The Guardian
Senior Tories and opposition MPs demand tighter controls in legislation that will overhaul state’s surveillance powers
The law would give the state powers to force communications firms to store individuals’ internet connection records. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA
Theresa May is facing calls from senior Tories and the opposition to improve the investigatory powers bill to allay concerns about privacy.
In a debate for the second reading of the bill, Ken Clarke, the Conservative former home secretary, and Dominic Grieve, the Tory former attorney general, suggested there could be improvements to the new laws that overhaul the state’s surveillance powers.
The bill passed easily with 281 for and just 15 against, mostly comprising Liberal Democrats, while Labour and the SNP abstained. However, almost 50 Conservatives were absent, suggesting many may not be happy with the legislation as it currently stands. If the SNP and Labour had voted with the Lib Dems, it would have been comprehensively defeated.
Labour and the SNP abstained as they remain unconvinced about whether privacy is adequately protected, while the Liberal Democrats are going one step further and voting against the bill, which has been nicknamed “snooper’s charter”.
Campaigners call on Theresa May to think twice about the so-called ‘snooper’s charter’ in a protest in London. Photograph: James Gourley/Rex/Shutterstock
It will hand law enforcement agencies more access to people’s internet connection records but also make sure judges oversee the granting of warrants for interception.
The home secretary said privacy was “hard-wired” into new controversial surveillance powers and they would not give security services generalised access to people’s web browsing histories.
But Andy Burnham, the shadow home secretary, said he wanted to see a general presumption in favour of privacy along with at least six other improvements before the party could be persuaded to back the bill.
Clarke twice pressed May on whether judges should be given stronger powers to oversee interception of communications warrants.
As the bill is currently drafted, judges will be able to disagree with the home secretary’s granting of a warrant on matters of process but not substance. “Questions of judgment and proportionality are the most important of all, that worry me most,” Clarke said.
He said it was necessary to be “vigilant against some future administration abusing” the powers and pointed out that “all kinds of curious public bodies” would be able to get access to huge amounts of extra information. “I doubt the wisdom of that,” he added.
Clarke said he was troubled that use of the powers could be justified on the wide-ranging grounds of “economic wellbeing” and “national security”.
Grieve said he supported the bill as it was necessary but hoped ministers would accept it was “capable of further improvement” and he trusted that “during its passage, it performs the equally important role of being seen as an upholder of freedom and liberty”.
Another to raise concerns was Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, who said there was a “challenge in separating out contact and content” when people’s internet connection records were tracked. “It’s not the same as a phone record when you look at somebody’s internet correspondence,” she said.
However, May insisted there would be no access to people’s web browsing histories and the bill would only allow tracing of their connections to the internet.
“It is absolutely possible, and we’ve been talking at length with the companies, to be able to separate in internet connection records (ICRs) for example, the device or website that a particular device has accessed and not then go into the content of whatever it is that has been looked at in relation to that,” she said.
“It’s very important that I make that clear because when it comes on to ICRs, we are not talking about looking at people’s web browsing history, we are simply looking at that initial point of contact.”
Before the debate,concerns about the legislation were raised by a number of groups including the internet provider industry body and a group of 200 lawyers.
The Internet Services Providers’ Association said: Our members have significant concerns about the ambitious timetable of the bill. The prime minister himself argued at prime minister’s questions that the investigatory powers bill is one of the most important bills this House will discuss.
“We recognise that three parliamentary committees have investigated the bill and made 123 recommendations. However, even our members are not yet fully clear about what the bill will mean for them. It is vital that parliament is provided with a sufficient amount of time to scrutinise the bill.”
Renate Samson, chief executive of the civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, has said the drive to get the bill on the statute books by the end of the year was “too fast”.
Senior lawyers raised concerns in a letter to the Guardian, saying it was fundamentally flawed because it destroyed privacy.
Among those who have signed the letter are the chair of the Bar Human Rights Committee, Kirsty Brimelow QC, Tom de la Mare QC, who has been a special advocate in security cases, Sir Stephen Sedley, who is a former court of appeal judge, Prof Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC, Hugh Southey QC, Michael Mansfield QC and Philippe Sands QC. Among academic lawyers, there are representatives of nearly 40 law schools in the UK.
Earlier, the Lib Dems called on Labour to do more to kill off the new surveillance laws, calling the decision to abstain from voting on the bill “gutless”.
Burnham made it clear that Labour was prepared to vote down the legislation at a later stage and force the government to extend its transitional arrangements unless there were a string of changes.
But he said he was persuaded that the police and security services were losing the ability to catch criminals because of advances in technology and that the law needed to be updated to give a “clear legal framework” for access to some internet records.
The changes suggested by Labour include:
- A guarantee that the political activities of campaigners for justice, trade unionists and bereaved families will not be spied on using the new legislation.
- A clear definition of protecting “national security” and “economic wellbeing”, which are the current conditions that justify the use of the new powers.
- A proportionate list of crimes that would justify allowing police and security services to access someone’s internet connection record.
- Restrictions on the number of law enforcement agencies that would be allowed to use the legislation.
- Better protections for the confidential communications of “sensitive professions”, such as MPs with constituents, lawyers with clients and journalists with sources.
- Approval for interception to be granted by judges on the basis of the evidence rather than merely whether the right process has been followed.
Burnham said: “The bill cannot be supported in its current form, but nor should we just oppose it because there is a deadline where the country needs new legislation.
“What I am saying very clearly to Theresa May is: here are very specific concerns that we have and unless you meet them we will not cooperate with getting this bill on the statute book by the end of the year. That is quite a significant statement.”
