INTERPRETATION OF PART III (Hansard, 19 March 1997)

§ Mr. Beith
I was slightly concerned when the amendment was tabled and even more concerned when I saw the Government's explanation for it. The amendment would allow documents used in the process of obtaining authorisation to be sent by e-mail. The Government's explanation is that that could be used only if the police, customs and the commissioners are satisfied that the communication will be secure. That is obviously a fundamental point: communication must be secure, because the matter is highly delicate. If information became known to those being surveilled, the operation would be defeated and, in addition, other kinds of confidential information about operations would emerge.
However, e-mail is a threat to the security, not only of the communication, but of the systems at each end. Use of electronic mail involves access to the computer system from which it goes and the computer system into which it goes, so the condition that the Government have kindly included in their notes on clauses—that e-mail will be used only if they are satisfied that the communication will be secure—will not do. E-mail is a real danger to the security of the body of material that will be stored by the secretariat of the commissioners, and to the computer system of the police force sending that information.

§ Mr. Maclean
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Beith
The Minister shakes his head. If he seeks to deny that, I shall draw his attention to various places in various documents to which his Department has access which make it clear. I hope that the Government will now take that into account.

§ Mr. Michael
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has drawn attention to a proper concern, which the Minister sought to allay, in Committee and subsequently, by saying that he would want to be satisfied of the safety and security of communications. Under this part of the Bill, communications can be made in a variety of ways, including in writing, and writing can be extremely insecure if the wrong means are used, so I have no objection to the inclusion of electronic communications.
I should be grateful if the Minister would satisfy us that requirements will be placed on those using such systems so that there is some oversight to avoid the dangers. There are secure and insecure facsimile transmissions. Can the 904 Minister assure us that secure fax, not insecure fax, will be used? The same thing applies to all communications where there may be risk, not only to operations, but to individuals' safety.

§ Mr. Maclean
I am delighted to give the House the maximum assurance that I can on that. There is e-mail and there is e-mail. This will not be a loose Internet system. The police already have a secure system for communicating throughout the country and we have a national communication strategy, which aims to connect up the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts in future, mainly to speed up the processing of criminal cases. I envisage part of that system being used and the commissioners being linked to it.
I do not understand the technicalities, but I know that, although the Home Office is connected to the Cab-E-Net system, it is impossible for a person in another Government Department—even on our network—to tap into all the files in the Home Office, or for us to tap into anyone else's files. Codes, passwords and electronic gizmos must be used and one can obtain access only to the part of the system to which one is entitled to gain access.
I do not understand the bells and whistles that make these things operate. I do not suppose that these computers have valves any more, but I am absolutely certain that, when the right valves are installed, the police will have access only to the files to which the commissioners want them to have access, and the commissioners will be able to correspond only with those parts of the police network that the police wish them to correspond with. That is achievable.
Of course there are security risks—someone may get it wrong, and there may be leakage in the system—but I know that, with the best computer brains applied to the matter, the secure systems that already exist in this country can be replicated for that system.
One of the advantages of e-mail is the speed that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed urged on us a moment ago. He does not want a slow, bureaucratic, burdensome system, which requires the commissioners to wait for a few days before taking decisions; nor do we. If we want an urgency procedure to work PDQ, the chief constable and his staff should be able to e-mail the commissioners, saying, "We have just used the urgency procedure; this is why," and the commissioners should be able to e-mail them back securely as soon as reasonably practicable, to approve or quash action.
Use of electronic mail is the best way to implement the wish of the right hon. Gentleman, the Opposition and myself that such things be dealt with speedily. The technical experts tell me, and I know from my own amateur knowledge of computers, that it is possible to have a secure network. Security is vital, and I shall endeavour to make the system as secure as is humanly possible.

§ Mr. Beith
The Minister has demonstrated that he knows even less about the technicalities than I do—and I make no claim to be an expert. He has also revealed, I fear, that he may not be up to speed on the dangers to systems that may be generated by the interface between them. I counsel him to read some of the documents available in the Home Office and circulated by the appropriate authorities, or at least to ensure that someone else reads them.
905 I believe that this short debate will have drawn enough people's attention to the problem to ensure that some careful consideration is applied before the procedure is used.