Reply from Caroline Lucas

Dear MrSamdei,

Thank you for getting in touch and for your words of congratulations.

As a long standing campaigner against the attempts made by successive governments of every political persuasion to monitor our personal communications and suppress dissent, I share your anger at the ongoing threats to our right to privacy, carried out in the name of anti-terrorism. Whilst the scandal surrounding GCHQ and Prism alerted Government to the extent of public opposition to civilians being spied on, as well as the public to what is already happening without our consent, since then we've seen things take a turn for the worse with the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, of which more shortly, and now the proposal for a new Investigatory Powers Bill.

I think it's vital that the law offers proper protection and played an active role in the campaign against the Communications Data Bill – otherwise known as the Snoopers Charter. The draft Bill proposed the blanket collection and retention of personal data by private companies and gave the Home Office ‘carte blanche’ to order the retention of any type of data. Thanks to opposition from the public and MPs like myself, the Coalition did drop the proposals last year.

It's really disappointing and worrying to see the idea come back and, as I tweeted and blogged on the day of the Queen's Speech, changing the name of the legislation does not change the fact that it will actively undermine fundamental rights and civil liberties. Please be assured I will vote against the Bill and will also make every effort to amend it to be in keeping with, for example, EU rulings about the blanket retention of specific data.

I did this in relation to the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, also known as DRIP, last July.

The first part of the parliamentary debate was about the timing and the fact this legislation was being rushed through before the summer, without proper parliamentary scrutiny and without any justification.

I said: If the Bill is so urgent, will the Minister explain why it was not introduced three months ago, as soon as the European Court of Justice Judgment was announced? Why are we debating it in one day, just before the recess?

It is outrageous that we have been granted one day in which to debate and scrutinise a Bill of such significance. It is even more outrageous that this is being blamed on a totally manufactured emergency and represented as doing nothing other than maintaining the status quo. That is not accurate. This is a huge power grab under false pretences. Notwithstanding the fact that the status quo has been ruled a breach of fundamental rights, the provisions in the Bill, specifically clause 4, extend the territorial reach of the laws relating to data retention. It brings overseas communication companies providing services within the UK into the scope of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The implications of this are well understood by my constituents in Brighton, who have been lobbying me since last week. As one said, we have democratic process for a reason: to prevent such Bills becoming law on the basis of a nod and a wink.

You can read my full speech in response to the Government’s timetabling of the legislation here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140715/debtext/140715-0001.htm#140715-0001.htm_spnew139

We then moved on to talking about the Bill as a whole.

I said: We have been repeatedly told that the Bill simply maintains the status quo, and there are plenty of legal experts who will argue that that is not accurate; we have heard many of their statements repeated in the Chamber this afternoon. Notwithstanding the fact that the status quo has been ruled a breach of fundamental human rights, the provisions in the Bill, specifically clause 4, extend the territorial reach of the law relating to data retention, bringing overseas communications companies that provide services in the UK into the scope of RIPA.

Even those parts of the Bill that do not constitute going further than the status quo are deeply worrying. It has been confirmed that they breach fundamental human rights in their scope and in their totality.

Moreover, while we are told that communications data played a role in 95% of all serious criminal investigations over the past decade, we have no idea about the exact nature of that role. That makes it difficult to judge exactly how significant the blanket retention of data is in averting terrorist attacks, for example.

You can read my full speech at the Second Reading of the Bill here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140715/debtext/140715-0003.htm#140715-0003.htm_spnew10

MPs then debated the various clauses of the Bill, including an amendment that I tabled to try to time limit the damage caused by the proposed legislation.

I said: Almost no issue that we deal with affects people as directly as their personal communications, and, therefore, is as sensitive.

Many arguments have been advanced on why it is not necessary to pass the Bill in such a short time. There is no serious argument that this is an emergency. If there were, it would have been dealt with three months ago. People can see through that. Their concerns and disillusionment with this Parliament will be redoubled by this process, instead of being addressed by it.

One reason why I support amendment 2 to the sunset clause is that it would rescue something from this unhappy state. If we at least said that over the coming months, we will do this piece of work properly and a review will happen, we could build some confidence among the public. As it is, I regret to say that we have lost yet more public confidence today, at a time when we can least afford to do so.

You can read my full speech at the Committee Stage of the Bill here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140715/debtext/140715-0004.htm#140715-0004.htm_spnew72

Finally, speaking about new clause 6, I said:

I think that many people who have been watching this debate are deeply concerned about what they perceive to be an issue of such importance being treated with such contempt and about the Orwellian doublespeak that we have heard throughout the past few hours.

You can read my full speech at this stage of the proceedings here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140715/debtext/140715-0005.htm#140715-0005.htm_spnew5

At every opportunity I voted against the Bill, which was backed by all three big political parties and therefore agreed by the House of Commons with 449 votes to 33. It then passed through the House of Lords, and instantly come into force.

Not only is this a bad law – it’s bad law making. In their desperate bid to railroad this law through, all three big political parties knowingly undermined due process and the importance of proper Parliamentary scrutiny. When governments want to undertake large scale infringement of the individual’s right to privacy by allowing records of all our communications to be kept as a matter of course we need that scrutiny more than ever.

I remain convinced of the need to stop those who are currently spying on citizens, as well as ensuring that in future no more doors are opened that allow our privacy to be further breached. It’s disgraceful that British citizens are not better protected from surveillance, whether it's undertaken by the UK, US, private companies or anyone else and please be assured that as your MP I am fully committed to challenging this.

The full details of the new Investigatory Powers Bill have not yet been released but I did speak in the debate when the news was announced: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150611/debtext/150611-0002.htm#150611-0002.htm_spnew64

I hope that assures you that I am doing, and will continue to do, all I can to hold the Government to account over giving the green light to continued snooping on our every email, phone call and text message

Thank you for getting in touch and apologies again for not writing back to you before now.

Best wishes, Caroline