Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Additional Functions and Amendment) Order 2006

I would prefer always to finish, but I know that that aspiration is rarely achieved. Perhaps I can address why the Department for Work and Pensions is dealt with in this way. The department makes use of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 to acquire communications data, and that was considered by the House in 2003, but Parliament gave those powers post-RIPA and since the Human Rights Act. That is why it must be dealt with in that way. I turn to the questions raised primarily by the noble Viscount. I hope that he will understand if I say to him very gently that his intervention was perhaps slightly out of character. I can only think that his brief must have come from the other place. Of course, this is not function creep. As Parliament, we must keep pace with the needs of the people whom we serve. The two issues that were not before this House when we considered the matter in 2003 were, obviously, the consequences of something like 7/7 and the tsunami. One cannot but be affected by the victims who seek to identify their loved ones who have been lost and the need to try to find information to enable us to respond to that. When that matter was raised in this House in February 2005, the Government promised that at an appropriate time we would propose orders to enable us to take advantage of that information and communicate it. I will be forgiven if my recollection is wrong, but I recollect that that had support from all round the House. So, with the greatest respect, I say to the noble Viscount that it is a little hard, the House having thought this an appropriate thing for the Government to do, and the Government having promised that we would at a convenient moment do that which the House thought was best, for it then to be suggested that this is function creep or that the Government cannot be trusted. That is a little difficult to understand. The order demonstrates that the Government listen and comply with the good sense voiced in the House and can be trusted to do that which we promise to do. We promised to do this in February 2005. I know that I am for ever optimistic, but I had expected that noble Lords might have congratulated us on not forgetting that promise. When in 2003 we talked about public consultation, the Government said that we did not intend to add any further purposes to the list, but I remember that we also said that that was on the basis of that which we knew then. These are new things to which we must respond. The Criminal Cases Review Commission had not articulated its requirement for communications data to protect individual rights to fair conviction. It has said that it would be assisted in better understanding and determining applications before it in order to do justice if it had access to the data. I am absolutely confident that the noble Viscount would not want to deprive the Criminal Cases Review Commission of that information. That is a proper purpose that we should honour. The noble Viscount asked what can be said about Part III of RIPA. On 7 June, the Government issued a public consultation paper and a draft code of practice for the investigation of public electronic information and the use of the powers under Part III of RIPA. The consultation runs until 30 August. Parliament will be invited to approve an order to bring the code into effect and, with it, the provisions of Part III. I am sure that noble Lords will have had the opportunity to read the investigation publication. As for mutual assistance between the EU and the US, that is covered by the communication data consultation document. I invite your Lordships to read page 53 of the document. I do not have the exact figures now, but I certainly undertake to look at that. The last issue raised—by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I believe—concerned the egg marketing board. The egg marketing board believed that it had a requirement to use directed surveillance powers. That has transpired not to be the case. Should it become a necessary and proportionate requirement to undertake surveillance in enforcing egg standards, the Defra Investigation Services could undertake that surveillance, having proper training to do so on behalf of the egg standards inspectorate. I hope that is not too much information for your Lordships, but I think it answers the query. I would be delighted to answer any further questions from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury.