Telegraph article on RIP

[Richard Lamont]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Hansen wrote:
> It appears that Telegraph readers are slowly waking up to Home Office 
> plans to put us all in an open prison. About time too, though whether 
> they do more than whine remains to be seen.
> 
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2075026/Council-snoopers-access-900-
> phone-bills.html>
> 
> <http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fife_council_and_rip_scotland> 
> is the result of my enquiries to the local Toms, Dicks and Harriets on 
> this matter. As I expected they have never rejected an attack on the 
> basis that it is neither necessary or proportionate. They appear to 
> think that this is excellent, I think it stinks.

When the RIP Bill was going through Parliament, I wrote twice to my MP
(Bill Cash). Bill Cash received a reply (to points raised in my second
letter) dated 7th July 2000 from Charles Clarke (then the junior
minister at the Home Office responsible for the bill) which he forwarded
to me.

He responded to one of my points thus:

  Mr Lamont states that the Bill proposes to extend the power to obtain
  communications data to "a range of officials in several public-sector
  bodies including local authorities and ... government departments."
  Currently, the relevant public authorities listed on the face of the
  Bill who may seek authorisation for such data include the police,
  National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, HM
  Customs and Excise and the three intelligence agencies. Mr Lamont may
  be referring to the provision in the Bill allowing for the Secretary
  of State to make further additions to this list at some future stage
  if it is deemed necessary. This provision has been added to the Bill
  so that a door remains open to take account of unforeseen future
  developments such as the amalgamation of law enforcement bodies or the
  creation of new ones. Mr Lamont may be reassured to know that any such
  proposals will be made by an order to be debated in both Houses of
  Parliament by means of the affirmative resolution procedure. I can,
  however, confirm even at this stage that such powers will not be made
  available to local authorities.

It is now evident that such powers have been made available to local
authorities and therefore Charles Clarke, by lying in a written response
to a PQ, has lied to Parliament.

If anyone wants a scanned PDF of the letter please contact me off-list.


- --
Richard Lamont                        http://www.lamont.me.uk/
<richard@lamont.me.uk>
OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFISTzcJthsNL2JvkERAtxvAJ9UIQb7lqYgc9rnMIg7WWepby56SACfWGrI
M/KtzTtUr0Gs9FTriktuEJk=
=Krte
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----