BY BEN KERRINGHAM
Shadow Home Secretary, Andy Burnham has raised concerns about the investigatory powers bill following discussions with the leader’s office and the shadow justice secretary, Lord Falconer.
Burnham, who last week, welcomed the bill in the Commons by saying it was neither a snooper’s charter nor mass surveillance, hasnow backtracked on his views and feels he was misled about the scale of the judicial safeguards in the bill.
Burnham’s issue arises from the general perception of the draft bill conveyed in the buildup to its launch. The government seemed to be indicating a major shift away from a system of intrusive warrants issued by ministers, hinting that in future, judges would be equal partners in the warrant process. Burnham has now written to the home secretary-Theresa May- to call for the inclusion of judicial authorisation for intercept warrants and criticize its absence.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
COMPELLED
Under the current bill, communications firms are compelled to store individuals’ internet connection records for a period of one year. Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, accused Labour of behaving like a “nodding dog”, and the official reviewer of terrorism legislation.
In his letter to May Burnham said he wanted to work constructively over the bill, but added: “I have now had the opportunity to study your proposals in detail and have taken advice from the shadow justice secretary. This has given rise to concerns that the safeguards you are proposing are not as strong as it appeared when they were presented to the Commons.”
Burnham raised concerns raised by civil liberties campaigners over the so-called “double-lock” for intercept warrants, which he said does not require judicial authorization. He said: “[You] created the impression that both the home secretary and a senior judge would review the evidence. Indeed, you may recall that I asked you in the House about what would happen if there were a difference of opinion between the two.
“On closer inspection of the wording of the bill, it would seem that it does not deliver the strong safeguard that you appeared to be accepting. The current wording of the draft bill requires the judge to review the ‘process’ undertaken by the home secretary in the same way applied to a judicial review.”
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
LEGAL ADVICE
Burnham added: “Legal advice we have sought confirms that the current wording does not deliver what we believed was being proposed in terms of the home secretary and judicial commissioner double lock for warrant authorisation.”
Burnham also stated that the bill should be amendable at committee stage to ensure a genuine double-lock.
The shadow home secretary also argued that the legislation “needs to include clearly defined thresholds for access to internet connection records” and that the records should be limited to “police officers of a specified seniority”.
He concluded: “I believe you have produced a framework which has the potential to give the authorities the powers they need whilst also commanding public trust. But that will only be achieved by strengthening the safeguards in the areas I have identified.”
Burnham makes a logical point, one which should be considered by Theresa May. Giving all police officers discretionary access to our private communications is unethical and does not justify the purpose aimed at, especially as officers could abuse those powers and use it for their own purposes. If the purpose of obtaining private internet records is to combat terrorism then only targeted individuals with a proven tendency towards terrorist acts should have their internet communications monitored. It really amounts to an intrusion of privacy if boundless powers are given to security agents and police officers to monitor our communication, and this demonstrates an inadequate degree of consideration and analysis on the part of May and her government.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar
