Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill

[back to previous text]

Mr. Ian Taylor: In the old days, when dealing with PTOs, arriving at an agreement was a good deal more simple than in this new era. We have many new internet service providers, not all of which are totally identified with Britain, and for them the marginal cost of equipment that may need to be modified is quite high. I urge the Government seriously to address the problem of costs, so that they do not remain in the realm of uncertainty. I am not quite satisfied by the degree of reassurance offered by what the Minister and I am sure that she is about to deal with the international comparisons, because competitors in the UK could face real problems if the costs are high.

Jane Kennedy: I was not proposing to deal with the international comparisons. However, we acknowledge that marginal costs are pretty high. They cover the costs of staff, training, accommodation and so on when the staff are employed in processing interception warrants.

We are at the first stage of the three-stage process that my hon. Friend the Minister of State described in the debate on clause 12. First comes the Bill; we shall continue to consult while the Bill continues its passage through Parliament. Next, we shall prepare the order; however, consultation will continue even after the details of the order have been determined. It is an ongoing and live relationship that will continue to evolve. It would be nonsense to include too rigid a provision in the Bill, given that we are still discussing the details of the order. The Opposition should bear that in mind and accept that the Government recognise the serious nature of their concerns. We intend to address those problems when the order is introduced.

5.15 pm

Mr. Maclean: It is such a pleasure to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary that I feel a bit of a cad and a bounder challenging her. She is a nice, decent person and it is a shame to hear her read out that cold, callous and hard-hearted Home Office brief. I would not have done that in my day. [Laughter.]

The Parliamentary Secretary said it might sour the working relationship with commercial companies if the Bill included a requirement to pay them money: that would be a new scenario for commercial enterprise. I know that new Labour has tried to engender a new working relationship with commercial business, but business must have changed considerably in past few years if it finds the Government giving it money an unacceptable rigidity.

The precedent that the Parliamentary Secretary quoted is not quite right. Of course British Telecom and other telecommunications operators co-operate with the Government and the security services. They are big companies and can afford low-level co-operation. I do not want the Government to have to reveal information that could endanger national security even marginally, but I would love to speculate on how much it costs British Telecom to maintain its present level of co-operation with the security services. Am I wrong in thinking that, if the security services require the co-operation of British Telecom or others to intercept communications, the security services bear the bulk of that cost, which involves their manpower and equipment? The telecommunications companies co-operate by making their wires and facilities available, but they do not have the burden imposed by clause 12. There is no requirement to install different telephones, wires, systems or equipment to make it easier for the security services to intercept.

Clause 12 would establish a new relationship. It does not require the industry merely to co-operate with the Government, but to install equipment that Government think is necessary. Companies might have to introduce new software or redesign their systems, possibly at enormous cost, for the Government's benefit. If it is right that the Government benefit from equipment and software that the industry would not usually install, they must pay the cost of introducing it.

Mr. Luff: I am with my right hon. Friend because I, too, am in an uncomfortable position. I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary was going to give us what we wanted. All her logic pointed in that direction, especially when taken in conjunction with the Minister of State's letter of 14 March, which she also quoted. It says:

    We continue to see a case for a sharing of the burden of costs between government and industry

and that draft secondary legislation would

    explain what contribution the Government proposes to make to these costs.

Her speech echoed that. Both Ministers referred to the cost of the requirement. In that spirit, I cannot understand why she is resisting our modest amendment.

The rest of the clause gives the Secretary of State considerable discretion to determine the Government's contribution. Individuals such as Adrian Norman have highlighted some of the costs that will fall on the industry. The Internet Service Providers Association has said that it wanted the Bill to include the Government's commitment to meeting the costs. It concluded its representation by saying:

    If ISPs in the UK are made to carry the burden of the costs of interception-

which the hon. Member for Hallam rightly described as the legitimate function of the state and not of the private sector-

    at best they will be at a disadvantage compared to their European and even international competitors, and at worse will be unable to operate. It does not seem that this position would help make the UK the `best place in the world for E-Commerce'.

On Monday of this week, we heard the Prime Minister, at the Dispatch Box, trumpeting that as his ambition.

The Parliamentary Secretary came so close to giving us what we want. I do not accept her argument that inserting the word ``shall'' would make the provision rigid, and I urge her to think again. If she is not prepared to accept the amendment, I intend to press it to a vote.

Jane Kennedy: I did not intend to respond, but perhaps I should say a few words for the avoidance of doubt. Perhaps it was my lack of clarity that caused Opposition Members not to understand why we resist the amendment. It cannot be right to tie the Secretary of State's hands at this stage, but if we have not made it clear that the Government will meet marginal costs, it may be possible to include a provision to that effect in the Bill. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment so that we may reconsider the matter and perhaps return to it at a later stage.

Mr. Luff: My high hopes of the Minister have been fulfilled. Those are precisely the conciliatory words that I hoped to hear from her.

Mr. Mclean: Did I not say to the Committee that the Parliamentary Secretary was a thoroughly decent lady, who would always accede to a sensible argument and had justice in her heart?

Mr. Luff: And intellectual rigour and consistency too.

On the basis of that assurance from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

General safeguards

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Allan: This is an important clause, despite the fact that no amendments have been tabled to it. Earlier, the Minister referred to the disposal of material, particularly intercepted material that is not seen as product, or some such phrase. The clause relates to very sensitive material. Hon. Members should look in their in-boxes and out-boxes and decide whether they would be comfortable if all their e-mails and the websites that they have visited were in general circulation, because I think that would make most people nervous.

I should be grateful if the Minister would explain how seriously the Government take the issue. As we move into the world of the internet, away from traditional telecommunications, all sorts of possibilities arise. Recently, we heard about the David Shayler case, in which confidential information was put on to web servers, so that it was instantly available to millions of people, unlike an old taped telephone conversation. Previously, it took a tabloid newspaper to put information on a 0898 number, so that someone could listen to a member of the royal family, for example. Now, we have e-mailed material, which can be broadcast around the world instantly. Even if the Government take action to prevent disclosure, the use of mirrored servers means that the material will be replicated elsewhere. I hope that the Government are aware of that. E-mails, which are caught by the Bill, showing an individuals tendencies towards Stalinism, or any other political flavour, could be stored away and released at some future date, as it may be uncertain whether the material has been disposed of. That is a hypothetical situation, but it reminds me of the issue of, security service material that was collected on the Home Secretary and Northern Ireland Secretary in the early 1970s. We have not got to the bottom of that, but similar things could happen. Under the Bill, that sort of material could be collected and we want it to be disposed of once individuals have been proved to be entirely innocent, as the individuals in that case were.

Mr. Heald: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the material might be lost and, if so, has he seen the front page of The Sun today?

Mr. Allan: I was about to refer to that and ask whether the Government will give a commitment to be as careful with the disposal of material-and to employ the best technology for its disposal-as they are with its collection. It seems, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire pointed out, that we have an unsatisfactory system for disposal at the moment whereby material is transferred to a laptop computer and placed in the back of a London taxi. That is not a secure method for the disposal of confidential information although it does seem effective in that the material never re-surfaces, or has not done so in the last couple of days. Some serious technology will be required to make clause 14 work. Currently, people who want to ensure that confidential information is erased when they dispose of computers have to pay large sums of money for that certainty. I know that the MOD and the police use contractors. My concern is that there would be a natural tendency within the authorities concerned to devote more effort to obtaining the material than to its disposal. Therefore, I am seeking assurances that clause 14 will be adhered to.

I would be interested to know whether the Government have procedures for reviewing what happens in respect of the disposal of material. Also, I would be interested in knowing whether they have considered what will happen if something goes wrong and an individual finds confidential material from his e-mails circulating in the public realm and believes that this can be traced back to a communication which was intercepted via a warrant. I would like to know if there would be any route of redress for that individual other than the obvious one of taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights and asserting an invasion of their privacy under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. It would be better if the Government built a redress into the Bill. How would the system provide redress if it were felt that material had gone astray contrary to what the Secretary of State will require under clause 14? It may have gone astray because of a rogue agent, somebody like Shayler, who the Government cannot control. Perhaps the Minister will say a few words concerning the seriousness of the Government's intentions in clause 14.

 
Previous Contents Continue

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering


©Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 28 March 2000