---

Newspapers: Surveillance Methods

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The story that appeared in the Guardian this morning raises a number of important questions about the individual's right to privacy and how that right is protected. All sides of your Lordships' House undoubtedly cherish and want to safeguard freedom of the press, but this freedom and the right of members of the press not to have their work interfered with and to pursue stories that are in the public interest also entails obligations and responsibilities. Journalists are obliged to obey the law and conform to the Press Complaints Commission's code of practice, which sets the standards expected of journalists in conducting their work. There can be no justification for the use of illegal methods to secure a story. Understandably, there have been calls from those who might have been the victims of the reported illegal interception of mobile phones for an explanation of why they were not informed of the investigation and possible criminal wrongdoing—indeed, with a view to prosecution. As the Minister said, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police took prompt action and directed Assistant Commissioner John Yates to, as he put it, "establish the facts" about the allegations. Since the Statement was made in the other place, the assistant commissioner has reported, about an hour ago. He said that contrary to the impression created by reports, hundreds, not thousands, of people had been potential victims of phone tapping. He also took the view that there was insufficient evidence in the majority of cases to prosecute. He made the important statement that no additional evidence was found to warrant further investigation. That is the police side. Mr John Yates emphasised that the Metropolitan Police was looking only at the interception of phones. It would be wrong to think that the issues raised by the Guardian’s story or the report by the Metropolitan Police are particularly new, or indeed that they cover only the area that the police have just looked at. These issues have been going on for several years and extend more widely than the police’s investigation. In 2006, an investigation was conducted by the Information Commissioner. He found and exposed, ""an extensive illegal trade in confidential personal information"," and, ""evidence of a widespread and organised undercover market in confidential personal information"," that contravened the Data Protection Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. This is about the right to privacy. In his report, entitled, What Price Privacy?, the Information Commissioner discovered that at least 305 journalists, to his personal knowledge—as a result of his investigation—had been involved in the illegal trade in confidential or personal information. He also established that the illegal activities were not limited to one newspaper or newspaper group but were happening across a large number of titles and newspaper groups. Even that is not the full story. The Information Commissioner noted that although, ""among the ultimate ‘buyers’ there are many journalists looking for a story"," other cases have involved finance companies and local authorities wanting to trace debtors, estranged couples with one party seeking the details of another partner’s whereabouts, or criminals intent on fraud, witness or juror intimidation. He states that the industry of discovering information that should be personal and private extends into many walks of life for other purposes. The reports today are obviously dominated by the allegations of interception of mobile phones, which constitutes only a portion of the market in illegal activity. The Information Commissioner’s report makes clear that government databases are also being sourced illegally. They include the DVLA database and the police national database. The private sector has also been targeted, with people accessing records of ex-directory numbers from phone companies to convert phone numbers into private addresses. It would be helpful to know whether the Minister is satisfied that the DVLA database and the police national database are now secure from such misuse. The Information Commissioner did a thorough job in his report, but there are questions today about his role, because of reports that he has not made public all the extensive documentation relevant to his investigation. It would be helpful to know if the Minister is aware of whether the Information Commissioner will make any further statement about his inquiries. There are also some longer-term institutional issues which we on these Benches think need to be addressed. There are questions about the action taken by—or perhaps, the inaction of—the Press Complaints Commission, which is a self-regulatory body for the industry. In his 2006 report, the Information Commissioner made a number of recommendations, including that the PCC amend its code of practice and issue warnings about the use of illegal methods. That did not happen. In this context, it is worth citing the view of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which stated in 2007: ""If the industry is not prepared to act unless a breach of the law is shown to have occurred already then the whole justification for self-regulation is seriously undermined"." Is the Minister aware of any government plans to review the commissioner's role as a result? We know that information is often sourced through the private investigation industry, members of which work loosely in chains that may include several intermediaries between the ultimate customer and the person who actually obtains the information, as was illustrated earlier. For that reason, the Information Commissioner criticised the laxity of the licensing regime of private investigators and made recommendations on the subject to the Security Industry Authority, the Association of British Investigators and the Office of Fair Trading, recommending that the licensing rules be tightened. Given that that was three years ago, can the Minister tell us how much progress has been made and how confident the Government are that those organisations are now on top of those issues? Finally, there is one issue of a cultural nature. It is fair to say that there will always be attempts to acquire personal information through illegal means for purposes for which the information should not be spread and was not intended. Essentially, this is a cultural issue. It is imperative that those in possession of our personal information in both the public and private sectors behave as responsible custodians and are circumspect about requests for data.