Mr.
Ruffley: We are now back on track, as you would wish, Sir
Nicholas and I have just one question. The clause relates to
authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
Can the Minister, for the benefit of the Committee, tell us why the
Government did not seek to take the opportunity in this clause to look
at the RIPA codes? The Minister will be aware of the debate—his
predecessor was certainly well aware of it—which concerns the
fact that RIPA is an important means of making sure that the
authorisation that officers seek, when they carry out surveillance, is
done in a way that civil rights are protected. We understand
that.
However, many
representations were made to his predecessor and have been made to me.
I shall give just one example. Over two years ago, the Police
Superintendents Association made representations in writing to the Home
Office, the nub of which was to amend the RIPA codes to say that in a
set number of examples—it came up with up to 20—an
authorisation under RIPA would not be necessary. To give a flavour of
that, it suggested that the RIPA codes should be amended in the
following, stylised example. At the moment, if a police officer had
intelligence, anecdotal or otherwise, that youths were breaking into
cars parked in a particular supermarket car park on a Sunday, in order
to survey that event by hiding behind a wall, under a strict
interpretation of RIPA 2000, that officer would have to get written
authorisation for that surveillance.
That was one
example where the Police Superintendents Association indicated that the
RIPA codes should be re-written to create an exemption. That is a
current issue. When I last raised it with the Minister’s
predecessor in Westminster Hall last year, the Minister said that this
problem—I paraphrase—had been dealt with. It is clear
that what he said in Westminster Hall was not the understanding that
serving officers had of the operation of the RIPA regime and seeking
authorisation. They were seeking a re-writing of the RIPA codes to make
exemptions. Officers said the problem was still current. The
Minister’s predecessor was wrong to say there was no concern. I
wonder, in the light of that, why the Home Office or its advisers did
not see fit to touch on that in the police reform part relating to
authorisations necessary for surveillance in the context of RIPA, which
is the subject of this
clause.
Paul
Holmes: It has been suggested—the Minister says,
unkindly—that the Bill is a rag-bag, that it is legislation for
the sake of it. One issue that has perhaps been missed and which the
opportunities of this clause could have dealt with is the concern about
the over-extension of the number of people who can use the powers under
RIPA. When RIPA was introduced, nine organisations could use its
powers. By last year it was 792 organisations, including 474 councils.
In the last year, the police and
law enforcement agencies made 19,000 applications to use the powers of
RIPA and councils and other departments made 12,500 applications. At
that rate, it will not be long before councils, Government Departments,
civil servants are making more use of this than the law enforcement
agencies that it is designed for. We have had examples of councils
using the powers to try to monitor dog fouling, people who may or may
not be lying about where they live so they can get access to schools
and that sort of thing. I know the Government have recently said to
councils that they should not be doing this, but when powers are
created they will be used. This has happened with counter-terrorism
legislation where police use it to arrest people who are legitimately
protesting at an arms fair or heckling at a Labour party conference. If
powers exist, people will use them. Do the Government intend to look
again at the workings of RIPA—the way it has extended into so
many non-law enforcement agencies—and alter legislation to
deal with
that?
Mr.
Coaker: I commend all Members of this Committee tomorrow
to read the House of Lords report—I gave evidence to the Select
Committee—which deals with many of the matters raised by the
hon. Gentleman, in particular the inappropriate use by local
authorities of powers under RIPA. That is being looked at.
In direct
answer to the point from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, we are
looking at the statutory codes of the covert surveillance and human
intelligence services and we will be putting out revised codes of
practice for public consultation in the not too distant future. The
hon. Member will then be able to look at those and comment. That work
is being taken forward and I hope that reassures
him. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 7,
as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
8Authorisations
for surveillance
etc Amendments
made: 8, in
clause 8, page 10, line 41, leave
out ‘subsection (1ZB)’ and insert ‘subsections
(1ZB) and
(1ZE)’. Amendment
9, in
clause 8, page 11, line 15, after
‘force.’
insert— ‘(1ZD) Subsection
(1ZE) applies if the chief constable of a Scottish police force
(“the Scottish authorising force”) has made an agreement
under section 12(1) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 with the chief
constable of one or more other Scottish police
forces. (1ZE) A person who is a
designated person for the purposes of section 28 or 29 by reference to
an office, rank or position with the Scottish authorising force may
grant an authorisation under that section on an application made by a
member of a collaborative force (subject to subsection
(1ZF)). (1ZF) The person may
grant the authorisation only if section 28(3)(a) or (c) or 29(3)(a) or
(c) applies to it. (1ZG) For
the purposes of subsection (1ZE) a Scottish police force is a
collaborative force
if— (a) its chief
constable is a party to the agreement mentioned in subsection (1ZD);
and (b) its members are
permitted by the terms of the agreement to make applications for
authorisations under section 28 or 29 to a person who is a
designated person for the purposes of that section by reference to an
office, rank or position with the Scottish authorising
force.’. Amendment
10, in
clause 8, page 11, line 16, leave
out ‘subsection (3ZB)’ and insert ‘subsections
(3ZB) and
(3ZE)’. Amendment
11, in
clause 8, page 11, line 36, leave
out ‘subsection (3ZB)’ and insert ‘subsections
(3ZA) and
(3ZB)’. Amendment
12, in
clause 8, page 11, line 43, after
‘force.’
insert— ‘(3ZD) Subsection
(3ZE) applies if— (a)
the chief constable of a Scottish police force (“the Scottish
surveillance authorising force”) has made an agreement under
section 12(1) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 with the chief
constable of one or more other Scottish police forces;
and (b) an application for an
authorisation for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance is made by
a member of a collaborative
force. (3ZE) A person who is a
senior authorising officer by reference to the Scottish surveillance
authorising force
may— (a) grant the
authorisation (subject to subsection
(3ZF)); (b) in a case where the
authorisation is for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance in
relation to any residential premises, grant the authorisation only in
relation to premises in the area which
is— (i) the area of
operation of a collaborative force; and
(ii) specified in relation to members of that force
in the agreement mentioned in subsection
(3ZD). (3ZF) The person may
grant the authorisation only if section 32(3)(a) or (c) applies to
it. (3ZG) For the purposes of
subsections (3ZD) and (3ZE) a Scottish police force is a collaborative
force if— (a) its chief
constable is a party to the agreement mentioned in subsection (3ZD);
and (b) its members are
permitted by the terms of the agreement to make applications for
authorisations for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance to a
person who is a senior authorising officer by reference to the Scottish
surveillance authorising
force.’. Amendment
13, in
clause 8, page 12, line 4, after
‘force.’
insert— ‘(5B) In subsections
(1ZD) to (1ZG) and (3ZD) to (3ZG) a reference to a Scottish police
force is to a police force maintained under or by virtue of section 1
of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967.’—(Mr.
Coaker.) Clause
8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. 10.25
am The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
