Invasion of privacy?

Invasion of privacy?

Two years ago, the government brought in legislation to allow the police, intelligence and investigatory agencies to monitor electronic communication.

Next week it plans to bring in new regulations which extend the right to snoop to dozens and dozens of other organisations.

It is very hard indeed to imagine how many of them - local councils for example - could have any role in fighting terrorism or crime. Yet the government insists the powers are essential, even if they make us, as campaigners are now claiming, the most snooped-upon society in the world.

Jeremy Paxman spoke to the Home Office Minister responsible, Bob Ainsworth, and asked him why the Government has decided to extend its surveillance powers in this way.

Watch the item

BOB AINSWORTH MP:
(Home Office Minister)
What we are doing with the regulations we are putting forward to Parliament is we are making sure that where such access to communications traffic is allowed, it is allowed with the appropriate level of approval, with the oversight of the commission, and that it is in line with our ECHR obligations, it's proportionate to the size of the problem that's being dealt with in each case.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Let's go through some of these things. No-one disputes that the intelligence and security services may indeed need these powers. Why does the Food Standards Agency need them?

BOB AINSWORTH:
Where we have problems with food hygiene, with contaminated meat being distributed for human consumption, don't you believe that that's something that ought to be investigated?

JEREMY PAXMAN:
What about local councils?

BOB AINSWORTH:
Local councils have tax obligations, benefits obligations. We are not talking about individuals, we are sometimes talking about organised people involved in defrauding local councils. In those circumstances, and where it is proportionate to the problem that's being looked at, then surely communications service providers ought to be allowed to co-operate with councils. But the whole point of what we are doing is we are pulling in the safeguards to make sure that that co-operation can only take place where it is appropriate, and that it is supervised and overseen.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
What is wrong with the old mechanism of going to a judge and asking for authorisation?

BOB AINSWORTH:
We are laying down both the level at which these decisions are taken, the issues that need to be taken into account, and the commissioner has oversight of every decision taken. We want the commissioner to be able to look at how this access is being used, to make sure it is only being used where it ought to be used, and if not, to make sure that it's not available.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Why is the commissioner preferable to a judge?

BOB AINSWORTH:
We are talking about quite considerable areas of work here. If what we're saying is that in every single case and circumstance we need prior consent, then I think that is hugely problematical.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
So you know how big the area of surveillance is that you're considering, obviously, then?

BOB AINSWORTH:
I don't know exactly how big the area is.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
I'm not asking you exactly, I'm asking you ball-park figures. Are we talking about thousands of acts of surveillance or tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands?

BOB AINSWORTH:
What I do know is that we want to give access to those organisations only in those circumstances that are appropriate. We want to make sure that that approval is given at a senior level, and to make sure that it is overseen by the commissioner so that it is never abused.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
But you've just told us that there are too many of these things for them to be done individually by judges!

BOB AINSWORTH:
This kind of co-operation goes on now in a voluntary way in many circumstances where there is effectively not the kind of oversight that we are putting into place.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
What sort of oversight are you thinking about in terms of the number of acts of surveillance or the number of individuals, however you choose to quantify it?

BOB AINSWORTH:
We are talking about people having a clear legal obligation to consider proportionality, to make certain that they have a justification within the act as appropriate to their particular organisation, and that the commissioner looks at all of these circumstances, looks at all of these decisions, looks at wherever these accesses are agreed, and checks that it is being used only where it is appropriate.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Roughly, how many acts of surveillance or inception or whatever you call them are we talking about?

BOB AINSWORTH:
It's going to vary according to the circumstances.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Well, of course it is, but you must have some idea!

BOB AINSWORTH:
It's going to vary according to the organisation.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Of course it is!

BOB AINSWORTH:
And this area of communication is one that is growing all the time.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Absolutely. So could you please give us a rough estimate?

BOB AINSWORTH:
I cannot give you, in terms of numbers, how many cases there are going to be. But we are ensuring, in what we are doing and in the regulations we are putting in front of Parliament, that what is being done is compliant.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Compliant with laws that you've drawn up.

BOB AINSWORTH:
No, compliant with Human Rights Convention obligations, proportionate to the problems that are being...

JEREMY PAXMAN:
As judged by the commissioner you've appointed.

BOB AINSWORTH:
And overseen by the commissioner.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Yes, precisely. Can you tell us of any other country in the Western world where powers are similarly extensive?

BOB AINSWORTH:
I don't know whether other countries are as advanced in their thinking...

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Oh, we're a world leader at this, are we?!

BOB AINSWORTH:
About the kind of safeguards and that are needed to cover this kind of area.