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 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.
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However, Home Secretary David Blunkett yesterday announced that the proposal has instead been withdrawn “for detailed consultation over the Summer.”
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."