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)
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.