Home secretary David Blunkett has postponed plans to extend the
surveillance rights of e-mail and telephone records because of
growing concern at Westminster about the invasion of privacy
His officials claim the last-minute decision not to allow MPs to
vote on the controversial proposals today was caused by
"timetabling difficulties".
However, they admit privately that new safeguards are being added
to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIP) in reaction to
criticisms of the plans which have been branded a "snooper's
charter".
The Government wants to extend the surveillance powers now only
possessed by the police and tax authorities to seven new groups of
Government bodies.
A committee of MPs had been due to vote on the controversial
proposals today, but yesterday the Government delayed the debate
until the next parliamentary session.
The move came after Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers
threatened to use their voting strength to block the plans in the
House of Lords. Labour backbench MPs also expressed alarm at the
plan - which would allow local councils and other organisations to
check private telephone records.
That claim was denied by Home Office minister Bob Ainsworth, who
said many of the agencies that could get the powers could already
ask for the same information on a voluntary basis. He said: "It is
in no way a snooper's charter."
Ainsworth said the measures were intended to "provide safeguards
and guidance as to when people can get information and when they
can't".
Lord Strathclyde, who made clear that there would be no easy ride
for the measure in the House of Lords, welcomed the delay. "This
will give the Government time to rethink and hopefully withdraw the
most illiberal and intrusive of measures," he said.
Liberal Democrat Lords Leader Tom McNally echoed Strathclyde. He
said the plans would not get through the House of Lords in their
existing form.
John Wadham, director of civil rights campaigners Liberty,
challenged the Government's justification for the changes to the
RIP Act.
He questioned whether it was necessary to extend electronic
surveillance powers to organisations such as district councils, the
Post Office or the Food Standards Agency.
"Of course, the vast majority of officials will seek to use these
powers honestly and proportionately," he said.
Mr Blunkett is considering introducing amendments to ensure that
only chief executives of local councils, regulatory bodies and
Government agencies would be allowed to apply for access to
confidential to prevent minor officials and civil servants from
gaining access to private information.
Organisations would only be given access to information directly
relevant to their jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, it has been revealed that the police are to seek public
interest immunity certificates to prevent the revelation of the
electronic surveillance methods in court cases.
If necessary, prosecutions are to be dropped to maintain secrecy, a
draft police manual reveals.