Skip to main content

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (DRIP)

I thought it was worthwhile putting a post on my blog that looks at the votes relating to this particular bill (during some of which votes I have rebelled and during others of which I have not).

Firstly there is a statutory instrument:

This is The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009 No. 859 under this SI phone companies are required to hold certain information about phone calls and ISPs are supposed to keep track of who has what IP address.   Obviously this has been in place since 2009 and prior to that date other rules existed as to recording certain information relating to calls and internet access.

Obviously there are advantages to law enforcement in being able to get information about particular accounts and phone calls.  This was, in fact, used as part of the Aston Election Petition back in 2005 so although I don't know precisely what information was retained prior to 2009 it is clear that some information was.

All of this information is retained under the European Communities Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC.  A legal case from Ireland to the European Court of Justice had the above directive declared invalid on 8th April 2014.  That does not necessarily mean that the SI 2009/859 is invalid, but it creates a significant doubt that needs to be resolved.

The key thing done by DRIP is to enable the government to pass another statutory instrument to reinforce 2009/859.  The proposed additional SI is on my website here:

I have, however, a number of concerns.

Firstly, I was unhappy that what was emergency legislation was drafted to last 2 1/2 years.  I have sponsored an amendment tabled by Tom Watson to reduce this period to 6 months.  I, therefore, voted against the timetabling motion (programme motion) because of the rushed timescale of consideration.

Secondly, I am concerned that the bill enables the government to do further things which I would not agree with.  The government may not do that.  Indeed to do it they would need a motion through the house of commons.  However, there are real difficulties with a bill that is getting so little consideration by the nation.

Hence although in principle I agree that something should be done (which is why I voted for the bill at second reading) this is not the right something.  I voted for the amendment to the sunset clause and when that failed I voted against the bill on the third reading.  I am likely to vote for the statutory instrument, however.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…