Dear Constituent
Many constituents have written to me on this issue, with highly contrasting views supporting or opposing the legislation. It is fair to say that most were in agreement on one issue, which is the appalling way this has been handled by the government.
I and other Labour MPs were extremely concerned about the rushed approach to this legislation, which has resulted in only one day of debate in the House of Commons and two days in the Lords. This could have been avoided if the coalition government brought forward these proposals in good time. It is not as if this government’s legislative agenda is overflowing: far from it in fact. This last-minute approach heightens concerns of parliamentarians, and members of the public, that the necessary rigorous scrutiny is rushed.
For the coalition government to bring this forward in the way they have suggests administrative incompetence or a disrespect for parliament, or a combination of both. As such, Labour had to work exceptionally hard and exceptionally fast to examine the proposals, and also to insert additional safeguards which reflect the need for further consideration in the near future. This wider review means that the whole landscape of data access and interception will be examined.
But even on the day of the debate – which I attended – Labour went further, and laid an amendment requiring six monthly reviews of the legislation so that parliament can reconsider these measures in very short order too. The government accepted this proposal, to legislate for the Interception of Communications Commissioner to report on the working of this new Act within six months of commencement and in six-monthly intervals thereafter.
Most importantly however, on the substance of the bill we are clear that this is not an extension to the ability of security services to gather data and intelligence. Rather, it enables the current data surveillance to continue following a recent European Court ruling which could jeopardise the successful investigation and prosecution of serious crimes such as child abuse and terrorism. Whilst there is always a careful balance to be struck, part of that requires parliamentarians to make judgements on the necessary
As a result of a recent judgement by the European Court of Justice, the police and intelligence agencies are in danger of losing vital information which is used in 95% of serious and organised crime investigations as well as counter terror investigations and online child abuse.
In order to prevent this, UK legislation needs to change to be compliant with EU law. If these changes are not made, the police are likely to suddenly lose vital evidence this summer.
The Government has come forward with emergency legislation and in considering our response, we have been guided by our firm conviction that it is essential to maintain the security of our citizens and also ensure people’s privacy is protected.
Serious criminal investigations and counter terrorism intelligence operations must not be jeopardised. That is why – despite the valid concerns above – we supported this emergency legislation which we accept is designed solely to protect existing capabilities.
However, as I stated above, given the limited Parliamentary time to discuss emergency legislation we have ensured that the Government agree to make this legislation temporary – it will expire in 2016. That will require the Government and Parliament properly to consult on and consider longer term proposals next year.
We also secured agreement to our proposal for a major independent review of the legal framework governing data access and interception (the RIPA review we called for earlier this year) in the light of the huge changes in technology. As we have previously argued, in the wake of the Snowdon leaks and the concerns raised about whether the legal framework has failed to keep up with new technology, we need a wider public debate about the right balance between security and privacy online, a review of powers and stronger oversight.
Labour’s review will enable longer term questions and concerns to be properly dealt with and debated in time for new legislation. Changes will then follow. We have also called for and secured further safeguards to restrict the ways in which communications data and intercept can be used to prevent misuse.
As I stated above, we have raised serious concerns with the Government about this rushed process, but we have supported the temporary legislation with the safeguards we have secured as it would be far too damaging to the fight against serious crime, online child abuse and counter terrorist intelligence to suddenly lose these capabilities now, and our safeguards have secured a better process for longer term reform to make sure we have the right capabilities and the right safeguards in place.
As stated earlier, I have received numerous concerns relating to this Bill and differing views have been expressed by many of my constituents – some in favour and some against. Whatever your personal views may be, please be assured I am always grateful that my constituents take the time to highlight their concerns with me particularly on important issues such as this, and I respect those views. I along with my Labour colleagues, will continue to raise your concerns over time in the debates that are held and I hope this response goes some way to providing you with clarity to my position on this issue and that it addresses the concerns you have raised.
If I can be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
HUW IRRANCA-DAVIES
MP for Ogmore
You can download a PDF of this letter here.
