Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Archer of Sandwell: Before my noble friend sits down, I note that the Inland Revenue is not included in the list. Has it ever suggested that it needs to be included specifically? Alternatively, is it content to work through NCIS?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that it, too, is content with the arrangements set out in the Bill. It is content to work through NCIS. That seems to us appropriate. We believe that the Benefits Agency will work in the same way.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister suggested that there was a comparison between individual police forces and the Benefits Agency. I do not think that that is relevant. I agree that individual police forces in England and Wales, although not in Scotland, cannot apply; in Scotland they can. It is no part of this proposition that individual benefit offices or areas of the Benefits Agency should be able to apply. The analogy is more direct with the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, for example.

As regards the Inland Revenue, perhaps it might be considered for this list alongside the senior revenue department of Customs and Excise. I do not press that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]

Clause 6 agreed to

Clause 7 [Issue of warrants]:

[Amendments Nos. 41 to 44 not moved.]

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Contents of warrants]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 45:

The noble Lord said: The amendment is unnecessary because the definition of "person" on page 77 includes,

    "any organisation and any association or combination of persons".

That raises the question as to why Clause 8(1)(a) is in the Bill. If a "person" includes any combination of persons, there is no restriction on those to whom it

12 Jun 2000 : Column 1506

applies. It can apply to all Members of the House of Lords, or any other connection, or disconnection, of people one chooses to think of. There is no restriction in personal terms as to who the warrant can apply to. It can be any grouping one cares to think of whether or not there is any logical connection because a "person" can be any combination of people.

I should like to know why Clause 8(1)(a) refers to "one person" when there is no restriction on the persons described. Given the ability to sweep up a whole county or a kingdom in a single warrant, why is the provision restricted to "a single set of premises"? It seems odd to have this dichotomy, with no restriction on the number of people, but restricting the provision to "one single set of premises". I beg to move.

Lord Bach: I do not think that I can assist the noble Lord on the questions he poses. The expression "one person"—it can cover one person or, because of the way in which it is defined in Clause 76, a number of people—is precisely the right way to draft the provision.

Lord Lucas: I think that there is a move to go to bed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 46:

    Page 10, line 9, after ("identifying") insert ("the communications that may be or are to be intercepted.

( ) Any factor or combination of factors set out in accordance with subsection (2) must be one that identifies").

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I hope that I can be as brief as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when moving his amendments.

Clause 8 sets out what an interception warrant must contain. For example, the name or description of the interception target is described on the face of the warrant. Attached to the warrant is a schedule which identifies the communications which are to be intercepted.

Government Amendment No. 46 improves the drafting by splitting subsection (2) into two parts. It is solely a technical alteration. There are no policy changes. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 [Duration, cancellation and renewal of warrants]:

[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Implementation of warrants]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 48:

    Page 13, line 8, at end insert ("except for particulars which are necessary to identify the target of interception for the purpose of ensuring that conduct is in accordance with section 5(6)").

12 Jun 2000 : Column 1507

The noble Lord said: This clause is all about the implementation of warrants. Subsection (3) provides that a warrant that is served on a person can, to the extent that it is allowed to be so or is agreed by the person to whom the warrant is addressed, omit some of the schedules to the warrant. This amendment seeks to ensure that the particulars which are necessary to identify the target of interception are not omitted. It makes particular reference to Clause 5(6), which relates to the conduct which is authorised by a warrant.

It seems to me important that anyone who has a warrant of this character served on them must understand and must be able to know from the warrant exactly what is the target of the interception in order to be enabled to carry it out with precision. This is one element of the warrant that should not be omitted or obfuscated in any way on the warrant—hence the reason for this amendment.

There are clearly some aspects of the warrant which might be omitted, bearing in mind that we are dealing with intelligence matters and so on. Perhaps some aspects should not be omitted, but it seems to me that these are some aspects which should never be omitted. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: The intention behind Amendment No. 48 is to ensure that if a warrant is served on an individual to assist in an interception request and the schedules attached to the warrant have been modified, they are not modified to such an extent that the individual cannot adequately action the request and therefore, as the noble Lord has just said, fall foul of the duty of conduct provisions in Clause 5 of the Bill.

I hope that after I have clarified the warranty implementation process, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, may feel in a position to withdraw the amendment.

Each warrant contains a cover document which names or describes the person or set of premises which is the interception target. The warrant will also comprise one or more schedules which will list the communications factors to be intercepted; for example, the postal address, e-mail address or phone numbers used by the interception target. Each schedule will contain only factors, not the names of any target. Different schedules may be served on an individual telecommunications operator or individual Internet service provider.

The intention of subsection (3) is to ensure that the information needed by an individual served with an interception warrant is the minimum necessary to carry out the interception requirement and no more. We do not believe that it is necessary or good practice, for example, for a telecommunications operator also to be provided with a schedule listing the other interceptions that have been carried out, perhaps by the postal service or perhaps by an Internet service provider.

We have allowed for the interception agency to be able to remove one or more schedules from the warrant so that the information provided is no more than is necessary to conduct a particular interception

12 Jun 2000 : Column 1508

by a specific communications service provider. There is simply no need for a single provider to see all the various schedules which may form part of a single warrant. Each will see the front sheet with the name of the target. I hope that that explanation will go some way towards satisfying the noble Lord.

Lord Lucas: When the interception being affected is made by means of a piece of equipment which the Government have placed on the premises of an Internet service provider, and that piece of equipment is operated remotely, say, from GCHQ to adjust the e-mail addresses which are being intercepted from time to time, on whom will the warrant be served and what information will it contain?

Lord Bach: I find it difficult to answer that specific question. Perhaps the noble Lord will give me time to consider it and return to the matter. I am not sure how it relates specifically to Amendment No. 48.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: With respect, it is relevant. I am not sure where the Internet service provider comes into all this, but, judging by the Minister's response, it does. Presumably the warrant will be addressed to the agency or the Director of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Under the 1985 legislation, the warrant was addressed to British Telecom or whoever was to conduct the telephone tapping. But I understand that that will no longer be necessary. If the black box system works, the ISP will not know what is going on. It will only have installed the black box and maintained it. I understand that the warrant will be served only on the police agency or whichever agency will carry out the surveillance via the black box. The provider will not need to see it at all.

Lord Lucas: I suspect that that is an excellent answer and I look forward to the time when my noble friend Lord Cope is answering for the Government.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page