§ The Earl of Northeskasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 13th November (WA 8–9), what are the factual inaccuracies and misconceptions that are contained in the YouGov article dated 26th October. [HL4809]
§ Lord Bassam of Brightonthe YouGov article incorrectly asserts that under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), "lesser public authorities such as local councils, the benefits office have the power to intercept anyone's emails". The only agencies which are empowered to seek interception warrants (which do not include those bodies quoted by YouGov) are set out in Section 6(2) of the Act.
RIPA does not, as the YouGov article suggests, place the burden on the person served with a disclosure notice to prove that an encryption code has been lost innocently. Sections 53(2) and (3) of the Act refer. This offence was amended following discussion in Committee on 28 June. The changes were welcomed by spokesmen for the Opposition parties (cols. 1011–1012).
It is not true that the regulations, made under Section 4(2) of the Act, give employers "carte blanche" to monitor their employees' communications. They establish rules, for the first time, governing this activity with a civil liability for those who breach the regulations (Section 1(3)).
The suggestion that the Act would be in force from 5 November is also wrong. The Government do not envisage commencing parts of the Act—the provisions in Part I, Chapter II and Part III—until early and late 2001 respectively. This is to allow sufficient time for detailed discussions with interested parties on the implementation of these crucial provisions.