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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We return to the balance between the need to do certain things speedily and without a lengthy process of judicial oversight, and the need to ensure that people do not overstep the mark and that the new measures are not abused. There is a clear trend, which we support, of dealing with cases speedily so that they do not become trapped in a long process and so that the system is effective.

The new clause follows on from a previous amendment and debate and relates to the extension of data collection. Domestic flight passenger lists will be available on request, without any crime having been committed, to police forces. We support the Government’s intention, but again we want some scrutiny of what is done without the normal protections of the criminal justice system or judicial oversight. We want to include safeguards in the Bill to prevent access to domestic flight passenger lists from becoming routine, overextended and overused and to prevent such data from being targeted disproportionately or used inappropriately for reasons other than preventing crime or disrupting terrorism.

I do not expect the Minister to accept the new clause; it is a probing amendment. However, I look to her to introduce some oversight, some close scrutiny, some method of redress that will give the public confidence and send a message to those with access to the information not to use it lightly.

We suggest establishing a body that would oversee, monitor and check with rigour that the collection of data was appropriate in all ways. There could be unease about the collection of private information when no crime has been committed. Mistakes could be made as a result of faulty technology. There is concern on the part of certain communities, particularly the Muslim community, which already feels targeted because of the conditions that have prevailed and the many measures that have been instituted since 7/7. There has been an explosion—a 300 per cent. increase—in stops under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, whereby a police officer can stop someone without reasonable grounds; such stops are not covered by the normal stop-and-search provisions. There are communities that feel targeted, which can lead to dysfunctional and bad relationships. We want a body that will provide rigorous oversight and audit.

I am sure that the Minister would wish to put safeguards in place to reassure all those who might otherwise fear that the extra surveillance might cross the line. Obviously, the prevention of crime is a legitimate aim in relation to article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which relates to the right to a private life. However, given that part of the purpose of collecting such data is to detect patterns in travel so that potential terrorist action can be disrupted, we seek a framework for monitoring and audit of the process. We agreed in the previous debate that speed was of the essence with regard to successful and lawful prevention of crime or disruption of terrorism and that a balance needs to be struck between people’s freedoms and the need to be vigilant to protect our nation from terrorism and to protect people from crime.

On Second Reading, I referred to a letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) received from the Home Office. It stated that clause 9 was

“not designed to allow the routine surveillance of all domestic passengers. The police will only request data on the domestic routes that are of operational interest and likely to provide the greatest amount of intelligence essential to combat terrorism and serious organised crime. They are not designed to keep track of all domestic passengers.

They will help the police gain effective intelligence on the movement of known terrorist suspects and criminals and will allow them to build up a detailed picture of suspect passengers, travel patterns and networks.”

Although the letter suggests that there is absolutely no intention of blanket use of the power, the police officer who came to the Home Office briefing believed that the purpose was to build up a detailed pattern.

I hope that the Minister understands that I am trying to balance the need for protection with the need to protect the rights to a private life set out in the European convention and to examine how far the step would be from the promise in the Home Office letter to use the power only when tracking a “person of interest” to the illegitimate use of the power to track everyone, perhaps particularly those with Muslim-sounding surnames. That has to be a concern, which is why there should be a body in charge of a retrospective examination. I ask the Minister whether she has considered establishing an independent body to oversee the collection of information.

In the letter, we were told that

“requests for information will be recorded and there will be a clear audit trail to safeguard against ‘fishing trips’. And that in addition only police officers of the rank of superintendent or above may authorise a request.”

The new clause is designed to extend that protection and ensure that people retain the right to a private life, but not to inhibit the Government’s good intentions.

Michael Fabricant (Whip, Whips; Lichfield, Conservative)

I understand what the hon. Lady is saying about fishing trips, but surely there must be some degree of surveillance? There will be times when the security services and the police have surveillance on someone who turns out not to have been doing anything wrong. It is a question of public protection, and while I understand what the hon. Lady is getting at, surely we must allow the police some leeway and not inhibit them so much that they cannot perform their task of protecting the public.

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

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to allow that freedom and speed but to add a safeguard against what happened under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. It was not ill-intended, but the effect on communities was damaging. I am sure that the Government agree that we must be sensitive to our communities while not inhibiting the police’s ability to look, even if they are seeking patterns. There would be public concern if every domestic flight passenger list was fed into a computer and every name tracked.

Mark Pritchard (Wrekin, The, Conservative)

Why?

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

Well, perhaps not. We want to achieve a balance.

The new clause would also cover automatic number plate recognition.

Michael Fabricant (Whip, Whips; Lichfield, Conservative)

I am sorry to prolong the debate, but what objection would the hon. Lady have if there was automatic number plate recognition where she was driving? That would not bother me, nor would it if people were making a note of where I go on holiday, which I am sure they probably are. So what? Computers can do these things, and if it protects society, let us do it.

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

I take the view that it is better to know and debate such matters than to create a police surveillance society without the benefit of public and parliamentary debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) did a lot of work on the matter, and in 2005 figures revealed that more than one in five motorists have been wrongly identified because of flaws in police databases. It is a   little specious and unkind to say that there should be no checks and balances such as those proposed in the new clause. As the hon. Member for Lichfield has said, problems sometimes occur with technology. We therefore need to ensure that there is rigorous oversight and that people are not tracked wrongly or without their knowledge and without a public debate.

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

The new clause would establish a new body, the inspectorate of data. As the hon. Lady anticipated, I am not in a position to agree with her that there should be yet another body. We are constantly trying to reduce bureaucracy—