Protection of Freedoms Bill

I was just about to get on to Amendments 116 and 119. I think my noble friend accidentally referred to Amendment 116 as Amendment 115. For the sake of the record, I will put that right. It might help if I first explain the differences between authorisations and notices. Sections 22(3), (3B) and (3F) refer to authorisations. These allow a designated person in a public authority to authorise another person in that authority to take steps to obtain communications data. This will be relevant where the authority rather than the service provider needs to take those steps. Section 22(4) refers to notices. This relates to notices given to a service provider directly. In seeking to redraft subsections (1) and (3) of new Section 23A of RIPA, these amendments are no doubt designed to make it clear that the requirement for magistrate approval applies to the renewals of authorisation notices to obtain communications data as well as their original grant. This is fully the intent of the clause. However, we believe that the text as drafted is correct in law on this point. Section 22 of RIPA applies to renewal, not Section 23—as provided for by the proposed amendment. Where a designated person seeks to grant or renew an authorisation, they do so under Section 22. Section 23 does not provide a separate basis for renewal. It merely makes provision about the form of an authorisation or notice and its duration. It is, of course, right that Sections 23(5) and (6) refer expressly to renewal but the effect of the provisions is to ensure two things. First, they will make it clear that, where a designated person for a public authority intends to renew an authorisation under Section 22, they can do so at any time before the expiry of the authorisation—which will last for one month. Secondly, it will mean that, where the authorisation is renewed, the requirements of Section 23 in relation to the form of that authorisation are complied with. Sections 23(5) and (6) do not provide a basis for renewal and the clause as currently drafted, which refers to the granting and renewing of an authorisation under Section 22, is correct. Amendments 117 and 118 seek to omit the words in brackets in new Section 32A(2) of RIPA. On the proposed omission of ““if any””, these words cater for the fact that a local authority application for a notice or authorisation to obtain communications data may be refused. This is not merely a rubber-stamping exercise. That is an important point and it is brought out expressly by the drafting of the clause. On the proposed omission of ““as the case may be””, these words make it clear that the provisions apply both to notices and authorisations to obtain communications data. We hope that it is a helpful steer to the reader. RIPA has sometimes been accused of being complicated and impenetrable—my noble friend said something similar. The drafting provides clarity on that. Finally, Amendment 122 seeks to amend Sections 22 and 23 of RIPA, which relate to obtaining and disclosing communications data and the form and duration of authorisations. The addition of the word ““reasonably”” into subsections (1) and (5) of Section 22 is not required and could cause confusion elsewhere. Reasonableness is already implicit within RIPA because it is expressly inherent in the Article 8 test of necessity and proportionality. Making an explicit reference to reasonableness in the context of Section 22 would cast doubt as to the test to be applied elsewhere in RIPA, where there are similar formulations. My noble friend also suggests that Section 22(3) of RIPA, as it currently stands, allows the designated person, in effect, to delegate his or her power of authorisation. I can tell my noble friend that this is not the intention behind subsection (3); rather it is to allow an individual, commonly referred to as a single point of contact, to undertake the practical facilitation with the communications service provider to obtain the communication requested. I want to be clear that the designated person remains that authorising officer and that he is not allowed to delegate his responsibility. The proposed amendment to Section 22(3) of RIPA would have the effect of altering the rank of that single point of contact so that it is comparable to the designated person. The single point of contact is an accredited individual who has undertaken training in order to facilitate the obtaining of communications from communications service providers. While I do not believe that to be the intention of my noble friend, it should be clear that requiring that this function be discharged by a person of higher rank would not provide any greater safeguards, given the expertise and training that the single point of contact already has. Indeed it would reduce the safeguard whereby the person authorising conduct is more senior than the person carrying out the conduct. I hope that those technical explanations—hot towel stuff, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said—will be sufficient to allow my noble friend to withdraw his amendment. If he has any further queries, I hope that I will be able to deal with them but, if necessary, I will write to him.