Lord Naseby writes for ePolitix.com ahead of his oral question in the House of Lords on Anti-terrorism legislation.
My question, put down on the first day of the new session on November 18th, is to 'ask the government how they ensure that requests arising from the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 are proportionate'. It sounds bland enough; indeed I doubt whether many people know very much what the act is about, even though it has been on the statute book for nearly ten years.
From my perspective it is one of a series of questions prising open the interplay between important and legitimate concern over a terrorist threat which is real, and the vitally important issue of protecting individual freedom.
My previous oral questions tackled 'bogus colleges', which were an easy way for terrorists to hide; the removal from the DNA database of those who are innocent; leaky controls on those who fly in and out of our small airports without passport or customs control; and most recently, on 11th November, why no terrorist websites have been closed since the passing of the Terrorist Act 2006.
But what about my current question. It is really about 'snooping', hidden in the folds of anti-terrorist legislation. I have discovered that flowing from the act, no fewer than 504,043 requests were approved last year; nearly 1,400 a day.
It all started as a means of surveillance of terrorists, which I can understand. However, requests now come from councils, police, Whitehall, maybe Quangos and the intelligence services. They all seek access to data on emails, phone calls and text messages.
Allegedly they do not cover content, but I wonder. According to the Daily Telegraph there are examples, such as people who store petrol without a licence, or alleged importation of a dog.
The Home Office claims these powers should only be used when they are proportionate, but I want to know who is checking this huge volume of requests.
It gets worse, because the government announced on November 9th that they are extending snooping powers to every single phone call, every text message, every email and every website visit.
Authority is given by a senior police officer, or the equivalent of a deputy head of department at a local authority. Surely if the threat of terrorism is so real, authority should rest on legal approval.
I hope my supplementary question really gets to the heart of this abuse and makes the Home Office tighten up its woefully weak procedures.
