Background
The RIP Act, passed in 2000, gave the police and other law
enforcement and intelligence bodies, Customs and Excise and the
Inland Revenue access to records such as phone numbers dialled, web
sites visited and e-mail addresses used in correspondence by
individuals.
The draft law
The RIP (Communications Data: Additional Public Authorities)
Order of 2002 was published earlier this month, extending the
powers to include, among others: the Departments of Health,
Environment, Trade and Industry and Enterprise, the Home Office,
local authorities and councils, the Financial Services Agency, the
Food Standards Agency, the Information Commissioner, the Office of
Fair Trading and bodies regulated by the Postal Services Act, such
as Consignia, formerly the Post Office.
Reaction to the draft
The publication of the draft Order met with widespread criticism
that the Order represented a fundamental breach of civil liberties.
Parliament was first scheduled to debate the Order yesterday. The
debate was then postponed for a week.
However, Home Secretary David Blunkett yesterday announced that
the proposal has instead been withdrawn “for detailed consultation
over the Summer.”
Statement
The following is the full text of David Blunkett’s statement,
issued Tuesday:
"I recognise there is widespread concern
about the current proposals to regulate how public bodies can
access phone and internet records. It's clear that whilst we want
to provide greater security, clarity and regulation to activities
that already go on, our plans have been understood as having the
opposite effect. Bob Ainsworth and I have therefore decided that it
makes sense to withdraw the current proposals to allow calmer and
lengthy public discussion before we bring forward new plans in this
field. This will not affect the police and security services who
will continue to operate in the usual way under current
arrangements.
"However, we need a much broader debate
about other public bodies involved in this area, particularly given
that none of them have joined the debate over the last week to make
clear the problems they face without Government legislating.
"Mobile phone and internet usage has grown
enormously in the last five years, bringing a whole new world of
communications. The reaction to our plans has shown that we need a
much broader public debate about how to strike the balance between
the privacy of the citizen and society's legitimate need for
measures to support the investigation of crime and to protect the
public. We must also remember the considerable safeguards provided
to the public by the Data Protection Acts.
"Despite being in public life, I value my
own privacy and understand these sensitivities. The time has come
for a much broader public debate about how we effectively regulate
modern communications and strike the balance between the privacy of
the individual and the need to ensure our laws and society are
upheld."
Home Office Minister Bob Ainsworth added:
"This is an important debate for the country
to have. Everyone agrees we need to uphold the law while ensuring
communication services providers know where they stand when asked
for information. We recognise public concern and are determined to
get the balance right."
