[The Guardian] Blunkett: we blundered over data access plan Staff and agencies Tuesday June 18, 2002
The home secretary, David Blunkett, today announced that the government was temporarily shelving plans to give public bodies more powers to snoop on private communications.
He said the government had "blundered" into the issue and more consultation will take place before new proposals are presented to parliament.
Widespread concern about privacy had led to a rethink and the admission that the government had "dug itself into a hole", Mr Blunkett said.
He added: "The proposals were intended to provide protection and regulation of the access to data.
"The rest of the world interpreted them in entirely the wrong direction.
"When you are in a hole you should stop digging and having full consultation on the issues raised seems the best way to do it."
The proposals had aimed for tighter regulation of the transfer of data from private communications such as mobile phones and emails.
Since new laws governing their transfer were introduced two years ago this had operated on a "very ad hoc basis", Mr Blunkett said.
He added: "As a department we blundered into this. It has raised an enormity of concern on one hand and confusion on the other."
Mr Blunkett is postponing introduction of the bill to allow for further discussions about the implications.
The government first announced a delay in plans to push through the controversial package yesterday.
MPs had been due to debate a draft order today enabling various Whitehall departments, as well as local authorities and other public bodies, access to communications data.
Last night, a spokesman for Mr Blunkett said the debate would now take place next Monday evening in the Commons. But today, the Home Office said the plans would be postponed until the next session of parliament which means they will not get debated by MPs until the autumn at the earliest.
Today Mr Blunkett said that a conversation with his son that helped change his mind.
He said: "I have a son of my own who is in the data business who said, 'Look Dad, people are simply seeing this in exactly the opposite direction to what you intended and if you don't get off it you are going to end up with people not just misinterpreting but believing that their own communications data is going to be interfered with'.
"As someone who believes very strongly in my own privacy, I share the worry that people have about that.
"If they are hearing what we are doing wrongly then we need to start from scratch."
Ministers would attempt to build "consensus" before trying to introduce similar orders, Mr Blunkett added.
Lord Strathclyde, the Tory leader in the Lords, said there was "a great deal of confusion in the government's mind" over the issue.
"On Sunday we were told that this was the most important regulation coming forward," he said.
"On Monday when we protested and objected to the way they were doing this they said they were going to propose some minor safeguards and today, as you have pointed out, they have said they are going to defer the whole thing at least until the next session of parliament.
"I very much hope they will take the opportunity of rethinking this complete policy.
"I have called it a 'snoopers' charter'. If the ministerial curtain-twitchers can be put back in the box this is a bad policy, it is a wrong policy and if it is the start of the policy being dumped then I am very glad."
"They were trying to rush it through the parliamentary process as quickly as possible," he added.
"When they realised there was going to be real opposition to this move they suddenly began to walk backwards and they have been walking backwards ever since."
And the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Norman Baker called it "a humiliating climbdown for the home secretary".
"In his view I suppose it is better than a humiliating defeat, which is what would have happened if the government had pressed on with this measure," he said.
"It is astonishing really that such an illiberal proposition, which has outraged the country in many ways, could have got as far as it did.
"I suppose the home secretary should take some credit for pulling the plug even at this late stage."
Chris Mullin, chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee, welcomed news of Mr Blunkett's decision, which came after he called on ministers to come before the committee and defend the proposals.
"We share the widespread concern that has been expressed and we shall await his final proposal with great interest," the former minister said.
The Tories had warned that they would be prepared to oppose the draft order when it came to the Lords, if Labour used its majority to push it through the Commons.
With the Liberal Democrats and some independent crossbench peers thought to be opposed to the measure, the government could easily have faced defeat in the upper chamber.
Some Labour backbenchers were also believed to be wary of the move.
The draft order would extend the surveillance powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which are currently restricted to the police, the intelligence agencies, Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue.
The government departments which would have been covered under the extended powers include health, trade and industry, transport, the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
The order would also have covered every local council, and would have extended to a range of bodies from fire authorities to the Food Standards Agency.
The government has said the powers are necessary to prevent serious crime, but has been strongly criticised by civil liberties groups.