Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

House of Lords, 11 July 2016.

Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, we come now to the general duties in relation to privacy, which at least two noble Lords have referred to as the backbone of the Bill. I acknowledge, from these Benches, how much progress has been made with this issue and how welcome Clause 2 is. However, that does not deter us from being ambitious to pursue it to what we might see as perfection.

Amendment 5 would provide that any decision or action undertaken under the Act by a public authority should be subject to Clause 2. If it is not to apply, the Government should explain and justify that non-application to the Committee. I appreciate that this clause has a rather different genesis from most of the Bill. I hope it does not sound arrogant—it is certainly not meant to—if I say that it is an exceptionally well and helpfully drafted Bill. It has more definitions in it, more easily found, than any other Bill that I can recall. Most of it is extremely clear, but I have a problem with some of the content and drafting of this clause. This may be because it has come together through a different route, because of the input from debate in the Commons and outside.

If amended by Amendment 5, Clause 2(1) would not be specific about where the duty applies. I think I ought to give an example, although this might not be a very good one because a telecoms operator is not a public authority. It occurred to me that although an operator would have a duty to comply with a notice, under Clause 62, they should not have to make the assessment in the way the clause requires. Even if that is a bad example, we could be told that Clause 2(3) would apply to that and that it is not relevant. I will come back to that, but one should say so. Clause 63, the next one on from the one that I picked as an example, is about the filter. I struggle to see whether that comes within Clause 2(1)(d). It should. My overall question is whether Clause 2 is as stiff a backbone as it can be.

Amendments 6 and 8 deal with a provision to which the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, has referred, which is whether what is sought to be achieved could reasonably be done by “other less intrusive means”. My amendments would make that provision stand alone, not subject to the discretionary “have regard to” which introduces Clause 2(2). This is particularly important in connection to privileged communications, and indeed it came up in a meeting with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on Thursday, which, when we were assured in the context of legally privileged material that if a less intrusive means could be used it would be, was very helpful. This was what made me think about “have regard to”. My noble friend Lord Lester used the term “rubbery” of “have regard to”. In previous incarnations in this reference to “less intrusive means” there has been an absolute rather than a discretionary requirement, so I would be grateful for help on this, about which I feel particularly strongly.

Amendments 7, 10 and 11 are about the hierarchy, if one can say that there is a hierarchy within Clause 2, on which considerations are subject to what. Those taking decisions might welcome having some scope for consideration, but if the clause is circular—there have been times when I have thought that it is—it is our job to straighten it out. Clause 2(2) is subject to Clause 2(3). Clause 2(3)(a) says that the duties apply in so far as,

“they are relevant in the particular context”.

I cannot quite decide if those words are necessary. If a duty is not relevant, does one have to say so? Also, in particular, does “relevant” introduce an element of judgment, which would weaken the application of this?

Clause 2(3)(b) says that the duties “are subject to” particular considerations listed in Clause 2(4). Clause 2(4) takes precedence over Clause 2(2)—or does it? In addition Clause 2(4) suggests that there are considerations that are not listed. Given the importance of this clause I think that this should be addressed. To the extent that noble Lords have managed to follow that—I am not entirely sure that I did throughout—I hope that I have at least demonstrated that we think that there are potential problems in the construction of the clause.

Amendments 9 and 13 would make the Human Rights Act overarching. I might be told that because it falls within Clause 2(3)(b), to which Clause 2(2) is subject, it is not necessary to separate it out. If that is so, it reinforces the arguments that I have just made on the previous clutch of amendments. We might be told that not everything in the legislation is absolute and that certain rights are qualified, but my amendment would not affect that. I am really after clarity and certainty. The Human Rights Act is so important in this context that it should be expressed as applying in its own terms and not be demoted to being a particular consideration.

Amendment 12 is on “economic well-being”, which has been qualified elsewhere in the Bill to provide that it applies,

“so far as the interests of economic well-being are relevant to the interests of national security”.

I wondered about the significance of there being no such qualification at this point, particularly as the reference to national security is at the top of the tree in Clause 2(4)(a), so it is obviously extremely important—I do not deny the importance of national security. In terms of the drafting of the clause, does it override—meaning reduce or nullify—qualifications elsewhere? I would be grateful for help on that.

Amendment 14 would provide for bringing into force regulations to establish the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, which was a part of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act. My noble friend Lord Strasburger will speak particularly to this.

My points on “less intrusive means” and the Human Rights Act are the most important of a number that I think very important. Other noble Lords will have had more direct experience than I have of hearing or reading words such as “Parliament clearly intended” or “Parliament must have intended”. I do not quite know what we intend on this clause. It has rightly been welcomed for acknowledging the need for safeguards right up front and spelled out clearly. It would be a real shame if we did not get it absolutely right. I beg to move.

Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)

I reinforce what the noble Baroness has said with regard to Clause 2(4). The first line—

“The other considerations, may, in particular, include”—

means in effect that the criteria and considerations set out are open-ended. While the public authority may have regard to any of the considerations set out in Clause 2(4), it can also have regard to any other considerations that it deems fit. That seems a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I put my name to a couple of these amendments and I would like to speak to them. Under our constitutional arrangements, the Human Rights Act is the next best thing that we have to a constitutional guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms. The noble Earl the Minister has rightly put his name on the front of the Bill, stating that in his opinion it is compatible with the convention rights. I have put my name to these amendments to seek to make sure that what the Minister has put on the face of the Bill becomes transparently clear in the statute when it is enacted.

Article 8 of the convention, which guarantees the right to personal privacy, indicates that any exception must be provided by law—that is to say, satisfy legal certainty—and by the principle of proportionality, and that any interference must be necessary and no more than necessary to safeguard other compelling public interests. The problem with the Bill as drafted is that it does not go quite far enough to ensure full compliance with the Human Rights Act and with Article 8 of the convention. That is why the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee are needed, in my view. First, it is important not merely to have regard to but to make sure that there is full compliance with the principle of proportionality. That is what these amendments seek. Secondly, without repeating what has already been said, it is very important that the obligations on public authorities—for example, not to use the powers listed in Clause (2)(1)—are no more than what,

“could reasonably be achieved by other less intrusive means”.

That is classic principle of proportionality language.

I very much hope that in one way or another the Government will come to accept these amendments or something very similar to them so that we can make sure that lawyers like me are not able to go to court to challenge all of this under the Human Rights Act, but that Parliament gets the statute clear to put beyond doubt the application of the principles of legal certainty and proportionality, which is what these amendments are designed to do.

I will say just a word about Amendment 14, not because I want to make an elaborate statement about it but because, as I said at Second Reading, it is very important that we have a board or commission with the requisite powers. I will come to that in later debates on the Bill.

Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 14. We have already heard at length that, in its report on the Bill, the ISC called for a “backbone” of privacy to be inserted into it. The Home Office’s initial response was to add one word to the next version of the Bill: it inserted “privacy” into the title of Part 1 so that “General protections became “General privacy protections”—nothing else changed. Later, under some pressure in the Commons, Clause 2 came into being, which goes some way, but not all the way, to inserting the privacy protections that we on this side of the Committee feel are needed.

This episode suggests to me that no one in the Government has a brief to speak up for privacy and civil liberties when legislation is being formulated. Presumably, that is why the Home Secretary included Section 46 in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, giving her the power to establish the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. The only problem is that she has not commenced this power and the vacuum in privacy protection advocacy in government is still there.

Amendment 14 would force the Home Secretary’s hand so that she must get on with it—actually, to be more precise, her successor must get on with it because she probably has bigger fish to fry as of Wednesday. For now, this is simply a probing amendment. If it were brought back on Report, it would probably need some improvement in terms of the board’s scope and powers. The American version of this, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, has been very successful with a much wider brief. For now, I will be content to hear the Government’s response to the amendment as it stands.

Before I sit down, I will say a couple of words regarding the friendly fire that has been coming from behind me during this debate—rather ungraciously, I might say—from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. He queried whether I had read Nineteen Eighty-Four and knew about its description of CCTV in every bedroom. I have, actually, but I suspect that he has not been doing his reading on security matters because, if he had, he would know about Project Optic Nerve, in which GCHQ intercepted 1 million Yahoo! users’ webcams, which effectively put state cameras into 1 million bedrooms.

Lord Carlile of Berriew (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I am not going to enter into an argument with my noble friend about the activities of GCHQ, particularly when they have been misdescribed so fully, but I will say one or two things about the merits of the amendments before us, particularly Amendment 6.

I agree with what my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill said about this group of amendments, including Amendment 6, for the reasons he gave. It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, could explain to the House the difference between Amendment 6 and the intention of the Government as set out in Clause 2(2)(a). If the intention of the Government is to do what my noble friend Lord Lester described, I respectfully suggest that the adoption of the wording in Amendment 6 would be more useful and more certain and, above all, as my noble friend said, would avoid unnecessary disputes about the meaning of and compliance with Article 8 in the courts.

Unfortunately, I disagree again with my noble friends about Amendment 14. I am not against a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board if the Government wish to create one. Indeed, I would rather support the creation of a board which had an overarching view of privacy and civil liberties. The board that was created in the 2015 Act is most certainly not a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. It is a board that was intended to have some kind of oversight of interception, surveillance and other matters, and was a construct agreed as a compromise because of the nature of government at that time. I am afraid it is a glass half-full. Therefore, I urge the Government not to adopt that Privacy and Civil Liberties Board.

It is also worth saying that we have come an awfully long way in the protection of the public against unlawful intrusion by the state into their private affairs since the enactment of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board provision, which has not been brought into force. The safeguards included in this Bill as a result of the work of my successor as independent reviewer, David Anderson, and of the Intelligence and Security Committee and the RUSI panel mean that we have a much fuller raft of protections in the Bill. In my view, they are far more beneficial and provide a great deal more than was ever going to be provided by this form of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. I respectfully suggest to Ministers that this amendment is entirely unnecessary.

However, I emphasise that there are genuine concerns about potential breaches of privacy and civil liberties. They are concerns about what the public sector can do and they should also be concerns about what the private sector already does. Any of us who subscribe to online groceries, books, music or other similar consumer opportunities on the internet, as I confess I do—I frequently stream music in my car from my mobile phone—probably do not realise how much we have allowed our privacy to be trespassed upon by the so-called privacy policies of large internet service providers. If we are to have a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, let us do the whole job, not just a bit of it.

Lord Rooker (Labour)

My Lords, I will follow up the noble Lord’s point about what the public sign up to in the private sector—of course, the private sector has lobbied against part of the Bill because it has a vested commercial interest. If you sign up to PayPal, you have signed up to 36,275 words of terms and conditions. Who reads them? “Hamlet” is 30,066 words. If you sign up to Apple iTunes, you are signing up to 19,972 words of conditions; longer than “Macbeth” at 18,110 words. It goes on: Facebook’s has 11,195 words. You tick the box—that is all you do—and give these companies access to your information. These companies would never have been able to start in other societies without the rule of law—we all know that. They can only operate in open, democratic societies. You sign away all kinds of things. We know there was a test at one time when someone changed the terms and conditions to an agreement to give away their firstborn and people ticked the boxes, because they did not read them.

I was more concerned during my time on the RUSI surveillance panel. The private sector amassed information, even though there was a legitimacy to it, because people had given it to them. They give the Government information as well—driving licences and everything else—but the fact is that we can regulate and control what the Government do much better than we can regulate and control what the private sector does, which is exactly the point the noble Lord was making.

Earl Howe (Conservative)

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for explaining the purpose of this group of amendments. I am particularly glad that Amendment 5 gives us the opportunity to look carefully at the intention of subsection (1) in the privacy clause. Perhaps I could just clarify.

Clause 2(1) lists in some detail the functions that a public authority may discharge under the Bill that may result in an interference with an individual’s privacy or impose an obligation on a telecommunications operator. The clause as drafted makes clear that, when taking such a decision, a public authority—including the Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner—must have regard to the principles set out at Clause 2(2).

The effect of the clause is perhaps not far removed from the intention of the amendment, but I would argue that the current drafting has the benefit of providing clarity. I was grateful for the complimentary remarks about the clarity of the drafting of the Bill overall that the noble Baroness was kind enough to make. The drafting of this part of the clause makes clear that the privacy clause bites in every situation in which a public authority takes a decision or action to which privacy considerations are relevant. I hope that those comments will encourage the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

I am sympathetic to the spirit behind Amendments 6 and 8, which seek to prohibit the authorisation of powers in the Bill if less intrusive means are available. I hope I can provide some comfort to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, by directing them towards the statutory codes of practice which we have published in draft alongside the Bill for the Committee to consider. For example, paragraph 4.7 of the draft interception code of practice states:

“No interference with privacy should be considered proportionate if the information which is sought could reasonably be obtained by other less intrusive means”.

The codes will be submitted to Parliament for approval, and a failure to abide by them will be considered a breach by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. I hope that that reassurance provides enough ammunition for the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Carlile of Berriew (Liberal Democrat)

I do not want to prolong the debate, but does the Minister not think that it might be preferable to put these words in the Bill rather than face the inevitable consequences of legal discussions in the courts as to the role of codes of practice and their enforceability? Putting the words in the Bill at least provides certainty.

Earl Howe (Conservative)

I am grateful to the noble Lord for seeding that thought in my mind and I am glad to take it away and consider it between now and Report.

Amendment 7 also relates to Clause 2, which provides a statutory requirement that public authorities must consider all three of the privacy duties listed in subsection (2). It is not an exclusive list—there are other important principles that public authorities will have regard to—but it does make clear the principles that sit at the heart of this Bill and that underpin the exercise of functions under the Bill. And it is of course the case that the judicial commissioner will look to see whether these principles have been satisfied—when, for example, he or she reviews a Secretary of State’s decision to issue a warrant.

The noble Baroness expressed some concern about the phrase “have regard to”. In bringing forward the privacy clause, the Government responded to concerns raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as well as by the Opposition and the Scottish National Party in the other place. The language of “have regard to” is drawn from amendments tabled by the Opposition and the SNP in Committee. It reflects the language of Clause 1 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, which was held up by those parties in Committee as an exemplar of how such a clause might operate. That is the basis on which we have included that particular form of words. In short, while I am sympathetic to the concern raised in this area—

Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the noble Earl. Those precedents do not amount to what is really needed, which is full compliance with Article 8 of the convention and the Human Rights Act. In my opinion—it is no more than my opinion—the words do not satisfy that, whatever the precedents relied on may be in amendments tabled in other Bills. It is no use saying “have regard to”; it is necessary to ensure that what is in A, B and C happens in practice. “Have regard to” is rubbery and illusive and will not pass muster under the Human Rights Act or the convention, in my opinion.

Earl Howe (Conservative)

My Lords, I can do no other than have particular regard to the noble Lord’s advice. I shall gladly reflect on what he has said. It is a rash Minister who does not take account of advice from the noble Lord.

Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)

May I press my noble friend more on this point? With regard to subsection (3), there is a test of relevance. Subject to the test of relevance, it seems to me that, under subsection (4), the public authority can in effect have regard to any consideration it deems fit. Is that correct?

Earl Howe (Conservative)

As I have said, it is not intended to be an exclusive list. There are, of course, factors that may well be relevant and a public authority will wish to have regard to that are not included in the list. We did not intend the list to be exclusive. However, I am grateful to my noble friend and, once again, I will take advice on whether the wording quite fits the intent.

The House has a proud tradition of respect for human rights. The Human Rights Act is referred to in Clauses 1 and 2. It is the Government’s view that those references make it absolutely explicit that the obligations and protections in that Act apply to the exercise of functions under the Bill. While I am sympathetic to the intention behind Amendments 9 and 13 and I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, as I always do, I do not think the amendments are necessary. Public bodies are already required to act in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998. Our position is aligned. The Human Rights Act is not an optional consideration when exercising the investigatory powers in the Bill. The Government consider it unnecessary to restate the position for that reason. Furthermore, we do not want to cast doubt in other places in statute where it is not restated, as that may serve actually to undermine the strong standing of the Act and the rights contained within it.

Turning to Amendment 10, I do not believe there is a divergence in principle here; this is merely a matter of drafting. The clause sets out that a public authority must have regard to certain considerations, and that duty is subject to the need to have regard to other considerations that exist elsewhere in the law. It would be superfluous to state that public authorities must have regard to things that they already must have regard to. For example, a warrant can be issued only where it is necessary and proportionate, and this is explicit in the relevant parts of the Bill. Equally, the need to comply with the Human Rights Act is encompassed within that Act: it does not need to be restated here. I hope that provides some reassurance and that the noble Baroness will, on that basis, choose not to press this amendment.

On Amendment 11, Clause 2(2) sets out the principles that public authorities must have regard to when exercising certain functions under the Bill. It is not an exhaustive list, and subsection (4) sets out some of the other factors that may be taken into consideration. Again, I emphasise that subsection (4) does not contain an exhaustive list. There will be other principles outside this list that public authorities will need to have regard to, and we should not cast doubt over that, as the amendment would.

My noble friend Lord Hailsham questioned the use of the word “may” as opposed to “must”. The use of “may” in subsection (4) should not be taken to imply that it is optional for public authorities to have regard to the principles listed in that subsection. The law requires, for example, that public authorities must always comply with their obligations under the Human Rights Act.

There are of course some factors listed at subsection (4) that will not be relevant in all circumstances: for example, it may not be meaningful, when modifying a national security warrant, to have regard to the public interest in the prevention of serious crime. But, to be clear, the use of the word “may” does not absolve public authorities from their wider obligations under this Bill or any other legislation.

I turn now to Amendment 12. Economic well-being is of course one of the statutory purposes of the security and intelligence agencies, and the reference to it in Clause 2 is intended to reflect that—nothing more. When powers under the Bill are authorised in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, there must be a link to national security. The language at Clause 2 does not alter or undermine that; it simply reflects the statutory purposes of the agencies. As drafted, Clause 2 provides clarity and consistency with existing legislation. Given the specific limitations elsewhere in the Bill, any amendment to Clause 2 along the proposed lines is unnecessary.

Amendment 14 is the final one in this group. Your Lordships’ Committee is in no doubt of the importance of the office of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. David Anderson QC, who has occupied the role since February 2011 and whom both my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I hold in the highest regard, does an excellent job of reviewing key counterterrorism statutes. His independent oversight and recommendations help us to ensure that our counterterrorism legislation is fair, effective and proportionate, and that it strikes an appropriate balance in the face of the very real and serious threat we face from terrorism.

Following the passage of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, the Government undertook a consultation on whether David Anderson would benefit in his role from the support of a privacy and civil liberties oversight board. Having been informed by a public consultation on the board’s establishment, by David Anderson’s own recommendations on this matter and by the need to ensure the best value for public money, the Government decided that they could most effectively support the reviewer in discharging his statutory functions by instead providing him with specialist legal assistance in the form that he recommended in his July 2014 annual report.

David Anderson therefore announced on 31 March this year the appointment of three specialist advisers to support his work, funded by the Government out of an additional budget provided to him for this purpose. The advisers were personally selected by David Anderson, and each of them works on specific tasks in support of his independent reviewer functions to help increase the range and depth of the work. They have the necessary security clearances to access sensitive material, are entirely independent of government and are highly qualified and distinguished, with the right mix of terrorism law and human rights experience to enable them to provide the specialist support required.

David Anderson has welcomed this approach, which we consider the best way of ensuring that his vital role is properly supported. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for what he said in relation to this amendment, which we consider to be unnecessary as its purpose has been achieved by other means. I respectfully invite the noble Baroness not to press it.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Liberal Democrat)

I promise not to speak again on any amendments until we reach those covering legal professional privilege, as I do not intend to be even more of a human rights bore than I am at the moment. However, before the Minister sits down, since he has the great advantage of not being a lawyer, may I explain why the Government need to think again about the language that is being used currently?

The problem is that any mismatch between the wording of the Bill and the convention or the Human Rights Act would lead, necessarily, to a legal challenge, which would go probably all the way to the Supreme Court. At the end of the day, the court will say that it cannot do much about it, because the Act is clear, but that it will give a declaration of incompatibility. That will then cause the Government of the day to have to decide what to do about the language—whether they amend it or let it go to Strasbourg.

I want to avoid all that. Every time I see something in the Bill that seems to me to be a mismatch—for example the part which suggests that there are other unspecified relevant circumstances, which seems to violate the principle of legal certainty—I think, “Oh dear, this is going to lead to litigation and to a challenge”. I am begging the Government to make absolutely sure that the language of the Bill as it leaves this House cannot be challenged as being a mismatch with the European convention and the Human Rights Act.

The problem with the Human Rights Act is that it allows those challenges, quite rightly, to be made, along with declarations of incompatibility. That is why I really hope, when the Bill comes to Report, we can have language which, if not identical to these amendments, will achieve that objective.

Earl Howe (Conservative)

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for expressing his expert opinion so clearly. I can undertake only to study carefully what he has said between now and Report. Clearly, the Bill has been drafted by expert hands, but I am the first to say that there is no monopoly of wisdom on the Government’s side, and I am sure we need to taker full account of what he said.

Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, one of the things that we are saying is that because the Bill has a mixed heritage, it is perhaps not as clear as it could be and does not have the benefit of the expert work to which my noble friend referred. I am clearly going to have to read very carefully what has been said, but I want to make a few comments now.

First, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, but I do not think what he was saying was quite as the noble Earl put it with regard to the word “may”. We need to come back both to the “may” and the “other considerations” in particular and to the relationship between the subsections. That fact that the list in subsection (4) is not exclusive makes the matter even more difficult.

I obviously do not want to go over all the ground again. With regard to the privacy and civil liberties board, it was of course a construct—a compromise—but my noble friend Lord Strasburger’s point about somebody having the responsibility to make sure that privacy and civil liberties are right at the top, immovably in the agendas that the Government may have, is an important one. I, for one, would welcome something more than was in the Act.

I agree that listing where the duty bites does help clarify and transparency, but I had a difficulty in being completely certain that it bites on everything that I think it should; the filter in Clause 63 was my example. If the filter is part of granting, approving—obviously not—or cancelling an authorisation, that is fine, but it should be clear. I am afraid I am not hugely persuaded by a code of practice, since it is not primary legislation. In fact, I think the Minister said that we should have regard to it. If it provides that these matters are absolute, rather than discretionary, then the codes of practice will not be consistent with the primary legislation, and that will be a bad thing.

I come back to whether this clause has been invented here, or wherever it has been invented. I will offer to supply the hot towels for everybody—I might even provide cake—but this is a provision that would benefit from further discussion. I certainly do not offer not to bring it back on Report—I might if we can get to somewhere that satisfies all of those who are clearly concerned before then—but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Amendments 6 to 13 not moved.

Clause 2 agreed.

Amendments 14 and 15 not moved.

Clause 3: Offence of unlawful interception

Amendments 16 and 17 not moved.

Clause 3 agreed.

Amendment 18 not moved.

Clause 4: Definition of “interception” etc.

Lord Paddick (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have Amendments 19 and 66 in this group. The relevant part of Clause 4 that we are talking about here deals with the definition of “interception”. Clause 4(1)(b) talks about interception being,

“to make any content of the communication available, at a relevant time”.

It is the expression “at a relevant time” that we wish to probe. Clause 4(4) describes “relevant time” as being during transmission, or before or after transmission. For us, that begs the question: what does “relevant time” therefore mean? Why does it have to be stated that “relevant time” is necessary, bearing in mind that it seems to cover every time before, during and after transmission?

I turn to Amendment 66. Clause 42(1) talks about interception being effectively lawful if both,

“the sender and the intended recipient … have each consented”.

This amendment simply suggests that that consent should perhaps be in writing. I beg to move.

Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)

My Lords, I would like to raise two points, if I may, about Amendment 66. I entirely agree with the suggestion that the consent should be in writing, and I would rather hope that the Minister will give us some reasons why it should not be, because on the face of it, it is an extremely sensible suggestion. As we all know, there is sometimes a certain degree of opaqueness regarding what people have or have not done. Looking at Clause 42, to which Amendment 66 applies, I have some difficulty in understanding the relationship between subsections (1) and (2). I am not sure why subsection (2) is there, given the language contained within subsection (1). Perhaps my noble friend can help us on that.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 68, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser. Clause 45(1)(a) permits interception by a Revenue & Customs officer under Section 105 of the Postal Services Act 2000. That is the provision that contains the power to open postal items, so that is clear enough. However, Clause 45(1)(b) permits interceptions by, again, a Revenue & Customs officer under the same Section 105 “and another enactment”. It is the phrase “and another enactment” that I am not quite clear about. If Section 105 is sufficient, why add the words “and another enactment”? If it calls on some other law in order to legitimise this activity, should that not be detailed in the clause? Amendment 68 therefore proposes deleting the second arm—the “and another enactment” bit—unless the Minister can make some sense of it for me.

Earl Howe (Conservative)

My Lords, let me turn first to Amendment 19. Clause 4 defines interception. It provides greater clarity in relation to the activity that constitutes interception than is currently the case under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—RIPA—and responds to calls from a number of quarters that such clarity is necessary. “Relevant time” is defined in Clause 4(4) to make clear that the interception offence can be committed at any time while the communication is being transmitted, or while the communication is being stored. Under RIPA, it is an offence to intercept a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a public telecommunications system. There had in the past been some uncertainty as to the scope of the offence; for example, whether a voicemail message stored by a telecommunications system was still in the course of its transmission, and therefore whether to access it without lawful authority would engage the offence of unlawful interception. The revised definition of interception in Clause 4 is intended to make clear that messages stored in or by the telecommunications system are caught within the definition of interception, and therefore cannot be accessed without lawful authority. This puts beyond doubt, for example, that so-called phone hacking constitutes unlawful interception.

If the Bill were amended in the manner suggested, it would, I believe, undermine the strong safeguards that the Bill provides for the protection of private communications. It would cast doubt over whether access to stored communications without lawful authority would engage the criminal offence, and it would be less clear when a public authority required a warrant to intercept communications.

Amendment 66 is not necessary and would be very difficult to implement in practice. Clause 42 simply makes clear that where both parties to a communication have consented to the communication being made available to a third party, this does not constitute unlawful interception. The Bill already requires that consent must be given in such instances for it to be lawful. On the example of a telephone call, plainly it would not be practical to write to an individual seeking their consent before continuing with that call. I hope that the noble Lord will not press that amendment.

I turn to Amendment 68. Clause 45 relates to the power of HM Revenue & Customs to inspect postal items to ensure that contraband or illegal items are not being imported or exported from the country. This clause is vital in countering terrorism and preventing and detecting serious and organised crime. RIPA was amended by the Policing and Crime Act 2009 to put beyond doubt that the protections from interception afforded to postal communications in RIPA did not restrict this vital Revenue & Customs power to check international postal traffic. This clause simply maintains this position. I hope that I have been able to provide some reassurance as to why this provision is necessary.

Government Amendment 69 is included in this group, as an amendment to Clause 46, which concerns the interception of communications by Ofcom. The clause authorises Ofcom to intercept communications and obtain information about the sender, recipient or intended recipient of a communication for the purpose of granting wireless telegraphy licences, or for the prevention or detection of anything which constitutes interference with wireless telegraphy. This clause brings into the Bill authorisation to undertake action which is currently provided for by the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. The amendment that the Government have proposed is minor and technical in nature and simply clarifies that the definition of interception in Clause 46 is the same as the definition in Clause 4.

Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)

Could I press my noble friend a little more on Amendment 66? Of course I understand that there will be circumstances when written consent cannot be made, but there will be many other circumstances when it can be obtained. I note, for example, that it involves the consent of both parties. That suggests that it happens some time before the interception takes place. I should have thought it perfectly possible to have a proviso that the consent should in general be forthcoming and evidenced in writing, but that there should be a disapplication in urgent situations. In dealing with that matter, can my noble friend help me as to why we have subsection (2) as well as subsection (1) of Clause 42?

Earl Howe (Conservative)

My Lords, I am very sorry to have to disagree with my noble friend about the consent in writing, which would be likely to result in completely impractical situations. It is not clear what real advantage would be gained. In any case, most of the time, prior consent in writing would simply not be an option. Taking the example again of a telephone call, it is difficult to see how the normal transaction of business would not be completely impeded if we insisted on this provision.

I shall endeavour to respond to my noble friend about his question on subsections (1) and (2). I do not have a ready interpretation to give him now but, if I can during the proceedings, I shall do so.

Lord Grabiner (Non-affiliated)

The language is pretty clear. Subsection (1) of Clause 42 suggests that consent of both is required, while subsection (2) refers to the consent of the recipient alone.

Earl Howe (Conservative)

The noble Lord has expressed it very well, and I defer to his excellent interpretation.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)

Could the Minister write on the amendment to Clause 45(1)? I was absolutely not suggesting by the amendment that the right would be lost for Customs & Revenue to intervene—it was about whether it needed to be under both Section 105 and, as it says,

“that section and another enactment”.

It was the clarity of the words “and another enactment” that I was asking about. I would be quite content to have a letter to clarify that point.

Earl Howe (Conservative)

I shall gladly write to the noble Baroness on that point. I can also say, for the benefit of the Committee, that I shall look into the drafting of Clause 45, including the reference to other enactments.

Lord Paddick (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have contributed to this short debate, and very grateful to the Minister. On Amendment 19, I think that I am right in saying that the issue around phone hacking was on whether a voicemail that had not yet been listened to was still in the course of transmission, whereas a voicemail that had already been listened to was not in the course of transmission. That was a reason that the police gave at one stage for not investigating some of the phone hacking. I find the wording rather curious. I should have thought that it would be sufficient to say that communication included communication stored prior to or following transmission. But I am not a lawyer—I accept that.

I accept what the Minister says on written consent, on Amendment 66, but surely there are other ways in which consent can be explicitly given. For example, if a telephone conversation was being recorded, both parties to that conversation could say on tape, as it were, that they consented to the interception of that conversation. Perhaps we could give that some further consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed.

Clause 5 agreed.

Clause 6: Definition of “lawful authority”

Amendments 20 and 21 not moved.

Clause 6 agreed.

Clause 7 agreed.

Schedule 1: Monetary penalty notices

Amendment 22 not moved.

Schedule 1 agreed.

Clauses 8 to 12 agreed.

Schedule 2 agreed.

Clause 13: Mandatory use of equipment interference warrants

Lord Paddick (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, the amendment is in relation to the mandatory use of equipment interference warrants. The wording of the relevant section says that security services must secure an equipment interference warrant if the “intelligence service considers that” the conduct would constitute an offence under the Computer Misuse Act. Surely, it must be something more than just whether the particular intelligence officer considers that the conduct would constitute an offence under that Act. Surely, an equipment interference warrant must be obtained because, otherwise, it would constitute an offence, rather than simply if the intelligence service considers that it is.

Amendment 24 makes a similar point about restrictions on the use of Section 93 of the Police Act 1997. In this case it states that a “targeted equipment interference warrant” is required,

“if the applicant considers that the conduct would … constitute”,

an offence under the “Computer Misuse Act 1990”. I would argue that exactly the same considerations apply as with Amendment 23. I beg to move.

Earl Howe (Conservative)

My Lords, the amendments in this group seek to change the language used in relation to the equipment interference regime and Computer Misuse Act offences. Clause 13 provides that an equipment interference warrant under the Bill is mandatory if the intelligence service considers that the conduct would constitute a Computer Misuse Act offence and there is a British Islands connection. Similarly, Clause 14 provides that law enforcement agencies will be unable to authorise this type of equipment interference under the Police Act 1997 where the applicant considers that the conduct would constitute an offence under the Computer Misuse Act. This is an important safeguard.

The language in Clauses 13 and 14 reflects the fact that at the point of application the equipment interference agency may not be able to say with complete certainty whether the proposed interference will constitute an offence under the Computer Misuse Act. For example, when an MI5 officer is handed a compact disc by a source, it may not be clear whether the disc belongs to the source who intends the officer to use the disc, in which case the Computer Misuse Act would not be engaged, or whether it is owned by another person who does not intend the officer to access the disc, in which case the Computer Misuse Act would be engaged. In these circumstances, the applicant will need to consider the possibility of an offence occurring, consult legal advisers, where unclear, and seek the appropriate authorisation, if required. The language of the Bill reflects that it may not be certain whether the Computer Misuse Act is engaged. The language in the Bill and the code of practice anticipate that applicants will err on the side of caution.

Finally, and crucially, all equipment interference will be overseen by the new Investigatory Powers Commissioner, ensuring that there is independent and objective analysis of any decision regarding the possibility of conduct constituting an offence under the Computer Misuse Act. I hope that explanation will be helpful to the noble Lord and explains why this language is in the Bill. I therefore invite him to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Paddick (Liberal Democrat)

I am very grateful for that explanation. I understand that it may not be certain that something constitutes an offence under the Computer Misuse Act. Where it is an offence under the Computer Misuse Act, does the Bill allow a Security Service agent or law enforcement officer to ignore that provision?

Earl Howe (Conservative)

That cannot happen. Without a valid lawful authority, interference with equipment that is prohibited by the Computer Misuse Act will remain illegal. If a member of an equipment interference agency considered that no Computer Misuse Act offence would be committed before beginning an operation but later determined that an offence was likely to be committed, they would be required to seek appropriate authorisation.

Lord Paddick (Liberal Democrat)

I am very grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 23 withdrawn.

Clause 13 agreed.

Clause 14: Restriction on use of section 93 of the Police Act 1997

Amendment 24 not moved.

Clause 14 agreed.

Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)

My Lords, I declare an interest as a producer and director at the BBC.

The protection of sources of journalistic material has been talked about in the other place and in your Lordships’ House. Maintaining the trust of these sources is crucial to enabling the important role that is played by the free press in exposing wrongdoing in private and public institutions. That must be in the public interest. There is a difference between the public interest and what the public is interested in.

This Bill curbs the collection of journalistic material in violent and difficult situations, such as riots or demonstrations that turn violent. I very much welcome Clause 2, which covers privacy. That concerns all citizens. This amendment asks for an extra protection for sources of journalistic material and information across the powers of the Bill. It responds to noble Lords’ concerns about the difficulty of defining a journalist. In Clause 73, the words “journalistic material” are used. The amendment uses the same concept and refers to:

“Protection for journalistic sources, materials and activities”,

using the definition of journalistic material set out in PACE. This definition can be used as a basis for decision-making by the carefully trained and very experienced judicial commissioner who is charge of this process. The commissioner will decide what is journalistic material and what is not. I am sure that the public interest—again, rather than what the public are interested in—will be the most important criterion. This would mean that PR communications, which are for commercial benefit rather than public interest, will be excluded. Likewise, it would exclude fundamentalist bloggers who are clearly sending out propaganda whose material could never pass the test of public interest.

I know the Minister is concerned that free speech should flourish and that sources who provide this journalistic material do not feel that they are unnecessarily being surveilled by the authorities using the extraordinary powers available in our digital age. I am grateful to the Government for listening to these concerns, and I welcome the safeguards provided in Clause 73 for the protection of sources of journalistic information in the power of communications data.

Amendment 25, however, aims to extend those protections for sources to the other powers set out in the Bill. I am particularly keen for the power for targeted equipment interference to be covered by a safeguard for sources. This could be material owned by the journalist or the source who is giving the information. Targeted equipment interference includes the ability to use a mobile phone’s microphone as a bug. It could also include looking at a journalist’s electronic notebook and at footage shot in the course of a story, which, as a broadcast journalist, worries me a lot.

I note that there are thresholds in the Bill for issuing this kind of warrant, which include national security and serious crime. The definition of serious crime is explained in Clause 235. Paragraph (a) states that it has to be an offence for which someone,

“could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more”,

but paragraph (b) states that it is where,

“the conduct involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose”,

I am worried that the definition in paragraph (b) is very wide and represents too low a threshold. It includes any conduct that,

“involves the use of violence”,

and,

“conduct by a large number of persons”,

and therefore includes the classic case in which the police try to get hold of footage filmed at public demonstrations. Violence is a very wide concept. If serious crime was limited to paragraph (a) or to indictable offences only, there might be a point, but allowing the definition of serious crime to cover any violence by a large number of persons is too low a threshold and would get round the tried and tested means of accessing information through PACE.

I know from experience that journalists are often seen by demonstrators and rioters as extensions of the authorities. This process started abroad, but it is now often seen in this country. As a result, we are seeing journalists targeted for taking footage of riots or violent behaviour. This is a dangerous trend, which we should all try to prevent. In the Dale Farm case, when the police wanted to see footage from Sky News, the judge ruled that the request posed a danger to broadcast journalists. He said:

“If the perception takes hold that such people are working on behalf of the police, or are likely to co-operate with them by supplying such material routinely, life could become very difficult. They might find it more difficult to obtain access to areas where demonstrations are taking place or to work in the vicinity of those who are prone to violence. Moreover, at its most acute, the perception could increase the risk of violence towards cameramen or their equipment”.

I ask the Minister to look again at the Bill and to extend the protection for journalistic material across the powers. This provision would ensure that the judicial commissioner would be asked to look at warrants and would have to bear in mind the safeguards needed to protect journalistic sources.

Proposed new subsection (4) asks for notice of a warrant request to be given to the media organisation, unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as a great emergency or when immediate action has to be taken. This is important so that it can explain the dangers involved in exposing the source. I understand that, as the Bill stands, the judicial commissioner, if concerned about the dangers of a warrant being granted to the journalist and the dangers this might pose to the journalistic source, will have the right to ask for more information. My fear is that they might not have been given all the facts by the people requesting information. It might just be that the person making the request is not even aware of the danger to the journalistic source from exposure to surveillance.

I quite understand the fears of the Government that notification to a media organisation might defeat the whole purpose of the exercise, but PACE covers the physical property of journalistic information and gives a right of notification so that the application can be challenged. PACE, however, dates back to 1984, when the internet was still a glimmer in the eyes of Sir Tim Berners-Lee. We never imagined the presence of digital information in worldwide communications at the press of a button. Mobile phones, computers and the internet are the notepads of the 21st century. The Bill is a wonderful recognition of the changing way in which we communicate, and it covers this. Surely this amendment is an opportunity to update the notification section of PACE to cover the equipment of our age that is used to gather journalistic information.

The amendment suggests that notification should be given through the media organisation. In the vast majority of cases, the application will relate to a newspaper or broadcaster, and a lawyer will be available for the news outlet in either broadcast or print. In-house lawyers regularly receive sensitive information, such as orders from family courts, privacy injunctions and super-injunctions, and are well able to handle sensitive information such as police requests for footage under PACE or the Terrorism Act, or indeed any police request. So I do not think handling such a request will be an issue. If there is a concern about the media organisation or the journalist involved, we should talk about the judicial commissioner being involved and helping make that decision.

I understand that noble Lords are concerned that there could be false claims of journalistic sources, which could be used to prevent a warrant. I suggest that the journalist would have to sign a witness statement that the claim is true; if found not to be, they would have perjured themselves and be subject to the might of the law. Once again, in this issue the judicial commissioner would have an important role to play. They would use their experience and training to decide whether the recipient is noteworthy or not.

The amendment represents very important safeguards for free speech in our country. I know that the Government greatly support this principle. I urge the Minister to consider carefully the changes to the Bill set out in the amendment and I beg to move.

Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)

My Lords, I support Amendment 25, moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I declare my interest as executive director of the Telegraph Media Group and draw attention to my other media interests in the register.

As the noble Viscount has said, the issue of the confidentiality of journalists’ sources has been a leitmotiv during the obsequies of the unloved Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and throughout the passage of this Bill, during extensive pre-legislative scrutiny, in all its stages in the other place and now here in Committee in your Lordships’ House. But we are now nearing the end of it all and so this is probably our last opportunity to get it right. It therefore deserves the closest and most thorough attention.

I doubt that there are many here who need persuading about the importance, in a free society, of the protection of sources. The arguments were most formidably summed up in the case of Goodwin v United Kingdom in a famous ruling in the European Court of Human Rights some 20 years ago, which stated:

“Without … protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result the vital public watchdog role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information may be adversely affected”.

The protection of sources is crucial for investigative reporting, whistleblowing and indeed free and unfettered political debate. Without adequate protection, investigative journalism becomes almost impossible, whistleblowers do not come forward to the press and wider media to alert them to issues of public interest, and political debate becomes sterile and bland.

Your Lordships should not underestimate the difficulty already faced by journalists in getting confidential sources to speak on matters of often profound public interest. There has been so much attention given in recent years to the way in which sources have been exposed through surveillance and the misuse of anti-terrorist legislation that it is becoming harder and harder to get sources to come forward. Some even fear for their lives because they could easily become targets themselves if it became known that they had co-operated with a reporter. It is not an overstatement to say that, on occasion, the protection of sources can be a matter of life and death. That is why we must take with the utmost seriousness the passage of any legislation in this House which damages free expression and undermines the protection afforded to confidential sources by opening up the possibility of the state being able to shadow the work of journalists, track what they are up to, identify their sources and see what information they have made available.

I know that the Government are acutely aware of the importance of this issue and have listened with great diligence to the concerns of the media and others. I am very grateful to them for the action that they have already taken to strengthen the Bill in this regard, and the amendments in the other place are a very welcome step in the right direction. Unfortunately, I do not believe that they have yet gone far enough. Yes, there are safeguards, and they are very welcome. But they are not strong enough, and above all they will not work properly, and that is what this amendment is all about.

As I have said, this is a matter of real and urgent concern to the whole of the media—publishers, editors, trade unions, the national and regional press, magazines, broadcast and digital—and there has been unprecedented co-operation among interests which are often competing. The reason for this level of unity is, I am afraid, a profound sense of déjà vu. During the passage of RIPA back in 2000, a similar coalition of interests, led by the Newspaper Society, warned that its wide terms and lack of adequate safeguards would inevitably lead to the undermining of confidentiality of sources. The industry warned that the number of organisations which could use RIPA powers should be limited and that the grounds for the use of those powers should be more strictly limited. The industry was repeatedly told that it was crying wolf and that there was no way the Bill could be so abused. On 6 March 2000, Jack Straw, then Home Secretary in the other place, gave a specific guarantee on that subject.

But, of course, we know exactly what happened. We have heard of, and seen, numerous examples where local authorities and the police then subsequently used RIPA powers of surveillance to access phone records to crack down on whistleblowers talking confidentially to the press; and it has often been the local press, who are the guardians of local democracy and accountability, who have been in the firing line. In one case, involving the Derby Telegraph, a local authority used RIPA powers to spy on a reporter who had been talking to council employees. In another, deeply disturbing incident, Thames Valley Police used RIPA powers to place a probe inside the car of a source who had been talking to a reporter from the Milton Keynes Citizen, Sally Murrer, and, on the back of recordings obtained, arrested the journalist and strip-searched her. In 2012, Cleveland police used RIPA powers to access the phone records of three Northern Echo journalists to try to find out the source of its coverage of a Cleveland Police internal report that revealed elements of institutional racism within the police force.

All this—and much more that we may never know about—happened despite protestations from the then Government that this could not possibly happen. The reason for that, as we have seen in countless other cases of legislation involving press freedom and confidentiality of sources, is that the legislation has not been watertight, proper and comprehensive safeguards were not written into the Bill, and it has been too easy for those wanting to access sources to find loopholes through which to crawl. This mistake cannot be allowed to happen again.

It is easy to see where the problem with this Bill arises. As the noble Viscount said, yes, there are safeguards in Clause 73 relating to prior judicial authorisation, and that is welcome, but it is inadequate in a number of respects. For one thing, it governs acquisition of communications data only for the purpose of identifying or confirming the identity of a journalistic source. Crucially, it does not apply to acquisition of data for other purposes. But most importantly, it does not allow for prior notification to the media of an application to use the Bill’s powers, and the opportunity for the media to make submissions on whether this will impact on the confidentiality of a source.

It is all very well having judicial safeguards in place, but they will not work unless the judicial commissioner assessing the application has all the relevant information before applying his or her judgment and making an informed decision. After all, how can a judicial commissioner possibly know what they do not know? That is almost Kafkaesque. Without input from the media—and I recognise that there must be exceptions to this where a journalist or media organisation is under suspicion—they could not possibly, for instance, know how the use of surveillance could actually place the life of a source, or indeed of a journalist, in danger and other such considerations. In those circumstances, the important tests outlined in the Bill cannot be properly applied, and as a result the safeguards simply will not work.

The amendment moved by the noble Viscount seals up that significant loophole in a way which will allow the safeguards the Government have rightly put forward to work properly. It is absolutely not an attempt to put journalists and media organisations outside the scope of the Bill. It merely recognises—as other legislation ever since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has done—the vital importance of this issue in a free society and imports into the Bill tried and tested statutory safeguards, using well-established and effective legal and procedural methods.

The amendment seems a straightforward, simple and common-sense way of dealing with a complex issue in a Bill which we all recognise is vital for the security of our nation. I suspect that the Government are not quite there yet; I hope they are, as they say, still on a journey and that they may yet see the light on the road to Damascus. I know that they will put up a number of arguments against it. They will say that the safeguards are adequate. But the point I have just made is that, while those are fine on paper, they will not work in practice, and there is a danger that we will have RIPA all over again. Unlike “Independence Day”, that is a sequel we could well do without.

I suspect that the Government will say that the number of cases is likely to be incredibly small—perhaps only a dozen or so a year. One case is bad enough, but more important is the signal it sends to confidential sources that journalists cannot 100% guarantee their security, and that chills free expression and undermines democracy at national and local level.

I suspect that the Government will also say that, if they introduce additional safeguards for journalism, they will have to do so for others. However, free speech and protection of sources is a genuinely special case, which this House has always set on a pedestal. I argue that there can be no good argument of principle against this amendment, which is not just an esoteric matter but a very real and pressing issue. That is why it has the united backing of the media, why all the parliamentary inquiries into the Bill have said that it must be tackled, and why—as the amendment shows—it has the backing of Members from many different parts of the House.

In conclusion, in 2015 the Conservative manifesto—a great document—itself recognised the importance of this issue. It was perhaps the first time a party had ever made a specific commitment to protect journalists and confidential sources, and I take great pride in that. However, it is now time to make good on that commitment. I hope that the Minister, who has, as always, been the soul of kindness and understanding in listening to concerns put to him, will accept this amendment or bring forward proposals on Report which will deal with this issue and protect free speech. As I said earlier, this is the time to get this right, and time is running out.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I support the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Black, on this amendment. I was unable to speak at Second Reading but I have spent a lifetime in the print media, so I have particular concerns on this matter.

To enable the state to access and shadow every aspect of the work of journalists and media organisations and their sources undermines press freedom, the role of the media in a free society and their ability to hold the powerful to account. I think all noble Lords would accept that that is a major concern. Such powers chill freedom of expression, inhibit sources coming forward in future for fear of potential exposure to the state, and effectively curb the press. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, the key issue here is the protection of sources; that is critical to the work of a free press. There is also the aspect that by not providing protection you expose journalists to danger; both reporters and photographers will become targets if it is feared that the police or other state organisations have wide access to their material.

The noble Lord, Lord Black, said in particular that there is strong evidence that the RIPA powers, which we had concerns about when that legislation went through, show the need for extra vigilance. I hope that the Government will address that in their response to this amendment. I was quite surprised to see the statistics on the number of journalists who have been subject to this legislation’s powers. We are asking for one particular power, that there should be a right not only for the judicial commissioner to authorise these inquiries but that the media organisation should be informed that those powers are being sought; otherwise, those sources have no idea what the state is up to and no concept of having the power to challenge its interpretation of the public interest. There is clearly a public interest, as regards the media organisation as well, to ensure freedom of the press.

We therefore believe that these well-established legal procedures should be provided in the Bill as safeguards for the protection of journalistic activity, while we recognise that both the courts and the UK Parliament have long recognised the necessity for proper protection of non-confidential and confidential journalistic material and sources. That is why we asked the Government to look very carefully at this stage at the legislation. We welcome the efforts that they have made so far, but in view of what has happened with the use of the RIPA powers and the need for these additional safeguards, we hope that the Minister will respond favourably to the amendment.

Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Labour)

My Lords, the Joint Committee on the Bill—four Members other than myself, who chaired the committee, are present this evening—met journalists in evidence sessions. The Society of Editors and the National Union of Journalists met with the committee on 14 December last year, and of course many strong representations were made in writing to the Joint Committee on this very subject. The committee eventually recommended that,

“the Home Office should reconsider the level of protection which the Bill affords to journalistic material and sources”.

We recommended that it should be at least equivalent to that afforded by the Terrorism Act 2000 and by PACE, and that the Home Office should take into account the various aspects of the European Convention on Human Rights which affect this aspect of the Bill. I know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has also made representations to the Government on this matter.

I support the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. His proposed new clause deals with wider protection from state surveillance, not just sources—for example, a politically sensitive investigation—in that it covers areas other than simply communications data; for example, equipment interference, and that orders should be sought from a judge, as with PACE. I congratulate the Government, as in Committee in the other place, Clause 73 was introduced, which made welcome changes to the Bill as it then stood. However, I agree with noble Lords who have already spoken that that is not quite sufficient and more needs to be done.

The issue the Joint Committee had to deal with was about how precisely you define a journalist these days. It is very different from when I was a young man. With the advanced technology, what or who is a journalist? PACE defines it in some senses in that it at least refers to “journalistic material”. A journalist is,

“any natural or legal person who is regularly or professionally engaged in the collection and dissemination of information to the public via any means of mass communication”.

Therefore we can overcome these issues.

All the speakers so far have indicated that we are grateful to the Government for what they have done, but more could be done. I do not say that the precise wording of the proposed new clause in the amendment is the precise answer to where we are going, but Ministers—both here and in the other place—have indicated to me over the last couple of months that the Government are willing to look very carefully at how to ensure that journalists are properly protected under this legislation. It is certain that there should be no lessening of protection from what already exists under PACE. I fear that it is possible that that might be the case, unless we go a little further in protecting both the sources of journalists and their investigations.

I therefore hope that, when the Minister winds up, he will give us some joy and will indicate that, by the time we reach Report, the Government will have reconsidered some of these aspects and we will be able to ensure that this particularly important part of the Bill is dealt with properly.

Lord Paddick (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, my name is to this amendment and I very much support it. As a former police officer, I feel I have to speak on both aspects of this. The noble Lord, Lord Black, spoke clearly and in detail about the need for very specific safeguards because of the experience that we have had with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Police have clearly not used legislation in the way that Parliament intended it to be used—that is, to establish who confidential journalistic sources are. I also support what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said about the danger to journalists, particularly camera operators in serious, spontaneous public order situations. This is an area where I have some expertise. At the moment there is a balance as experience has shown that media footage has, in certain circumstances, been useful to demonstrators in terms of misuse or excess use of force by police officers. If this were to change, and the demonstrators felt that material gathered by media operators was only under the control of the police because of inadequate provisions in the Bill, this could tip the balance and journalists would become a target for violence in such situations.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green)

My Lords, I support Amendment 25 and declare an interest as the mother of a journalist. I also apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading; I was not able to be here. My only concern with Amendment 25 is that it does not go far enough and there is no “reasonable suspicion” test. We must remember that journalists often uncover some pretty heinous crimes and pretty awful stories. While we often talk about the damage they do and the crimes they commit, they also do some incredibly valuable work for our society, so I think this an extremely important amendment.

Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, my name is also to this amendment, I shall not detain the House for very long. There is one aspect of this that I do not think has been mentioned: without protection for the anonymity of whistleblowers, far fewer will come forward and expose themselves to the revenge of their employers or others in powerful positions. There is ample evidence of whistleblowers being severely victimised, so anonymity is essential. Without whistleblowers, wrongdoing and cover-ups in the private and public sectors will go unreported and uncorrected, and that outcome is to the detriment to all of society, particularly those who lack a loud enough voice to be heard when things go wrong.

In recent years we have seen many cases of legislative arbitrage by the police in order to use powers that were never intended for the purpose of discovering journalists’ sources, finding ways to do so with the fewest protections. The “plebgate” scandal was a particularly graphic example, where RIPA was misused to find the source of a story in the Sun. Journalist’s phones on the Sun’s newsdesk were investigated by the police and their communications data were obtained. Under RIPA this was, of course, completely self-authorised; there were no external checks on what they were doing.

I believe that the Bill actually reduces the protection for journalists’ sources in the case of interception of communications and communications data. It provides no protection at all against the use of other surveillance powers, especially equipment interference. Amendment 25 seeks to rectify these shortfalls; I do not believe it is perfect yet, but it is a good start.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)

My Lords, I shall speak briefly about Amendment 148 in this group, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser. It deals with what protections there should be for any journalist’s material collected as a result of any of these powers. In the case of material obtained that falls under normal rules of legal privilege, the Bill lays down the care with which such material should be treated under professional privilege. It is particularly important that the material is secured very safely, should anything from a journalist be held. Similarly for lawyers, material should secured very safely, and be seen by the fewest number of people possible. Anything that is not subsequently used in the investigation should be destroyed or returned and certainly not kept. That sort of safeguard should cover any journalist’s material, either under the Bill as it stands or as amended under Amendment 25.

The case has been made as to why it is so important to protect journalists’ sources. It encourages people to come forward to give what might be really important information to an independent source, who can then verify and publish it without the source’s identity being known. Sometimes, however, I have sympathy with people’s identity being known, when they are, for example, selling secrets they should not be to newspapers for large amounts of money. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Black, was not here when we dealt with Amendment 18, as a number of papers have failed to work to implement Leveson. In discussion of what might constitute a journalist, perhaps anyone who works for a Leveson-compliant organisation, would be a good way of defining them. This might be the encouragement needed to bring that into being.

Guaranteeing anonymity, has and always will be vital to the journalists’ profession, for the sake of those who go to them but also, as has just been mentioned, for the safety of journalists, literally hundreds of whom are killed around the world in the course of their duty. There can be little doubt that should some undesirable person or organisation think that a journalist who they have briefed or who has photographed or filmed them, might hand that material over to the state, then that journalist becomes at risk. It is also essential that the use of powers that may affect journalists’ sources of information should be thought of being used only when there are exceptional and compelling reasons.

There will be times when journalists’ material gets scooped up, which is when it needs to be protected. More seriously, where journalists are being asked to hand over film or photographs, we share the desire that they should be fully protected, as outlined by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. We hope that the Government have continued their discussion with the parties involved and we look forward to hearing an update.

Earl Howe (Conservative)

My Lords, this Government have been clear on their continuing commitment to protecting the free press and freedom of expression in this country. In the Commons and at Second Reading, we committed to looking at this issue further and ensuring that the balance of such protections was exactly right. I thank noble Lords for tabling this amendment and giving us the opportunity to continue this important debate. The Government have listened carefully to the debate on these issues so far, and have continued to discuss them with media organisations. I have met journalists and their representatives for a very informative discussion. This engagement has proved extremely useful all round, not least in resolving misunderstandings about the relevant safeguards provided in existing legislation.

In response, the Government tabled amendments in the House of Commons strengthening the protections in the Bill for journalists’ sources. The amendment passed on Report places an extremely strong test in the Bill where a public authority seeks to use communications data to identify or confirm a journalist’s source. This means that a judicial commissioner—that is, a serving or former high court judge—must first consider the public interest in protecting a source of journalistic information and then be satisfied that there is another, overriding public interest before approving an application.

In addition, the Government introduced a new overarching privacy clause which makes it explicit that public authorities exercising functions under the Bill must have regard, for instance, to whether what is sought to be achieved by any authorisation may reasonably be achieved by other less intrusive means. It also requires persons exercising functions under the Bill, including authorising police officers and judicial commissioners, to have regard to the public interest in the protection of privacy as well as numerous other principles that underpin the legislation. These amendments clearly spell out in the Bill some of the protections that journalists seek.

Of course, the Bill proceeds from the widely accepted position, endorsed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that,

“review by a judge or other independent and impartial decision-making body”,

is the most significant safeguard required to protect the confidentiality of a journalist’s source. The Bill introduces that safeguard across all warrants. It specifically provides for judicial approval of any authorisation to acquire communications data for the purpose of identifying or confirming a journalist’s source.

Amendment 25 would apply a standard set of protections across the different powers provided for in the Bill. While I commend the intention to strengthen protections, the Government do not consider this blanket approach to be the right one. The powers in the Bill are not the same; they vary both in the material that can be acquired and the level of intrusion that such an acquisition represents. That is why the Bill ensures that additional protections are applied where they are most appropriate, providing for judicial authorisation of the most intrusive powers and mandating the use of less intrusive powers where that is possible. Indeed, journalists have it made clear to me that, uniquely, they consider communications data to be at least as intrusive as content, since they allow a source to be identified. That is exactly why the Government have, also uniquely, provided for judicial authorisation of communications data requests to identify a journalist’s source.

This Government agree—indeed they forcefully advocate—that confidential journalistic material and journalists’ interaction with their sources must be protected, but that does not mean that a journalist should receive blanket protection from legitimate investigation simply because of their chosen profession. The Bill ensures that protections are applied where they are required, that those who commit a crime or pose a threat to national security can be investigated, regardless of their chosen profession, and it does so in a way which is compatible with all our ECHR obligations. I should be clear that the Bill already requires any authorisation to relate to a legitimate ECHR Article 10 aim, as part of the amendment demands.

Extending protections to all,

“activities relating to journalistic information”,

as the amendment seeks to do, brings real practical implications which the Government do not consider appropriate. For example, it is clear that the content of an interview conducted in public should not be subject to the same stringent protections as a dossier of private, undisclosed material passed by a source and held in confidence. That would render meaningless those protections which are appropriately applied to confidential journalistic material.

In addition, the amendment would mean that a journalist suspected of committing a crime could be investigated only in an emergency situation where immediate action was necessary and an order to use the powers in the Bill was obtained from a judge—that is, if the crime had already taken place and there was no immediate danger, the powers could not be used to bring that individual to justice, nor could they be used to prove that individual’s innocence. I suggest that that is the wrong approach, and that is without considering the question, which even the National Union of Journalists has admitted is extremely difficult, of defining who is and who is not a journalist in the digital age.

Finally, on the question of the key decision-maker in this process, the Bill upholds the important principle of judicial involvement. A number of bodies representing the journalist profession have argued that the only way to prevent the powers in the Bill being misused is to allow a journalist to be involved in the judicial commissioner’s decision. The Government do not agree.

Of course, our security and intelligence and law enforcement agencies will in very limited circumstances have a legitimate need to investigate a journalist or their source. Where a journalist is suspected of a crime, it is clearly not appropriate that they should be alerted to the investigation, but there is a fundamental consideration here: these powers are by their very nature covert. Requiring prior notification would undoubtedly undermine the key purpose of the powers, whose use in relation to journalists, we should be clear, is already extremely limited.

Instead, the Bill provides for a robust regime to govern the use of the powers, with a clear role for judicial commissioners in authorising and overseeing their use by public authorities. It also sets out the offences that apply in the event that any of the powers are misused and provides for a world-leading oversight regime, led again by senior and independent judicial figures. The Bill takes a reasoned, balanced approach—the right approach—to protecting the important role of the media in a democratic society. It applies protection where it is needed without unduly hampering our law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies when they truly require the use of the powers. It is on that basis that I invite the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, asked about protection for whistleblowers. The Joint Committee that was convened to scrutinise the draft Bill recommended that it make it clear that members of the intelligence services can raise concerns about the misuse of investigatory powers with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner without being at risk of prosecution for breaching the Official Secrets Act—that was recommendation 61. The Government included Clause 203—now Clause 212—on the Bill’s introduction to the House of Commons to give effect to the committee’s recommendation. The Bill will allow an individual to provide information on a voluntary basis to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner without that individual committing a criminal offence or incurring civil liability. Of course, any use of these investigatory powers must be for one of the purposes specified in the Bill, such as the prevention or detection of a crime or in the interests of national security. They cannot be used simply to protect any organisation’s reputation.

Amendment 148 would apply protections designed to provide the appropriate safeguards for a specific power to entirely different circumstances. “Exceptional and compelling” is a phrase which relates to a very specific set of circumstances: those in which the Secretary of State is satisfied, and the judicial commissioner agrees, that it is necessary to issue a warrant where the intention is to acquire legally privileged communications. Such circumstances will arise only in a very restricted range of cases, such as where there is a threat to life or limb or in the interests of national security and the interception is reasonably regarded as likely to yield intelligence necessary to counter the threat.

The test which the Government introduced into Clause 73 in the other place relates to the acquiring of communications data to identify or confirm a journalist’s source. It requires the judicial commissioner to have regard to the public interest in protecting journalists’ sources and then to consider, as I explained earlier, that there is another overriding public interest before granting the request. I suggest that that is the appropriate test because it reflects the requirements of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This amendment also seeks to apply the arrangements provided for in relation to material acquired under an interception warrant to the handling, retention, use and destruction of communications data. While I commend the intention of this element of the amendment, it is unnecessary as equivalent safeguards are already to be found in chapter 11 of the Draft Communications Data Code of Practice. This chapter provides significant detail on the handling arrangements for communications data, placing stringent safeguards around how it is held: for instance, restrictions on who may access the data and for what purposes; when the data may be disclosed; and that when it is no longer necessary or proportionate to hold the data, it must be destroyed. These are strong safeguards which provide the appropriate protections for data.

As I noted earlier, the Bill takes what I would contend to be a reasoned and balanced approach—the right approach—to protecting the important role of the media in our society. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat)

Perhaps I may ask the Minister three questions. Do the Government have any problems with the way that PACE currently protects journalists’ sources? I ask this because many of the criticisms he made of this amendment with respect to potential tipping off would surely also apply to PACE. The second question is this: do the Government feel that this Bill protects the communications data of journalists as well as PACE currently does? Thirdly, what special protections do the Government say the Bill gives journalists with respect to equipment interference?

Earl Howe (Conservative)

My Lords, the Government are clear that the regime provided for in the Bill is not inferior to the provisions of PACE. It requires that applications be made to a court for a production order on notice to the holder of the material. In the case of communications data the whole of the material is a telecommunications provider, not a journalist. We are therefore clear that nothing in the Bill enables the investigatory authorities to circumvent the protections for journalists’ sources contained in PACE. Indeed, in 2015 the Interception of Communications Commissioner conducted a detailed investigation into the allegations that public authorities had utilised RIPA to avoid the use of PACE and clearly rejected the claim. The amendments that we have made to the Bill combined with the other safeguards for acquiring communications data mean that the relevant considerations laid out in Schedule 1 to PACE are addressed on the face of the Bill.

Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)

My Lords, I thank noble Lords across the Committee for their support for this amendment. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for pointing out the dangers to journalists that are possibly posed by this Bill and how the amendment might be able to ameliorate that situation. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, for reminding us of the recommendations of his committee. There was a worry that there was less protection for journalists under the Bill than had existed under PACE. I know that the Minister has answered the point, but obviously there is widespread concern that that is the case.

I ask the Minister to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who after all was a senior policeman. He himself pointed out that when it comes to looking at serious crime, particularly the worries over violence in demonstrations, it is all about keeping the balance and making sure that journalists do not become a target for violence and that we protect them. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, for pointing out the importance of keeping the anonymity of whistleblowers. Of course the whistleblower Act protects whistleblowers, but only once they have been named. What we are trying to do is to maintain their anonymity.

I thank the Minister for the discussions that we have had in the run-up to the Bill, but I ask him to look once again at the protections in place for journalists under different powers. I do not think, as he said, that we are asking for blank protections for journalists. We are asking for them to be carefully controlled with different thresholds and controls to exist in different powers. I am also sorry that the Government do not feel the need to notify journalists that a warrant is going to be issued. It would be extremely helpful and it is important in making sure that the process works better.

I hope that the Minister will at least continue discussions with us between now and Report stage about how we can extend the protections for the sources of journalistic material. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 25 withdrawn.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.36 pm.

Lord Rosser (Labour)

The amendments in this group relate to issues which have been raised by service providers, and are all largely probing amendments to ascertain the Government’s response for the record. As has already been said, Clause 2 addresses, “General duties in relation to privacy”, for a public authority—including the relevant judicial authority—in connection with the issuing of warrants and notices, and sets out the considerations to which the public authority must have regard.

Amendment 25A, the first in the group, provides for a new clause after Clause 2, which would allow companies served with a warrant or notice, whether complied with or not, to publish figures in aggregate for warrants and notices received in the previous 180 days. The point of the amendment is to pursue the issue of transparency where there has been engagement between companies and law enforcement and government agencies under the provisions of the Bill. Such transparency would also appear to be a prerequisite for redress, should the way in which the powers in the Bill are being used be called into question.

In America, the USA Freedom Act significantly reforms the transparency of US surveillance laws, and this amendment is based on part of the provisions of that Act. There seems no reason why there should not be the facility for the level of transparency called for in this amendment, which would enable providers to publish statistical data about the number of warrants received and those given effect to. Not only does this amendment give the Government the opportunity to respond to the specific terms of the amendment, but it will enable the Government to say what their intentions are for providing a clear framework for transparency under the Bill in the light of the USA Freedom Act.

The Minister made reference in an earlier debate to the letter that had been sent to my noble friend Lord Rooker in relation to the privacy clause. Towards the end of that letter, dealing with the last of the 10 tests to which reference was made in an earlier amendment, the letter said:

“The Bill also provides for the Secretary of State to designate international agreements under which cross-border requests for information can be made. This will ensure in the future that our protections and safeguards for requests for data under the legislation are capable of being harmonised with like-minded open and democratic Governments”.

The letter went on:

“As the Home Secretary made clear during the Bill’s passage in the House of Commons, we are seeking to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the US to this end”.

It would be quite helpful if the Minister was able to say in response what is the likelihood of the bilateral agreement with the United States of America being achieved, and within what kind of timespan.

I shall move on to the other amendments in the group. Amendments 63, 64 and 65 relate to Clauses 39 and 41. Clause 39, on “Implementation of warrants”, provides that the person who has obtained the warrant—that is, the head of the intercepting agency—may require other persons to assist in giving effect to a targeted interception warrant or mutual assistance warrant. Clause 39(4) provides:

“A copy of a warrant may be served under subsection (3) on a person outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of requiring the person to provide such assistance in the form of conduct outside the United Kingdom.”

Amendment 63 amends Clause 39 to exclude the extraterritorial provision in cases where any mutual assistance arrangement exists between the United Kingdom and the provider’s jurisdiction. It also serves to establish international mutual assistance agreements, of the kind recommended by Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the fast-departing Prime Minister’s special envoy on intelligence and law enforcement data sharing. It seeks to establish international mutual assistance agreements of the kind that he recommended—as currently under negotiation with the US Government—as the primary route by which UK agencies obtain data from overseas communication service providers. The amendment would continue to enable the imposition of warrants on communication service providers in non-mutual legal assistance countries.

Clause 41, on the “Duty of operators to assist with implementation”, provides that a telecommunications or postal service provider served with a target interception warrant or mutual assistance warrant is required to take steps to give effect to it. This obligation applies whether or not the operator is in the United Kingdom. Subsection (4) ensures that the steps a service provider is required to make must be “reasonably practicable”, and subsection (5) provides that, in considering what is reasonable,

“any requirements or restrictions under the laws of the country”,

in which an operator is based must be taken into account.

Amendments 64 and 65 would amend Clause 41 by seeking to establish a reasonableness test for overseas communication service providers. They would also establish international mutual assistance agreements, where they exist, as the primary route to obtain data from these communication service providers. The amendments would also give effect to the Government’s commitment that enforcement powers should not be applicable where an overseas communication service provider is acting under the auspices of an international agreement. The amendments to Clause 41 state that a relevant operator is not required to take any steps which it is not reasonably practicable for the relevant operator to take which, for a relevant operator outside the United Kingdom shall include,

“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 has its principal office for the provision of telecommunication services”.

There is a fairly widely held view that the current international legal framework by which UK agencies obtain data from overseas providers needs updating. Sir Nigel Sheinwald recommended that the UK Government engage like-minded Governments to conclude new mutual assistance agreements, which address conflicts of law and provide a sustainable and workable approach for UK agencies to obtain content data from overseas providers. It appears some progress is being made with the US Government towards such an agreement. The Bill currently provides UK agencies with several options to seek data from overseas providers, including mutual legal assistance treaties, the mutual legal assistance convention, international agreements of the kind recommended by Sir Nigel Sheinwald, and service of a UK warrant extraterritorially.

The unilateral assertion of UK jurisdiction overseas risks creating a conflicting world of laws and a difficult and uncertain environment for local staff of overseas companies in the UK and UK companies abroad. The Bill does not direct agencies as to which power to use under what circumstances, and that is an issue that these amendments seek to address. The new international assistance agreements are additional and complementary to mutual legal assistance treaties but, unlike such treaties, international assistance agreements would permit UK agencies to request data directly from overseas providers, in their home jurisdiction, without application to a local court. These amendments do not seek to push all requests through the existing mutual assistance treaties process.

Amendment 65 also relates to Clause 41, on the “Duty of operators to assist with implementation”. The purpose of this amendment is to provide added protections against locally based staff being at risk of sanction for decisions that they do not make. International companies do not always store data in the same countries where they have employees. However, employees in countries other than those where data are stored may need access to data in the course of their employment. As such, these individuals may be technically capable of complying with a request for data. One concern for major companies is that local staff are increasingly vulnerable to being held liable to decisions made by their parent company. That can also be used as a very direct way in which to apply pressure to comply with requests even when there may be a conflict of law.

The effect of Amendment 65A is to make it clear that there is a statutory defence of non-compliance with a warrant when the individual concerned is not authorised to provide data by the company legally controlling it. The amendment seeks to provide legal clarity and ensure that the Bill does not set a precedent for local staff to be held accountable in other jurisdictions.

Amendments 82 and 83 in this group relate to Clause 54, on the “Duty not to make unauthorised disclosures”. Subsection (1) of the clause provides that:

“A person to whom this section applies must not make an unauthorised disclosure to another person”.

Amendment 82 would add in the words, “without reasonable excuse”. Amendment 83 would insert a new subsection, stating that,

“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”.

The amendments would add the reasonable excuse defence to the unauthorised disclosure offence and expressly provide that the defence applies whether permission is given by the person issuing the warrant or the person to whom it is issued.

Other amendments in this group, Amendments 174 and 175, would extend the reasonable excuse defence to the unauthorised disclosure obligation in relation, for example, to equipment interference warrants. On the face of it, there appears to be no reason why there should not be a reasonable excuse defence, particularly covering the specific instances referred to in the amendments in this group, and I await the Government’s response.

Clause 55 sets out the meaning of “excepted disclosure”, as referred to in Clause 54(2)(b). The clause deals with the duty not to make unauthorised disclosures and an excepted disclosure cannot be an unauthorised disclosure. Clause 55(7) sets out excepted disclosures under the heading in the Bill,

“disclosures of a general nature”.

Amendments 84A and 84B expand the protection offered as an excepted disclosure by removing what could be regarded as the narrowing provision of Clause 55(7)(a) and extending the remaining provision to include warrants as also described in Clause 54(2)(a)(i) and Clause 54(2)(a)(ii). It is not clear why a distinction is drawn between the wording in Clause 54 and Clause 55 in that regard.

Finally, Clause 228 provides further details about national security notices and technical capability notices. The power to issue a technical capability notice has extraterritorial effect under Clause 226(8) and can be enforced against an overseas provider under Clause 228(10). There are a half a dozen or so powers which have extraterritorial effect. Of these, three are enforceable against overseas providers: targeted interception, targeted acquisition of communications data and bulk interception. The Secretary of State is required in all three cases to take into account requirements of the domestic law of the overseas provider and the extent to which it is reasonably practicable for a provider to comply with a notice. Amendments 104 and 105 would require the Secretary of State to apply the same consideration to applications for a technical capability notice and replicate the wording already used in Clause 41(5), which covers the duty of operators to assist with the implementation of warrants. These amendments would also appear to be relevant to Sir Nigel Sheinwald’s recommendation that the Government should engage with the Government concerned where there is a conflict of law rather than risk overseas providers facing an irreconcilable situation.

I think that has addressed all the amendments that I have down in this group. I will listen with interest to the Government’s response. From that response I hope to form a view about whether the amendments I have put down have real weight and merit or whether the Government can provide a satisfactory answer to the concerns behind them. I beg to move.

Lord Paddick (Liberal Democrat)

I shall speak briefly to the amendments set out by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about co-operation with companies based oversees. A real concern to multinational companies is a conflict of law between the country in which they are based and the UK. That concern has been expressed to us as well. As we go through the Bill, we will see that co-operation between countries is increasingly important. As communication moves from cellular communication to communication using the internet, many of the companies that people use to communicate with each other—Facebook, WhatsApp and other platforms of that sort—are based in the United States. The more warrant authorisation processes are harmonised, the more there can be international agreements between countries and the more success we will have in securing communications data and intercept evidence as a result of people moving from cellular to the online environment. I generally support what the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said about the importance of resolving these issues and forging as many agreements as possible with countries, particularly those where these widely used communications platforms are based.

Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)

My Lords, I shall begin by addressing the amendments which relate to the serving of warrants and the giving of notices to overseas telecommunications operators. The first, Amendment 63, appears to remove the ability to serve a warrant outside the United Kingdom when the United Kingdom has entered into an international agreement with the country where that person or company is established. Perhaps that was not the intention. It seems counterintuitive to prohibit the service of a warrant on a person outside the United Kingdom when they are based in a territory with which the United Kingdom has an agreement which expressly provides for the service of warrants overseas. I wonder whether it was intended to do the opposite and provide that a warrant might be served on a person outside the UK only pursuant to a relevant international agreement.

In any event, it is important to remember that, although discussions are ongoing, there is currently no international agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States. As the Home Secretary has previously stated, the UK and United States Governments have begun considering a framework under which US-based communications service providers could disclose data directly to the United Kingdom for serious criminal and counterterrorism investigations in response to a UK order requesting the content of the communications—that is, a warrant. We are eager to press forward with developing an agreement. In response to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I can say that timetabling will depend on changes to the relevant US domestic legislation, a matter to which the United States Attorney-General recently referred. But it is not possible to give a more exact timetable so far as that is concerned.

Taking up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, of course it would be beneficial to all concerned that we should achieve some form of international agreement with regard to these matters, and it is hoped that the agreement with the United States might provide a template to take this forward. But let us accept that we are at a very early stage.

It is important to be clear that any company complying with warrants under an international agreement will not face enforcement action. I am perfectly content to put that important point on record for the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who opened by explaining that these were essentially probing amendments, and I appreciate that. However, it is also important to explain that such agreements will not by themselves require a company to comply with a United Kingdom warrant. Even when an international agreement is in place, it remains vital that the Bill continues to exert extraterritoriality in relation to interception warrants. This also provides the legal certainty that some companies have been asking for.

Amendments 64 and 65, made to Clause 41, would set out that it would not be reasonably practicable for an operator outside the United Kingdom to comply with a warrant if that involved acting contrary to any laws or restrictions in the jurisdiction in which its principal office is located. These amendments are unnecessary because subsection (5) already makes it clear that, in determining whether it is reasonably practicable for a company to comply with a warrant, any requirements or restrictions under the law of the territory in which it is based must be taken into account. I do not want to quote the matter at length, but I will just refer to the relevant provision. In Clause 41(5), the matters to be taken into account include,

“any requirements or restrictions under the law of that country or territory that are relevant to the taking of those steps, and … the extent to which it is reasonably practicable to give effect to the warrant in a way that does not breach any of those requirements or restrictions”.

Therefore, it appears that this issue is already addressed. Indeed, what is said in the Bill replicates the existing position under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, as amended by the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014.

I believe that the intention of Amendment 65A is to provide additional protections for staff employed in the United Kingdom by telecommunications companies whose principal offices are established overseas. Again, this additional language is unnecessary, and I will seek to explain why. In respect of interception warrants, the Government have already amended the Bill in response to concerns from overseas companies to make it clear that a warrant must be served in such a way as to bring the contents of the warrant to the attention of a person who is capable of providing assistance in relation to it. Clearly, an employee based in the United Kingdom who has no access to relevant information would not be such a person, as they would not be capable of providing the assistance required. The concern that enforcement action will be taken against junior local employees is also misplaced, since it is the telecommunications operator, rather than any individual, who is subject to the duty to provide assistance. I also make the point that it would not be in the interests of the relevant agency to serve a warrant or a notice in such a way that meant it could not be complied with quickly and efficiently. But the broader point is that if there is a conflict between United Kingdom law and the internal authorisation processes of an individual company, then of course United Kingdom law must always take primacy.

Amendments 104 and 105 would permit a person not to comply with a technical capability notice if the notice would require the person to act in a way contrary to any law or restriction in their country or territory. This amendment reads across provisions from other parts of the Bill—those relating to interception warrants and targeted communications data requests, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, noticed—but it does so inappropriately.

Any conflict of law issues will arise in taking steps to give effect to a warrant. It is appropriate that the provisions for taking into account such conflicts are included in the Bill in relation to the provisions which allow a warrant to be enforced against a person outside the United Kingdom. I stress that it is a warrant, not the technical capability notice. The Bill provides that laws in the jurisdiction in which a company is based must be taken into account when deciding whether to impose an obligation by serving a warrant.

Giving a technical capability notice to an operator simply requires it to maintain a technical capability. Technical capability notices can be used only to impose requirements to provide assistance in relation to warrants or authorisations provided for elsewhere in the Bill. Conflict of law issues are very unlikely to arise in that context because developing and maintaining the capability does not of itself authorise the acquisition of data.

In addition, Clause 226 requires that before giving a technical capability notice to a person, that person must be consulted. In the unlikely event that a conflict of law issue arose in the giving of a notice, this would be revealed during the consultation. The Secretary of State is expressly required by Clause 228 to take into account the technical feasibility, likely cost and any other effect on the person of complying with the notice. Clause 226(4) makes clear that a notice can be served only if it is reasonable to impose an obligation and practicable for the relevant operator to comply. It would of course not be reasonable to impose an obligation that could not lawfully be complied with.

I will address the proposed amendments to Clauses 54 and 123 with respect to reasonable excuse. These amendments would amend the duty not to make an unauthorised disclosure so that it would be permitted if there was a “reasonable excuse”. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the concerns this amendment seeks to address are already met by the Bill. To begin, I should explain why the Government have a policy of not revealing the existence of a warrant.

If they are to remain effective, the techniques and capabilities available to the agencies must be protected. A disclosure of such details would cause damage to the ability of the authorities to keep us safe. Clauses 54 and 123 set out those people who are required not to make unauthorised disclosures under this Bill. Clauses 55 and 124 provide the limited circumstances where disclosure is already permitted. It cannot be right for the Bill to allow a person to release sensitive information into the public domain and then subsequently argue that they had a “reasonable excuse”. Once the information is released into the public domain—be it with good or bad intentions in mind—it cannot be withdrawn and the consequences cannot be undone.

Of course, it is absolutely right that cases of wrongdoing or impropriety are made public and that justice is done in such instances. That is why we have provided in the Bill for an Investigatory Powers Commissioner, with the power to look into any aspect of the use of these powers and to take such action as he or she sees fit. It is much better that a senior, impartial judge should take a view on what is in the public interest than, say, a junior official or an employee of a telecommunications operator.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge that it is important that such people can raise concerns without fear of prosecution, which is why Clause 212—which we will get to when we consider Part 8—also provides for an information gateway so that whistleblowers can take their concerns directly to the commissioner without fear of sanction under the Bill. Combined, these clauses help to maintain an important principle that helps the agencies to protect their techniques and, in turn, to protect us.

Amendment 25A would insert the proposed new clause on public reporting. These amendments would provide for a person who is subject to a warrant or notice to report certain details of the warrants and notices to which they have given effect. Clause 55 already provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations, setting out the information that a postal operator or a telecommunications operator may disclose in relation to the number of interception and equipment interference warrants to which an operator has given effect. The regulations will set out the bands and timeframes within which an operator may publish information about warrants. It is my view that the level of detail required is appropriate for such conditions to be provided for in regulations and not on the face of the Bill.

This amendment would also undermine the prohibition on operators disclosing the existence and contents of bulk communications data acquisition warrants and data retention notices; I cannot support this proposal. These authorities are kept secret because revealing their existence could damage national security and hamper the prevention and detection of crime. Criminals may change how they communicate in order to use a provider that is not subject to a publicly avowed government requirement. That is why we need to be very careful about any exemptions to prohibitions on revealing such sensitive information.

I recognise that there is a careful balance to be struck between protecting sensitive information and the need for transparency regarding the use of investigatory powers, but I consider that this balance is achieved by the provisions set out in this Bill, including those relating to public reporting at Clause 55. The Government will continue to work closely and constructively with the telecommunications operators on this matter, including by consulting them on the content of the draft regulations, in order that we may provide for an approach that works for all concerned. For the reasons I have set out, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Rosser (Labour)

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. I will read it carefully in Hansard and reflect on what he had to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 25A withdrawn.

Clauses 15 and 16 agreed.

Clause 17: Subject-matter of warrants

Lord Paddick (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have Amendments 26 to 31 in this group. Under Amendment 31, we have concerns about the breadth of warrants. These warrants are described as targeted interception warrants or targeted examination warrants. Noble Lords will no doubt recall that targeted examination warrants relate to where a bulk interception has resulted in coming across content that belongs to a UK citizen and, therefore a targeted examination warrant is required in those circumstances. Clause 17(1)(a) provides that a targeted interception warrant or a targeted examination warrant may relate to,

“a particular person or organisation”.

An organisation could cover hundreds, if not thousands, of people. I am indebted to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who tells me that it could, in fact, relate to the National Trust—I am not sure about horticultural terrorism, but they have more than 1 million members. We are probing whether it is appropriate to have a targeted interception warrant that is targeted at an organisation, particularly when in Clause 17(1)(b), it says that such warrants can only apply to,

“a single set of premises”.

The potential contrast between the number of people who might be affected in terms of an organisation being targeted by a targeted interception warrant but only a single set of premises seems stark.

Similarly, Clause 17(2)(b) says that such a warrant may relate to,

“more than one person or organisation”,

so again it is very broad. The number of people––potentially innocent people––caught up in such a targeted interception could be extremely large.

Amendment 27 relates to Clause 17(2)(a), whereby,

“a group of persons who share a common purpose or who carry on, or may carry on, a particular activity”,

can be targeted by an interception warrant. To narrow the potential for this to affect a large number of individuals, the amendment would require each person to be named or identified using a unique identifier. While we accept that with, for example, members of a gang involved in drug dealing, one may not know the names of the individuals concerned, one might from surveillance footage be able to accurately describe the individual whom one wants to target by means of that warrant. A similar argument is suggested by Amendment 29 in relation to Clause 17(2)(b).

Amendment 30 relates to Clause 17(2)(c) and queries the issuing of warrants for “testing or training activities”. While Clause 17(3) defines what such activities are, it does not seem clear to us why it would be necessary to issue a targeted interception warrant to test equipment or train individuals in its use. One would have thought that, if it was a training or testing exercise, it could be done with the consent of whoever is being targeted by the training or testing activities. Amendment 31 therefore suggests that Clause 17(3), in relation to “testing or training activities” be deleted. I beg to move.

Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)

My Lords, some of these amendments were discussed in the other place. They would remove the ability of the warrant-requesting agencies to apply for a warrant against an organisation; they would require a warrant to name or identify each individual involved in an operation, and they would remove warrants for testing and training activity.

As was set out in the other place, it is important that those responsible for keeping us safe have the powers they need. We consider that the amendments would undermine those necessary powers, but I appreciate that the noble Lord is advancing essentially probing amendments and I respond in that spirit.

Let me start with the amendment regarding unique identifiers. As was explained in the other place, it is not always possible at the outset of an investigation to know or have identified all the individuals who may be subject to a warrant during that investigation. When a warrant is granted against a kidnap gang, for example, the Secretary of State may not know that there are four members of the gang rather than three. The ability to grant a warrant against the gang to establish its size and to identify co-conspirators is precisely why RIPA provided for so-called “thematic” targeted warrants. They are an invaluable tool in allowing the agencies to investigate complex or fast-moving threats, and it is important that we do not undermine their ability to use that tool.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that the Bill already provides at Clause 29(8) that the warrant has to specify, for example, the phone numbers to be intercepted. Furthermore, Clause 29(4) provides a safeguard for warrants that relate to a group of persons who share a common purpose or who carry on a particular activity—for example a paedophile network—by requiring that the warrant must name or describe as many of those persons so far as is reasonably practicable. I am afraid that I do not accept the analogy with the National Trust—I do not consider it apposite at all.

It is already the case that the warrant will name or describe particular people whose communications are to be intercepted as they become known over the course of the investigation. This is an important safeguard that will assist the oversight of thematic targeted warrants. It is therefore in these circumstances that I suggest that the amendment is not necessary.

Perhaps I may move on to the amendments that seek to remove the ability to grant a warrant against an organisation. Such a change would be operationally damaging and is, moreover, unnecessary. The Bill and the statutory code of practice impose strict limits on the issue of warrants, including in relation to organisations. Such warrants are not open-ended. Their scope must be sufficiently limited that the Secretary of State can properly assess the necessity and proportionality of the interference. Further, under the Bill a judicial commissioner will need to approve the Secretary of State’s decision. In those circumstances the Bill will not allow for overly broad warrants to be issued.

I turn finally to testing and training warrants. The amendments would remove the ability to apply for a warrant for testing or training purposes. Again, I suggest that that would be damaging operationally and would result in a consequent reduction in safeguards. It is vital that those who are authorised to undertake interception are able to test new equipment and to make sure that those responsible for using that equipment are properly trained in its use. Of course there is an element of systems here in the context of the equipment. While it is possible for some testing of equipment to take place in a controlled environment, it is sometimes necessary to test equipment outside of controlled environments to ensure that it will work in real-life situations. There are therefore strict controls which govern the handling of material obtained in this way during such tests. However, we believe that it is right that it should be possible to test this equipment in scenarios where it can be checked that it is working effectively and to help ensure that the users are operating it correctly. Without the ability to test equipment, we will increase the risk of mistakes being made where individuals are not able to receive adequate training in the use of equipment.

The warrant application process in these circumstances allows the Secretary of State to understand the potential risk that communications will be intercepted incidentally to the purpose of the testing or training, and to agree the measures to be taken to reduce the chances of communications being accidently intercepted. There are clear safeguards in place to protect the privacy of citizens. Accordingly, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I should mention that this subject was covered extensively in the Joint Committee on the Bill. It seems that the noble and learned Lord is suggesting that in order to be able to monitor a gang when we do not know if it is made up of three or four people, the language of the clause should be this open. Perhaps I may quote from some of the evidence that was given to the committee. The clause fails to,

“exclude the possibility that everyone who belongs to a certain trade union, political party or book club; visits a certain shop; attends (or has friends or family members who attend) a certain house of worship; subscribes to a certain publication; participates in a lawful and peaceful demonstration; celebrates or may celebrate a certain religious or national holiday”,

and so on and so forth. All those activities seem, perhaps as an unintended consequence, to be swept up by this provision. Recommendation 38 made by the committee states that,

“the language of the Bill be amended so that targeted interception and targeted equipment interference warrants cannot be used as a way to issue thematic warrants concerning a very large number of people”.

Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)

A thematic targeted warrant will be granted only in circumstances where the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate. None of the examples cited by the noble Lord comes within a hundred miles of that.

Lord Paddick (Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation and I am reassured to some extent by, for example, some of the provisions he highlighted in Clause 29(8) and (4). I understand that in fast-moving situations such as a kidnapping it may be necessary to add people to the warrant or to encompass additional individuals who are not specifically named on the warrant. However, I wonder whether some safeguards can still be provided in slower-moving situations, or whether, as in the case where there are provisions for the urgent issuing of warrants, those provisions could be used in these cases.

As for the strict limits on the targeting of organisations, I accept, as I notice the Labour Front Bench also accepts, that these warrants must be necessary and proportionate, and that they provide some safeguards against overreaching in the use of these warrants. I am still puzzled about training and testing warrants. I accept that new equipment and individuals need to be trained in real, live situations, but I am a little concerned about who the individuals and organisations are that might be targeted in these training exercises, bearing in mind that the whole suggestion is that the normal provisions of proportionality and necessity, in terms of suspicions that these individuals are up to no good, would not apply in these situations. Therefore, what is learned? What privacy is being intruded into in the course of these training and testing activities?

My concerns remain about some of those areas, but I am reassured by other things that the noble and learned Lord has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 26 withdrawn.

Amendments 27 to 31 not moved.

Clauses 17 and 18 agreed.

Clause 19: Power of Secretary of State to issue warrants

Lord Paddick (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have Amendments 32 to 36 in this group. These amendments seek to probe the Government’s position and how far they might be prepared to go in adopting, for example, the recommendations that David Anderson made in his report about removing the Secretary of State from the issuing of targeted interception and examination warrants and replacing the Secretary of State, as the person who decides on these warrants, with a judicial commissioner. The volume of warrants that the Home Secretary, for example, has to sign amounts to as many as 10 a day. We are relieved that she does not now have the additional burden of having to run for leader of the Conservative Party, but one can imagine that to give proper consideration to 10 warrants a day is a significant undertaking, in addition to her other responsibilities.

In non-contentious cases, where there is no political aspect, such as law enforcement warrants, where one is dealing with serious crime—with drug dealers, for example—it is difficult to understand why one would need the Secretary of State to consider these issues. We obviously accept that there may be cases where there is political sensitivity, even in the case of serious crime, and it may be that the Bill can be amended to allow either for the judicial commissioner or even the applicant for the warrant to refer the matter to the Secretary of State in those cases. I also accept that in cases of national security—in cases where the security services, for example, are seeking a warrant, particularly where they may be looking at interception of foreign communications, even foreign diplomatic communications—there is a definite need for the Secretary of State’s involvement. However, as I say, the thrust of this group of amendments is to explore why the Government insist on the Secretary of State being involved in 75% of the warrants that, for example, the Home Secretary signs when those warrants appear to be non-contentious and not politically sensitive but simply to do with law enforcement and serious crime. I beg to move.

Lord Pannick (Crossbench)

I support what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has said, and I too would be grateful for an explanation of why it is necessary or appropriate for the Secretary of State to be involved in the issuing of warrants in relation to non-contentious matters. My understanding—and I should be grateful if the Minister can deal with this—is that the Bill will impose those responsibilities on the Secretary of State in relation to basic policing functions, even though, under existing law, the Secretary of State has no role in the issuing of warrants in such circumstances.

Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I spent a lot of time sitting on the Joint Committee, and since then, searching in vain for a cogent reason why the Secretary of State needs to sign off warrants that have no national security or diplomatic import. Why should the Minister spend her valuable time examining and authorising warrants about everyday criminals? We are told that two-thirds or three-quarters—I do not know which; I have heard both figures—of warrants have nothing to do with national security or diplomacy.

The Secretary of State has no role in authorising property search warrants, which arguably are more intrusive, and involve invasion of a person’s home and discovery of information about a far wider range of subjects than a person’s communications. The only reason ever offered is that the Secretary of State is subject to scrutiny by Parliament, whereas a judicial commissioner is not.

When they gave evidence to the Joint Committee I asked two former Ministers who were responsible for authorising warrants how many times they had been held to account by Parliament. Both the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, former Home Secretary, and Owen Paterson, former Northern Ireland Secretary, said that it had never happened. That was just as well because it is a criminal offence under RIPA for the existence or details of a warrant to be publicly disclosed. Clause 54 of the Bill continues that ban, with a penalty of up to five years in prison. Therefore, the whole notion of parliamentary accountability for Ministers who authorise warrants is a complete myth. It has never happened and the Bill prohibits it.

I expect that the Government will refer to the potential to be held to account by the ISC, but that does not fit the Bill and is not visible to the public. As far as I know—and as far as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, knew when he gave evidence—there are no examples of the ISC holding Ministers to account. I should be interested if the Minister can give some examples of when that has happened. I, too, wait with interest to hear the Government’s response to the amendment.

Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, the Secretary of State’s involvement in law enforcement warrants is a historical hangover from when this was the only kind of control or restraint on police applications that existed prior to this legislation. Perhaps it shows a lack of rethinking the nature of judicial authorisation, such as this Bill provides for, that her involvement—it may well be “him” in the future—should have survived when it does not seem either to have practical purpose or to add significantly to the protections that the legislation will afford against misuse or excessive use of the power.

Earl Howe (Conservative)

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, explained, these amendments seek to place the sole decision on whether to authorise a warrant application with a judicial commissioner. In the Government’s firm view, this would be a mistake. The noble Lord asked why there is a need for the Secretary of State’s involvement at all. Having a judicial commissioner be solely responsible for authorising warrants would remove all democratic accountability for that decision and would effectively remove parliamentary scrutiny from the process. In the scenario that a warrant was incorrectly either refused or approved, then the ability of Parliament to hold an individual to account for that particular decision would be greatly diminished.

Additionally, the Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary and Northern Ireland Secretary are accountable to Parliament for the actions of the security and intelligence agencies and the law enforcement agencies. If Secretaries of State are not able to authorise, or refuse to authorise, intelligence gathering—one of the primary activities of an agency—I simply ask: how can they properly be held to account for the operation of those agencies?

There is another aspect as well. These amendments would also significantly undermine the ability of the Executive to carry out one of their primary duties, which is to uphold national security. If the Executive have no opportunity to offer an opinion on whether a particular intelligence opportunity should be pursued, then how can they properly fulfil their responsibility to keep the public safe from those who would seek to do us harm?

Though the Joint Committee convened to scrutinise the draft Bill, Parliament has already given detailed consideration to the question of who should authorise warrants. That committee heard evidence from judicial commissioners, former Secretaries of State and others. It concluded that the model of authorisation by the Secretary of State, followed by approval by a senior judge, was the right way to preserve democratic accountability and to introduce a new element of judicial independence. And at Second Reading in the other place, there was very strong cross-party support for a government amendment that preserved the double lock and the role of the judicial commissioner, so this is well-trodden ground, I suggest, and it is clear that there is strong support, including from senior members of the judiciary, for the approach set out in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, asked whether a Secretary of State has ever been held accountable for a warrant. Protecting the UK and its people is the first duty of government. Secretaries of State are accountable to Parliament for the actions of the intelligence agencies and law enforcement bodies that they oversee, as I said. The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament plays a crucial role in this. Its review of the tragic killing of Lee Rigby is an excellent example of its in-depth investigation of what occurred, and whether it was preventable. That investigation considered the authorisation of sensitive capabilities and, while some of its scrutiny was inevitably held behind closed doors, Ministers were certainly held to account for their decisions. So the approach taken in the Bill offers a balance between the expertise and accountability of a Secretary of State and the independent scrutiny of a judicial commissioner. A judicial commissioner will need to be fully satisfied that the Secretary of State’s decision to authorise a warrant was correct; otherwise, that warrant cannot be issued. This double-lock system is in our view far preferable to a single authorisation system and will give the UK world-class safeguards. I hope that that is a helpful explanation and will encourage the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat)

I think the Minister will have to concede that the notion of democratic accountability is wafer thin because a Minister cannot come to Parliament to explain or defend what is being asked about—any warrant. I would like the Minister to explain to us why the four other partners in the “Five Eyes” network—that is, Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand—find no need for this democratic accountability.

Earl Howe (Conservative)

Will the noble Lord be kind enough to repeat the last part of his question?

Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat)

The “Five Eyes” partnership of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, America and the UK has been in existence since the Second World War. The UK is the only one out of those five that feels the need for Secretaries of State or politicians in general to be involved in authorising warrants. I was wondering why the UK has to stand out alone in that way.

Earl Howe (Conservative)

It is really quite difficult for me to answer the noble Lord’s question on the “Five Eyes”: it has to be a question for the other members of that group. The approach we have taken is consonant with our general wish, as a country, to hold Ministers to account for important decisions taken about national security and privacy, rather than to consign those decisions to the court. Nevertheless, we believe there is a role for a judicial commissioner to approve what Ministers do. That double lock is the formula which most people in the other place were comfortable with. That is probably all I can say on that score. I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on the case of Lee Rigby, which is a good example of how a Minister was directly accountable to Parliament, albeit in secret session but nevertheless fully accountable to a committee of Parliament. I am sure there are other examples where that has occurred.

Lord Pannick (Crossbench)

Before the Minister sits down, could I test his patience? Will he write to me on the question that I raised, which is whether or not the Bill will expand the scope of the authorisation powers of the Secretary of State to new areas or whether it simply continues the existing scope of those powers? If the Bill does confer an authorisation power on the Secretary of State in relation to a wider scope, could he please explain why?

Earl Howe (Conservative)

I should be happy to write to the noble Lord on that point.

Lord Paddick (Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I did say that the amendments were probing ones and suggested that national security and politically sensitive issues—as with the Lee Rigby case, to which he referred—would have to be outside this provision. The fact is that in 2014 the Home Secretary personally authorised 2,345 interception and property warrants and renewals, which is about 10 a day. Even David Anderson was shocked by the number of warrants that the Home Secretary had to personally sign, which was why he came up with his recommendation. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, our understanding is that the number of warrants which the Secretary of State will have to sign will increase as a consequence of this legislation. David Blunkett, who has written of his time as Home Secretary, said that:

“My whole world was collapsing around me. I was under the most horrendous pressure. I was barely sleeping, and yet I was being asked to sign government warrants in the middle of the night. My physical and emotional health had cracked”.

I am sure that the current Home Secretary is more resilient than the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was in those circumstances.

Another issue, which I spoke about in the previous set of amendments, is the importance of international collaboration, particularly with the United States. I reinforce what my noble friend Lord Strasburger said. In America, federal investigative and law enforcement officers are generally required to obtain judicial authorisation for intercepting wire, oral and electronic communications. A court order must be issued by a judge of a US district court, a US court of appeals or a FISA judge. If we are to have these international co-operation agreements, again, as David Anderson pointed out in his report, it is important as far as possible to harmonise between different countries the authorisation levels of the system of authorisation. I will read what the Minister has said in his response and I agree that the amendments as drafted go too far, but this is something that we can hopefully discuss between now and Report. If not, we may have to bring this matter back on Report. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 32 withdrawn.

Amendments 33 to 36 not moved.

Clause 19 agreed.

Clause 20: Grounds on which warrants may be issued by Secretary of State

Lord Paddick (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have Amendments 37, 121, 153 and 161 in this group. Basically, these amendments relate to Clause 20, “Grounds on which warrants may be issued by Secretary of State”. We suggest an additional paragraph, where a warrant is issued for the purposes of preventing or detecting a serious crime, or in the interests of the economic well-being of the UK,

“only where there is a reasonable suspicion that a serious criminal offence has been or is likely to be committed”.

I refer to the briefing provided by Liberty, which points out that one of the greatest problems, recurrent in every power in the Bill, is the lack of a reasonable suspicion threshold for surveillance warrants to be authorised for the purposes of preventing and detecting crime. It states that:

“Intrusive powers can be authorised in order to ‘prevent and detect serious crime’, or even (in the case of communications data) to collect tax, prevent disorder, or in the interests of public safety. However, these general purposes are left wide open to broad interpretation and abuse without requiring a threshold of suspicion”.

The briefing says that a requirement of reasonable suspicion, when the purpose to prevent and detect serious crime is invoked, would prevent the potential abusive surveillance of law-abiding citizens that has regrettably been seen in the past.

The threshold of reasonable suspicion has long been an important safeguard for citizens and law enforcers against the risk of arbitrary use of police powers. The necessary and proportionate standard invokes an important assessment of the extent of the intrusion, but it does not, as we read it, require a burden of proof. Perhaps the Minister could explain how or why the “reasonable suspicion” test should not be applied to the various powers covered in our amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, explained, these amendments seek to provide that certain authorisations can be given only where there is a reasonable suspicion that a serious criminal offence has been, or is likely to be, committed. It is almost like trying to compare apples and oranges. The construct of the Bill is not around reasonable suspicion. It is around necessity and proportionality. They achieve the same goal, but in different ways. These amendments are not necessary and, in the case of communications data, would undermine the ability of law enforcement and other public authorities to catch criminals and to keep the public safe. First, let me assure the Committee that for a warrant to be issued for the prevention or detection of serious crime, a sufficiently compelling case will always be required; a speculative warrant could never be approved under Clause 20. The same is true for authorisations to obtain communications data for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime. So these amendments respond to a concern that, I suggest, is misplaced.

In relation to the retention of communications data, the effect of these amendments would be even more profound. By requiring that data can be retained—that is, held by a communications service provider—only where it is suspected that a crime has been committed, the amendment proposes to move the UK from a data retention regime to one of data preservation. Data preservation means that data are retained by a communications service provider only once a suspect becomes known to the police. In many cases, that is simply too late to be of use; for example, 58% of requests for communications data in child abuse investigations are for data that are more than six months old. Under a data preservation model, those data may not be available, and criminals would walk free.

It is for that reason that the UK operates a data retention model, rather than a data preservation model, whereby data are retained by companies and accessed by law enforcement only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so—the relevant test under the Bill. The benefits of such a model over data preservation are stark. In a Europe-wide investigation into online child sexual exploitation, of 371 suspects identified in the UK, 121 arrests or convictions were possible; of 377 suspects in Germany, which does not have data retention, no arrests were made.

In view of the very significant impact that would flow from these amendments, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 37.

Lord Pannick (Crossbench)

Can the Minister give the Committee a practical example of where it would be necessary and proportionate—the test that he emphasises—to exercise these powers where there is not, to quote the amendment,

“a reasonable suspicion that a serious criminal offence has been or is likely to be committed”?

Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)

I think the noble Lord helpfully makes my point for me. As I said at the outset, we are dealing with apples and oranges. We achieve the same objective by different routes, but I am obliged.

Lord Pannick (Crossbench)

I am sorry to prolong this but I am not agreeing with the noble and learned Lord, I am asking for a practical example of why the Government are not prepared to accept a “reasonable suspicion” test.

Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)

For example, in the case of a missing person there may be no reasonable suspicion but it may still be necessary and proportionate to grant a warrant in those circumstances. I hope that that is concrete enough.

Lord Paddick (Liberal Democrat)

I am very grateful to the Minister. While I accept that there are some cases where the test of reasonable suspicion is not required—he gave the very good example of a missing person—I still wonder why the Government are averse in all circumstances to having a “reasonable suspicion” test. If I understand what he is saying, I accept that it is implicit in the necessity provision of issuing a warrant. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 37 withdrawn.

Clause 20 agreed.

Clause 21: Power of Scottish Ministers to issue warrants

Earl Howe (Conservative)

My Lords, in moving Amendment 38, I will speak also to Amendments 117, 118, 120, 155, 157, 162, 163, 165, 166, 203, 220 and 223. I recognise that the Opposition and the Scottish National Party raised concerns about trade union protections in the Public Bill Committee in the other place. I know that it has been suggested that investigatory powers may have been used in the past to interfere with legitimate trade union activity.

Allow me to repeat what was said in the Commons. The agencies have never been interested in investigating legitimate trade union activity. The Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 limit the activities of the agencies. Both Acts make it explicit that the agencies cannot act to further the interests of any political party. It goes without saying that all the agencies take these duties very seriously.

The Government therefore agreed an opposition amendment on Report in the Commons to what is now Clause 20 of the Bill, making explicit that legitimate trade union activity would never be sufficient grounds of itself for an interception warrant application to be considered necessary.

These amendments read across protections from that amendment to all the relevant provisions in the Bill. It would still permit public authorities to apply for a warrant or authorisation, or issue new or varied data retention notices under Part 4, relating to members or officials of a trade union considered to be a legitimate intelligence target, but it makes explicit that legitimate trade union activity would never be sufficient grounds, of itself, for a warrant, authorisation or notice to be considered necessary. Accordingly, I beg to move.

Lord Pannick (Crossbench)

The noble Earl recognises in his amendment that legitimate trade union activities would not of themselves be sufficient to establish the necessity of a warrant. I wonder whether the Government’s position is that they also recognise that legitimate trade union activities could not be relevant to the issue of a warrant, because the amendment does not go that far. If the Government do not recognise that, can they give a practical example of where legitimate trade union activities—I emphasise legitimate—could even be relevant to the issue of a warrant?

Earl Howe (Conservative)

I cannot do so and I am not sure that it is necessary for me to do so, because if, as I have explained, legitimate trade union activity is never sufficient grounds of itself for a warrant, the question of relevance does not arise.

Lord Rosser (Labour)

Unless the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has driven a coach and horses through these amendments—I shall have to consider carefully what he said—I would like to thank the Government for bringing them forward. As has been said, they incorporate in all the relevant parts of the Bill the change that was made in relation to trade union activity in providing protection for it when the matter was debated in the Commons. We welcome the amendments and the Government honouring the commitment that they gave in the other place.

Amendment 38 agreed.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed.

Clause 22 agreed.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 9.53 pm.