical. It is important to be able to classify data correctly and coherently throughout the Bill. My assertion, therefore, drawing on the hon. and learned Gentleman’s question, is that the amendment would inhibit though not prevent that by making the distinction less clear.
We can talk at length if necessary, although I suspect that at this juncture it is not necessary, about inferred meaning and its importance and relevance here. Misunderstanding frequently arises on inference, but I do not think that that is critical to this particular part of our discussion. My case is that the work we have done in better categorising the difference between the kinds of data assists the application of this part of the Bill, and assists the agencies accordingly. As I said, the amendment, perversely, would afford to those bits of technical data, for example, the same protection that is deliberately granted to more sensitive data under the Bill.
I do not like to do this on every amendment, or we would drown in a sea of paper, but as I write to the Committee regularly, if it would be helpful to cement that point in my next letter, I will happily do so. I am, however, confident that what I have said to the Committee is an accurate reflection of the work that I have described and of the content of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister, first for spelling out in detail the intended operation of the clause and, secondly, for indicating his willingness to write on the matter. This is something that ought to be in the Bill. My clear reading is that the amendment would not ring-fence anything from examination; it would simply require a warrant under clause 88 if equipment data, having satisfied all the other provisions under subsection (2)(a) to (c), included anything where there was a meaning arising from fact communication and so on. I will therefore press the amendment to a vote.
Joanna Cherry
I have nothing to add in support.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 385, in clause 90, page 68, line 24, leave out paragraph (b)
This amendment, and others to Clause 90, refine the matters to which targeted equipment interference warrants may relate by removing vague and broad categories including “equipment interference for training purposes”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 386, in clause 90, page 68, line 33, leave out paragraph (f).
Amendment 387, in clause 90, page 68, line 35, leave out paragraph (g).
Amendment 388, in clause 90, page 68, line 38, leave out paragraph (h).
Amendment 456, in clause 90, page 68, line 44, leave out subsection (2)(b).
Amendment 391, in clause 90, page 69, line 1, leave out paragraph (d).
Amendment 392, in clause 90, page 69, line 3, leave out paragraph (e).
Amendment 265, in clause 101, page 78, leave out lines 21 to 27.
Amendment 272, in clause 101, page 79, leave out lines 3 to 7.
Amendment 273, in clause 101, page 79, leave out lines 8 to 12.
Amendment 274, in clause 101, page 79, leave out lines 13 to 18.
Amendment 457, in clause 101, page 79, leave out lines 31 to 36.
Amendment 279, in clause 101, page 80, leave out lines 3 to 7.
Amendment 280, in clause 101, page 80, leave out lines 8 to 12.
Keir Starmer
We move to a different topic within the same general subject matter of thematic warrants.
Clause 90(1) sets out that a
“targeted equipment interference warrant may relate to”
and thereafter follows a long list from paragraph (a) to paragraph (h). Paragraph (a) specifies
“equipment belonging to, used by or in the possession of a particular person or organisation”.
Paragraph (b) deals with groups or those
“who share a common purpose or who carry on…a particular activity”.
Paragraph (c) deals with equipment
“in the possession of more than one person or organisation, where the interference is for the purpose of a single investigation or operation”.
Paragraph (d) deals with
“equipment in a particular location”.
And on it goes. In other words, the clause allows a very broad range of matters to be included in what is intended to be a targeted equipment interference warrant.
The evidence from the independent reviewer, David Anderson, was, in essence, that clause 90, or its forerunner, was so wide that he thought it was difficult to suggest anything that could not be included in a thematic targeted interference warrant. That gives rise to the suggestion that, in truth, this is a disguised bulk power. It is called a targeted equipment interference warrant, but it is so wide as to be tantamount to a bulk power. In so far as this sort of interference has been carried out in the past, it has been carried out under provisions of this sort rather than any bulk provision. It is an extremely wide and permissive thematic warrant that allows interference with equipment in a very wide range of circumstances, which of course includes monitoring, observing, listening to and so on. It is far too wide.
Amendments 385 and 386 are intended to cut out part of the wide thematic approach in subsection (1). Subsection (2) deals with a targeted examination warrant, and again there is a wide range of matters that the warrant may relate to, including
“a particular person or organisation…a group of persons”
and so on. As far as subsection (2) is concerned, the examination warrant is to operate in conjunction with or following on from a bulk warrant, so subsection (2) indicates the matters to which such a targeted warrant may relate, notwithstanding the wide breadth of the bulk warrant.
The powers are far too wide and they need to be better specified. The amendments are intended to draw in and narrow the scope of the thematic warrants, because otherwise it is hard to resist David Anderson’s conclusion that it is hard to think what would not be included in one or other of the descriptions I have outlined.
Mr Hayes
One of the stated purposes of the Bill is to bring together those powers—to cement them and to put in place extra clarification and further safeguards. I have argued throughout that the essence of the Bill is delivering clarity and certainty. I would accept the hon. and learned Lady’s point if she was arguing that, at the moment, the agencies draw on a range of legal bases for what they do, for that is a simple statement of fact. We are all engaged in the business of perfecting the Bill, because we know it is right that these powers are contained in one place, creating greater transparency and greater navigability, and making legislation more comprehensible and more resistant to challenge. That is at the heart of our mission.
I said I would talk about breadth. The breadth of the circumstances in which equipment interference could be used reflects the fact that, at the time of making an application for a warrant, the information initially known about a subject of interest may vary considerably. Last week, we spoke about the kind of case in which there may be an unfolding series of events, such as a kidnapping, where a limited amount might be known at the outset when a warrant is applied for. The warrant’s purpose will be to gather sufficient information as to build up a picture of a network of people involved in a gang or an organised crime. That is very common and I intend to offer some worked examples in a number of areas.
Identifying members of such a gang can often come from interception arising from a thematic warrant. That might apply to interception, but frankly it might also apply to equipment interference where that is a more appropriate and more effective means of finding the information. Another example may be a group of people involved in child sexual exploitation. Frequently, partial information will allow for further exploration of a network of people who are communicating over a wide area, and who are careful about how they communicate, mindful of the activity that they are involved in. They will not be easy to discover or find, as they will very often disguise their identity. For that reason, it may be necessary to start by looking at sites commonly used to share indecent images of children and from there uncover information that leads, through the use of equipment interference, to those who are driving that unhappy practice. Those examples are not merely matters of theory; they are matters of fact. I know that in cases of kidnapping and in cases of child sexual exploitation, those techniques have been used and continue to be used.
Keir Starmer
I understand the point the Minister is making and the need for these powers to be practical and effective in real time. He says that they are not theoretical but real, and I absolutely accept that, but David Anderson is someone who will have appreciated that more than many others. He has been working in this field and dealing with those issues for many years. He is hardly likely to make the mistake of theorising about something that he knows about in great detail in the practical examination, so is he just plain wrong when he raises this concern? He has raised it not just once, but on a number of occasions, in detail, and he knows how these things work.
Mr Hayes
I will return to that point because it is important and fair, and I will return to the Anderson critique in a moment, but before I do so, I want to be clear about the second thing that I said I would speak about—speed.
The kind of cases that I have outlined can move rapidly. The information that becomes available from the kind of initial inquiries that I have described, when the character or names of individual actors may not be known but will become known through these techniques, may require law enforcement agencies to act very quickly to avert further serious crime. Owing to the need for speed, it is vital that those missioned to protect us are able to exercise all the powers when they need to, with confidence and lawfully. The Anderson critique is why the codes of practice limit specifically how thematic warrants can be used. I draw the Committee’s attention to page 25 of the draft code of practice, which deals with such warrants and defines again, in some detail, exactly how they should be as specific as possible, given the breadth and speed requirements that I have set out.
I hear what is said about the David Anderson criticism. I think that we have gone further in being specific in the code of practice than we might have been expected to by our critics, but, rather as I said in relation to our consideration of an earlier group of amendments on warranting, I do not want to inhibit what is currently done; I do not want the Bill to leave the agencies and law enforcement with fewer powers; I do not want to leave them emasculated as a result of our consideration. It is right that we should have safeguards, definition, constraints and, where necessary, specificity, but these powers are vital to protect us from those who want to exploit our children and do us harm. Criminals are increasingly adaptable and sophisticated, rather like terrorists. We must outmatch them at every turn and I believe that those powers are vital for us to be able to do so. So I am unapologetic about making the case for them to the Committee and to Parliament.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out his case in that way. To be clear, particularly in relation to his last point, I do not think that anyone is suggesting that those powers should not be available. The discussion is about whether they are rightly described as thematic warrants or whether they are, in truth, bulk warrants, which operate in different ways and have different safeguards, procedures and processes to go through. I do not want our challenging and probing to be portrayed as somehow to undermine the work that has to be done by law enforcement and others in real time, often in difficult circumstances.
That said, this is an important issue. I have listened to what has been said and I want to preserve the position. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 389, in clause 90, page 68, line 40, at end insert—
“(1A) A targeted equipment interference warrant may only be issued in relation to any of the matters that fall under subsection (1) if the persons, organisations or location to which the warrant relates are named or otherwise identified.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 458, in clause 90, page 69, line 4, at end insert—
“(2A) A targeted examination warrant may only be issued in relation to any of the matters that fall under subsection (2) if the persons, organisations or location to which the warrant relates are named or otherwise identified.”
Amendment 266, in clause 101, page 78, line 18, leave out
“or a description of the person or organisation”
and insert
“or another identifier of the person or organisation”.
Amendment 474, in clause 101, page 78, line 27, leave out
“or a description of, as many of the persons or organisations as it is reasonably practicable to name or describe”
and insert
“or another identifier of, each person or organisation”.
Amendment 473, in clause 101, page 78, line 28, at beginning insert “The name and”.
Amendment 268, in clause 101, page 78, line 31, leave out
“or a description of, as many of the persons or organisations as it is reasonably practicable to name or describe”
and insert
“or another identifier of, each person or organisation”.
Amendment 269, in clause 101, page 78, line 36, leave out “description” and insert “specification”.
Amendment 270, in clause 101, page 78, line 38, at beginning insert “The name and”.
Amendment 271, in clause 101, page 78, line 40, leave out
“a description of as many of the locations as it is reasonably practicable to describe”
and insert “specification of each location”.
Amendment 276, in clause 101, page 79, line 29, leave out
“or a description of the person or organisation”
and insert
“or another identifier of the person or organisation”.
Amendment 278, in clause 101, page 79, line 40, leave out
“or a description of, as many of the persons or organisations as it is reasonably practicable to name or describe”
and insert
“or another identifier of, each person or organisation”.
Keir Starmer
Ms Dorries, you have been indulgent in allowing me to trespass on the territory of some of these amendments in my general remarks on the clause. That probably applies to the Minister in reply as well. In those circumstances, it is not necessary for me to say any more about this group.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 91
Power to issue warrants to intelligence services: the Secretary of State
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendments 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 468, 469, 470, 403, 404, 407, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291 and 292.
Keir Starmer
The clause deals with the power to issue warrants to the intelligence services. Subsections (1) and (2) deal with targeted equipment interference warrants, and subsections (3) and (4) deal with targeted examination warrants.
We have two concerns. First, although the test of necessity and proportionality is spelled out in the clause—in particular, in subsections (1)(a) and (b) and (3)(a) and (b)—the objective and aims to which the test of necessity and proportionality are attached, which are set out in subsection (5), are broad in the extreme. They are
“national security…preventing or detecting serious crime”
and our old friend,
“the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”.
We have concerns about the breadth of those powers. Examination warrants obviously allow the examination of the material as well as its interception, and they go with the bulk power.
The first batch of amendments is intended to put some rigour and independence into the scheme by replacing the Secretary of State with the judicial commissioner. We have been over this territory in depth once and in summary form at least once again. I am not sure anybody is going to benefit, and they certainly will not welcome, my going over it at great length again—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] The amendments would replace the Secretary of State with the judicial commissioner for the same reasons that I advanced a week ago today at a not dissimilar hour. I will not say more than that. In light of our discussion last week and the fact that I withdrew my amendments in relation to the scheme, I will not move these amendments; they are probing.
The Chair
Amendment not moved.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Simon Kirby.)
Investigatory Powers Bill (Fourth sitting)
Keir Starmer ExcerptsTuesday 12th April 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 April 2016 - (12 Apr 2016)
The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)
I am delighted to welcome you to the Chair, Mr Owen. In your absence, under the stewardship of Ms Dorries, we had enlightening and rigorous scrutiny of the early provisions of the Bill and had got to the point of considering the third group of amendments. They are complicated, as illustrated by the shadow Minister’s opening remarks. I was about to go into some detail about the safeguards that we have put in place. So that we are all up to speed, I will mention that I had referred briefly to the recommendations made by the independent reviewer, Mr David Anderson, in his report, “A Question of Trust”, in relation to this area of the Bill—the use of material recovered under bulk warrants. I had reminded the Committee that the provisions before us reflect that advice. The Government have essentially taken the advice of David Anderson and built it into the Bill that we are now considering.
The current bulk access safeguards under the Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 have, of course, recently been scrutinised by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. After extensive argument, the tribunal ruled that the current approach fully met the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights. In particular, the tribunal ruled that it was not necessary to apply the protections that apply to content to related communications data—the other data associated with a communication but not its content that has been redefined as secondary data in the Bill—to ensure ECHR compliance.
Both targeted and bulk warrants authorise the collection of content and secondary data. That, I think, clears up one of the doubts that some Committee members may have had. A bulk warrant also authorises the circumstances in which content and secondary data can be selected for examination. The Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner, when authorising warrants, agree the operational purposes that determine what content and what secondary data can be examined. In other words, at the point when the warrant is issued, both the judicial commissioner, in the arrangements that we propose, and the Secretary of State, in those arrangements and now, are fully aware of the operational reasons for the request. There is no distinction in those terms—again, I think this addresses some of the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras—between content and secondary data.
Where the difference comes is in relation to the additional protections for persons in the UK. In fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman made reference to this. The Bill makes it clear that examination of the content, once it has been collected, of data relating to persons in the UK can take place only when an additional warrant has been issued. People should bear it in mind that there will already be a bulk warrant authorising collection; this is a separate process from the collection of data. An additional warrant must be issued that specifically authorises examination. There is a warrant to collect data and another warrant to examine data, and at the point when those warrants are considered by the Secretary of State and, under these new arrangements, by the judicial commissioner, the purposes will be clearly defined. The Secretary of State will be aware of why the request is being made and why it matters.
We talked earlier, in a different part of our consideration, about authorising powers only where they are necessary because nothing else will do the job—the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I want to emphasise that those considerations, around the broad issues—they are no less important because of their breadth—of proportionality and necessity, will govern all these matters.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
To clarify, I think I heard the Minister say—if I misheard him, he can ignore this intervention—that two bulk warrants would be put forward at the same time; one for the intercept and one for the examination. However, I am not sure that is right. I had always read this as one warrant within which different types of conduct are authorised. Therefore, the warrant could—I am looking at clause 119(4)—authorise both the interception and the selection for examination. I may be wrong about that, but I had always understood that one warrant would authorise all the conduct in one fell swoop at the beginning, rather than there being two warrants. If I misheard, I apologise.
Mr Hayes
Essentially, in order to obtain collection—to have bulk collection and examination—a warrant is required. The Bill makes it clear that the examination of content of persons in the UK requires an additional warrant. That is the point I was making.
Authorisation for persons in the UK does not apply to secondary data, because it is often not possible to determine the location of a person without taking those data. The reason why it looks like there is an inconsistency in respect of a set of data—or it might be perceived that way, without fuller consideration—is that, in relation to secondary data, it is not always possible to determine where someone is until the secondary data have been collected.
The point I made earlier was that it is a well and long-established principle that non-content is less important and less intrusive than content. Content is likely to be more intrusive, so what we are describing in these terms replicates the existing position—the long-established practice—which, as I said, was upheld by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. This is the existing practice, and it has been examined and found to be appropriate and reasonable. I mentioned ECHR compliance in that respect.
I have described the existing regime and its examination, but the regime proposed under the Bill further enhances the safeguards that the security and intelligence agencies already apply when accessing data obtained under a bulk interception warrant. The access arrangements are set out in part 6 of the Bill: for example, secondary data, as well as content, can be accessed only for one or more of the operational purposes specified on the warrant and approved by the Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner. The Bill also includes a requirement that an analyst must consider the necessity and proportionality of any access to any data obtained under a bulk interception warrant in line with the operational purposes. Without putting words into the mouths of Committee members, it could be argued that it is all very well setting out the operational purposes at the outset and that, further, at that point they might be deemed to legitimise the use of the powers in terms of necessity and proportionality, but that that might not be the case further down the line. It is therefore important that we have introduced further analysis of the data collected under the bulk warrant, rather than just when collection is authorised.
Extending targeted examination warrants to non-content data, including secondary data, which is what the amendments propose, would be disproportionate and impractical. That would radically change the bulk data regime, reduce its efficacy and place a substantial burden on the security and intelligence agencies, requiring them to obtain highest level authorisation for data that would often resemble the kind of information routinely collected under a part 3 authorisation.
Christian Matheson
I am most grateful for that assurance and explanation and, indeed, for the previous explanation. The Minister has gone into considerable depth on the matter and I am most grateful for that.
Keir Starmer
I, too, welcome you to the Chair of this Committee, Mr Owen. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship.
The assurance that has just been asked for cannot be given because the whole purpose of the provision is to enable the secondary data of any of us in this room that is caught by a bulk interception warrant to be looked at without any further warrant. If my data is swept up in a bulk interception warrant, even though I am not the target it can be examined without a separate warrant. That goes for every member of the Committee, every member of the public and everybody residing in the British Isles. The neat distinction between people here and people abroad breaks down in relation to this clause. I want us to be clear about that. The Minister is making the case that that is perfectly appropriate and necessary and that there are sufficient safeguards in place, but he is not making the case that this would not happen for those in the British Isles. It can and undoubtedly does happen, and it will happen under this regime. That means that all our secondary data are caught by this provision, even where we are not the primary target.
The Minister pointed to the double lock and the roles of the Secretary of State and judicial commissioner. He took an intervention on that, but I want to be absolutely clear on what those roles are and how necessity and proportionality play out. Clause 125 sets out what requirements must be met by a bulk interception warrant. Subsection (3) says:
“A bulk interception warrant must specify the operational purposes for which any intercepted content or secondary data obtained under the warrant may be selected for examination.”
The Minister points to that and says that there has got to be an operational purpose, which is true. However, we then read just how specific that operational purpose is likely to be:
“In specifying any operational purposes, it is not sufficient simply to use the descriptions contained in section 121(1)(b) or (2)”.
Those are just the general descriptions of national security and preventing serious crime, so it is not enough to say that the operational reason is national security or to prevent serious crime. Well, good—that that is all that had to be specified, it would not be very much. However, the purposes may still be general purposes, so the operational purposes are likely to be very broad—necessarily so in practical terms, given that it is a bulk warrant.
The role of the Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner is to decide whether the warrant is necessary and proportionate according to those purposes. We keep using the words “necessary and proportionate”. We have to keep an eye on what the object of the necessity and proportionality is. The question for the Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner is whether it is necessary and proportionate for the very broad operational purposes that are permitted under clause 125. It is not a very detailed, specific examination by the Secretary of State or the judicial commissioner; nor could it be.
At some later date, there is further consideration when it comes to examination. If it was suggested that at the later stage of actual examination, rather than authority for examination, it goes back to the Secretary of State and judicial commissioner, that is just plain wrong. It does not go back at all. All that the judicial commissioner or Secretary of State do is to authorise the general purposes under the warrant. As far as selection is concerned, that is governed by clause 134(1) and (2). Subsection (2) specifies that:
“The selection of intercepted content or secondary data for examination”
—that is at the heart of what we are talking about—
“is carried out only for the specified purposes”.
That relates to back to subsection (1). It continues,
“only so far as is necessary”
—necessary to what? It then refers straight back to the “operational purposes” set out in clause 125. Even at that later stage, the question of necessity and proportionality is against the very broad operational purposes. The Minister has been very clear about this and I am not suggesting otherwise, but the idea that there is some forensic and carefully curtailed exercise that looks in detail at the individual circumstances of the case is pretty far-fetched. In the end, all anyone has to do is ask whether it is necessary or proportionate to the general operational purposes upon which the warrant was issued in the first place. That is very different from the test set out for targeted interception. It is the test that will be applied to all the secondary data of anybody in this room who ever finds themselves caught up in a bulk interception warrant. That is not far-fetched. There will be many bulk intercept warrants, which may well capture the content and secondary data of many members of the public who are not targets in any way.
As a result, although I applaud the Minister for his long and detailed answer, it was not very persuasive regarding the necessity of this scheme or the effectiveness of the safeguards. Simply saying that secondary data may be necessary to determine location is hardly enough to justify the provision. I recognise that secondary data are different to content and that bulk powers are different from targeted powers, but in the end, when this is unravelled, it shows that there is no effective safeguard. In the circumstances we will not divide the Committee on the amendment, but I reserve the right to return to the matter at a later stage. It goes to the heart of the Bill. When properly analysed and understood, the safeguard in this respect is barely a safeguard at all.
Mr Hayes
I do not want to delay the Committee unduly, but I will offer this response. First, I direct the hon. and learned Gentleman to the “Operational Case for Bulk Powers”, which specifies the ways in which bulk powers will be used. The operational case will be specific. I am grateful to him for not pressing the amendment. I am happy to write to the Committee to reinforce our arguments and I think that we might reach a Hegelian synthesis—I am very keen on Hegel, as he knows. I agree that it is often necessary to examine the secondary data to determine the sender—he knows that that is the case—but I disagree about the lack of specificity on the operational purposes. We cannot give too much detail on that, for the reasons of sensitivity that he will understand, but I am happy to write to him to draw his and the Committee’s attention to the “Operational Case for Bulk Powers”, which is targeted at overseas threats but might, as he properly said, draw in some data from those who are in the UK. I hope that when I write to him he might decide not to bring these matters back further. I am grateful for his consideration.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. and learned Lady makes a point that I have to take on board to a certain extent. I suspect that my amendments to clause 15 go further than David Anderson would if he were drafting an amendment to this clause. We are at a very early stage in this procedure. I am really seeking an assurance from the Government that they will take on board, if not my concerns, then at the very least the concerns of Sir Stanley Burnton, Lord Judge and David Anderson, and that they will take away clause 15 and clause 27 and look at them again.
Keir Starmer
I will be brief because a lot of the detailed work has been done. I listened very carefully to the Minister, not only today but on other occasions, and he indicated that the Government want to improve the Bill and that they do not have a fixed view. I therefore make these submissions in the hope that the Minister and the Government will not circle the wagons around the existing formula in clause 15 simply because those are the words on the page. The warrants are supposed to be targeted, but when reading clause 15(2) it is clear that they are very wide. I will not repeat the concerns of Lord Judge, Sir Stanley Burnton and David Anderson, but they are three individuals with huge experience of the operation of these warrants.
I take the point about kidnap cases or examples of that type. They are exactly the cases that Lord Judge and Sir Stanley Burnton will have seen in real time and reviewed, and that David Anderson will have reviewed after the event. When those three distinguished individuals say that they have concerns about the breadth of the clauses, they do so against huge and probably unparalleled experience of what the warrants provide for. I doubt that anyone would suggest that they are not alive to concerns about the warrants being practical and effective in the sort of circumstances that have been described.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
May I put a slightly counter idea to the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West? I accept the comments of David Anderson and others, but in some instances it will not be terribly wrong to have broad definitions in the Bill. Getting legislation made in this place is a difficult and lengthy process. We must fetter those who wish this country and its citizens ill, so it is potentially a good idea to have some breadth in the definitions.
Keir Starmer
I understand the spirit underpinning the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, which is that in certain circumstances a broad power can be helpful because future situations are not known. In this case, the breadth of the provision matters above all else, however, because it concerns the subject matter of the warrant. Lest anyone think otherwise, when one looks at the code of practice, one does not find that it restricts what is in the Bill. Paragraph 5.12 of the draft code says, in stark terms:
“There is not a limit to the number of locations, persons or organisations that can be provided for by a thematic warrant.”
In certain circumstances, the Minister and the Government might be able to point to things that are broad in the Bill but restricted by the code, but that would not be appropriate for the subject matter of a warrant and is not the situation in this case. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the intervention, however, because I need to put my concern on the table, and I invite the Government to take the matter away and have another look at it.
I am concerned that in reality, the broadly drawn warrants will be modified. We will get to the modification procedures later. The broad warrant will be signed off by the Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner, but the modification, which may well add names as they become available, will not. There is therefore the further hidden danger that the provision is so broad that it will require modification procedures to be used more often than they should, in circumstances in which they are not adequate, for reasons that I will come on to.
At the end of the day, if someone with the authority and experience of Lord Judge, Sir Stanley Burnton and David Anderson—who have more authority and experience than anyone in this room—says that they have concerns about the breadth of the warrants, for the Government simply to say, “We’re not going to have another look at it”, runs counter to the spirit in which they have so far approached the scrutiny of the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
I wonder whether clause 15(1) is as wide as we think, given that subsection (2) seems to relate to a category of people that is not caught by subsection (1). We would not need subsection (2) unless it referred to a wider group than subsection (1). If that is right, someone must have particular characteristics to be caught under subsection (2), which suggests that subsection (1) is in fact narrow.
Keir Starmer
That is absolutely right. If subsection (1) was wide enough to incorporate subsection (2) we would not need it. Subsection (2) is there to enable a warrant to be granted in circumstances that would be constrained by subsection (1). It is permissive—that is why the word “may” is used.
It is subsection (2) that has been singled out. Sir Stanley Burnton was absolutely clear that the wording of the subsection was wide, and that was what he focused his attention on. If someone with the experience of the experts I have named says that there is a problem because the provision is too broad, I invite the Government, in the spirit of constructing a better Bill, to go away and think about that. Those people have unrivalled experience of seeing warrants in practice.
Mr Hayes
I do not want to detain the Committee too long on these amendments, but this is an important debate, because investigation of the kind we are discussing may not at the outset be able to identify particular individuals. The effect of the amendments would be to limit the ability of warrant requesting agencies to apply for a warrant against organisations, and to require the naming of individuals. It is not always possible to do that. That includes individuals using communication devices—it may be known that someone has received a telephone call from a particular number, but not necessarily know who or where they are.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Lady may have misunderstood. Part 2 targeted warrants, even if they are thematic, cannot be used to trawl information collected en masse or in bulk. Targeted interception warrant applications must specify the scope of the activity to be intercepted. They cannot be open-ended; they are time-limited and must provide sufficient information for the Secretary of State to assess that the activity proposed is necessary. Indeed, all targeted interception warrants will be time-limited to six months.
Where the interception of calls between a particular handset and a group of individuals, for example, may help to identify a kidnapper—we have heard the example of kidnapping—or show where a kidnapper is, the details of what they are planning or where they might be holding the victim, it is of course possible to identify individuals to whom the warrant relates at the point when it is sought. Where that is the case, the warrant requesting agency will be expected to add the identities of the suspects to the warrant as they become known. That is a further assurance and an important new safeguard, as the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras knows. It will allow the Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner to oversee the conduct taking place under the warrant. That obligation will be given statutory force through the code of practice, as he said. Even though it will be in the code of practice, it will have statutory force.
Keir Starmer
Will the Minister confirm, just so we are clear what we are talking about, that that process, as envisaged in the code, is by way of modification and does not involve the double lock?
Mr Hayes
That is an interesting point. I will take further advice on that in the course of my peroration, which will be marginally longer than it was going to be as a result.
Because we recognise that it is important that these warrants are not open-ended, we have added that important safeguard. The fact that it is in the code of practice and not on the face of the Bill does not weaken its significance. I emphasise that it must have force and will be an obligation, as I have described it.
I will come back to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point, but first I will deal with amendments 8 and 9, which would remove the warrant requesting agency’s ability to apply for a warrant for testing or training purposes. It is vital that those authorised to undertake interception are able to test new equipment and ensure that those responsible for using it are properly trained in its use. There are, however, strict controls that govern the handling of material obtained during such tests. We believe that it is right that it should be possible for equipment to be tested in scenarios where it can be checked that it is working properly, for example by armed forces on the battlefield. It would have serious consequences for our military if they did not have the ability to test equipment so that risks and mistakes are avoided.
Keir Starmer
We can probably pick up this baton when we get to clause 30, but I think the provision that the Minister has just mentioned comes from the code, rather than the Bill.
Mr Hayes
That is true, it is in the code. I think I indicated that earlier. None the less, it is an obligation. The reason we added to the codes, largely following the Joint Committee report, was that we wanted to provide additional assurances without the rigidity of placing too much on the face of the Bill.
There is always a tension—I spoke about it in our morning session—between how much is placed on the face of a Bill, which of course provides a degree of certainty but by its nature simultaneously provides rigidity, and how much is placed in supporting documentation. Codes of practice are important supplements to a Bill, and, in their final form, to an Act. It should be emphasised that they are not merely advisory documents—they are legally binding in their effect. As I also emphasised, these are draft codes of practice that we expect to publish in full, partly as a result of this Committee’s consideration and what we learn from it.
The warrant application process will allow the Secretary of State to understand the potential risk that communications will be intercepted incidentally to the purpose of testing or training, and to approve the measures to be taken to reduce the chance of communication being accidentally intercepted. Clear safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of the citizen, so I invite the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West to withdraw the amendment.
Joanna Cherry
Indeed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Power of Secretary of State to issue warrants
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 17, page 13, line 5, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
This amendment, and others to Clause 17, seeks to remove the role of the Secretary of State in formally issuing interception warrants and instead requires Judicial Commissioners to issue such warrants.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 12, in clause 17, page 13, line 8, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 13, in clause 17, page 13, line 10, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 14, in clause 17, page 13, line 12, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 15, in clause 17, page 13, line 16, leave out paragraph (1)(d).
Amendment 16, in clause 17, page 13, line 20, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 17, in clause 17, page 13, line 22, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 18, in clause 17, page 13, line 24, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 19, in clause 17, page 13, line 27, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 20, in clause 17, page 13, line 31, leave out paragraph (2)(d).
Amendment 21, in clause 17, page 13, line 35, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 22, in clause 17, page 13, line 37, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 23, in clause 17, page 13, line 39, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”
Amendment 24, in clause 17, page 13, line 42, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 25, in clause 17, page 13, line 45, leave out paragraph (3)(d).
Amendment 26, in clause 17, page 14, line 5, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 27, in clause 17, page 14, line 8, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 101, in clause 17, page 14, line 11, leave out “For the power of the Scottish Ministers to issue warrants under this Chapter, see section 19.”
This amendment reflects the removal of the role of the Scottish Ministers in formally issuing interception warrants sought by Amendment 36 (which proposes leaving out section 19).
Amendment 28, in clause 17, page 14, line 13, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 33, in clause 18, page 14, line 30, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 34, in clause 18, page 14, line 31, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Keir Starmer
To some extent the amendments overlap with the discussions we will no doubt have on clause 21 and new clause 5. The effect of this group of amendments is to replace the Secretary of State with the judicial commissioner as the primary and only decision-maker in relation to these categories of warrants.
This morning, the Minister said that he was surprised that we had tabled these amendments and I will give him three short answers to that. The first is that from the outset the Labour party called for judicial authorisation before the concept of the double lock was introduced. That was our primary and preferred position. Obviously, the introduction of the double lock, which involves a degree of judicial authorisation, is somewhat better than the Secretary of State being the sole determining decision-maker. Therefore the fact that we are supportive of a situation that is better than the current situation is hardly enough to knock us out from our primary position. The third position—and this is why it overlaps with clause 21—is that to some extent this all depends on what role the judges have. If they are nearer to decision-makers under clause 21, the relationship with the Secretary of State is very different from the position if they are simply long-arm reviewers. I will reserve that for the discussion we will have on clause 21.
So far as the principle in favour of these amendments is concerned, I can be clear. They have been drafted to reflect, as far as possible, the detailed proposals of David Anderson in his report. Members of the Committee have probably seen that they are deliberately drafted to reflect the approach that he suggested was right—particularly when one takes into account new clause 5. I will summarise his reasons, rather than reading them verbatim, laid out in paragraphs 14.47 and 14.57 of his report. He indicates four reasons for the proposed structure. The first is the sheer number of warrants that the Home Secretary has to sign per year. As he sets out in paragraph 14.49, there are thousands of warrants per year, details of which are in the footnotes. Dealing with those warrants is a huge imposition on the Secretary of State’s time, and they could be dealt with in a different way.
There is an important sub-issue here. Points have been made, this morning and on other occasions, about the accountability of the Secretary of State in relation to national security and foreign affairs. I understand how and why those points were made. As David Anderson points out, 70% of the warrants that the Secretary of State routinely signs off are in fact police warrants that do not raise issues of national security or matters of foreign affairs. In many respects, they are no different from the sorts of powers that the police exercise when they search and seize, or exercise other powers available to them through the usual routes of going to the Crown court. His starting point is that it is no longer sensible for the Secretary of State to handle these thousands of cases, particularly since 70% are in fact police cases, not involving national security or foreign affairs.
Secondly, in paragraph 14.50 David Anderson deals with improving public confidence. Thirdly, at 14.51 he deals with the position in the US, where there is a growing insistence that if warrants are to be complied with by those in the US, judicial sign-off of the warrant is required. David Anderson’s concern was that, unless we move to a different system, we might find that warrants would not be honoured when we needed them to be honoured in other jurisdictions. That is obviously a serious point that I know the Government have taken into account.
The fourth reason, in paragraph 14.52, is that there is an established and well-functioning system for judicial approval by commissioners in comparably intrusive measures, when applied for by the police. He lists them as property interference, intrusive surveillance and long-term undercover police operations. Other police activities that require to be warranted go straight to the commissioner, not via the Secretary of State. Since 70% of those cases are the police exercising not dissimilar powers of interception under warrant, there is a powerful argument to say that that category of cases, if nothing else, ought to go straight to a judicial commissioner. That would be modelled on David Anderson’s analysis, for the reasons that he has set out in those paragraphs.
I would like to highlight paragraph 14.56(a), because it has been said today and on other occasions that an important political accountability goes with the role of Secretary of State in relation to these warrants. Yes, that is the case to a certain level, but it must not be misunderstood. I have yet to find an example of any Secretary of State from any political party, certainly in recent history, ever accounting to Parliament for an individual warrant.
Victoria Atkins
What I genuinely do not understand about this argument is that, given that the Secretary of State is not permitted or authorised to account publicly for a warrant, how on earth will that be any different for a judicial commissioner? The nature of the material is sensitive, regardless of whether it is reviewed by the Secretary of State or by the judicial commissioner.
Keir Starmer
The point I am making is not that that judicial commissioner could be more accountable, or that there would be some forum in which the judge could go and explain. I completely accept that that is a limitation. I am meeting the argument against this proposal, which is that at the moment the Secretary of State has some political accountability which would be reduced or taken away if this amendment were accepted.
The point David Anderson makes is that it is of course a criminal offence to disclose that the warrant has been signed, so in fact the Secretary of State could not go to the Dispatch Box even in an extreme case. She would commit an offence if she went to the Dispatch Box to be held accountable for an individual decision. That is exactly why David Anderson writes as he does in paragraph 14.56 of his report. If any other members of the Committee have found an example of a Secretary of State ever actually being held accountable for an individual warrant, I personally would like to see the Hansard report of that taking place.
Suella Fernandes
On the question of accountability, there is a clear line of accountability to the Executive in the form of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is a body of reviewers—elected, accountable and within the parliamentary and democratic process—who have access to this confidential information and can review the actions under this function. That is a clear line of accountability, which exists and is exercised.
Keir Starmer
Again—and I will be corrected if I am wrong on this—the statutory prohibition on the Secretary of State ever saying whether or not she signed a warrant applies across the board, whether in a Select Committee or in any other parliamentary proceedings. In other words, first, she could not be asked a question about an individual warrant because there would be no basis on which it could be put and, secondly, even if it were asked she could not answer it. I take the point that is being made but, wherever the accountability is placed, to hold the idea that there is individual accountability for the hugely important decisions that are made on individual warrants is to misunderstand how the regime works.
Lucy Frazer
One witness—I forget now who it was, but I think they were on the legal panel—said that there is accountability both ways. If the Secretary of State gets it right and there is no terrorist attack, there is nothing to be accountable for. If she gets it wrong, she is extremely accountable for the consequences of something that happened when she made the wrong judgment call about whether to issue a warrant.
Keir Starmer
I recall that evidence, but it is very difficult to see how that could work in practice, because none of us would ever know—nor could we know—whether a warrant had been put before the Secretary of State and whether she had signed it. That is prohibited for us and for the other oversight mechanisms. That is the problem. I accept the broader political accountability—if something goes horrendously wrong, one would expect the Home Secretary to make a statement about what the Government had been doing. However, the idea that on an individual, warrant by warrant basis there could be anything amounting to accountability is what David Anderson was driving at in his report, and it has never happened. That is the best evidence.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Gentleman is so wrong about this that I have an embarrassment of riches on which to draw. He is philosophically, politically and factually wrong, but let me deal first with his factual inaccuracy. The Home Secretary can talk about specific warrants to the ISC. The ISC does conduct detailed investigations into particular cases, as it did into the murder of Lee Rigby, when it scrutinises data in considerable detail. Of course all of that cannot be made public, because of the nature of the investigation, but the hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstands—perhaps because of inexperience—the role of the ISC in those terms. I will deal with his philosophical and political problems later.
Keir Starmer
Perhaps the Minister will point me to an example of the ISC ever making public any criticism of or comment about the Secretary of State’s exercise of the powers in a way that could in any way be described seriously as politically accountable.
Mr Hayes
With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he can hardly claim that the ISC is a puppet or poodle of Government given its report on the Bill. The ISC is extremely robust in its scrutiny of Ministers. It makes its views known to Ministers and is not frightened to make known to the House its views about the proposals, policies and performance of Government.
Keir Starmer
I do not think that the Minister was listening to what I said. I asked if he could point me to a single example of the Intelligence and Security Committee ever commenting publicly—in a way that could be accountable to the public—on the exercise by the Secretary of State of her powers to issue a warrant. It is all very well making generalised points, but I am asking for yes or no—the Minister must know.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the ISC could not ask the Secretary of State about particular warrants, but the ISC can and does ask the Secretary of State about particular warrants in pursuit of its inquiries into specific cases. Of course, because of the character of the ISC, rather like the practice of Ministers, it cannot make all that information publicly available. The whole point about the ISC is that it does not make all that it considers publicly available, but that does not mean that Ministers are not accountable to the Committee, which is made up of Members of this House from many political parties.
Keir Starmer
The answer to my question appears to be no, there has never been an example of the ISC or any Committee ever commenting publicly on the exercise by the Secretary of State of her specific powers to issue warrants or not. That is what leads David Anderson to the view that the political accountability card is overplayed in the discussion.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
This is a very important aspect of the debate. On the last remark made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, about David Anderson’s potential conclusion about political accountability being overplayed, I was interested in the arguments, but the fundamental point is the source of the authority that allows the Secretary of State as a democratically elected politician to make the decisions. Also, in particular in the context of national security, it is well set out in case law, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that proper deference should be paid to the Executive on important decisions of national security. That is at the top end of the scale, then we move down—or across, in a different context—and is that not the issue?
Keir Starmer
I have already accepted the general proposition that if some catastrophe occurred, the Secretary of State would be required or expected to make a statement, setting out what in general terms had been done. I accept that level of political accountability. I am talking about the specifics of signing off warrants and, therefore, what would be lost if the Secretary of State’s role were taken over by the judicial commissioner. There is a question of deference on national security and foreign affairs, but we will get to that when we reach clause 21, because that deals with the scope of review by the judicial commissioner. The point I was making before the interventions, however, was drawing attention to David Anderson’s paragraph 14.5, in which he sets out the reasons why the political accountability card is overplayed.
Victoria Atkins
The hon. and learned Gentleman may recall that we had the privilege of listening to two Labour Home Secretaries, Lord Reid and Charles Clarke. I asked Mr Clarke about his relationship with the security services and his experience of warrantry in the dreadful hours following the 7/7 bombings. I asked him how useful or important that was in the vital hours thereafter and his answer—I will be quick, Mr Owen—started with the words “critically important”. Does that affect the hon. and learned Gentleman’s view in any way?
Keir Starmer
No, it does not. With all due respect, thinking on accountability and safeguards in this field is on the move. The sort of regime that was perhaps thought appropriate five, 10 or 15 years ago is now accepted as not appropriate. One of the points of this legislation in many respects is to bring it up to date and make sure that scrutiny and safeguards are more powerful. The fact that an ex-Home Secretary thinks their role was very important and need not be interfered with did not surprise me, but neither did I find it persuasive.
I have probably exhausted my point. The amendments are intended to reflect the position set out by David Anderson for the very good reasons that he draws attention to in paragraph 14.56(a): the political accountability card is overplayed in resisting this argument.
Joanna Cherry
I just want to address the joint amendments briefly. I want to draw attention to amendment 101, which was tabled on behalf of the Scottish National party and reflects a later amendment to delete clause 19. Scottish Ministers issue warrants at present in relation to serious crime. If the amendments were taken on board, their role would be replaced by judicial commissioners, and they are comfortable with that. I simply draw attention to that consequential amendment.
I support everything that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras has said in support of the group of amendments to clause 17. I have just three points to make: three reasons why I support the amendments. First, I associate myself with the argument that arguments concerning Ministers’ democratic or political accountability for surveillance warrants are misconceived and misplaced. Secondly, one-stage judicial authorisation is the norm in many comparable jurisdictions. Thirdly, and picking up another point made by David Anderson, judicial authorisation would encourage co-operation from technical firms in the United States of America.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras for exploding the myth, also exploded by David Anderson, that Ministers are democratically accountable for their role in issuing warrants, because of course it is a criminal offence to disclose the existence of a warrant, and that will remain the case under clauses 49 and 51.
What is often advanced and has been advanced by Government Members is that a corollary to this argument is that Ministers are politically accountable for the agencies and will be required to resign if things go wrong. That is incorrect. Although the Home Secretary is responsible for setting the strategic direction of the Government’s counter-terrorism policy and the Cabinet Minister is responsible for MI5, MI5 is like the police: operationally independent. MI5’s director general retains operational independence for day to day decision making. Historically, when terrorist attacks have tragically succeeded, they have not led to political resignations in this country. Despite inquests and inquiries following the terrible tragedies of the 7/7 attacks and the ghastly murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby, and despite the fact that those inquests and inquiries uncovered internal errors in the agency’s handling of information relating to those responsible for the attacks, this did not result in the political accountability that is now so strongly claimed.
The reality is that the oversight we have for such decisions and the accountability for the agency is provided by a patchwork of mechanisms, including the ISC—although I dissociate myself with the comments made by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras on the limitations of the ISC—and also by public inquiries and legal challenges brought against the Government. No doubt we could argue that such oversight and accountability as there is in relation to the operation of the security agencies could be enhanced, but it is simply not correct to argue that political accountability is provided by the ministerial sign-off on warrants, because it is not. I have been in the House for only nine months, but when questions around these issues are asked of Ministers, I have seen them repeatedly reply, probably quite properly, that they cannot answer for reasons of national security.
My second point is that one-stage judicial authorisation is the norm in comparable jurisdictions. It happens in America, where federal, investigative or law enforcement officers are generally required to obtain judicial authorisation for intercept. A court order must be issued by a judge of a US district court or a US court of appeals judge. In Australia, law enforcement interception warrants must be issued by an eligible judge or a nominated administrative appeals tribunal judge. In Canada, it is unlawful to intercept private communications unless the interception is in accordance with an authorisation issued by a judge. In New Zealand, police can only intercept a private communication in tightly prescribed circumstances, including requiring a warrant or emergency permit that can only be issued by a High Court judge. If the United Kingdom wants to be able to claim that it is in a world-class league for good practice in surveillance, in my submission, it should adopt one-stage judicial authorisation.
Those of us who are lawyers in the Committee or have ever dealt with the law are familiar with the concept of a judge being got out of his or her bed in the middle of the night to grant an interdict in Scotland or an injunction in England, in civil matters of far less importance than the sorts of matter the Bill deals with. In the aftermath of—God forbid—another attack in the United Kingdom such as 7/7, judges would be as readily available to deal with warrants as Ministers of the Crown are at present.
Thirdly, judicial authorisation would encourage co-operation from US technical firms. That point was pressed home by David Anderson QC in his review, when he said that given the United States tradition of judicial warrants, Silicon Valley technical firms feel uncomfortable with the United Kingdom model of political authorisation. Those firms operate in a global marketplace, which underlines the need for us to adhere to procedures fit for a world-leading democracy. The United Kingdom is alone among our democratic allies with similar legal systems in permitting political-only authorisation. The SNP supports the amendments for those three reasons.
Mr Hayes
This is an important debate, as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General said. The shadow Minister is wrong, as I described earlier, factually, philosophically and politically. I will try to deal with those in turn.
The factual case is this. Accountability is a much more sophisticated thing than the shadow Minister suggests. Accountability is about who makes decisions, as well as about the decisions they make. People who are elected, by their nature, are accountable to those who elect them. The judgments they make and the powers they exercise reflect that direct relationship with the electorate. It is almost undeniably true that those of us sitting in this room and others like us are bound to be more influenced and affected by the wider public because we do not do a job unless they continue to have faith and belief in us. We are elected by them; we are answerable to them.
The Home Secretaries, the Northern Ireland Secretaries and the Foreign Secretaries who make these decisions are elected constituency Members of Parliament who every day, every week and every month are communicating with constituents who have profoundly held views about the very matters over which those Secretaries exercise their judgment, in a way that people who are not elected simply do not. That line of accountability to the wider public should not be understated or underestimated.
Keir Starmer
How would a member of the public ever know, and therefore be able to judge, whether a Secretary of State had made a mistake in relation to a specific warrant?
Mr Hayes
I am prepared to acknowledge that I may not have made the argument sufficiently clearly, rather than to suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not understand it. I was making the point that those who are missioned to make the decisions are likely to be more in touch with the sentiments, values, views and opinions of the public than those who are not elected, because of who they are and the job they do. That is not a particularly difficult concept to grasp, so I am amazed that he does not grasp it.
Keir Starmer
Perhaps the Minister can point me to the provision in the Bill that permits or requires the Secretary of State to take into account the wider public’s views. There are strict legal tests of necessity and proportionality, and the idea that judges could not apply them to specified organisational purposes and so on is to underplay their duty. I have done loads of control order cases and TPIM cases in front of judges and they make such decisions day in, day out.
Keir Starmer
I am not sure I appreciate the tone with which the Minister is now conducting the debate, to be perfectly honest. To some extent, his comments have lost sight of the point I was making and that David Anderson made. The Minister invokes defence of the realm and national security, and so on, and has forgotten that 70% of these interception warrants are warrants for the police to exercise their powers—not particularly different to a lot of the other powers they exercise. They get search and seizure, they go into people’s houses, they get their letters and they read them, so there is nothing special about content in an intercept to say, “It must be the Secretary of State: only she is in touch with real people.” The police can get a warrant from a judge; they do so every day of the week. They go into people’s houses, they get all their documents and they read the lot, so the idea that that is a function that cannot be exercised unless someone is democratically elected is very hard to sustain.
The Chair
Before the Minister continues, let me say that the shadow Minister will have an opportunity to respond.
Mr Hayes
For the sake of brevity and to make sure I do not fall out in the future, I am going to say that, yes, I did notice it.
The shadow Home Secretary, speaking of the Home Secretary, went on to say:
“The two-stage process that she advocates seems to have the merits of both arguments: it will provide public and political accountability, and the independence that is needed to build trust in the system.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 974.]
That is exactly the same point that I made to the hon. Member for City of Chester: it has, in the words of the shadow Home Secretary, the “merits of both arguments”.
Perhaps the shadow Minister will forgive me if I sound a little more arch than I normally do, but I feel that this is such a surprising set of amendments, which is so out of keeping with what I hoped was emerging as a settled position on the balance between the Executive and the judiciary. I thought we would end up with a debate on this, but not one between two positions—our measured, compromise position, and a much more extreme position that I did not expect the official Opposition to adopt. I urge him to think about this again, because I think we reached a good settlement in the terms that I described. That is my political point.
Returning to my original point for a moment, given the evidence provided by the former Home Secretaries, John Reid and David Blunkett, and the former Northern Ireland Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), I think the balance of opinion lies on our side of the argument. I note the Joint Committee’s report and the fact that the ISC was silent on this issue in its most recent report. I feel that the balance of the argument lies with the proposals in the Bill. Perhaps we can look at the detail—I am happy to do that. Perhaps, in the spirit of trying to make positive progress, we can look at the information is provided to each party under the double-lock or at how the timing works—I do not know. I am not going to make any commitments on that, but I am more than happy to have a measured and reasonable debate about this. However, to take the Executive out of the process is politically very unwise, if I might say so, of the Opposition, and it is certainly not acceptable to the Government.
On the philosophical point, the shadow Minister understands—he is an educated and interesting man—that this strikes at the very heart of the separation of powers. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire said in evidence that
“these are executive decisions. They are operational decisions and must be made by a democratically elected Minister, accountable to Members of Parliament.”
He did not want the judiciary involved at all. We did not take that route because we listened to David Anderson and others, but I take the former Minister’s point.
Finally, so that we do not have any factual inaccuracies, the ISC made a clear recommendation on warranting in the Lee Rigby report that I mentioned earlier. The ISC does comment on warranting, contrary to what the shadow Minister says. It can both interrogate the Home Secretary on specific warrants and comment on warrants in respect of a particular investigation or inquiry. There is a line of accountability, as well as one to the wider public in the general terms that I described, to a well respected Committee of this House, which was established for exactly that purpose. On that basis, and having heard the argument, I urge Opposition Members to think again about these amendments.
Keir Starmer
In the exchanges we have had, I have probably said all I needed to in response to the Minister’s points. David Anderson might be surprised to find out that he is associated with the Bolshevik opposition apparently represented in the amendments. The amendments represent and reflect his thinking, but that is as may be—I will not press the amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 17, page 14, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) No warrant issued under this Part will be proportionate if the information sought could reasonably be obtained by other less intrusive means”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 93, in clause 27, page 21, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) A warrant issued under this Chapter must state the specific purpose that is to be achieved by the warrant.
(2B) A warrant issued under this Chapter must outline the options for obtaining the relevant data and confirm that other less intrusive options have been tried but failed or have not been tried because they were bound to fail and the reasons why.”
This amendment, and others to Clause 27, seek to preserve the capacity of a single warrant to permit the interception of multiple individuals but would require an identifiable subject matter or premises to be provided (in similar vein to the amendments to Clause 15).
Keir Starmer
I mentioned amendment 61 this morning. The interception of communications draft code of practice—at paragraph 4.7, as I indicated this morning—states:
“No interference with privacy should be considered proportionate if the information which is sought could reasonably be obtained by other less intrusive means.”
That is a clear and correct statement of principle.
Subsection (4), as drafted, is not so clear. It simply suggests that, if the information can reasonably be obtained by other, less intrusive means, that is a factor to be taken into account, but is not decisive, as set out in the draft code of practice. In our view, the Government cannot have it both ways: if the code is right, it should be elevated and put on the face of the Bill. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve, replacing subsection (4) and replacing it with what is, in essence, paragraph 4.7 of the draft code of practice, which in our view is the right way to articulate necessity in such circumstances.
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There is a danger when dealing with primary legislation of gilding the lily. I mean that in the spirit of co-operation that I know we have managed to engender in these debates, in the main. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Solicitor General for the way he has approached this, but it misunderstands the amendment. Of course, whether information could be reasonably obtained by other means is relevant to the assessment of proportionality and necessity. The amendment proposes that, having taken all the factors into account, if it transpires at the end of that exercise that the information could have been reasonably obtained by other less intrusive means, it is not proportionate—that is the end of the exercise. That, in our submission, is the right test that should be on the face of the Bill. At this stage, I will withdraw the amendment with a view to raising it at a later stage if it is appropriate to do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Grounds on which warrants may be issued by Secretary of State
Joanna Cherry
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 18, page 14, line 20, after “security”, insert “or”.
Keir Starmer
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, whose comments I endorse. I saw the Ministers nodding that they will take that away and consider it, and I am grateful for that indication. Rather than the broader points that have been discussed so far, I will concentrate my comments on clause 18(2)(c), which deals with
“the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom so far as those interests are also relevant to the interests of national security”.
The short point is this: if economic harm to the wellbeing of the United Kingdom is so serious that it amounts to a threat to national security, it is covered within subsection (2)(a). If harm to the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom is a serious crime, it is already within subsection (2)(b). The Intelligence and Security Committee has made the point that
“if ‘national security’ is sufficient in itself, then ‘economic well-being…so far as [is] relevant to the interests of national security’ is redundant, since it is a subset of the former.”
The ISC went on to say:
“We have questioned both the Agencies and the Home Office on this matter and neither have provided any sensible explanation. In our opinion, this area is already sufficiently complex so drafters should seek to minimise confusion wherever possible. We therefore recommend that ‘economic well-being’ is removed”.
The Committee makes the same point that if economic wellbeing is already subsumed into paragraphs (a) and (b), paragraph (c) is not necessary. The Committee has asked repeatedly what paragraph (c) covers if not what is already within paragraphs (a) and (b), and I ask that question here today. I ask the Minister or anyone else to give me a single example of what it is envisaged paragraph (c) covers that does not fall within paragraphs (a) and (b).
Subsection (4) has been referred to today and on Second Reading as providing some sort of comfort that subsection (2)(c) is not a matter of concern. It says:
“A warrant may be considered necessary as mentioned in subsection (2)(c) only if the information which it is considered necessary to obtain is information relating to the acts or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.”
To be clear, that does not mean the communication itself is outside the British islands, but that the communication relates to acts or intentions of persons outside the British islands. I endorse everything that was said about trade union and other activities that may be outside the British islands, but the suggestion that this provision would only catch communications outside the British islands is a wrong reading, in my submission.
The question on the table for the Minister is whether a single example can be given of something coming within subsection (2)(c) that does not come within subsections 2(a) and (2)(b). If not, how can the clause be justified?
Mr Hayes
I start my contribution to this short debate by confessing a pretty profound prejudice, which is that I am committed to and supportive of trade unions. I am a member of a trade union; my father was a shop steward; my grandfather was chairman of his union branch. I come from a long history of trade unionism, and I believe that the trade union movement in Britain has done immense good for the interests of the people. I am a Disraelian Tory, and so I believe in the elevation of the people, in which trade unions have played an important part. I could wax lyrical about one of my heroes, Joseph Chamberlain, in terms of the elevation of the people, but we do not have time for that. When I approach this clause and this subject, I do so with that profound prejudice. By the way, just as an aside, prejudice is immensely underrated in the modern age, but it is important that we balance all that is rational with all that we feel. Feelings matter.
I make it categorically clear that, as the hon. Member for City of Chester generously said, not only individual Ministers in this Government, but the Government as a whole have no intention that these powers should be used for the kind of political purposes he describes. That is not our intention. Actually—it is always good to go further than one’s officials want—I think we might need to be more emphatic about that in some form, because I want to make it crystal clear that the kind of scenario that he describes cannot happen in our country.
Our country is a free and open place where we celebrate the differences between people and the role played by the trade unions. I am prepared to go as far as necessary down the road to make that categorically clear. To that end, I suggest that I meet Frances O’Grady of the TUC to discuss this. I know her well. I went on a joint business-trade union delegation with her to Germany to look at apprenticeships when I was Skills Minister. I am more than happy to engage with the trade union movement to see what more we can do.
However, let us return to the point about economic wellbeing and these amendments. At the outset of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman rightly recognised that threats to economic wellbeing could be immensely damaging and fundamental in their effect and could be the business of a foreign potentate or another source of malevolence. He described a cyber-attack, which might be an attack on our critical infrastructure, on our financial services system or, heaven knows, on Government itself. The age we live in means that cybercrime, perpetrated either locally or internationally, is a threat that we must recognise and have the means to address, so it is right that the law—this Bill, which I hope will become an Act—includes reference to the interests of the economic wellbeing of the UK, but it is equally true, as the Opposition argued on Second Reading and elsewhere, that that interest is closely tied to national security.
One argument that has been made is that if we were to define national security more tightly, we might assuage fears of the kind the hon. Gentleman described. The trouble with defining national security more tightly is that that might of itself create additional rigidity that is unhelpful to the agencies in pursuit of their work. Successive Governments have hesitated to describe national security prescriptively, and having looked at these matters closely I understand why. Successive Governments have affirmed the idea that a small number of law enforcement agencies, the security and intelligence services and the armed forces need to be able to seek and use interception warrants for national security, for preventing and detecting serious crime and in the interests of economic wellbeing. I am reluctant, therefore, either to take economic wellbeing out of that list or to define national security more narrowly. I think that the breadth of those definitions is important for operational effectiveness.
There may none the less be more that we can do to deal with political fears, if I can put it in those terms. The existing law is clear that none of these powers can be used in the interest of a political party or in a particular political interest, but it may be that we can do more to offer reassurance. I am going a little further than we have until now because I want to create a bridge that we can cross. The Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 provide some protection, because they deal particularly with the issue of the interests of any political party being served by the powers. A case has been made about the Shrewsbury 24. Indeed, there was a debate in Westminster Hall on that very subject—I have the transcript here with me—promoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who is a very good man and a very proud trade unionist; I know him well. The events at that time preceded the legislation that tightened protection. Notwithstanding that, I have heard the argument that has been made today.
The other reason why I do not want to significantly change the language on economic wellbeing, although I understand the argument about ambiguity, is that the phrase “economic wellbeing” reflects the language in domestic legislation—as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General will know—the European convention on human rights and the European Union directive that covers the scope of interception powers. It is difficult to think of a better, more appropriate or more widely recognised term. Substituting another term could be taken to imply that the agencies should not engage in certain activities in the future that they undertake now. One can easily imagine a future judicial commissioner querying why the language has changed from that used in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and asking whether what the agencies do should change, too.
I am hesitant to make that fundamental change. I am not sure it would do anything for transparency. Indeed, removing economic wellbeing and placing what is done under the broader umbrella of national security might lead to less, rather than more, clarity in the process. As the hon. Member for City of Chester described, some of the events that would be included under the heading “economic wellbeing” could be sudden and of crisis proportions, such as the cyber-attack to which he and I referred, and require prompt and decisive action. Such crises are, by their nature, unpredictable and we must not limit the agencies’ ability to deal with them.
Joanna Cherry
I listened carefully to the Minister, and I noted that he said he wanted to provide a bridge on the issue of national security and can perhaps deal with issues and political fears related to that, but that he does not want to significantly change the language on economic wellbeing and is not happy with the SNP amendments in relation to reasonable suspicion. I do not want to get too bogged down on trade union rights and I certainly do not want to kick down the bridge that the Minister wants to build, but I have to say that, on trade union rights, actions speak louder than words. This Government have introduced some of the most draconian anti-trade union legislation that has been seen in this country for many years—worse than Mrs Thatcher’s. In that context, I do wonder whether we can be assured about the Government’s intentions in relation to trade unions. However, the Minister is an honourable man; I take him at his word and will listen to what he has to say in the future on this issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Approval of warrants by Judicial Commissioners
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 62, in clause 21, page 17, line 4, leave out from “must” to “the following matters” in line 5 and insert “determine”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 89, in clause 21, page 17, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
Keir Starmer
This is where we pick up the discussion about scrutiny. As the amendments to clause 17 were withdrawn, the premise here is that of a dual function, carried out first by the Secretary of State and then by the judicial commissioners. To be clear, we welcome the involvement of judicial commissioners, and the amendments focus on their role in the process. We have had the discussion about whether the judicial commissioners should be the default decision-makers—this is a different exercise.
What is clear in clause 21(1) and (2) is that what is envisaged in the Bill is a review exercise by the commissioners. That is clear from the words “must review”. Subsection (1) states that the judicial commissioner must review the person’s—in this case, the Secretary of State’s—conclusions as to necessity and proportionality, and subsection (2) states that
“the Judicial Commissioner must apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review.”
It is therefore a review mechanism, and it is a review according to judicial review principles.
Two problems arise from that. The first is that it is not, therefore, truly a double lock. A double lock denotes a decision by the Secretary of State, which survives in clause 17, and a decision by a judge—a judicial commissioner—under clause 21, but this is not that sort of double lock.
The second problem, the reference to judicial review, is equally profound. Committee members will remember my question to Lord Judge:
“Do you agree with me that as the Bill is currently drafted, it is not clear what Parliament intends”—
in relation to judicial review of warrants—
“and therefore it will fall to the judges? In other words, it is broadly enough drafted to cover a longer-arm review or a closer intense review depending on what judges decide as cases evolve. It could accommodate both approaches.”
That is the problem with judicial review here.
I will quote Lord Judge’s response, because he captures the real cause for concern here:
“I think ‘judicial review’ is a very easy phrase to use. It sounds convincing, but it means different things to different people. People say, ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’—that was a case decided by the Court of Appeal in 1948 or 1947, and it has evolved. Personally, I think that when Parliament is creating structures such as these, it should define what it means by ‘judicial review’. What test will be applied by the judicial—I call him that—commissioner, so that he knows what his function is, the Secretary of State knows what the areas of responsibility are and the public know exactly who decides what and in what circumstances? I myself do not think that judicial review is a sufficient indication of those matters.”––[ Official Report, Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2016; c. 67-68, Q220.]
That is one of the most experienced and well-respected judges in the country indicating that in those circumstances judicial review is not a sufficient indication of the test.
Amendment 62 would require the judicial commissioner to decide for him or herself on necessity and proportionality. Amendment 89 would take out the reference to judicial review. The scheme and structure of the Bill would therefore be retained. There would be a double lock. Both the Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner must be satisfied that necessity and proportionality is made out, at which point the warrant would come into effect, unless of course it is an urgent warrant. There would be clarity about the role of the judge.
In previous exchanges, it has been accepted that the judicial commissioner will see the material that is before Secretary of State and therefore can make that decision. The lock therefore becomes what we have termed an equal lock, where both parties make a decision on the substantive merits of the case. That gets rid of the potential ambiguity with which Lord Judge was concerned. It would then be absolutely clear that this is truly a double lock. It is a simple and straightforward amendment that would bring real clarity to the exercise.
Suella Fernandes
I am listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman with interest, and I appreciate his exploration of the meaning of this term. What is his opinion of Lord Pannick’s assessment of the insertion of judicial review? He concludes that it is sufficient, flexible but clear and strikes the right balance.
Keir Starmer
I know and respect Lord Pannick hugely, but there is no guarantee in the Bill that his preferred way of approaching this under judicial review principles is the one that will be carried out in practice; he has no control over the test that will be applied. Lord Judge’s concern is that some judges may consider that this is an area where they virtually take the decision, which is what they do in certain cases involving particular human rights issues, where they get very close to the decision, while other judges will be much more deferential.
With the best will in the world, Lord Pannick puts forward the view that judicial review will work, but there is no guarantee of that. Unless it is set out in the Bill, the test will be simply left to be applied on a case-by-case basis. Nobody, in this formulation, could argue that a judge who applied long-arm reasonableness was acting in any way other than in accordance with the test.
Obviously, I respect what Lord Pannick says, but Lord Judge was making a different point that goes back to accountability, to some extent. He was alive to the fact that once judges are involved in the decision-making process, a torch will be shone on them in relation to these warrants. There will be inhibitions on what they can say and the circumstances in which anybody could hold them to account. We have rehearsed that. I read into his answer that he wanted absolute clarity and a tightness of test so that the judges knew what they were to do and could operate within those confines, thus protecting themselves from the suggestion that they had applied too close or too loose a test. It is partly about clarity, with one eye on judicial accountability in the longer term for the decisions that have to be made.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. and learned Gentleman earlier cited Sir Stanley Burnton and said, pretty much verbatim, that he would encourage Government Members to look carefully at any submissions that Sir Stanley Burnton made, as he was extremely knowledgeable. On this issue, Sir Stanley said that he was happy with the test and that it might be difficult to draft it more tightly. Another experienced member of the panel who gave evidence, Lord Reid, specifically stated that he thought the judges’ role was
“about oversight…and not about decision making.”––[Official Report, Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2016; c. 84, Q259.]
Keir Starmer
Sir Stanley is a friend and colleague, and I have had the privilege of appearing in front of him on a number of occasions in cases involving national security, in particular control order cases. I think that what he was indicating was that, in his experience and on his own approach, as any of the cases will demonstrate, he is in favour of intense review by the judge. He anticipates that the measure allows that intense review. I have no doubt that that is the approach he personally would take, because that would be consistent with the approach that he has always taken in such cases.
Suella Fernandes
It is an important issue. Evidence to the Joint Committee from Sir Stanley Burnton and Lord Judge was unequivocal, in that Wednesbury unreasonableness would have no place in this context. That seems to be maintained by Sir Stanley Burnton in the evidence that we have received more recently. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that Wednesbury unreasonableness has no role in this context, especially by virtue of reference to necessity and proportionality?
Keir Starmer
The reference to proportionality and necessity does not help in this context, because the question for the judge on this formula is not, “Is the measure necessary? Is it proportionate?” Judges often make, and are well used to making, that decision. The decision for them on this formula is whether, when the Secretary of State decided that it was necessary and proportionate, she was exercising her powers in a way that cannot be questioned, applying the principles of judicial review. That is the real difference.
Whether I think the long-arm Wednesbury test is appropriate is neither here nor there. So long as we have clause 22(2), it is open to a judge to apply the old-fashioned Wednesbury test, because that is within the principles of judicial review. The case law obviously varies. The closest possible scrutiny is usual in control order or TPIMs cases, but there are many other examples involving national security where the judges have persistently said that long-arm review applies. There are two strong lines of case law, and I am arguing that one is better than the other. The point is whether the Bill is clear enough about the test to be applied.
This is a real opportunity, as much as a challenge, for the Government. The provision is a new one, and it is a double lock if properly applied. It ought to be substantive. The judge ought to decide whether a warrant is necessary or proportionate. As long as he or she does, the warrant comes into existence and can be relied upon. In the 21st century, that is the right approach when such a provision is going into statute for the first time.
Lucy Frazer
I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that he favours the same test being applied by both the judge and the Home Secretary. If so, that is in conflict with Sir Stanley’s evidence. He said that he would give significant weight to the view of the Home Secretary. If he gave significant weight to the Home Secretary, necessarily he would be reviewing what the Home Secretary has done. If that is appropriate, the word should be “review”, whether it is judicial review or not. It is a review, not an assessment afresh of the same decision.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention. There are several different positions here, and we are finding our way. The amendments would take out the review element and make it clear that it is a double lock. There would then be a separate decision by the Secretary of State and a decision by a judge on the same material. Of course, a judge would always give weight to the Secretary of State’s view, but they would still come to a decision of their own. That is position No. 1, and let me be clear that that is what the amendment is aimed at—a true and equal lock.
Joanna Cherry
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that amendment 89, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and I, would specifically take out subsection (2) and the reference to judicial review? That would make clear what he is saying: amendment 62, which I also support, would amend subsection (1) so that the judge would determine the review in regard to necessity and proportionality, and judicial review would come out completely.
Keir Starmer
I agree. I notice that my name is not on amendment 89. I think it should have been, because amendment 62 only works if subsection (2) comes out, but that is neither here nor there at this stage. I am not quite sure what happened, but given that both amendments have been tabled, it does not matter one way or another.
To be clear, the position is that it should be a substantive decision by the judge according to necessity and proportionality, and those terms obviously have their own special application. Through amendment 89, the review, whether by judicial review principles or otherwise, would come out, making it a true double and equal lock.
It is a new approach and a new provision, so it is for Parliament to decide on the appropriate way forward, but the amendments would give clarity and a real safeguard with an equal lock. That is the position. There probably is a fall-back position, which is that if it is to be a review of some sort, amendment 89 should stand on its own feet—that the review should not be on the principles of judicial review, and something more would need to be written into the Bill.
I do not know what response the Minister will give, but this matter goes to the heart of the issue, and it may be that further consideration needs to be given to the precise test. As it stands, the test is insufficiently precise and will lead to difficulties in its application. It is a matter of real concern to the judiciary. Lord Judge does not make such comments without a good deal of thought. If he is concerned about the provision, the Government should be, too. The simple way through is to have a simple but substantive double and equal lock.
The Solicitor General
The debate has been interesting. On a point of order, Mr Owen, I want to ensure that we are dealing with both groups of amendments. The grouping that I have seeks to group new clauses 1 and 5 in one group—
The Solicitor General
That is fine. I am grateful to you, Mr Owen. I will address those amendments, rather than the new clauses, which will be dealt with in the usual way, but the purport of the argument is similar.
To summarise, amendment 89 would remove the provision in the Bill that specifies that when reviewing the decision by a Secretary of State or a Scottish Minister to issue a warrant, the judicial commissioner must apply the same principles as would be applied by a court in an application for judicial review. Instead, the amendment would require him or her to determine the necessity and proportionality of a warrant for him or herself.
There has been a lot of debate on the important report by David Anderson and the Royal United Services Institute review. They have played a huge part in bringing the Bill to germination and its current state. There is a danger here. I listened very carefully to the evidence of Lord Judge and, indeed, asked him a number of questions. The dilemma that I put to him still remains. I can see the attractiveness in seeking to narrow or prescribe the particular criteria to be applied by the commissioners in every instance, but there is a danger that, in doing so, we fetter the proper discretion of judges exercising their review function in looking at each case purely on a case-by-case basis.
The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras set out his stall very clearly. He prays in aid the equal lock, as he calls it. In essence, he wants a different approach from that which the Government say we should take. We make no apology that the decision made by the Secretary of State is reviewed by the judicial commissioner before coming into force. That is a very simple, staged approach that clearly reflects the way in which case law is going and is also ahead of the curve when it comes to the development of judicial oversight of warrantry in these particular cases.
I will deal with the Anderson carve-out, if I may use that phrase. The problem with the genuine intention of David Anderson in trying to carve out what he recognised to be an important part of the function of Government—namely, national security and foreign affairs, where he recognised that the Executive are the part of our constitution best placed to deal with those matters—and then creating a certification process is that that, in itself, is juridicable. An Executive decision will be made that is, in itself, capable of challenge. My concern is that, however well intentioned attempts to create a hard and fast definition that creates a theoretical space for Ministers to act might be, we will end up with further difficulty, further lack of clarity and, frankly, further litigation that means that the Bill is not future-proof in the way that I want it to be.
Keir Starmer
To save time—I probably should have made this clearer an hour ago when we were rowing about other things—I had seen this certification clause, or new clause 1, as going with the amendments to clause 17. In other words, it was my acceptance that, on certain measures, there ought to be a certificate from the Secretary of State for the limited accountability that I accept is there. Therefore, if it is helpful, amendments 62 and 89 are intended to be taken on their own, not cluttered by the certification process, which possibly would have been better discussed under clause 17.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I remind myself that we will be able to debate those new clauses but I thought it important to look, in essence, at the full picture of David Anderson’s recommendations, bearing in mind that we had quite a lively debate about the role of the Executive. It would be a mischaracterisation of Mr Anderson’s view about the role of the Executive to say that somehow there was a wholesale move away from the Executive’s position with regard to warrantry and what Government Members certainly strongly feel is the important role of the Executive.
Coming back to where we are with regard to the judicial review test, we have already heard reference to the noble Lord Pannick. The intervention he has made is powerful and it is important that he thinks the test is robust. The criticism is, perhaps, not justified. Of course, that is not the only basis on which we have reached that conclusion. We all know—those of us who are lawyers and those who are not—the growing importance of judicial review in our public life. It is a concept that has evolved and that will continue to evolve. It is flexible, too.
The Solicitor General
That is an interesting way of putting it. I want to make it clear that the review is on an appeal. There is a danger that we will end up mistakenly looking at some sort of a de novo application entirely on its merits, not an appeal. There are other mechanisms by which this matter could be taken further up. At this stage, it is part and parcel of the decision being made. That is an important point of clarification.
Keir Starmer
Can the Solicitor General point me to the words in clauses 1 and 2 that would make it wrong for a judge to apply long-armed judicial review principles to a decision?
Joanna Cherry
I have heard nothing that answers what in my submission is a knockout point about lack of reasons. I am not tooting my own trumpet because it was not my idea. I got the point from my learned devilmaster, Laura Dunlop QC, a distinguished silk at the Scottish Bar and former law commissioner. I asked her to look at this and she said the first thing that occurred to her was how can there be scrutiny under judicial review principles when there is a vacuum of any reasoning. I have not heard any answer to that question in what the Solicitor General has said, with all due respect to him.
On that basis, I remain of the view that amendments 62 and 89 will be essential in due course, but following the course of action we have taken today, I will not insist on them at this stage. I reserve the right to bring them forward at a later stage, about which the Chairman has advised me.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Solicitor General. I have listened carefully to what he has said. There is a difference between us, because I seek to ensure through the amendment that the judicial commissioner is a proper decision maker.
To make the argument that the judges might be fettered is really to misunderstand the amendment that I have tabled. The duty of the judge is to apply the test that Parliament sets out in statute. That is straightforward, and if Parliament is clear about the test, the judge is exercising his or her duties properly in applying the test. There is no question there, but there is this fundamental point between us as to whether it should be review or decision making. I think that is clear enough.
In light of the argument, at this stage I will not push this amendment to a vote, but I will reserve it for a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Hayes
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 21, page 17, line 13, leave out from “a” to “grounds” and insert
“decision of the Secretary of State to issue a warrant,”.
This amendment makes a minor drafting change to take account of the fact that Clause 21 may also apply in a case where a warrant has already been issued (see Clause 22).
Mr Hayes
These are minor drafting changes, to take account of the fact that clause 21 may also apply in cases where warrants have already been issued by the Secretary of State, and that urgent procedures are covered in clause 22, and that clause 21 may also apply in a case where the warrant has been issued by Scottish Ministers. They are uncontentious changes, and I beg to move the amendment on that basis.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendment made: 3, in clause 21, page 17, line 15, leave out from “a” to “grounds” and insert
“decision of the Scottish Ministers to issue a warrant,”.—(Mr John Hayes.)
This amendment makes a minor drafting change to take account of the fact that Clause 21 may also apply in a case where a warrant has already been issued (see Clause 22).
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 102, in clause 21, page 17, line 23, at end insert—
“(6) In consideration of any warrant pursuant to this Part, a Judicial Commissioner may instruct a special advocate to represent the interests of any person or persons subject to the warrant or the wider public interest.
(7) A Judicial Commissioner must instruct a special advocate when considering applications for a warrant—
(a) in the interests of national security; or
(b) involving the consideration of items subject to legal professional privilege.
(8) For the purposes of these proceedings special advocates are persons appointed by the relevant law officer.
(9) The ‘appropriate law officer’ is—
(a) in relation to warrants in England and Wales, the Attorney General,
(b) in relation to warrants in Scotland, in relation to (7)(a), the Advocate General for Scotland, and in relation to (7)(b), the Lord Advocate, and
(c) in relation to warrants in Northern Ireland, the Advocate General for Northern Ireland.
(10) A person may be appointed as a special advocate only if—
(a) in the case of an appointment by the Attorney General, the person has a general qualification for the purposes of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990,
(b) in the case of an appointment by the Advocate General for Scotland or the Lord Advocate, the person is an advocate or a solicitor who has rights of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary by virtue of section 25A of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, and
(c) in the case of an appointment by the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, the person is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 38, in clause 21, page 17, line 23, at end add—
“(6) In considering a warrant pursuant to this Part, a Judicial Commissioner may instruct a special advocate to represent the interests of any person or persons subject to the warrant or the wider public interest.
(7) In considering a warrant pursuant to this Part which is being sought—
(a) in the interests of national security;
(b) in the interest of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in so far as those interests are also relevant to the interests of national security; or
(c) involving the consideration of items subject to legal professional privilege,
a Judicial Commissioner must instruct a special advocate to represent the interests of any person or persons subject to the warrant or the wider public interest.
(8) For the purposes of this section a special advocate is a person appointed by the appropriate law officer for the country of the United Kingdom to which the warrant relates or mostly relates—
(a) for England and Wales, the Attorney General,
(b) for Scotland, the Advocate General for Scotland, and
(c) for Northern Ireland, the Advocate General for Northern Ireland.
(9) A person may only be appointed as a special advocate by the—
(a) Attorney General, if the person has a general qualification for the purposes of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990,
(b) the Advocate General for Scotland, if the person is an advocate or a solicitor who has rights of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary by virtue of section 25A of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, and
(c) the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, if the person is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland.”
Amendment 39, in clause 21, page 17, line 23, at end insert—
“(6) In consideration of any warrant pursuant to this Part, a Judicial Commissioner may instruct a special advocate to represent the interests of any person or persons subject to the warrant or the wider public interest.
(7) For the purposes of this section a special advocate is a person appointed by the appropriate law officer for the country of the United Kingdom to which the warrant relates or mostly relates—
(a) for England and Wales, the Attorney General,
(b) for Scotland, the Advocate General for Scotland, and
(c) for Northern Ireland, the Advocate General for Northern Ireland.
(8) A person may only be appointed as a special advocate by the—
(a) Attorney General, if the person has a general qualification for the purposes of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990,
(b) the Advocate General for Scotland, if the person is an advocate or a solicitor who has rights of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary by virtue of section 25A of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, and
(c) the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, if the person is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland.”
Amendment 45, in clause 23, page 18, line 22, after “addressed”, insert—
“(c) any Special Advocate appointed.”
Amendment 46, in clause 23, page 18, line 23, after “warrant”, insert
“, or any Special Advocate appointed,”.
Keir Starmer
I am very happy to speak, particularly on amendments 38 and 39. May I just be clear with Committee members about the difference between the amendments? They are alternatives. They are provisions that are intended to allow the judicial commissioner to instruct a special advocate to represent the interests of any person or persons subject to the warrant, or the wider public interest.
The difference between the two amendments is that amendment 39 is purely permissive, so that, if a judicial commissioner thinks that he or she wants the assistance of a special advocate, amendment 39 allows that. Amendment 38 is more prescriptive, because it sets out certain circumstances in which a special advocate should be appointed. However, they are deliberately put in alternative form.
I will speak predominantly to amendment 39. There will be circumstances, no doubt, where the judicial commissioner wants assistance from somebody other than the Secretary of State in conducting the exercise that he or she is conducting. If the test remains as set out in clause 21, there may be points that the judicial commissioner wants to hear about, to hear upon and to take into account. This amendment provides a mechanism for him or her to do so.
Experience in the past has shown that, if a clause such as this, or similar to this, is left out, problems arise. Then, there is an attempt, usually by the court, to find its own inherent jurisdiction to allow an amicus or somebody else to be instructed. And it is not straightforward, because some courts and tribunals have inherent jurisdiction and others do not. There are many arguments about that, which we probably do not need to rehearse this afternoon.
This amendment cuts through all that by saying that, if in any given circumstances, a judicial commissioner wants to hear submissions from “A.N. other party”, it allows him or her to have someone make those submissions, either in writing or in person.
I am not personally wedded to the special advocate scheme. If the Solicitor General thinks there is any merit in that argument, I am very happy to work with the Government on a proposal to achieve the same end, but I think that the fall-back of relying on inherent jurisdiction is inherently risky.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West and the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras. The hon. and learned Lady was very clear about the different basis of her amendment. My concern is that there are two schools of thought here. There is the amicus curiae school of thought, with which I have a great deal of sympathy. One of the roles of the Law Officers is, when we are approached by various jurisdictions, to consider whether the attorney himself should intervene or whether the court should have an amicus appointed. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to talk about some of the confusion that can exist in regard to inherent jurisdiction. I am going to take that point away and consider it.
I am concerned about a full-blown replication of the important special advocate system that we have to assist, for example, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, or of the genesis of the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the closed material procedure. There is an important difference between the public interest in having special advocates and this type of scenario. In such cases, there are affected parties—usually respondents to important applications—for whom huge issues are at stake and who need that sort of quality representation within what we accept are exceptional and unusual departures from the principle of open justice. That is why special advocates were created. They perform an invaluable and important role.
I do not see the read-across from that to this scenario. What we have here is an investigatory procedure. It takes place at the early stages—to take a case example—of the investigation of a crime or a threat to national security. There may not be at that stage an identifiable suspect; there is, therefore, a difference and a difficulty in identifying the prejudice that could be caused to the interest of an individual who is a party to the proceedings. It is a different scenario and, tempting though it might be to introduce that type of regime, it would serve only to introduce delay, bureaucracy and extra expense with no tangible benefit to the integrity of the system.
In a nutshell, I will consider carefully the amicus curiae point, but I have wholly to reject a wider approach and the creation of a special advocate system which, frankly, would go beyond even the American jurisdiction, with which comparison is often made—in the foreign intelligence surveillance court in the US they have amici curiae available to assist the court. On that basis, I urge the hon. and learned Member to withdraw the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I have nothing to add. In the light of what the Solicitor General has said I will not press the amendment. I look forward to what he produces and to further discussing that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Joanna Cherry
I have nothing to add either.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Solicitor General
We have dealt admirably with many of the issues in the clause and I will not speak to the stand part debate.
Keir Starmer
I do not wish to speak to new clause 1. It stands or falls with the clause 17 amendments and is to that extent withdrawn along with them.
Joanna Cherry
My new clause 5 is in the same category as new clause 1, the ground of which I think we have covered. The new clauses are slightly different, in that they followed David Anderson’s initial recommendation, but we will obviously revisit the matter at a later stage so I will not take up time unnecessarily to labour the point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Approval of warrants issued in urgent cases
Joanna Cherry
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being so precise and clear about that. Essentially, the concern about clause 22 is that the scope of the urgent mechanism is extremely broad and ill defined. In my view, it could fatally undermine any safeguard provided by a mechanism for judicial authorisation or indeed judicial review in the double lock.
The Bill provides that an urgent warrant can be issued by the Secretary of State in a case where she considers there is an “urgent need”, which is not defined. We then have the three-day period. As the hon. Lady said, no specific reason has been given for the selection of three days. The Joint Committee took the view that it should be shortened significantly to provide for approval within 24 hours. I think the ISC suggested 48 hours—I apologise if I have got that the wrong way round.
The purpose of the amendments is to remove the urgent provision in the Bill altogether or to restrict it to very limited circumstances, with the urgent authorisation having to take place during a 24-hour period. The concern underlying the amendments is that in their absence, the provisions for urgent warrants in the Bill will drive a coach and horses through even the double lock provision, because they will enable the judicial authorisation part of the procedure to be bypassed in very loosely defined circumstances. That is the case as precisely as I can put it.
Keir Starmer
I will be brief. There is a real concern about the provision for urgent cases being three days. Although we need such a provision, that period allows warrants to be operable before the double lock can apply, and therefore the period should be as short as possible.
The problem is not only that three days is too much but that three days can, I think, be five days, because it is three working days, and therefore there is the potential for three days to morph into more than three. If I am wrong about that, I will happily be corrected. I have put my name to the amendments suggesting 24 and 48-hour periods, to give the Government the option to reduce the threshold to either of those and put it in terms of hours, which removes any possible confusion about the use of the word “days”.
Joanna Cherry
I have nothing to add, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Members of Parliament etc.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 104, in clause 24, page 18, line 38, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
‘(1) This section applies where a warrant issued under this Part would seek to authorise any activity which may involve access to special procedure material.
(2) Special procedure material subject to subsection (1) will include—
(a) communications which are subject to legal professional privilege;
(b) journalistic material which a person holds in confidence; and
(c) communications sent by, or intended for, a member of the relevant legislature.
(3) The warrant subject to subsection (1) may only be granted on application to a Judicial Commissioner.
(4) The Judicial Commissioner must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that—
(a) a criminal offence has been committed;
(b) the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation of that offence;
(c) other proportionate methods of obtaining the information have been tried without success or were not tried because they were bound to fail;
(d) it is in the public interest that the warrant is granted, having regard to the—
(i) benefit likely to accrue to the investigation and prosecution if the information is accessed,
(ii) importance of the prosecution, and
(iii) importance of maintaining public confidence in the confidentiality of material subject to legal professional privilege, the integrity of journalists’ sources, and/or communications with members of relevant legislature.
(5) Material is subject to legal professional privilege means—
(a) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client made in connection with the giving of legal advice to the client;
(b) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client and any other person with or in contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings;
(c) items enclosed with or referred to in such communications and made in—
(i) connection with the giving of legal advice, or
(ii) connection with the contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings.
(d) communications made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose are not subject to legal professional privilege.
(6) A person holds journalistic material in confidence for the purposes of this section if—
(a) it is held subject to such an undertaking, restriction or obligation;
(b) it has been continuously held (by one or more persons) subject to such an undertaking, restriction or obligation since it was first acquired or created for the purposes of journalism.”.
This amendment establishes a consistent approach to the safeguards afforded to parliamentarians, legally privileged material and journalists seeking to protect their sources.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 92, in clause 24, page 18, line 38, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
‘(1) This section applies where a warrant issued under this Part would seek to authorise any activity which may involve access to special procedure material.
(2) Special procedure material under subsection (1) will include—
(a) communications which are subject to legal professional privilege;
(b) journalistic material which a person holds in confidence;
(c) communications sent by, or intended for, a member of a relevant legislature.
(3) A warrant under subsection (1) may only be granted on application to a Judicial Commissioner.
(4) To approve a warrant under subsection (3), a Judicial Commissioner must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that—
(a) a criminal offence has been committed,
(b) the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation of that offence,
(c) other proportionate methods of obtaining the information have been tried without success or were not tried because they were bound to fail, and
(d) it is in the public interest that the warrant is granted, having regard to the—
(i) the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation and prosecution if the information is accessed,
(ii) the importance of the prosecution, and
(iii) the importance of maintaining public confidence in the confidentiality of material subject to legal professional privilege, the integrity of journalists’ sources, and/or communications with members of a relevant legislature.
(5) Material subject to legal professional privilege means—
(a) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client made in connection with the giving of legal advice to the client;
(b) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client and any other person with or in contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings;
(c) items enclosed with or referred to in such communications and made—
(i) in connection with the giving of legal advice or;
(ii) in connection with the contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings.
(d) communications made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose are not subject to legal professional privilege.
(6) A person holds journalistic material in confidence for the purposes of this section if—
(a) it is held subject to such an undertaking, restriction or obligation; or
(b) it has been continuously held (by one or more persons) subject to such an undertaking, restriction or obligation since it was first acquired or created for the purposes of journalism.”.
This amendment establishes a consistent approach to the safeguards afforded to parliamentarians, legally privileged material and journalists seeking to protect their sources.
Amendment 63, in clause 24, page 19, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 64, in clause 24, page 19, line 8, at end insert—
‘(2A) Where a warrant is likely to cover special procedure material, the procedure set out in subsection (2C) applies.
(2B) Where a warrant is likely to cover excluded procedure material, the procedure set out in subsection (2D) applies.
(2C) Further to requirements set out elsewhere in this part, the Judicial Commissioner may only issue a warrant likely to cover special procedure material if —
(a) There are reasonable grounds for believing that an indictable offence has been committed,
(b) There are reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation in connection to the offence at (a),
(c) Other proportionate methods of obtaining the material have been tried without success or have not been tried because it appeared that they were bound to fail,
(d) It is in the public interest having regard to—
(i) the democratic importance of freedom of expression under article 10 ECHR to grant the warrant; or
(ii) the democratic interest in the confidentiality of correspondence with members of a relevant legislature.
(2D) Further to the requirements set out elsewhere in this part, the Judicial Commissioner may only issue a warrant likely to cover excluded procedure material in accordance with provisions in Schedule 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and Schedule 5 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
(2E) An application for a warrant under this Part must not be granted where the information could be sought using a warrant under Schedule 1 of PACE, unless seeking this information under PACE would defeat the purpose of the investigation.
(2F) In this section “special procedure material” means—
(a) special material as defined in section 14 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; or
(b) correspondence sent by or intended for a member of the relevant legislature.
(2G) In this section “excluded procedure material” has the same meaning as in section 11 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.”.
Amendment 80, in clause 225, page 176, line 44, at end insert
“and for the purposes (and only the purposes) of this Act, including the application of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), a “criminal purpose” includes the purpose of—
(i) doing or facilitating anything involving an imminent threat of death or serious injury or an imminent and serious threat to national security, or
(ii) concealing, or impeding the detection or prevention of, the doing or facilitation of any of those things;”.
Keir Starmer
I will speak first to amendment 92, which is on page 18 of the amendment paper. The amendment would introduce additional protection for three special categories: those involving legal professional privilege; that involving journalistic material; and that involving members of a relevant legislature, including MPs. I will also address amendment 63, which is on page 19 of the amendment paper and would remove clause 24(2), to be replaced by amendment 64. For the benefit of the Solicitor General, I indicate that I will address only the principle. Having reviewed the wording, the amendments would not achieve the intended purpose for all the categories I mentioned, and therefore the amendment 104 will not be pressed to a vote. I am therefore speaking to the principles relating to legal professional privilege, journalistic material and members of a relevant legislature.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras for seeking not to get ahead of himself with respect to the arguments on legal professional privilege. I feel a degree of sympathy, because the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West was inevitably going to deal with these matters in the round. Although different considerations apply to each category—parliamentarians, journalists and legal professionals—both hon. and learned Members are absolutely right to lay emphasis not on individuals in those professions but on the client, the source and the constituent. That is why these roles have a special status: it is about the wider public interest. The Government absolutely understand that and we place it at the very heart of our consideration of how warrantry should operate in these areas.
As you will know, Mr Owen, there has already been significant movement by the Government as a result of the various reports that we know all too well. I am delighted that matters of legal professional privilege are now in the primary legislation in great measure. The debate will therefore be about the extent to which safeguards are placed in the primary legislation and about what form they take. I will heed the hon. and learned Gentleman’s exhortation and not stray too far into that area.
I will therefore deal with the amendment to clause 24 and the question of parliamentarians. We heard last year the Prime Minister’s statement about the issue and the important requirement that he or she is to be consulted before the Secretary of State can, with judicial commissioner approval, issue a warrant to acquire communications sent by or intended for a Member of a relevant legislature. The clause applies to all warrants for targeted interception, with the exclusion of warrants authorised by Scottish Ministers, and includes the all-important requirement for the Prime Minister to be consulted before a targeted examination warrant can be issued to authorise the examination of a parliamentarian’s communications collected under a bulk interception warrant.
Part 5 contains similar provisions for equipment interference carried out by the security and intelligence agencies. The important protection in clause 24 will apply to the communications of Members of Parliament, Members of the House of Lords, United Kingdom MEPs and Members of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. It is important to observe that for the first time, what was a doctrine for the best part of 50 years is now codified and enshrined in primary legislation.
It is important to remember in the spirit of the wider public interest that nobody, least of all parliamentarians, is above the law. The Wilson doctrine has perhaps been misunderstood for many years as a blanket exemption for parliamentarians, but that is exactly what it was not. It was actually an explanation that there will be times when the national or the public interest demands that the communications of Members of Parliament be intercepted because there might be criminal purpose behind them. We hope that that will never happen, but sadly human experience teaches us otherwise. It is therefore important to strike a balance between the proper exercise of the privileges of being a Member of this place or of the other Assemblies and Parliaments in the United Kingdom and the principle of equality before the law.
The amendments introduce the concept of special procedure material and try to combine the approach to the safeguards afforded to the three categories that I have discussed. To put it simply, I submit that what is on the face of the Bill and in the accompanying codes of practice already provide those safeguards and indeed go beyond what can be encompassed in primary legislation. At this stage, I will not say anything further, because I want to deal with points that I know hon. Members will raise about the other categories.
Keir Starmer
Can I ask the Minister about journalistic sources? I am concerned that there is nothing about them on the face of the Bill. He will know how anxious journalists are about this. Will he consider whether something should be put on the face of the Bill? There is an inconsistency: in other parts of the Bill, such as clause 68, there is express provision relating to journalists. There is something in the code of practice, but there is nothing on the face of the Bill, which is the problem. Without committing himself to a particular form of words, will he commit to considering one and perhaps liaising with us about what form it could take?
The Solicitor General
I am mindful of the fact that my colleague the Security Minister is meeting with the National Union of Journalists. I cannot commit the Government to a particular course of action, but let me put this on record. We are absolutely committed to the preservation and protection of a free press and freedom of expression in our democratic society. That includes the ability of sources to provide anonymous information to journalists, which is absolutely vital if we are to have throughput of important information that needs to be in the public domain.
At the same time, there is a danger. We must not unduly fetter, on the face of the legislation, the important work of our law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies. We live in an age of constant blogging and other social media tools. Journalists themselves do not like being defined as a profession. I have been criticised in the past for using that terminology when talking about journalists, for example in the context of the Leveson process. Now, however, there are increasingly wide and loose definitions of who are journalists and what journalism is, and my worry is that that will, and does, inadvertently prevent legitimate investigation of those who are threatening our national security or who are planning to commit serious crime.
Keir Starmer
I have already indicated that I am not putting the amendment to the test. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Joanna Cherry
That is my position as well. I am happy to have addressed the principle at this stage and to look at an amendment at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Items subject to legal privilege
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 25, page 19, line 22, after “items”, insert “presumptively”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 51, in clause 25, page 19, line 31, leave out paragraph (3)(a) and insert—
“(a) that compelling evidence indicates that the items in question consist of, or relate to, communications made for a criminal purpose such that it is necessary to authorise the interception, or (in the case of a targeted examination warrant) selection for examination, of those items, and”.
Amendment 82, in clause 37, page 31, line 7, at end insert—
“(3) But this section does not authorise interception of a communication containing items presumptively subject to legal privilege.”
Amendment 75, in clause 42, page 33, line 30, at end insert—
“(4) But this section, nor section 43 or section 44, do not authorise interception of a communication containing items presumptively subject to legal privilege.”
Amendment 76, in clause 45, page 35, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) But this section does not authorise interception of a communication containing items subject to legal privilege.”
Amendment 81, in clause 225, page 177, line 6, at end insert—
“presumptively subject to legal privilege”, in relation to an item, means that disregarding any question of criminal purpose, the item falls to be treated as subject to legal privilege;”.
New clause 2—Items subject to legal privilege—
“(1) A warrant under this Chapter, or under Chapter 1 of Part 6, may not authorise conduct undertaken for the purpose of doing anything in relation to—
(a) a communication, insofar as the communication consists of matters subject to legal privilege; or
(b) related communications data, insofar as the data relate to the communication of matters subject to legal privilege.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), legal privilege means—
(a) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client made in connection with the giving of legal advice to the client;
(b) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client and any other person with or in contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings;
(c) items enclosed with or referred to in such communications and made—
(i) in connection with the giving of legal advice, or
(ii) in connection with the contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings.
(3) Communications made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose are not subject to legal privilege.
(4) An application which contains a statement that the purpose of a warrant is to access communications made for the purpose of furthering a criminal purpose, but which would otherwise attract legal privilege must be considered by a Judicial Commissioner.
(5) A Judicial Commissioner may issue a warrant sought under subsection (3), if satisfied that—
(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the communications are made with the intent of furthering a criminal purpose;
(b) that the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation in connection with which the application is made;
(c) that the material concerned is likely to be relevant evidence;
(d) other proportionate methods of obtaining the information have been tried without success or were not tried because they were bound to fail; and
(e) it is in the public interest that the warrant is granted, having regard to the—
(i) benefit likely to accrue to the investigation and prosecution if the information is accessed,
(ii) the importance of the prosecution, or
(iii) the importance of maintaining public confidence in the confidentiality of material subject to legal professional privilege.
(6) A code of practice issued under Schedule 6 must contain provision about—
(a) the steps to be taken to minimise the risk of conduct undertaken pursuant to a warrant to which this section applies resulting in accidental acquisition of a communication, or communications data, falling within subsection (1); and
(b) the steps to be taken if it appears that such conduct has accidentally resulted in acquisition of such a communication or data.”
This new clause is intended to replace existing clause 25 and seeks to clarify the approach to legal privilege in line with existing law.
New clause 6—Items subject to legal privilege—
“(1) A warrant under this Chapter, or under Chapter 1 of Part 6, may not authorise conduct undertaken for the purpose of doing anything in relation to—
(a) a communication, insofar as the communication consists of matters subject to legal privilege;
(b) related communications data, insofar as the data relate to the communication of matters subject to legal privilege.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), legal privilege means—
(a) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client made in connection with the giving of legal advice to the client;
(b) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client and any other person with or in contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings;
(c) items enclosed with or referred to in such communications and made—
(i) in connection with the giving of legal advice; or
(ii) in connection with the contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings.
(d) communications made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose are not subject to legal privilege.
(3) An application which contains a statement that the purpose of a warrant is to access communications made for the purpose of furthering a criminal purpose, but which would otherwise attract legal privilege must be considered by a Judicial Commissioner.
(4) A Judicial Commissioner may issue a warrant sought under subsection (3), if satisfied that—
(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the communications are made with the intent of furthering a criminal purpose;
(b) that the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation in connection with which the application is made; and
(c) that the material concerned is likely to be relevant evidence;
(d) other proportionate methods of obtaining the information have been tried without success or were not tried because they were bound to fail;
(e) it is in the public interest that the warrant is granted, having regard to the—
(i) the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation and prosecution if the information is accessed;
(ii) the importance of the prosecution; and
(iii) the importance of maintaining public confidence in the confidentiality of material subject to legal professional privilege.
(5) A code of practice issued under Schedule 6 must contain provision about—
(a) the steps to be taken to minimise the risk of conduct undertaken pursuant to a warrant to which this section applies resulting in accidental acquisition of a communication, or communications data, falling within subsection (1);
(b) the steps to be taken if it appears that such conduct has accidentally resulted in acquisition of such a communication or data.”
This new clause clarifies the approach to legal professional privilege on the face of the Bill and brings it into line with the spirit of existing case law, the common law and PACE.
Keir Starmer
We come to this late, but the provision is an important one. I will try to be brief and to the point. The clause deals with legal privilege. I acknowledge that the Government have responded to the various recommendations so far, setting the provision out in a different form in the Bill.
There are, I am afraid, still problems. I have been discussing those with the Bar Council, which is concerned about the form in which the provision appears in the Bill. I invite the Committee to look at the clause. Subsections (1), (2) and (3) deal with a situation in which the purpose of an intercept warrant is to target material subject to legal privilege and, correspondingly, in relation to targeted examination. Those subsections are relevant to the targeting of material subject to legal privileges. Subsections (4), (5), (6) and (7) serve a slightly different purpose, which is the position if a warrant, although not targeted, may be likely to include items subject to legal privilege.
The difficulty with the first three subsections—this is the strong view of the Bar Council, borne out in the code of practice itself—is that
“Legal privilege does not apply to communications made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose (whether the lawyer is acting unwittingly or culpably).”
If the communication furthers a criminal purpose, legal privilege simply does not apply. If left unamended, subsections (1), (2) and (3) would allow the targeting of legally privileged material which does not further a criminal purpose, and therefore falls outside the limits of legal privilege itself.
The Bar Council’s point, which is a good one, is that once legal privilege is properly understood it becomes clear that legally privileged material should not be targeted. If the argument is that we may have to target communications between a lawyer and client in which they further a crime—I accept that there have been examples of that—in those circumstances the material has already lost its legal privilege and therefore does not need to be targeted. In fact, something that is not legally privileged is being targeted. It is a very serious point, and new clause 2 was intended to help set out what the Bar Council suggests is a better formulation of clause 25. Subsection (3) of new clause 2 makes it clear that:
“Communications made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose are not subject to legal privilege.”
It approaches it on that basis in order to meet the argument that you cannot ring-fence something which, under the cloak of legal privilege, is in fact furthering a criminal intent. If that is right, it logically follows that clause 25(1), (2) and (3) should not stand as they are currently drafted. New clause 2 is essentially an alternative provision.
In other words, the test in 25(3) of “exceptional and compelling circumstances” is on the one hand welcome, though it is not welcome in a clause that targets legally privileged material that should not be targeted for the reasons I have outlined.
Lucy Frazer
I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for thinking of this as I speak. Is there a risk that we could be unclear as to whether a communication is subject to legal privilege, and think that it is in furtherance of a criminal offence, and then it turns out not to have been? Is there a loophole or lacuna in the legislation that does not cover that eventuality?
Keir Starmer
There is. That is a very good point, and it is one that I have discussed with the Bar Council. In those circumstances, what is being targeted is material that is not legally privileged, though there might be something that is legally privileged within it. There should be safeguards put around that, and I readily accept that examples will arise, probably also in the bulk powers, in which, although the intention is not to target legally privileged material, it is very difficult to have a warrant which does not run the risk.
An example would be when there is a suspicion that a lawyer and client may be involved in some activity that would take the communication outside of legal privilege, but it is impossible to say at what point of the conversation or exchange it loses its legal privilege. That is an obvious example. The answer that the Bar Council gives to that, and that I agree with, is that in those circumstances, rather than having a warrant to target the legally privileged material, there is a regime that recognises that it may be that, when targeting what can legitimately be targeted—namely, the part of the communication that has lost its privilege—there is a risk that privileged communications are incidentally picked up. There should be a provision for dealing with that material and its disclosure.
The powerful point about subsections (1), (2) and (3) is that it is wrong, in principle, to target legally privileged material. It is possible to have a warrant that runs the risk, with a separate set of safeguards to ensure that, if the risk materialises—as it will in some cases—there are provisions for ring-fencing, safeguarding, and not disclosing that material. That is the intention behind the Bar Council amendment.
It may be that further tweaks or improvements can be made, but that is an important point of principle that I invite the Solicitor General to take away and consider. A clause that satisfied the Bar Council in terms of the legal protection of this important privilege would be a prize worth having. Although the Bar Council recognises, as I do, the movement that the Government have made here, they simply have not got this right, for the reasons that I have outlined.
Subsections (4), (5), (6) and (7) are focused, in a sense, on communications that are likely to include items of legal privilege, such as a warrant that touches on a solicitor or lawyer communicating with clients, where it is thought that privilege has been lost but also elements where it has not been lost. In those circumstances, the Bar Council’s view and my view is that what is set out is again simply not strong enough, because there is no test or special provision.
New clause 2 is a comprehensive clause that would deal with that issue. In a sense, it goes with amendment 80, which amends a much later provision. It is intended to tidy up and clarify what the Bar Council says properly represents legal privilege and a regime for protecting it.
Suella Fernandes
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not think that there is a special level of safeguard incorporated in the clause? A higher bar needs to be overcome. Only in “exceptional and compelling circumstances” will privilege be circumvented. Is that not a high standard to meet?
Keir Starmer
I accept that it is a high standard to meet, but it is focused on the wrong target. If it is wrong in principle to target legally privileged material on the basis that that material might involve communications that further crime, on a proper understanding, that material has already lost its legal privilege. Having a higher test to target something that has not lost its legal privilege is a good thing, but it is not enough. Material that has not lost its legal privilege should not be targeted, because it is in fact not furthering crime. The proper way to deal with it is to recognise that what one really wants to target is communications that have lost their privilege. However, there is a risk of including—unintentionally, because one does not want to target it—other material, and that requires a different approach and a different regime. That is really the point. It is good to have a threshold, but the threshold does not work within the confines of this scheme.
I urge the Solicitor General to view the clause in that light and to reflect again on it. A lot of work has been done to try to get it into a better state, but that has not met with the approval of the Bar Council and, following analysis and discussion with the council, I can see why. New clause 2 is the council’s attempt to get it right. It has spent a lot of time on it and is very concerned about it. I invite the Minister to reflect again and commit to looking again at the clause, perhaps with us and the Bar Council, to try to get a clause that meets with the approval of everyone concerned. If that can be achieved, it will be a prize worth having; if it cannot, it will be a waste of a bit of time on a good cause.
The Solicitor General
Although it comes at a late hour, this is an important debate. We have come a long way on this issue. There was silence as to the presence of legal professional privilege in the draft Bill. The Government have rightly listened to the evidence and have now made important amendments to clause 25.
Keir Starmer
I and the Bar Council would like an example of that. If it is being advanced that even where the iniquity exception is not made out—in other words, it is properly legally privileged communications—there none the less may be circumstances in which the privilege yields under the Bill. We need to be clear about the circumstances he envisages. In a sense, he is suggesting that the communications can be targeted once they have lost their quality in cases where the iniquity exception is not made out—in other words, where it is a proper professional exchange between lawyer and client, fully protected until now. We had better have an example. The Bar Council will be very interested, because this issue goes to the heart of the privilege.
The Solicitor General
I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has looked at the code, and the example I will give him is the example in the code under paragraph 8.37. I will read it into the record, because this is an important point. The example is:
“An intelligence agency may need to deliberately target legally privileged communications where the legal consultation might yield intelligence that could prevent harm to a potential victim or victims. For example, if they have intelligence to suggest that an individual is about to conduct a terrorist attack and the consultation may reveal information that could assist in averting the attack (e.g. by revealing details about the location and movements of the individual) then they might want to target the legally privileged communications.”
In other words, that is not the furtherance of a crime, because the legal adviser is not hearing or in any way participating in the outline of a plan. There might be information in there that seems to the adviser to be innocent information about the suspected terrorist living in a particular location or associating with particular individuals, but which, because of the surrounding intelligence in the case, may well give a basis for the intelligence agency to target that individual, because the information means more to the agency.
Keir Starmer
The Minister points to an example that I have discussed with the Bar Council. I must put its view on the record, which is that in those circumstances, there would be an offence if someone was not providing the relevant information about that sort of incident to other than the lawyer. We may need to take this discussion forward in an exchange of letters, with the benefit of what the Bar Council has to say, but in its view that is not a good example for what would be an exceptional incursion into legal privilege. That is why I urge the Minister, rather than batting this back at this stage, to take the opportunity to have further discussions with the Bar Council to get this provision into a form that is acceptable to all.
The Solicitor General
I am always happy to discuss matters with the Bar Council. As one of the leaders of the Bar, the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I go to regular Bar Council meetings. I was with it on Saturday, and I listen carefully to what my friends and colleagues at the Bar have to say.
However, the example I am giving explains the situation. There might be information that is entirely innocuous to the lawyer. Let us say that there is a consultation happening. The lawyer might ask a few questions about the address and associates of the person that do not, to him or her, disclose an offence being committed, but which might, in the wider context, provide the security and intelligence authorities with evidential leads that build a wider picture of which the lawyer will be unaware. That is not the furtherance of a crime; it is innocent. What would be innocuous information to the lawyer might mean something more, because a wider context might give the appropriate agency the grounds upon which it could then make its application for warrantry.
There is a distinction. I am not saying that it will be commonplace—far from it. That is why we have worded the terms of the clause very carefully. We talk about “exceptional and compelling circumstances”. I cannot imagine a higher threshold for an applicant to meet than those words.
An additional attraction is that, for the purposes of this legislation, we do not try to define what is meant by legal professional privilege. It is a bit like the argument about parliamentary privilege—the more we try to modernise and define it, the more it ceases to exist as a meaningful concept. One has to be careful about using vehicles like the Bill to define what is a very wide-ranging principle that applies to myriad circumstances involving lawyers and their clients. Although I am in the spirit of dialogue, that is why I would strongly hesitate before adopting the amendments.
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend sums it up admirably. We have taken a different approach from RIPA, and rightly so. We have listened to the concerns expressed by the wider community, not just members of the profession, and are fully cognisant of the importance of legal professional privilege. It was part of my daily professional life for nearly 20 years so, as a Minister and as a lawyer, I fully understand its importance. Therefore, I hope that the example I have given gives an important insight into what we regard as “exceptional and compelling circumstances”. For those reasons, I urge the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras to withdraw the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I will not take much time. The Solicitor General prays in aid the dangers of over-defining, but the danger of the clause is that it will cut across legal professional privilege. Let us be realistic about what that means: wire taps to listen to privileged legal communications where the iniquity exception does not apply. A lawyer will never again be able to say that a communication—even one within the proper limits of a legal communication—is protected, because there could be no such guarantee. There will always be the possibility that it will not be protected. At the moment, it can be said that as long as it does not fall into the inequity exception, a communication is protected. In the other examples that have been used, it would not be interceptors; it would be bugs in cells. In the end, that is the road that will be opened by this proposal. A lawyer believes that they are having a confidential discussion on proper terms and appropriately with their client, yet that is intercepted. That is why I think the Bar Council feels so strongly about it.
Of course, there is a danger in defining legal professional privilege, but there is a much greater danger in getting to a position where a lawyer can never again say, “I guarantee that, as long as it is within limits, this is a protected communication.” That is at the heart of the Bar Council’s concern. I have said all I need to say. That is the problem.
The Solicitor General
We have to be careful about this. We have prison rules, for example. The hon. and learned Gentleman and I know that there are already certain prescribed circumstances and scenarios that exist. I am not advocating a coach-and-horses approach that can be taken by authorities who have a cavalier regard for LPP. This is a very prescribed exception. The words “exceptional and compelling” are strong. He paints a nightmare scenario—I know that he does so with genuine concern for a privilege that he and I hold dear—but I think that we are getting the balance right and that what he envisages will not come to pass.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for standing to give way. I was trying to think of circumstances in which legal professional privilege—the relationship between the lawyer and their client—might not be as sacrosanct as the client might expect. For example, if the lawyer considers that there is a risk that their client is involved in money laundering, even if they are not, there are circumstances in which that right is circumscribed. That might not be a perfect example, but we are in the territory of there being the risk of great harm or wrongdoing and evidence that persists of that.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for the intervention, and I recognise that point. The concern is that, if passed in this form, the Bill will allow interception where there is no question of the inequity exception. Perfectly lawful, proper, appropriate communications between lawyer and client, which are fully protected and recognised in all other circumstances, would come within the scope of an intercept warrant.
At this stage—particularly at this hour—I will not press the point. I urge the Solicitor General to keep at least a residual open mind, so that if a better version of the new clause can be tabled at a later stage, which meets some of the concerns he has outlined, he might look at the proposal again. As I say, this is an issue of real concern to the profession. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 29 agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Simon Kirby.)
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Starmer Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady, who has incredible expertise in this area, is absolutely right; we need police forces to take this seriously and recognise that a missing child is a child who is being exploited while they are missing. There is therefore a fantastic opportunity for intelligence gathering and safeguarding those children to stop them going missing in future.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
One of the proposed measures for tackling criminal gangs and paedophiles online is the Investigatory Powers Bill, which will start its line-by-line scrutiny tomorrow. One of the main concerns that we have outlined about the Bill as currently drafted is the proposed test that judges would undertake when considering applications for warrants to use the most intrusive powers, specifically the reference to judicial review. Lord Judge, the former Lord Chief Justice and current Chief Surveillance Commissioner, told the Bill Committee in oral evidence just before Easter that judicial review was “not a sufficient test” to apply and that the Government should look at this again. Given that someone of his seniority who is held in such respect feels that the test is not good enough, will the Government reconsider the Bill’s wording in relation to judicial review?
Karen Bradley
The hon. and learned Gentleman has great expertise in this area, but I am not sure that I necessarily agree with his comments. There is a double lock, and it is about necessity and proportionality, but he is right to make the point that the Bill is incredibly important when it comes to protecting children, as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children pointed out in oral evidence to the Committee considering the Policing and Crime Bill.