HL Deb 29 October 2002 vol 640 cc21-2WA
The Earl of Northesk

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Bearing in mind the urgency alluded to by Ministers at the time of the Bill's passage through Parliament, what progress is being made in implementing Section 11 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [HL6052]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton):

Part 11 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 requires consultation to take place with the Information Commissioner and industry before implementation. The consultation process, which has concentrated on the terms of a draft code of practice, is now drawing to a conclusion.

In the meantime, as indicated during the passage of the Bill, the industry has co-operated, agreeing voluntary compliance in order to help the security and intelligence services in the fight against terrorism.

The Earl of Northesk

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they agree with the statement of the European Union Data Commissioners, as contained in their press release of 11 September following the International Conference in Cardiff, that they have grave doubts as to the legitimacy and legality of current proposals by the European Union governments to introduce mandatory systematic retention of data traffic; and what implications this has for the implementation of Section 11 of the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 whether under a voluntary or compulsory scheme. [HL6053]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton:

The recently agreed European Communications Data Protection Directive Article 15(l) amendment struck a careful balance. The directive ensures that governments in Europe are not prevented from using traffic data to fight serious crime, but underlines the need to ensure that any measures should be appropriate, proportionate and respect the European Convention on Human Rights.

Part 11 of the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 allows for the retention of communications data obtained or held by the communications providers—these are data about communications transactions, not the content of those transactions. It is intended that this is delivered by way of agreements between the Secretary of State and the providers through a code of practice. The Act allows for a review of the operation of the code's requirements and for an order to be made by statutory instrument for directions to be given if necessary.

The statement made by the Data Commissioners, who are an independent advisory group, does not affect the consultation on implementation of the provisions of the Act.