Clause 9 - Information gathering powers: extension to domestic flights and voyages
Police and Justice Bill
6:15 pm

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey and Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 56, in clause 9, page 5, line 18, at end insert—

‘(2A)In section 32 (police powers to gather information relating to flights and voyages to or from the United Kingdom) after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A)A circuit judge may on the application of a constable of the rank of superintendent or above issue a warrant in relation to specified passenger or service information under this section if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the nature of the information is such that there are likely to be circumstances in which it can be required under subsection (2).”’.

Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 57, in clause 9, page 5, line 18, at end insert—

‘(2B)In section 32(2) (police powers to gather information relating to flights and voyages to or from the United Kingdom) leave out the words “imposed by a constable of the rank of superintendent or above” and insert “of a warrant”’.

No. 58, in clause 9, page 5, line 18, at end insert—

‘(2C)In section 32(4) (police powers to gather information relating to flights and voyages to or from the United Kingdom) leave out the words “A constable may impose a requirement under subsection (2) and a warrant may be issued under subsection (3) only if both are satisfied that it is necessary” and insert “A constable may impose a requirement”.’.

No. 59, in clause 9, page 5, line 24, at end insert—

‘(3A)In section 32(5) (interpretation of section) after “In this section—” there is inserted—

“‘circuit judge’ has the meaning given in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41) Section 72.”’.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey and Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

To a great extent, the amendment runs over territory covered on Second Reading in addressing the extension of the powers granted in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to reveal passenger lists to the law agencies. Those powers will be extended under the Bill for domestic flights—that is, flights starting and ending in this country. Our concern and the reason for the amendments is increasing surveillance. We want to support the Government in disrupting terrorism or preventing crime but, as ever, doing that leads to tensions over people’s civil liberties and the right to a private life.

I should also like to query how effective the measure will be, because there will not be equal surveillance on the roads and on rail. A terrorist who is creating a pattern for police officers to observe might well choose different forms of transport, so I am not sure that such powers are an effective tool in disruption. However, I am willing to say that they could be, so we should consider them seriously. We need to consider appropriate safeguards to protect the individual’s right to privacy.

There is also the question of whether a circuit judge is the appropriate level for the measure. In some ways, a magistrate might be more appropriate, because the Government propose that a superintendent make a request for information, and a magistrate is about the equivalent level. There is a belief on our side that some judicial oversight is needed because, as I understand it, there is a principle in common law that a decision that has been made should, by law, be able to be reviewed later. The Minister might argue that the police want powers that are not directed at individuals. However, I understand from the Home Office that the purpose is to spot developing patterns and to track such things so that crimes can be prevented and terrorism disrupted.

If those patterns can be spotted, there has to be concern that the search would be based on, for example, Muslim surnames. That must be taken into account when we consider whether it is appropriate for that information to be mined. We argue that there should be oversight. Our amendment does not affect the ability of the police to use the network to make connections between people. However, although detection and prevention of terrorism and crime are clearly to be desired, a circuit judge would have to be satisfied that such activities did not contravene the Human Rights Act 1998, and that they were for police purposes under section 21(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences, safeguarding national security and any other purpose that the Secretary of State decides and is passed by order. That would add some protection, as I said on Second Reading.

Michael Fabricant (Whip, Whips; Lichfield, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Pope. I understand, through the wonders of modern technology, that the Metropolitan police have just launched an investigation into the alleged sale of honours by the Labour party. I wonder whether any member of the Committee feels an urgent need to give immediate evidence and assistance to the police.

Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)

Whether or not they wish to do so, that is not a matter of order for me as the Chairman of this Committee.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey and Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

It is jolly interesting, though.

In the Second Reading debate, I mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) had been informed in a letter that there would be an audit trail, and that the matter would be looked into. The amendment seeks to put further safeguards in place.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

The amendments seek to require a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above to apply for a warrant from a circuit judge before being able to submit a request for passenger, crew or service information from the owner or agent of a ship or aircraft.

Requiring a police officer to obtain a warrant from a circuit judge every time they want to submit a request for data would be hugely burdensome for both the police and the courts. I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that the power is intended to be used in relation to assessments of threat or risk; it is not intended that the police should have access to the 40 million or so domestic journeys that would fall into those categories. They would seek to use the information in the course of their inquiries, in seeking to find out patterns of travel and to build up an intelligence picture. There are powers in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 to obtain information on international flights. The clause seeks to introduce the same power for domestic flights, ferry crossings and journeys from ports.

Often, the domestic leg of a journey can be influential and important in a criminal investigation. Such journeys are often connected to international flights, and people stop off and travel around the country. Therefore, it is important for the police to be able to build the proper intelligence picture, so that they can not only respond to events when they have happened, but, if they have built up a picture, intervene. That might allow them sometimes to prevent serious crime and terrorism from taking place.

Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin, Conservative)

Is the Minister aware of unease in the intelligence and police services about when they receive passenger manifests? If she is, will she tell us what consideration has been given to the American approach, where passenger manifests are received four days ahead of international scheduled flights?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

Clearly, this is a new power for us and a new area into which we are moving. I am sure that the police will learn from their experience of using the power whether it is fit for purpose.

The current proposal is for a request to be submitted to obtain advance information. I am not sure how far in advance some domestic carriers would have that. We are currently in negotiations with the industry, for example, about what documentation people need to produce for domestic flights. Currently, people do not need to produce passports for such flights, so we need to try to ensure that we get sufficient information to be of use to the police. However, we should not ask for too much information because that becomes a burden on both the carriers and the individuals concerned. We are trying to ensure that the costs for and requirements on the carriers are minimised, while ensuring that we have useful information that we can use for crime prevention and detection.

Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin, Conservative)

Given the growth in electronic ticketing, surely the information that the police require needs to reach them in time for them to investigate any suspect passengers. Currently, they so often receive manifests after the event. Professionals have told me that they are concerned that the measure will still not give them enough time. If that is the case, it needs to be re-examined.

Let me give an example. I am going to the United States on a private visit in the next few weeks. I have already booked my ticket and therefore I will be known to the authorities.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I wish the hon. Gentleman well on his visit.

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister of State), Home Office; Ealing North, Labour)

One-way, I trust.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I would not say that to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will find out some interesting information on his visit that will help us to take this forward.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that information that the police request from carriers will include passenger name record data, which is a generic airline term used to describe the information that the carrier collects about a passenger in the normal course of its business. I am sure that the information will be transmitted by electronic means.

We have Project Semaphore, which is co-ordinating information in relation to border policing. It is part of the e-borders programme. It will process advance passenger information and passenger name records data. The data will be sent to a newly created joint border operations centre where officers from the border agencies will confirm that the traveller identified is the same person who is of interest to them. There will be an extensive system to ensure that we can get information that is of use to us.

All I was saying was that I do not know whether four days should be the period; I do not have that detail at the moment. We need to ensure that we have the information in good time to enable us to track the kind of people that we want to be able to track.

The Terrorism Act 2000 contains powers whereby examining police officers can request information relating to counter-terrorism powers at port or border areas, but they cannot obtain the same information to   deal with serious and organised crime. It is important that they have powers right across the piece. The current legislation does not allow for what the hon. Gentleman talks about: gathering information in advance to enable the police, hopefully, to pre-empt some of the dangers and threats to our system.

Under the Data Protection Act 1998, there are provisions for people not to disclose information in an unauthorised way. People would be subject to a criminal offence is they were to do so. Under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the police have a duty to ensure that they comply with convention rights. A series of safeguards are in place, through those two 1998 Acts, to ensure that information is not used inappropriately.

It is important, particularly in the light of the threat that we face from serious and organised crime and terrorism, that we give the police sufficient powers to enable them to protect the security of this country while at the same time maintaining safeguards. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and I will constantly disagree about where the balance properly lies, but we can probably agree that there needs to be a balance. In this case, there are sufficient safeguards in the system to obviate the need for an application to a circuit judge before any application for data can be made to the carrier itself. That would be far too burdensome a procedure to go through and could mean that vital information slips through the net. Our police service would then not be able to protect the people of this country in the way in which it should be able to. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey and Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

I should have said that this is a probing amendment. We agree with the Minister that it is important for the police to have the power to disrupt terrorism and prevent and track organised crime. We also accept that speed is of the essence. We are talking about a balance, and my balance shifts to what the review process should be, to what checks and balances can be used to look retrospectively at requests and to consider whether there was a trend or anything untoward in those requests. When we consider new clause 3, we will examine such points. I would be equally happy to have the provision that I seek in a review process that would not interrupt the police’s speed and efficiency. I am relieved to learn that there will not be a database into which all of the information will be put, but we must remember that section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which was to be reapplied for in each part of London, is now permanent across London. Such things can escalate and become permanent, which is a small concern for us. On the basis of the Minister’s explanations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.