Labour Launches ten-day campaign for major changes to the Investigatory Powers Bill

Government confirms the Bill returns to the Commons on Monday 6 June

Burnham reveals five areas where the Government needs to move

Andy Burnham MP, Shadow Home Secretary, has today written to Theresa May to say that, despite recent concessions, the Investigatory Powers Bill is not acceptable in its current form and further major changes are needed.

Burnham is calling for a privacy clause and tighter restrictions on the use of internet connection records. He sets out the party’s demands in a letter to Theresa May after the Leader of the Commons confirmed the remaining debates and votes on the Investigatory Powers Bill will be held on 6th and 7th June.

The Shadow Home Secretary also calls for the Government to protect the relationship between whistle-blowers and journalists, rule out the use of NHS records in all but exceptional circumstances and give greater clarity on the circumstances for a judicial review.

Labour will kick off a ten-day campaign and encourage people to write to MPs ahead of the parliamentary debate.

On Tuesday, the Home Secretary accepted two separate demands on the Bill. May initiated a review of the operational case for bulk powers, subject to Labour’s agreement on the terms of reference for the panel, and agreed that investigatory powers could not be used in respect of legitimate trade union activity.

Burnham sets out five further areas of concern in the letter to Theresa May:

1. The Bill in its current form does not adequately address the concerns raised about privacy - an overarching privacy clause must be included at the start.

2. A higher access threshold is required to restrict the use of Internet Connection Records to the investigation of serious crime.

3. The Bill has not yet fully addressed the concern expressed by the National Union of Journalists that powers could be used to reveal journalistic sources. 

4. The Bill must contain a clear test for review and judicial commissioners should be able to consider the merits of the case, not just the process. Improvements must be made to tighten the wording on the subsequent modification of warrants. 

5. The Bill needs to reflect that NHS records can only be approved in exceptional or compelling circumstances.

Andy Burnham said:

“We are making progress towards a modern legal framework for the use of investigatory powers which balances the needs of the police and security services with strong safeguards for the public.

“The Government has clearly been listening to our concerns and we are grateful for that. But the truth is they haven’t gone far enough to create a Bill with strong privacy safeguards and human rights protections.

“Unless there is significant movement by the Government in the coming days, we will table strong amendments in the remaining five areas of concern.

“I’m calling on people who share our concerns to write to their MPs. If Theresa May fails to listen to them, we will not let this Bill become law.”

Ends

Notes to editors

Letter to Theresa May from Andy Burnham.

Dear Theresa

INVESTIGATORY POWERS BILL

Thank you for your letter confirming some of the details we discussed at our constructive meeting last week.  I am grateful for the changes that you have agreed to make on the two issues that you outlined in your letter.

I welcome your agreement to establish an Independent Review with David Anderson QC leading that work with at least two other expert panel members. I look forward to agreeing the terms of reference for the review panel before it begins.

Your acknowledgment of our deeply-held concerns about monitoring of legitimate trade union activity is welcome and I look forward to an amendment to the Bill that explicitly excludes it.

Progress on both of these issues will undoubtedly help build confidence in the Bill in Parliament and in the wider public.  But I have to reiterate that there will need to be further major changes before it will be acceptable to us.

1.            Privacy Clause

The Bill in its current form does not adequately address the concerns raised about privacy.  I continue to believe that an overarching privacy clause must be included at the start.

2.            Internet Connection Record 

I remain firmly of the view that a higher access threshold is required restricting the use of ICRs to the investigation of serious crime.  However, I accept your point that the search for missing persons and the investigation of harassment or stalking should not be excluded by the drafting of the legislation.

We believe it should be possible to provide wording which captures these points and makes sure that the records reflect the operational needs.

3.            Judicial authorisation and modification of warrants

I continue to have concerns about the wording in the Bill in this area and in particular the reference to ‘judicial review’ principles.  I am clear that Lord Judge’s concerns need to be addressed, namely that a clear test for review be spelt out on the face of the Bill. The judicial commissioners should be able to consider the merits of the case and not just the process.

Improvements also need to be made to the wording of the Bill regarding the subsequent modification of warrants.  It is essential that there is a tightening of the provisions in this area.

4.            Protection for sensitive professions

The Bill has not yet fully addressed the concern expressed by the National Union of Journalists that powers could be used to reveal journalistic sources.  Furthermore, changes are needed better to protect legal privilege and ensure Prime Ministerial sign-off on warrants involving elected Members.

5.            Health records

The Bill needs to reflect that NHS records can only be approved in exceptional or compelling circumstances.

With the changes you have recently announced, I believe we are making progress towards a modern legal framework for the use of investigatory powers which balances the needs of the police and security services with strong safeguards for the public.  But we are not there yet.  Unless there is significant movement by the Government, we will table strong amendments in each of the remaining five areas.  If these are defeated and no progress is made, we will be unable to support a timetable that puts this Bill into law by the end of this year.

Yours sincerely,

Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP

Shadow Home Secretary