Joining in... this from Clive Betts (who voted against the "super-speed" motion, but for the legislation. It seems like he didn't feel those against the bill had managed to marshall good enough arguments to counter the "think of the children" and "you love terrorists" things, at least in the time available.
I can certainly see it's hard to stand up in Parliament and argue against people who are saying legislation X is vital otherwise terrorists and paedophiles will run riot. (Which is presumably why they argue that way.) Gerv -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:12:46 +0000 From: BETTS, Clive <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Dear Mr Markham, Thank you for contacting me with regards to the Government's emergency legislation on data retention. The legislation was put before the house following a recent judgement by the European Court of Justice. As a result of this judgement MPs have been told by the Government that the police and intelligence agencies are faced with losing vital evidence which is currently used in 95% of serious and organised crime investigations as well as counter terror investigations and online child abuse. In order to prevent this, the Government argued it needed to introduce new legislation which responds to the ECJ judgement on data retention and brings clarity to existing law in response to communication service providers' requests. The Government came forward with emergency legislation last week because it believed it is essential to maintain the security of our citizens, to ensure people's privacy is protected and that serious criminal investigations and counter terrorism intelligence operations would be jeopardised without it. I was very concerned over the amount of time the Government set aside to debate the bill. The European Court case was in April and the Government had plenty of time to anticipate the likely decision. It took until July to produce legislation because the coalition parties couldn't agree amongst themselves, hence their rush to push through the legislation. Even with this delay, time could have been found for three days debate in the Commons instead of the one provided. That is why I voted against the Programme Motion which restricted the debate to one day. I could see no reason why the Government could not have allotted more time in Parliament to discuss the bill particularly given the lack of any other urgent business. In order to try and increase the scrutiny and make sure the bill was debated properly, I voted along with 48 other MP's against the Government's programme motion but unfortunately we were defeated. The Government has argued that the legislation does no more than reinstate the powers that were available prior to the European Court decision. I have asked for legal advice through the Shadow Home Secretary's office which has confirmed this. I have not seen any legal opinion identifying precisely anywhere that the legislation extends powers. Nevertheless I accept that given the truncated time available for scrutiny it is possible due to the very complicated nature of the bill that some unintended consequences could emerge after it is passed. During the debate into the legislation I therefore asked the Home Secretary to confirm that no new powers were being granted and if she would accept Labour's amendment to have a review in six months. The Home Secretary agreed to this and also agreed if the review in six months finds the legislation does contain additional powers, contrary to the assurances we have been given, the findings will be reported to the House with the possibility of the legislation being amended. Labour has also secured an independent comprehensive review into RIPA the legislation that has governed everything in this area, including data retention and access in the light of new technology. We announced this pledge four months ago, but there is now cross party agreement and it is a major reform and will now begin imminently. This will require the Government and Parliament to properly consult on and consider longer term proposals next year and my hope would be that a future Labour Government can strengthen laws into data privacy. Given the limited Parliamentary time to discuss the emergency legislation it will have a sunset clause automatically bringing it to an end in December 2016. I know many of you wanted that to be earlier, but realistically if we are to have a full review of RIPA, followed by a draft bill considered by a committee of both Houses, and then after consideration of its findings a new bill with adequate time for full consideration by both Houses it will be December 2016 before that can be achieved. In the meantime there will be regular six monthly reviews of this legislation due to the clause Labour promoted. I appreciate that you may be disappointed that I voted for the legislation, but I don't feel I was in a position to challenge the Government's claims that ongoing police investigations including serious ones into child abuse could be comprised without it. I have no evidence that the legislation increases the existing powers in anyway. I fully believe that we need a full and frank discussion and the institution of the full review that Labour is committed to on the data that the police and security services should be able to access, and I would fully support a strengthening of the UK's data privacy laws to respect people's privacy. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions on this or any other issue. Regards Clive Betts MP UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. -- Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join To unsubscribe, send a blank email to [email protected] or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss
