Investigatory Powers Bill (Eighth sitting)

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th April 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Joanna Cherry]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment for the time being.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74

Certain transfer and agency arrangements with public authorities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

There are matters relating to this clause on which I would like to press the Minister. This is the clause that provides for what is effectively the transfer of certain functions between the Secretary of State and other public authorities. The functions to be transferred are the functions in clauses 58 to 60, at which we looked in some detail last week: the filtering arrangements for obtaining data. As set out in clause 58, it is for the Secretary of State to maintain and operate arrangements. It is then for the relevant public authority, acting through a designated senior officer, to effectively carry out the exercise, using authorisations as and where necessary and appropriate. We discussed that arrangement.

Clause 74 provides for a transfer of functions of the Secretary of State—which I take to include establishing, maintaining and operating arrangements—from the Secretary of State to another public authority. That seems to me to cut through the thrust and the purpose of clause 58, which has a clear hierarchy to it: the Secretary of State, then the designated senior officer. Subsection (1)(b) is freestanding and transfers any function exercisable by a public authority back the other way to the Secretary of State, so there is a complete provision for a swap of roles. Subsection (3) indicates that:

“Regulations under subsection (2) do not affect the Secretary of State’s responsibility for the exercise of the functions concerned”.

Then schedule 5, in the back of the Bill, is referred to, but that does not add a great deal.

The question for the Minister is: how is it anticipated that these powers are to be exercised? On the face of it, this is an odd structure for a Bill to set out. This structure goes from the Secretary of State down to the relevant public authority, with the Secretary of State having a much wider role of setting up the arrangements, only for us to find, several clauses later, that it is possible to flip the functions and have the public authority making the arrangements. That seems to remove some of the formality and the safeguards intended by clause 58.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. and learned Gentleman, with his typical diligence—which is at least matched, by the way, by those on the Treasury Bench—has identified, quite properly, both the reasons for this clause and the character of the transfer of arrangements that it details. He accurately identified subsection (3), which emphasises that:

“Regulations under subsection (2) do not affect the Secretary of State’s responsibility for the exercise of the functions concerned”.

The transfer of arrangements will change neither the Secretary of State’s responsibility nor the process for authorising requests for data. It is about the technical running of the filtering capability. It is there to require flexibility; it might be appropriate at some future point for another authority to exercise the filtering function, but without responsibility moving from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will retain responsibility, but the operational running of the filter might change over time. This is essentially about future proofing.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the Minister. I am not being pernickety; I just want to be clear. Subsection (3) appears to apply only to regulations under subsection (2), which I think is about changing the powers of public authorities lest they should not have the power to carry out functions on behalf of the Secretary of State. In other words, when the Secretary of State is modifying the powers available to a public authority, that comes within subsection (3). On reflection, I wonder whether sub-clause 3 should say “regulations under subsections (1) and (2) do not affect the Secretary of State’s responsibility”, because I think that is the thrust of what the Minister said.

[Mr Hayes]

That is not an unreasonable point, actually. Someone who read the Bill could certainly come to the same conclusion as the hon. and learned Gentleman. I will look at that from a drafting perspective, because it is important that we are clear. First, in all these matters, filtering arrangements take effect only as the result of a lawful process; the process for permission will not change. Secondly, that permission rests with the Secretary of State; I do not want there to be any ambiguity—as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests there might be—about which parts of this clause that affects. On re-reading the clause, I can see what he means, so I am happy to take it away and check whether the drafting needs to be amended in the way that he describes. In that spirit, and with that immensely generous offer, I hope we can move on.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 74 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76

Extra-territorial application of Part 3

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 150, in clause 76, page 59, line 26, after “Kingdom”, insert

“the notice shall be served at that person’s principal office outside the United Kingdom where it is established for the provision of services. Where it is considered unfeasible or inappropriate in the circumstances,”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 151, in clause 76, page 59, line 39, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) Subsections (1) or (2) of section 57 shall not be applicable where the taking of any steps by a relevant operator outside the United Kingdom—

(a) would cause the operator to act contrary to any laws or restrictions under the law of the country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services, or

(b) could be achieved via a notice served pursuant to an international mutual assistance agreement or subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”.

[Keir Starmer]

We return to familiar territory here, in relation to the extraterritorial application of authorisations under part 3. When I made my observations last week, I outlined the concerns that a number of service providers and tech companies have; I do not intend to repeat them.

Amendment 150 would tighten the service provisions in relation to the extraterritorial application of part 3. Amendment 151 would introduce a restriction that had the effect of not requiring a relevant operator outside the UK

“to act contrary to any laws or restrictions under the law of the country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services,”

or to take steps that

“could be achieved via a notice served pursuant to an international mutual assistance agreement or subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”

We reached this point last week in relation to provisions that were not dissimilar. The Minister made various points, both about service and about other provisions—particularly those relating to the way international mutual assistance agreements currently work. I will not press these amendments to a vote, for the same reasons as last week, but would indicate that the thrust and purpose of the amendments was to anticipate the agreements on extraterritorial application that it is hoped will be reached—particularly with the US—and that are being negotiated at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate I was not chairing the Committee, so this is very much my own impression of what went on. Lord Murphy was, as one would expect, very keen to accommodate the service providers and the Committee Clerks proposed several dates. We were grateful for the written evidence and formed the view we did, but it would have been nice if they could have fitted us into their busy schedules.

[Keir Starmer]

We probably will not gain much by arguing the detail, particularly as I was not there. The point that the service providers wanted to get across was that in principle they did want to give evidence. They gave written evidence. It was simply that the dates would not work for them as a group, rather than any unwillingness to share their concerns.

The Minister for Security raised a point about the Sheinwald arrangements and the progress being made. As I said a moment ago, these amendments are intended to foreshadow the—I hope—new world of working arrangements, which will cover not only evidence for use in prosecutions but the facilitation of the exercise of powers of this Bill in much faster time than some of the current mutual assistance agreements. The Minister made a further point about the differing views of the companies concerned. There are different views about some aspects of the Bill, but on the issues of extraterritorial application they speak with one voice.

There is an important broader issue to put on the table. As we move forward to international agreements, particularly with the US, it is very important that not only our Government but the US Government are comfortable with the arrangements, because whatever arrangements are put in place will be reciprocal.

Finally, may I hand a schedule to you, Ms Dorries, to the Minister and his team and to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West? I do not intend to speak at great length to this document, which was prepared for me. What it points out is the inconsistency in approach on extraterritorial jurisdiction. It is quite telling in a number of respects. It tracks whether there is extraterritorial jurisdiction, which clauses give rise to it, whether there is a reasonableness test or a reference to conflict of laws built in, whether it is enforced by overseas service providers, whether there is an international mutual assistance framework and whether there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult. What struck me when I went through the document was the inconsistencies. If they are intentional inconsistencies that can be defended, all well and good. I am simply bringing it to the Minister’s attention that we have found these apparent inconsistencies. If they are not intentional, it might be a good idea if somebody looked at them to tidy up the provisions and ensure that where they should be consistent, they are.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I am looking at the hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendment 150, and of course it is necessary to serve someone so that they get notice. The provisions of service are always about the substance of whether the person gets the notice. It is clear to me from the current drafting that if there were service in accordance with any of clause 76(3), the company would get notice. I have a few concerns about the amendment. I am very wary, because people often take points of service to disrupt a substantive issue. It would be unfortunate if people could take the point that they were not properly served and therefore not comply. Does “principal office” have a meaning in other jurisdictions? If there are different services, will “provision of services” cause confusion? What is the meaning of “unfeasible or inappropriate” and how will it be applied? I believe that the clause will maintain what is desired, which is that it will come to the company’s attention, so I am slightly concerned about the amendment.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for her intervention. I am not pressing amendments 150 and 151. They have been put forward to draw attention to concerns. The hon. and learned Lady made submissions last week about service in relation to civil proceedings under the White Book, which I noted and could see the sense of. I do not want to push amendment 150 and accept that “unfeasible” and “inappropriate” may not be the best way to articulate the point.

What underlies both amendments is a genuine concern on the part of those who, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, will be called on to assist in relation to warrants and who want clarity on how the procedure is to operate, what they are to do and what the safeguards are, in particular when they find themselves, as we mentioned last week, required under penalty of criminal proceedings in this country to do something that constitutes an offence in the country in which they are operating. That is a very real concern for them.

[Mr Hayes]

I shall deal as pithily as is possible with the points the hon. and learned Gentleman made. The first was his helpful contribution in the form of this schematic, to which I will not respond now. He would not expect me to as I have only just seen it. It might form part of my next letter to the Committee to explain why in different parts of the Bill these matters are handled in different ways. In doing so, I will implicitly consider his point about whether that is healthy eclecticism or unhappy inconsistency.

Secondly, it is important to point out that clause 76 essentially maintains provisions on extraterritoriality as they are now, replicating the arrangements under RIPA, clarified by the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right, but there is nothing new here.

Thirdly, there is a need to retain flexibility about where the notices are served. I take the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point that companies may take a view on these things, and sometimes those might be overlapping or conflicting views about different aspects of the Bill, but in those terms it is important to maintain a degree of flexibility about the communications data notice and where it can be delivered.

Fourthly, on the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about coming more speedily to an agreement that is more satisfactory than either current arrangements or those that might be delivered through a mutual legal assistance treaty, I can offer the Committee the assurance, as I have previously, that that work is under way. We are hopeful—indeed, confident—that we can achieve the sort of outcome that he has described. He referred, as I did, to the comments of David Anderson, which were critical of the mutual legal assistance treaty process on the grounds that it is slow. It is not always the best way of achieving the objective set out in the Bill, because it is not designed for that purpose but an entirely different one.

Finally, I would say that this is really important. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman is right that this is a particular part of a particular part of the Bill and so could be overlooked, it is important to understand that, in terms of the objectives we seek to achieve—that is, those of us who want the Bill to work well, which I think applies to the whole Committee—these powers are significant. Much of what happens is now happening overseas and much of the process by which we deal with overseas organisations is vital to the work of our security services and others. Dealing with extraterritorial matters is significant, but not straightforward. It is dynamic, for the reasons that we have both offered to the Committee. In that respect, I believe we have got the Bill about where it wants to be. I do not say that these things will not evolve over time, but for the purposes we have set out, the clause works.

As with all these things, I start from the perspective of wanting to be both convivial and conciliatory; both helpful and positive. I never ignore arguments put in these Committees or on the Floor of the House, as people know who know how I operate. The House has an important function in making government as good as it can be, and that is partly about the interaction and tension between Government and Opposition. Of course I am always prepared to listen, but I think we have got this right. With the appropriate humility, I suggest that we move on.

[Keir Starmer]

I indicated would not press the amendments at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Joanna Cherry]

I oppose the clause. I hear what the Minister has to say, but I am not reassured by the Government’s approach. Harking back to something I said last week, I do not think that the Government have got the balance right, because in seeking to gather to themselves an extraterritorial application through United Kingdom law, there are hidden dangers.

If international companies are required to arbitrate between conflicting legal systems, it is leaving the protection of human rights to the good will and judgment of those companies. Companies such as the ones the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras mentioned have already expressed concerns to David Anderson, for his report “A Question of Trust”, that

“unqualified cooperation with the British government would lead to expectations of similar cooperation with authoritarian governments, which would not be in their customers’, their own corporate or democratic governments’ interests.”

In my view, the most appropriate way forward is to pursue the route, which I am pleased the Minister has assured us that the Government are well down, of mutual legal assistance agreements with other states. If we do not pursue that route in the way that both David Anderson and Sir Nigel Sheinwald recommended with appropriate alacrity, and instead rely simply on clauses such as this one, which are spread throughout the Bill, we will create real difficulty for corporate entities. We will also create difficulties for the international enforcement of human rights, which I consider a bit more important than difficulties for corporate entities, although we should not set the latter to one side, because they are significant. For that reason, notwithstanding the Minister’s assurances, the SNP opposes clause stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

Powers to require retention of certain data

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 164, in clause 78, page 61, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) A Judicial Commissioner may issue a data retention warrant under this Part to authorise the retention of relevant communications data if the Judicial Commissioner considers that the authorisation is necessary and proportionate for one or more of the following purposes—

(a) in the interests of national security, or

(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime, or

(c) for the purpose of preventing death or serious injury.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 165, in clause 78, page 61, line 10, leave out “A retention notice may” and insert “A data retention warrant must”.

Amendment 154, in clause 78, page 61, line 19, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 155, in clause 78, page 61, line 30, leave out “retention notice” and insert “retention warrant”.

Amendment 235, in clause 78, page 61, line 30, leave out second “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 156, in clause 78, page 61, line 32, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 157, in clause 78, page 61, line 33, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 158, in clause 78, page 61, line 34, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 159, in clause 78, page 61, line 36, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 160, in clause 78, page 61, line 37, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 161, in clause 78, page 61, line 38, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

Amendment 162, in clause 78, page 61, line 41, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 166, in clause 79, page 62, line 26, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 220, in clause 79, page 62, line 26, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

Amendment 168, in clause 79, page 62, line 28, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 169, in clause 79, page 62, line 30, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 170, in clause 79, page 62, line 31, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 171, in clause 79, page 62, line 32, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 172, in clause 79, page 62, line 33, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 173, in clause 79, page 62, line 35, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 174, in clause 79, page 62, line 35, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

Amendment 176, in clause 80, page 62, line 38, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 198, in clause 80, page 62, line 40, leave out “back to the Secretary of State” and insert “to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for review”.

Amendment 335, in clause 80, page 62, line 40, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 177, in clause 80, page 62, line 41, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 178, in clause 80, page 62, line 42, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 180, in clause 80, page 63, line 5, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 181, in clause 80, page 63, line 6, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 199, in clause 80, page 63, line 7, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “the Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.

Amendment 182, in clause 80, page 63, line 7, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 183, in clause 80, page 63, line 8, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 200, in clause 80, page 63, line 10, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “the Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.

Amendment 201, in clause 80, page 63, line 12, leave out subsection (b).

Amendment 184, in clause 80, page 63, line 14, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 185, in clause 80, page 63, line 16, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 193, in clause 80, page 63, line 19, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

Amendment 194, in clause 80, page 63, line 24, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

Amendment 202, in clause 80, page 63, line 25, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.

Amendment 249, in clause 80, page 63, line 25, leave out “and the Commissioner”.

Amendment 186, in clause 80, page 63, line 27, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 187, in clause 80, page 63, line 28, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 188, in clause 80, page 63, line 30, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 203, in clause 80, page 63, line 31, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.

Amendment 197, in clause 80, page 63, line 33, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

Amendment 189, in clause 80, page 63, line 33, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 204, in clause 83, page 64, line 13, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

Amendment 210, in clause 83, page 64, line 13, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 205, in clause 83, page 64, line 14, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

Amendment 206, in clause 83, page 64, line 15, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

Amendment 211, in clause 83, page 64, line 22, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 207, in clause 83, page 64, line 23, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

Amendment 212, in clause 83, page 64, line 27, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 213, in clause 83, page 64, line 28, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 214, in clause 83, page 64, line 31, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 215, in clause 83, page 64, line 32, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 216, in clause 83, page 64, line 34, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 217, in clause 83, page 64, line 36, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 218, in clause 83, page 64, line 37, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 208, in clause 83, page 64, line 38, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

Amendment 370, in clause 83, page 64, line 39, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 372, in clause 83, page 64, line 40, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

Amendment 209, in clause 83, page 64, line 41, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

Amendment 219, in clause 83, page 65, line 7, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

Amendment 221, in clause 83, page 65, line 9, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.

New clause 7—Persons who may apply for issue of warrant—

“(1) Each of the following organisations may apply for a communications data retention warrant—

(a) a police force maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996,

(b) the Metropolitan Police Force,

(c) the City of London Police Force,

(d) the Police Service of Scotland,

(e) the Police Service of Northern Ireland,

(f) the British Transport Police Force,

(g) the Ministry of Defence Police,

(h) the Royal Navy Police,

(i) the Royal Military Police,

(j) the Royal Air Force Police,

(k) the Security Service,

(l) the Secret Intelligence Service,

(m) GCHQ, and

(n) the National Crime Agency.”

New clause 10—Requirements that must be met by warrants—

“(1) A warrant issued under this Part must name or otherwise identify the person or persons, organisation, premises, or location to which the warrant relates.

(2) A warrant issued under this Part must describe the investigation or operation to which the warrant relates.

(3) A warrant issued under this Part must relate to one or more of the following purposes—

(a) in the interests of national security, or

(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime, where there is reasonable suspicion that a serious criminal offence has been or is likely to be committed, or

(c) for the purpose of preventing death or injury.

(4) A warrant may only be issued under this Part if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation or operation to which the warrant relates.”

[Keir Starmer]

I will not say, at this stage, that I am withdrawing all of those amendments.

[The Chair]

That is a joke, right?

[Keir Starmer]

It is a joke, Ms Dorries. We now come to a very important clause. In some respects, over the last part of Thursday and today we have been working backwards through the way in which the functions will be exercised, because clause 78 is the starting point in relation to communications data. It relates to the power to require retention of data in the first place, and everything we have discussed has been about how those data can be filtered and accessed after they have been retained. It is a very important clause.

I draw attention to the breadth of the clause, which states:

“The Secretary of State may by notice…require a telecommunications operator to retain relevant communications data if the Secretary of State considers that the requirement is necessary and proportionate for one or more of the purposes falling within paragraphs (a) to (j) of section 53(7)”.

The first thing that crops up in relation to the clause is what the test for retention is. The test is, of course, necessity and proportionality but the real question is: what does that necessity and proportionality bite on? That pushes us straight back to clause 53(7), which is problematic because it sets such a low threshold for these extensive retention powers.

There should be no doubt that this provision gives the Secretary of State the power to require the retention of a huge amount of data. There may be circumstances in which that is necessary and proportionate, but the test for whether that power is exercised is pushed all the way back to clause 53(7). To take an example that we touched on last week, extensive data can be retained

“for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime”—

any crime. Any crime of any level can trigger a power to retain data. The importance of the issue of retention over that of access is that at this stage it is about retaining the data of those who are not necessarily suspects or targets but anybody whose data come within the types that are intended to be retained. It is a very wide provision.

Sign-off is by the Secretary of State, so there is no double lock and no reference to a judicial commissioner here. The Secretary of State operates the powers, which are very wide. Clause 78(2) states that

“a retention notice may…relate to a particular operator”;

it may

“require the retention of all data or any”;

it may

“identify…periods for which data is to be retained”;

it may “contain…restrictions” and

“make different provision for different purposes,”;

and it may “relate to data” that are not even in existence at the time. These are very wide-ranging powers triggered by the test set out in clause 53(7), and that is a cause of significant concern. The retention period is 12 months, so this is an extensive hoovering-up exercise.

It is clear that the clause applies to internet connection records, because that is stated in subsection (9). We touched on internet connection records last week in relation to when internet connection records are to be accessed. Now, I touch on it for a different purpose: to highlight how all our internet connection records can be swept up in a data retention notice issued under this provision.

For that purpose, one obviously starts with the definition of internet connection record in clause 54(6)(a) and (b), which we looked at last week. I will not read it out again but just give some examples of what is intended to be included. I will do so in chronological order. The operational case for the retention of internet connection records was published in August last year. Page 3 made it clear that internet connection records are:

“a record of the internet services that a specific device connects to—such as a website or instant messaging application—captured by the company providing access to the internet”.

So that is within the scope of an internet connection record, as set out in the operational case of August 2015. An annexe setting out terminology and definitions was put in evidence before the Joint Committee in January this year, which made it clear that not only web and IP addresses are included, but names and addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, billing data, customers, users, and so on. In the explanatory notes to the Bill, paragraph 2.30, on clause 78(9) makes it clear that,

“communications data that can be retained includes internet connection records. Internet connection records, which are defined in clause 54(6), are a record of the internet services that a specific device connects to—such as a website”

That is therefore consistent with the operational case.

What is swept up under clause 78 are internet connection records, which means connections to the internet and websites to which any device has connected. When anyone uses a device to connect to a website, that is recorded by the provider and comes within the definition. It therefore comes within the retention order. That is what the clause gives the Secretary of State power to retain.

It is fair to point out that clause 54(4), which deals with accessing the data that are retained, says that the access through an authorisation can be allowed only if the purpose is to identify: which person is using the internet, which internet service is being used, where the person or apparatus whose identity is already known is, and so on. It is true to say that on the point of access there is restriction of the way in which internet connection records are accessed, but we need to be absolutely clear that for the purpose of retention, it is a record of all websites visited or accessed by a device.

[Mr Hayes]

I do not doubt that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General will deal with these points at some length, but is it not fair to say—the hon. and learned Gentleman is in the mood to be fair—that the two subsequent clauses both build a set of safeguards into the system and provide for a review of the system? There is further work in the Bill that caveats what might be taken to be the extremes of his argument.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I accept that there are safeguards in subsequent provisions. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but on the face of it at least—I am not saying they are incapable of a review—the safeguards do not restrict the definition of an internet connection record in a way that would prevent websites visited being swept up in the retention order.

[Mr Hayes]

Yes.

[Keir Starmer]

The message to my and all of our constituents is that, even if they are not a target, a record of the websites they have visited can be retained under a data retention order, and if retained will be retained for 12 months—every website they have visited. But if somebody later wants to access it, there is then a tighter test for that. The chilling effect of clause 78 is that the websites visited will be retained if a retention order is issued. We need to be absolutely clear about that. The tighter definition does not kick in until a later stage of the exercise, and that is a cause of real concern to our constituents, certainly to the people who have engaged with me on the topic, and to our fellows across both sides of the House.

[Joanna Cherry]

I note what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about web addresses being revealed. Is it not also the case that we see from the data released by the Home Office, after being pressed about its factsheet accompanying ICRs, that what will be revealed is not only web addresses and IP addresses, but the names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and billing data of customers—our constituents?

[Keir Starmer]

I cannot double check on my feet, but that sounds like the further evidence that was put before the Joint Committee when it was in the middle of its deliberations. In fairness, the Home Office did go beyond websites to include some, maybe all, of the matters to which the hon. and learned Lady just referred.

The way this will operate in practice is a cause of real concern. The Secretary of State, without the double check of a judicial commissioner, and operating against a low-level threshold—clause 53(7)—can issue a retention order that will permit the retention of a record of all the websites that somebody has visited. That record will then be kept for 12 months, albeit with a different test if it is to be accessed later.

The amendments—I think you have called them the first set of amendments, Ms Dorries—are intended to construct in the first instance a different framework around this power, because it is so extensive, and put it in the hands of a judicial commissioner rather than the Secretary of State. That would provide a greater safeguard in relation to clause 78, with independent oversight through the function of the judicial commissioner. Alternatively, amendments 152, 153 and 222 would give the Investigatory Powers Commissioner some oversight. In other words, the intention behind these amendments is to put some rigour and independence into the exercise of what is a very wide power that, in fact, is the starting point for the exercise of all the other powers under the parts of the Bill that we are now concerned with.

Anxiety has been expressed on a number of occasions about cost. Huge amounts of data could be required for retention under clause 78. The Government have estimated the cost at £170 million. That is considered to be a gross underestimate by those who will no doubt be called upon to actually retain the data. For those reasons, these amendments are intended to tighten up a clause that is very wide and very loose. It permits a huge amount of data to be retained, including websites visited by you, by me, or by our constituents.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to rise as part of this ongoing scrutiny, and to offer my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West brief respite in this Committee. It is also a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. It is great to follow the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who in his customary fastidious and engaging manner has covered in a short space of time all the aspects of many amendments. Some of that bears repeating, and I will speak to new clause 10, which is tabled in my name and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West.

My hon. and learned Friend spoke at length about the important role that the judiciary, in the form of judicial commissioners, should bring to this process. We do not think it is good enough that the Bill only proposes to use judicial commissioners to review the process used by the Secretary of State in making a decision. The Government may claim that it is important that the Home Secretary retains the power to issue retention notices to internet service providers, as it will ensure that democratic accountability is a salient feature of the process, but I do not accept that to be the case. In fact, I would argue that because of the political arena that any Home Secretary operates in, it is right that this power is handed to and delegated to an independent official such as a judicial commissioner.

It is also worth noting that we know very little of the various notices that the Home Secretary issues, and as such there is no possible opportunity to hold her to account for them. Building the role of judicial commissioners into this part of the process will help to ensure that we have appropriate checks and balances when it comes to the retention of communications data. This is vitally important, because it is the proper constitutional function of the independent judiciary to act as a check on the use of intrusive and coercive powers by state bodies, and to oversee the application of law to individuals and organisations. Liberty rightly points out that judges are professionally best equipped to apply the legal tests of necessity and proportionality to ensure that any surveillance is conducted lawfully.

I turn now to new clause 7. Schedule 4 provides a lengthy list of bodies that are able to access or retain data, including several Government Departments, such as the Department for Transport, and a range of regulatory bodies, such as the Food Standards Agency and the Gambling Commission. This suggests that access to communications data may be allowed for a range of purposes which may be disproportionate and inconsistent with the guidance offered by the European Court of Human Rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

Clause 78 is important for all the reasons that I have set out, but at this stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Gavin Newlands]

I beg to move amendment 303, in clause 78, page 61, line 12, leave out—

“of all data or any description of data”

and insert

“of specified relevant communications data”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

I am content to withdraw the amendments at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Keir Starmer]

I rise to speak to amendment 152, in clause 78, page 61, line 36, at end insert “, and

(c) only when approved by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.

(5A) In deciding whether to approve a notice, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must determine whether a notice is—

(a) that the conduct required by the notice is necessary for one or more of the purposes in section 53(7); and

(b) that the conduct required by the notice is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 153, in clause 78, page 61, line 38, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.

Amendment 222, in clause 83, page 64, line 21, at end insert “and

( ) the variation has been approved by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.”

[Keir Starmer]

For better or for worse, I spoke to these amendments during my submission on earlier amendments. I do not have any additional points and I will not press the amendment.

[The Chair]

Amendment not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Matters to be taken into account before giving retention notices

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 175, in clause 79, page 62, line 34, at end insert—

“() the public interest in the protection of privacy and the integrity of personal data; and

() the public interest in the integrity of communications systems and computer networks.”.

Clause 79 sets out those matters to be taken into account before giving a retention notice, as well as likely benefits and the likely number of users. Amendment 175 would add two public interest matters to that list. My argument is similar to the one I made on other provisions. Where matters are to be taken into account, it is important that the protection of privacy and the integrity of personal data and of communications systems are specifically listed. I have moved to a position of thinking that an overarching privacy clause is probably the way to achieve this end; this is therefore a probing amendment and I will not press it to a vote.

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful for the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman states his case. To put it extremely simply, we would argue that the public interest in the protection of privacy and in the integrity of personal data are already factored in by the provisions of the Bill.

First, proportionality must include consideration of the protection of privacy. Secondly, the integrity of personal data being such an important public interest is why clause 81 requires any retained communications data to be of at least the same integrity as the business data from which they are derived. A retention notice will therefore not be permitted to do anything that would undermine the integrity of the data that the operator already holds for business purposes. That is all I want to say about the matter, but I assure hon. and learned Gentleman that those important considerations are at the heart of the processes we have followed.

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80

Review by the Secretary of State

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 179, in clause 80, page 62, line 40, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 190, in clause 80, page 63, line 7, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

Amendment 191, in clause 80, page 63, line 8, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

Amendment 192, in clause 80, page 63, line 10, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

Amendment 195, in clause 80, page 63, line 25, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

Amendment 196, in clause 80, page 63, line 31, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

As members of the Committee will have observed, these tidying-up amendments are consistent with previous amendments that would have entrusted decision making to a judicial commissioner rather than the Secretary of State. We had the discussion in principle in relation to those earlier amendments, which I withdrew, and I will not repeat my arguments now, although I would like to return to them at a later stage.

[Joanna Cherry]

As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the amendments would require that review under clause 80 be by a judicial commissioner rather than the Secretary of State. Will the Government tell us why the provision of such a route of review would not, in their opinion, give the telecommunications providers greater reassurance that notices are not only lawful, necessary and proportionate but stable and legally certain? It seems to me that a review by a judicial commissioner, or at the very least by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, would provide that reassurance.

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. and learned Lady asks a perfectly proper question. I reiterate the position that we have taken in principle: the Secretary of State is the appropriate and accountable person to be responsible for reviewing retention notices. However, although the Secretary of State must be responsible for giving notices and must therefore be the person ultimately responsible for deciding on the outcome of the review, that does not mean that she or he can make the decision on the outcome of the review without consultation—far from it.

Clause 80(6) ensures that the Secretary of State must consult both the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the technical advisory board. The commissioner must consider the proportionality of the notice; the board must consider the technical feasibility and financial consequences of it; and both must consult the operator concerned and report their conclusions to the operator and the Secretary of State. Only then can the Secretary of State can decide whether to vary, revoke or give effect to the notice. That system provides rigorous scrutiny of the notice and maintains the accountability of the final decision resting with the Secretary of State. We therefore believe it is the best mechanism for review. Accordingly, I commend the unamended clause to the Committee.

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81

Data integrity and security

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Christian Matheson]

I seek the Minister’s guidance. Throughout our considerations, I have spoken of my fears whether data held under this Act are held securely. I hope that clause 81 will address many of my fears; I seek the Minister’s advice on whether it lays responsibility on communications providers to maintain those data securely. I simply reiterate my concern that when theft does take place, there has to be a consideration of an offence of unlawful possession of stolen data, on the basis that the communications provider that has suffered the theft would also be legally responsible for that theft when the provider is in fact a victim of the theft itself. Bodies that seek to obtain illicitly a person’s private communications data may try to make financial gain as a result. Is the Minister confident that clause 81 gives me the kind of assurances that I have been looking for on internet security? Is there sufficient deterrent, in terms of possession of unlawfully obtained data, that might be included later in the Bill?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in stating his concerns. I assure him that clause 81 contains the sort of requirements that he would reasonably expect. It sets out the matter clearly. It should be read in conjunction not only with other legislation that I have mentioned, such as the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Privacy in Electronic Communications Regulations 2003, but with clause 210, which provides for the Information Commissioner to audit the security, integrity and destruction of retained data, and the codes of practice to which I referred earlier. The provisions in the communications data draft code of practice go into more detail about the security arrangements.

We had a discussion some days ago about the existence of adequate criminal legislation. The Bill has a number of provisions that relate to those who hold data, and we discussed whether existing legislation could cover those who come into possession of the data unlawfully. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I will take the matter away and consider it, and come up with a proper considered response to his query.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 82 and 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84

Enforcement of notices and certain other requirements and restrictions

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 225, in clause 84, page 65, line 20, after “not”, insert “, without reasonable excuse,”.

There are two points to make here. One is to state the principle that reasonable excuse defences are needed to protect those who are exposed in wrongdoing. We had that debate last week and I listened carefully to the response given. The practical reason is the inconsistencies may be intentional, or they may be unintentional. Clause 73(1), under which unlawful disclosure is made an offence under part 3, has a “without reasonable excuse” provision. Clause 84, which is in part 4, does not. There may be a very good reason for that, but it escapes me at the moment. That is either a point that the Solicitor General can deal with now, or I am happy for him to deal with it later on. It may be just one of those things when you draft a long, complicated Bill, but there is an inconsistency of approach here, because reasonable excuse is sometimes written in and other times not, for no apparent reason.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

Just to be clear, I do not need to be persuaded about the policy objective of a clause that keeps a retention notice safe. It is the policy objective of not having a “reasonable excuse” defence to the provision, which operates as an exclusion to the prohibition, of which I need to be persuaded. I do not need persuading about the prohibition for safety.

[The Solicitor General]

I was coming to that. We are talking about a duty here; the earlier clause the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to is an offence. That will, I think, explain the importantly different context.

To deal with the question of “reasonable excuse”, the problem is that once the information is out in the public domain, it cannot be withdrawn—whether that information has been introduced with good or bad intentions does not matter. It cannot be right for the Bill to allow a person to release sensitive information in that way and then subsequently rely on a “reasonable excuse”.

May I deal with clause 84(4), which is relevant to this provision? It provides an exemption where the Secretary of State has given permission for the existence of the notice to be revealed. The Government intend that such permission would be given, for example, where a provider wishes to discuss the existence of their retention notice with another provider subject to similar requirements. Should the operator wish to reveal the existence of the notice, they should discuss the matter with the Secretary of State, and in such circumstances permission is likely to be given. There will be those sort of scenarios, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand, and they will help improve the operational model.

My concern about using the “reasonable excuse” provision in the context of a duty would be that it would undermine the important policy objective that I have set out. For that reason I would urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Keir Starmer]

I will withdraw the amendment. As to the difference between a duty and an offence, I understand that in principle, but I am pretty convinced that elsewhere in the Bill a breach of the duty becomes an offence, as otherwise it is an unenforceable provision, so I am not sure it is a distinction that withstands scrutiny. That being said, I am not going to press this to a vote. It would be helpful and reassuring if the Solicitor General would agree to set out the route by which a whistleblower brings this to attention. I think we have already agreed in general terms and it may come within the umbrella of the undertaking that has been given; if it does, all well and good. That would reassure those that have concerns about exposing wrongdoing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 223, in clause 84, page 65, line 21, after “person”, insert

“except the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or a Judicial Commissioner”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 224, in clause 84, page 65, line 26, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.

[Keir Starmer]

These amendments were consistent with earlier amendments that have now been withdrawn, the purpose of which was to put the decision-making power in the hands of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or the judicial commissioner. The other amendments having been withdrawn, I will not press these to a vote; they do not make sense within the unamended Bill as it now stands.

[The Solicitor General]

We have already discussed the importance of protecting the identities of those companies subject to data retention notices, but there are circumstances where a telecommunications operator should be able to disclose the existence of a retention notice. Clause 84 allows the Secretary of State to give them permission to do so. The amendment would ensure that a telecommunications operator could disclose the existence or content of a retention notice to the IPC without the need for permission to be given. I would say the proposal is unnecessary, because it is absolutely the Government’s intention to give telecommunications operators permission to disclose the existence and content of the retention notice to both the relevant oversight bodies—the IPC and the Information Commissioner—at the point at which a notice is given. In any event, clause 203 as drafted would permit the telecommunications operator to disclose a retention notice to the IPC in relation to any of his functions.

Amendment 224 would mean that the IPC, not the Secretary of State, would be granting permission for a telecoms operator to disclose the existence of the notice. In practice the Secretary of State would consider, at the point that a retention notice was issued, to whom the telecommunications operator could disclose the existence of a notice. It would not make any sense for this issue to be considered separately by the commissioner following the issue of a notice by the Secretary of State.

Further requests by a telecommunications operator to disclose a retention notice are likely to cover administrative matters, such as disclosure to a new systems supplier. Such matters should appropriately be considered by the Secretary of State. I think that explanation not only justifies opposition to the amendments, which I know are being withdrawn, but supports clause 84.

[Keir Starmer]

I have nothing further to add, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 226, in clause 84, page 66, line 15, at end insert—

“(2B) No notice shall be served under subsection (1) where the relevant telecommunications operator outside the United Kingdom.

(a) is already subject to a comparable retention requirement in the country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services, or

(b) where there is no comparable retention requirement under its domestic law, any extraterritorial requirement is limited to the making of preservation requests to the telecommunications operator.”

Committee members will understand why this amendment has been tabled. It reflects the concerns of those who will be caught by these provisions in cases where a comparable retention requirement exists in the country in which they are working. The provisions in this part of the Bill are unnecessary in relation to them. That is the amendment’s intention and purpose.

[Mr Hayes]

I think we can deal with this briefly. I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman: where it was neither necessary nor proportionate to attempt to retain data in another place, we would not do so, so that is very straightforward. All data retention notices that are given to telecommunications companies, whether here or abroad, must pass the test of necessity and proportionality. Where they did not do so, it simply would not happen, because it would not be necessary, so for that purpose the amendment is unnecessary.

The second part of the amendment would remove the ability to serve data retention notices on telecommunications operators in countries that do not have a comparable data retention regime. Of course, the fact that they do not have a comparable data retention regime does not necessarily mean that there are no data to obtain, and I think that this part of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s proposal would add rigidity where flexibility is needed. I accept that there are not always comparable systems, but that does not mean that no system of any kind prevails. Again, with the caveat of proportionality and the proven need established, I think it would be unhelpful to limit our capacity to take action as necessary in the way that he suggests. The same could be said of the third element of his proposal, which is about the preservation of data. When there are no data to preserve, this does not really apply, but when there are, we need at least the capacity, born of the flexibilities provided by the Bill, to take action as is necessary and reasonable.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that those who have the primary concern here will take some comfort from what is said about necessity and proportionality but, in practice, where there are comparable retention requirements in the country, it will rarely, if ever, be necessary or proportionate. Obviously, that will have to be determined case by case, or authorisation by authorisation, but I note what he has said on the record. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86

Extra-territorial application of Part 4

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Warrants under this Part: general

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 381, in clause 88, page 66, line 38, leave out “information” and insert “specified data”.

This amendment seeks to more clearly outline what material may be obtained by hacking.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 382, in clause 88, page 67, line 40, leave out from “6” to end of line 43.

This amendment requires that an examination warrant is required for the examination of all data, removing the exception of equipment data and the broad category of ‘not private information’ which is collected under bulk warrants.

[Keir Starmer]

We need to spend some time on this clause, because it is the one that deals with equipment interference under part 5. There are real concerns about the breadth of the clause, which provides for two kinds of warrant: a targeted equipment interference warrant and a targeted examination warrant. Those warrants allow interference with equipment, such as remote—not always remote—interference with equipment with your, my and many other people’s equipment, Ms Dorries, to secure any of the purposes under subsection (2).

The warrants allow others to interfere with our communications data equipment to obtain “communications”, “equipment data” or, to draw attention to subsection (2)(c), “any other information”—to hack into or interfere with equipment to obtain unlimited “any other information”. That is why the amendment seeks to limit subsection (2)(c) to “any other specified data”. In other words, the clause as drafted will in effect allow interference for pretty well any purpose, as long as it is to obtain information from your computer, my computer, my laptop, your laptop and so on. The provisions are very wide.

The equipment interference in subsection (4) includes interfering by

“monitoring, observing or listening to a person’s communications or other activities”

or

“recording anything which is monitored, observed or listened to.”

Let us pause there and reflect on how wide the provision is. In terms of invasion of privacy, that will put an incredibly powerful provision in the hands of those who will operate these measures.

[Mr Hayes]

I intervene merely because I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is as much a stickler for accuracy as I am and is perhaps even less prone to hyperbole than me. He will therefore want the Committee to consider the draft code of practice, particularly where it deals with exactly the matters to which he is referring. I will discuss this at greater length than an intervention will allow in a moment, but he will see in the draft code of practice a comprehensive list of qualifications to the breadth that he is outlining.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. I have been referring throughout to the code of practice and its role. Consistent with the in-principle argument I have been making, the Bill and the code serve different functions. I understand the argument that a code is one way not only to give more detail to the provisions in the Bill, but to future-proof it. In other words, a code allows an approach that can be changed without amending the legislation.

As a matter of principle, though, I argue that where limits are to be put on the exercise of the power, and thus important safeguards are in place, they should be in the Bill. What should be resisted is a wide and generalised power in the Bill that finds constraint and limitation only in the code of practice. The extent of these powers should be set out in the Bill. The code of practice is the place for more detailed provision—provision that may change over time—and other obvious future-proofing techniques; it is not the right place for the limitations themselves.

Moving on, consistent with the earlier clauses on warrants, subsection (5) allows conduct in addition to the interference itself in order to do what is expressly authorised or required and any conduct that facilitates or gives effect to the warrant. I now want to take a bit of time on subsection (6).

[Mr Hayes]

Given the hon. and learned Gentleman’s desire to move on, and so that he can do so with greater velocity, let me be absolutely clear that the clause would not allow warrants to be issued without the information being sought being specified.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. It is helpful to have such matters on the record so that others can follow how the clauses are intended to operate.

Returning to subsection (6), one of the welcome measures in the Bill is that clause 3(4) makes it clear that, when a communication is intercepted, interception includes the communication at

“any time when the communication is stored in or by the system”.

I know that sounds very technical, but it became a real issue in a number of cases in which the question was whether a voicemail that was accessed once it was on a voicemail machine was in the course of its transmission. If the answer to that was no, there was nothing unlawful about retrieving it, listening to it and publishing it. A lot of time and energy went into the interpretation of the relevant clause. One of the advantages of the Bill is that clause 3 spells out in no uncertain terms that communications are protected if they are intercepted in the course of transmission, including if stored either before or after transmission. That protects any communication, sent to us or anybody else, which is either listened to at the time or not, but is later stored either in a voicemail, on a computer or in any way. We all store communications all the time; it is very rare that they exist only in real time. That is a step in the right direction.

We then get to clause 88(6):

“A targeted equipment interference warrant may not, by virtue of subsection (3), authorise or require a person to engage in conduct, in relation to a communication other than a stored communication”.

It protects the communication and excludes its content from this part—I think that is the idea—but only half does the job and leaves quite a gap, in my view. We get back to the same problem. If there is equipment interference to obtain a communication, that communication would be protected from one of these warrants as long as it is in the course of its transmission. If it has arrived, it is not. If I am wrong about this I will stand corrected, but all of the good that was done by amending clause 3 will be undone by clause 88; the same ends could be achieved by using an equipment interference warrant, namely obtaining by interference a communication that is in the course of its transmission, either before or after it is sent.

[Mr Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his humility in suggesting that he would stand corrected; I now stand to correct him. An equipment interference warrant would not allow interception of real-time information of the kind that he describes. He is right that to intercept that kind of information would require a different process, as we discussed earlier in our considerations. If further explanatory notes need to be made available to provide greater clarity about that I am more than happy to do so. I will talk more when I respond, before you rightly chide me for going on for too long, Ms Dorries.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the Minister. If he could point to the provision that makes good the submission he has just made, then that will deal with this particular point. Just to be clear, subsection (6) is intended to ring-fence and exclude from one of these warrants communications the interception of which would

“constitute an offence under section 2(1)”,

but only in relation to communications in the course of their transmission in the real sense of the term, not including those that are “stored”. I put on the record—if this is capable of being answered, so be it—that “stored” in subsection (6) has the same meaning as in clause 3, which is intended to include stored communications within the prohibition. I will not take it any further; the Minister has my point, which is that one would expect subsection (6) to protect the same content that is expressly protected by clause 3(4), but it does not—unless he or somebody else can point to another provision that adds to subsection (6), though that would be an odd way of doing it.

I will move on. Subsection (9) defines targeted examination warrants. This is important because subsections (1) to (8) deal with targeted equipment interference warrants—warrants issued in a targeted way; the targeted examination warrant deals with examining material obtained by way of a bulk warrant. It therefore serves a different purpose. Subsection (9) is an extremely wide provision:

“A targeted examination warrant is a warrant which authorises the person to whom it is addressed to carry out the selection of protected material…in breach of the prohibition in section 170(4)”.

To understand that, we need to turn to section 170(4), which raises questions that relate to an argument I made earlier on another, not dissimilar, provision. It states:

“The prohibition…is that the protected material may not…be selected for examination if (a) any criteria used for the selection of the material for examination are referable to an individual known to be in the British Islands at that time, and (b) the purpose of using those criteria is to identify protected material consisting of communications sent by, or intended for, that individual or private information relating to that individual.”

That is intended to give protection to individuals known to be in the British islands, by placing limits on the examination of their material: in relation to their material or their communications one needs a targeted examination warrant to get around the prohibition in clause 170(4). The point I make here is similar to the point that I made before: this is temporal. Whether a person is in the British islands or not depends on where they are physically. I am protected so long as I am in the British islands, but I fall out of protection—as would everybody else—the moment I leave them, whether I am leaving for a day, a week, a month or a year. That is a real cause for concern, as is the wide definition of protected material that immediately follows in clause 88(9); amendment 382 would limit the extent of that definition by stopping the clause after the words “Part 6”, which are on page 67, line 40, of the draft Bill.

In conclusion, this is a very wide-ranging clause, and it contains insufficient safeguards—if there are safeguards, they should be in the Bill. There are questions on subsections (6) in (9), taken in conjunction with clause 170(4), that the Minister will have to deal with.

[Joanna Cherry]

I rise to support the hon. and learned Gentleman in his submissions on these two amendments. As we have just reached part 5, I want to take the opportunity to make some general comments on it. Powers to conduct equipment interference—or “hack”, which is the more generally used term—are new; they do not exist in any previous legislation. They therefore require significant scrutiny, by the Committee and by parliamentarians generally, before they are added to the statute book. By its very nature, hacking is an extremely intrusive power, because it grants the authority to see all past and future information and activity on a computer or other device. Beyond the implications for privacy, the potential ramifications for the whole country’s cyber-security and for fair trials mean that hacking should be used only as a tool of last resort. The SNP’s position is that stronger protections must be added to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Having characterised the Scottish National party in a vivid and, in some people’s view, slightly too generous way, I will move on to the specifics of what the hon. and learned Lady said. She is right that there need to be important safeguards in respect of equipment interference. I do not think that there is any difference between us on that. She is right that GCHQ’s use of equipment interference powers—although they are more widely available, it is GCHQ that uses them particularly—are central to its purpose and of course must be lawful. She will be pleased to know that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal found them to be just that when it looked at the matter as recently as February of this year. Of course it is right, given the radical character of those powers, that we put in place all the right checks and balances. One might say that transparency and stronger safeguards are part of what the Bill is defined by.

It is important to emphasise in that context the draft codes of practice, which I drew attention to in a brief intervention on the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras. They are clear in two respects. I draw attention first, in general terms, to part 8 of the draft code of practice on equipment interference, which deals with handling information, general safeguards and so on, and secondly to the specific areas covered in part 4.10, which lists an extensive series of requirements for the information that a targeted equipment interference warrant should contain. I will not go through them exhaustively, Ms Dorries, because that would please neither you nor other Committee members. Suffice it to say that such a warrant should contain details of the purpose and background of the application, be descriptive and clearly identify individuals where that can be done. Those requirements also necessitate an explanation of why equipment interference is regarded as essential and refer to conduct in respect of the exercise of such powers, collateral intrusion, and so on. They are pertinent to the consideration of the clause.

There is always, as I predicted there would be in this case, a debate in Committee about what is put in the Bill and what is put in the supporting material. As you will be familiar with, Ms Dorries, having been involved in all kinds of Committees over time, Oppositions usually want more in Bills and Governments usually want more flexibility. Perhaps that is the nature of the tension between government and opposition. I have no doubt that were the Labour party ever to return to Government, the roles would be reversed; we would be the ones saying, “More in the Bill,” and that Labour Government would probably be arguing for more flexibility. The truth lies somewhere between the two: of course it is important to ensure that there is sufficient in the Bill both to ensure straightforward legal interpretation and to cement the safeguards and protections for which the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly calls, but in achieving those ends one must always be careful that specificity does not metamorphose into rigidity. Where we are dealing with highly dynamic circumstances, changing technology and, therefore, changing needs on the part of the agencies and others, rigidity is a particular worry.

In the Bill as a whole, and in this part of the Bill, we have tried to provide sufficient detail to provide transparency, navigability and a degree of resilience to legal challenge while simultaneously providing the flexibility that is necessary in the changing landscape. That is why the codes of practice matter so much, particularly in respect of this clause and these amendments, and it is why the codes of practice have changed in the light of the consideration of the Joint Committee of both Houses, and others. It is also why I predict—I put it no less strongly than that—that the codes of practice will change again as a result of the commentary that we have already enjoyed in Committee and will continue to provide over the coming days.

The need for equipment interference could not be more significant, and I will explain what it comprises. Equipment interference is a set of techniques used to obtain a variety of data from equipment that includes traditional computers, computer-like devices—such as tablets, smartphones, cables, wires—and static storage devices. Interference can be carried out remotely or by physically interacting with the equipment. Although equipment interference is increasingly important for the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, it is not new. Law enforcement agencies have been conducting equipment interference for many years, and I described the legislative basis for that in response to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West. It is probably fair to say that equipment interference is likely to become still more important as a result of the effect that changes in technology are having on other capabilities. I do not want to overstate this, but encryption, for example, is likely to make equipment interference more significant over time.

I will amplify the clarity with which I delivered my advice to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras. Warrants cannot be issued without specifying what information is being sought, and on that basis it is hard to see why clause 88 should be amended. Chapter 4 of the code of practice states:

“An application for a targeted equipment interference warrant should contain… A general description of any communications, equipment data or other information that is to be (or may be) obtained”.

Together, the provisions provide the issuing authority with the information it needs to assess an application and with the power to constrain the authorised interference as it sees fit on a case-by-case basis. Amendment 382 would extend the requirement to obtain a targeted examination warrant to circumstances where the agencies need to select for examination the equipment data and non-private information of an individual who is known to be in the British islands. I tend to agree with the argument made by the hon. Member for City of Chester in an earlier sitting of the Committee that it is right that there are particular provisions for UK citizens in what we do in this Bill, rather than with the argument made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West.

[Keir Starmer]

I just want to clarify my concern, because I think the Minister just said, “UK citizens”. I understand that the distinction is made between UK citizens and others. My concern about this provision is that, whether someone is a citizen or not, if they are physically outside of the British Isles they fall outside the protection. That has been my driving concern, or one of my driving concerns, here. There may be a good reason for this and there may be a longer explanation for it, but I was surprised to see in the Bill that the protection was not to British citizens or to some other description of people with the right of residence in this country, but in fact depends on whether someone is physically in the country or not. On my understanding, I lose the protection that is provided by this Bill in this and other provisions if I go to France for a short period of time.

[Mr Hayes]

To be fair to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Bill refers to people within “the British Islands”, so he is right, and there are very good reasons why enhanced safeguards should apply for the content of people in the UK. As he implied, we explored these issues in an earlier part of the debate.

I will conclude, but I want to do so on the basis of clarifying this matter, too. The subsection that the hon. and learned Gentleman described earlier makes it clear that when a warrant for equipment interference is used to examine a phone, the police can look at all data on the phone, including text messages, but not in real time. I wonder whether there has been a misunderstanding or misapprehension about this issue—either a mis- understanding about the meaning or misapprehension about the purpose.

I repeat this solely for the sake of convincing the hon. and learned Gentleman and others that we are doing the right thing. These are important powers with stronger safeguards with absolute determination to be clear about legal purpose; they can only be used when necessary and can only be used lawfully. They are fundamentally not new but a confirmation of what is already vital to our national interest and to the common good.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the Minister for taking us through in some detail how the clause is intended to work with the code of practice. I reiterate my point that the essential safeguards should be in the Bill. Amendments 381 and 382 would not delete the provisions in clause 88; they would tighten the provisions in clause 88, and I intend to push both of them to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Meaning of “equipment data”

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 384, in clause 89, page 68, line 13, leave out from “information” to end of line 15.

This amendment acknowledges that “data” relating to the fact of a communication or the existence of information has meaning and must not be exempt from privacy protections afforded to other categories of data.

This amendment deletes the words

“or from any data relating to that fact”.

It is important because an equipment interference warrant can permit interference with equipment data, as in clause 88(2)(b). As we have seen, clause 88(9) makes provision for protected material, the definition of which includes equipment data. Over the page, clause 89 deals with the meaning of “equipment data”:

“(a) systems data;

(b) data which falls within subsection (2).”

Subsection (2), broadly speaking, refers to systems data as identifying data that are included in, attached to or associated with a communication but that can be separated from it and that, if separated,

“would not reveal anything of what might reasonably be considered to be the meaning (if any) of the communication”.

That is a logical way of approaching it—data linked to a communication that can be separated from it, but if separated, they would not reveal the meaning of the communication. Thus, it does not undermine the special protection given to the communication.

Then the final part of clause 89(2), paragraph (c), says

“disregarding any meaning arising from the fact of the communication”.

As has been said today, the fact of the communication, in many respects, can be as revealing as the content. However, the provision goes on to say

“or from any data relating to that fact”,

which broadens even further the exclusion from protection intended for communications.

In that way, the clause undermines the very protection being given to communications, so this short amendment would omit the words that I have indicated, in order to limit the exclusion from protection for the communication.

[Joanna Cherry]

May I add my supportive comments? This is a joint amendment from the Labour party and the Scottish National party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

All these disruptions and delays are adding interest and variety to our affairs. There is a straightforward argument for why the amendment is unnecessary, which I will make. If that is insufficient to persuade the Committee, I will add further thoughts.

The straightforward reason why the amendment is unnecessary is that it would undermine the principle that the most robust privacy protections should apply to the most intrusive kinds of data. I simply do not agree with the hon. and learned Lady that, for example, systems data—the highly technical data that will be separated out as a result of the endeavours in this part of the Bill—are better excluded from those extra protections. The unintended consequence of the amendment—at least, I hope it is unintended—is that it would lead to disproportionate access requirements for less intrusive data. That would be unhelpful and could, through confusion, hamper the work of the services.

[Keir Starmer]

I want to be clear as to how clause 89 operates, because subsection (2) suggests it is an attempt to identify data associated with a communication that can be separated from the communication, but which, if separated, would not touch on the meaning of the communication, thereby protecting it. That is all good. That is a safeguard, which is supported and welcome, but after the comma, as I read it, disregarded from that protection is everything that follows on. At the moment, I do not follow how the amendment removes protection, because the last bit of clause 89(2)(c) after the comma disregards from the protection and thus leaves unprotected from the scheme of clause 89

“the fact of the communication or the existence of the item of information or from any data relating to that fact.”

If I am wrong about that, there is a problem with the amendment, but I understand that part of clause 89(2)(c) to detract from the protection that the subsection is otherwise intending to put in place.

[Mr Hayes]

Let me see if I can deal with that question specifically. Equipment data include identifying data. Most communications and items of information will contain information that identifies individuals, apparatus, systems and services, or events and sometimes the location of those individuals or events. Those data are operationally critical to the agencies, as the hon. and learned Gentleman understands. In most cases that information will form part of the systems data, but there will be cases where it does not.

The work that has been done to separate out and define data has been carefully designed to categorise logically the range of data generated by modern communications. Identifying data are operationally critical. It is important to be able to classify data correctly and coherently throughout the Bill. My assertion, therefore, drawing on the hon. and learned Gentleman’s question, is that the amendment would inhibit though not prevent that by making the distinction less clear.

We can talk at length if necessary, although I suspect that at this juncture it is not necessary, about inferred meaning and its importance and relevance here. Misunderstanding frequently arises on inference, but I do not think that that is critical to this particular part of our discussion. My case is that the work we have done in better categorising the difference between the kinds of data assists the application of this part of the Bill, and assists the agencies accordingly. As I said, the amendment, perversely, would afford to those bits of technical data, for example, the same protection that is deliberately granted to more sensitive data under the Bill.

I do not like to do this on every amendment, or we would drown in a sea of paper, but as I write to the Committee regularly, if it would be helpful to cement that point in my next letter, I will happily do so. I am, however, confident that what I have said to the Committee is an accurate reflection of the work that I have described and of the content of the Bill.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the Minister, first for spelling out in detail the intended operation of the clause and, secondly, for indicating his willingness to write on the matter. This is something that ought to be in the Bill. My clear reading is that the amendment would not ring-fence anything from examination; it would simply require a warrant under clause 88 if equipment data, having satisfied all the other provisions under subsection (2)(a) to (c), included anything where there was a meaning arising from fact communication and so on. I will therefore press the amendment to a vote.

[Joanna Cherry]

I have nothing to add in support.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Subject-matter of warrants

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 385, in clause 90, page 68, line 24, leave out paragraph (b)

This amendment, and others to Clause 90, refine the matters to which targeted equipment interference warrants may relate by removing vague and broad categories including “equipment interference for training purposes”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 386, in clause 90, page 68, line 33, leave out paragraph (f).

Amendment 387, in clause 90, page 68, line 35, leave out paragraph (g).

Amendment 388, in clause 90, page 68, line 38, leave out paragraph (h).

Amendment 456, in clause 90, page 68, line 44, leave out subsection (2)(b).

Amendment 391, in clause 90, page 69, line 1, leave out paragraph (d).

Amendment 392, in clause 90, page 69, line 3, leave out paragraph (e).

Amendment 265, in clause 101, page 78, leave out lines 21 to 27.

Amendment 272, in clause 101, page 79, leave out lines 3 to 7.

Amendment 273, in clause 101, page 79, leave out lines 8 to 12.

Amendment 274, in clause 101, page 79, leave out lines 13 to 18.

Amendment 457, in clause 101, page 79, leave out lines 31 to 36.

Amendment 279, in clause 101, page 80, leave out lines 3 to 7.

Amendment 280, in clause 101, page 80, leave out lines 8 to 12.

[Keir Starmer]

We move to a different topic within the same general subject matter of thematic warrants.

Clause 90(1) sets out that a

“targeted equipment interference warrant may relate to”

and thereafter follows a long list from paragraph (a) to paragraph (h). Paragraph (a) specifies

“equipment belonging to, used by or in the possession of a particular person or organisation”.

Paragraph (b) deals with groups or those

“who share a common purpose or who carry on…a particular activity”.

Paragraph (c) deals with equipment

“in the possession of more than one person or organisation, where the interference is for the purpose of a single investigation or operation”.

Paragraph (d) deals with

“equipment in a particular location”.

And on it goes. In other words, the clause allows a very broad range of matters to be included in what is intended to be a targeted equipment interference warrant.

The evidence from the independent reviewer, David Anderson, was, in essence, that clause 90, or its forerunner, was so wide that he thought it was difficult to suggest anything that could not be included in a thematic targeted interference warrant. That gives rise to the suggestion that, in truth, this is a disguised bulk power. It is called a targeted equipment interference warrant, but it is so wide as to be tantamount to a bulk power. In so far as this sort of interference has been carried out in the past, it has been carried out under provisions of this sort rather than any bulk provision. It is an extremely wide and permissive thematic warrant that allows interference with equipment in a very wide range of circumstances, which of course includes monitoring, observing, listening to and so on. It is far too wide.

Amendments 385 and 386 are intended to cut out part of the wide thematic approach in subsection (1). Subsection (2) deals with a targeted examination warrant, and again there is a wide range of matters that the warrant may relate to, including

“a particular person or organisation…a group of persons”

and so on. As far as subsection (2) is concerned, the examination warrant is to operate in conjunction with or following on from a bulk warrant, so subsection (2) indicates the matters to which such a targeted warrant may relate, notwithstanding the wide breadth of the bulk warrant.

The powers are far too wide and they need to be better specified. The amendments are intended to draw in and narrow the scope of the thematic warrants, because otherwise it is hard to resist David Anderson’s conclusion that it is hard to think what would not be included in one or other of the descriptions I have outlined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

One of the stated purposes of the Bill is to bring together those powers—to cement them and to put in place extra clarification and further safeguards. I have argued throughout that the essence of the Bill is delivering clarity and certainty. I would accept the hon. and learned Lady’s point if she was arguing that, at the moment, the agencies draw on a range of legal bases for what they do, for that is a simple statement of fact. We are all engaged in the business of perfecting the Bill, because we know it is right that these powers are contained in one place, creating greater transparency and greater navigability, and making legislation more comprehensible and more resistant to challenge. That is at the heart of our mission.

I said I would talk about breadth. The breadth of the circumstances in which equipment interference could be used reflects the fact that, at the time of making an application for a warrant, the information initially known about a subject of interest may vary considerably. Last week, we spoke about the kind of case in which there may be an unfolding series of events, such as a kidnapping, where a limited amount might be known at the outset when a warrant is applied for. The warrant’s purpose will be to gather sufficient information as to build up a picture of a network of people involved in a gang or an organised crime. That is very common and I intend to offer some worked examples in a number of areas.

Identifying members of such a gang can often come from interception arising from a thematic warrant. That might apply to interception, but frankly it might also apply to equipment interference where that is a more appropriate and more effective means of finding the information. Another example may be a group of people involved in child sexual exploitation. Frequently, partial information will allow for further exploration of a network of people who are communicating over a wide area, and who are careful about how they communicate, mindful of the activity that they are involved in. They will not be easy to discover or find, as they will very often disguise their identity. For that reason, it may be necessary to start by looking at sites commonly used to share indecent images of children and from there uncover information that leads, through the use of equipment interference, to those who are driving that unhappy practice. Those examples are not merely matters of theory; they are matters of fact. I know that in cases of kidnapping and in cases of child sexual exploitation, those techniques have been used and continue to be used.

[Keir Starmer]

I understand the point the Minister is making and the need for these powers to be practical and effective in real time. He says that they are not theoretical but real, and I absolutely accept that, but David Anderson is someone who will have appreciated that more than many others. He has been working in this field and dealing with those issues for many years. He is hardly likely to make the mistake of theorising about something that he knows about in great detail in the practical examination, so is he just plain wrong when he raises this concern? He has raised it not just once, but on a number of occasions, in detail, and he knows how these things work.

[Mr Hayes]

I will return to that point because it is important and fair, and I will return to the Anderson critique in a moment, but before I do so, I want to be clear about the second thing that I said I would speak about—speed.

The kind of cases that I have outlined can move rapidly. The information that becomes available from the kind of initial inquiries that I have described, when the character or names of individual actors may not be known but will become known through these techniques, may require law enforcement agencies to act very quickly to avert further serious crime. Owing to the need for speed, it is vital that those missioned to protect us are able to exercise all the powers when they need to, with confidence and lawfully. The Anderson critique is why the codes of practice limit specifically how thematic warrants can be used. I draw the Committee’s attention to page 25 of the draft code of practice, which deals with such warrants and defines again, in some detail, exactly how they should be as specific as possible, given the breadth and speed requirements that I have set out.

I hear what is said about the David Anderson criticism. I think that we have gone further in being specific in the code of practice than we might have been expected to by our critics, but, rather as I said in relation to our consideration of an earlier group of amendments on warranting, I do not want to inhibit what is currently done; I do not want the Bill to leave the agencies and law enforcement with fewer powers; I do not want to leave them emasculated as a result of our consideration. It is right that we should have safeguards, definition, constraints and, where necessary, specificity, but these powers are vital to protect us from those who want to exploit our children and do us harm. Criminals are increasingly adaptable and sophisticated, rather like terrorists. We must outmatch them at every turn and I believe that those powers are vital for us to be able to do so. So I am unapologetic about making the case for them to the Committee and to Parliament.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out his case in that way. To be clear, particularly in relation to his last point, I do not think that anyone is suggesting that those powers should not be available. The discussion is about whether they are rightly described as thematic warrants or whether they are, in truth, bulk warrants, which operate in different ways and have different safeguards, procedures and processes to go through. I do not want our challenging and probing to be portrayed as somehow to undermine the work that has to be done by law enforcement and others in real time, often in difficult circumstances.

That said, this is an important issue. I have listened to what has been said and I want to preserve the position. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 389, in clause 90, page 68, line 40, at end insert—

“(1A) A targeted equipment interference warrant may only be issued in relation to any of the matters that fall under subsection (1) if the persons, organisations or location to which the warrant relates are named or otherwise identified.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 458, in clause 90, page 69, line 4, at end insert—

“(2A) A targeted examination warrant may only be issued in relation to any of the matters that fall under subsection (2) if the persons, organisations or location to which the warrant relates are named or otherwise identified.”

Amendment 266, in clause 101, page 78, line 18, leave out

“or a description of the person or organisation”

and insert

“or another identifier of the person or organisation”.

Amendment 474, in clause 101, page 78, line 27, leave out

“or a description of, as many of the persons or organisations as it is reasonably practicable to name or describe”

and insert

“or another identifier of, each person or organisation”.

Amendment 473, in clause 101, page 78, line 28, at beginning insert “The name and”.

Amendment 268, in clause 101, page 78, line 31, leave out

“or a description of, as many of the persons or organisations as it is reasonably practicable to name or describe”

and insert

“or another identifier of, each person or organisation”.

Amendment 269, in clause 101, page 78, line 36, leave out “description” and insert “specification”.

Amendment 270, in clause 101, page 78, line 38, at beginning insert “The name and”.

Amendment 271, in clause 101, page 78, line 40, leave out

“a description of as many of the locations as it is reasonably practicable to describe”

and insert “specification of each location”.

Amendment 276, in clause 101, page 79, line 29, leave out

“or a description of the person or organisation”

and insert

“or another identifier of the person or organisation”.

Amendment 278, in clause 101, page 79, line 40, leave out

“or a description of, as many of the persons or organisations as it is reasonably practicable to name or describe”

and insert

“or another identifier of, each person or organisation”.

[Keir Starmer]

Ms Dorries, you have been indulgent in allowing me to trespass on the territory of some of these amendments in my general remarks on the clause. That probably applies to the Minister in reply as well. In those circumstances, it is not necessary for me to say any more about this group.

[Mr Hayes]

I have little to add, except to reassure the hon. and learned Lady and the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has looked at this issue and supported the use of targeted thematic warrants. The Bill strengthens the safeguards.

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91

Power to issue warrants to intelligence services: the Secretary of State

[Keir Starmer]

I rise to speak to amendment 395.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendments 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 468, 469, 470, 403, 404, 407, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291 and 292.

[Keir Starmer]

The clause deals with the power to issue warrants to the intelligence services. Subsections (1) and (2) deal with targeted equipment interference warrants, and subsections (3) and (4) deal with targeted examination warrants.

We have two concerns. First, although the test of necessity and proportionality is spelled out in the clause—in particular, in subsections (1)(a) and (b) and (3)(a) and (b)—the objective and aims to which the test of necessity and proportionality are attached, which are set out in subsection (5), are broad in the extreme. They are

“national security…preventing or detecting serious crime”

and our old friend,

“the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”.

We have concerns about the breadth of those powers. Examination warrants obviously allow the examination of the material as well as its interception, and they go with the bulk power.

The first batch of amendments is intended to put some rigour and independence into the scheme by replacing the Secretary of State with the judicial commissioner. We have been over this territory in depth once and in summary form at least once again. I am not sure anybody is going to benefit, and they certainly will not welcome, my going over it at great length again—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] The amendments would replace the Secretary of State with the judicial commissioner for the same reasons that I advanced a week ago today at a not dissimilar hour. I will not say more than that. In light of our discussion last week and the fact that I withdrew my amendments in relation to the scheme, I will not move these amendments; they are probing.

[The Chair]

Amendment not moved.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Simon Kirby.)