Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill

House of Commons, 26 July 2000.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 19, 86, 88 and 97. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you enlighten me as to the first set of amendments? I tabled an amendment relating to communications data and I would like to speak on the subject, but I seem to have lost track of the process. Have we gone past the debate on communications data?

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

No, it is just about to start. However, I understand that the hon. Gentleman's amendment has not been selected.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise to ask your guidance on how to draw a certain matter to the attention of the House. About a week ago, when we debated the Care Standards Bill, I raised with the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), the fact that provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill conflict with that Bill. Afterwards, the Minister kindly told me that the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), would write to me on the issue. The Home Office Minister is now present and I spoke to him earlier today, but I have yet to receive his letter. I therefore wish to draw the House's attention to the fact that, this evening, it might pass a piece of legislation that will make another one illegal. Will you rule on how to deal with that issue?

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Sometimes, one has to pester Ministers—and be very persistent.

MEANING AND LOCATION OF "INTERCEPTION" ETC

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

First, I shall respond to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). He has pestered me most energetically, starting about 11 minutes ago. I told him that I was prepared to write to him. He raised the issue when we were considering the Care Standards Bill. The Minister of State, Department of Health discussed the matter with me. I told him that there was no conflict between the Bill and the Care Standards Bill. On that basis, my hon. Friend gave that assurance to the House. The hon. Member for South Dorset is right, in that I told my hon. Friend the Minister that I would write to the hon. Gentleman to explain precisely why there was no conflict. I will do that. I have not been pestered and pestering should not have been needed, until a few moments ago. Being pestered as I am now, I will respond in the appropriate way. The definition of communications data to which the amendments refer has been the subject of a great deal of important attention. We discussed it first in Committee. Principally, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) raised important points about whether communications data were more or less intrusive, as a concept of intruding on people's freedom and knowledge, than other forms of surveillance, which were involved in the Bill. It has been a positive and helpful debate. In supporting the amendments and in working with both Opposition parties in the other place, we wished to secure the maximum possible agreement and to go forward with a Bill that we can all agree represents the right way of proceeding. I shall not repeat the point, certainly not this evening. I place on record the fact that we appreciate the efforts of Lord Cope of Berkeley, Lord McNally and Opposition Members in this place in seeking to reach an agreement on where we should go. I appreciate the efforts made by many organisations, in business and elsewhere, which were keen to try to improve the Bill in a variety of ways. The amendments on these clauses and those in other groups that we shall discuss this evening are the product of a positive process of trying to seek agreement and improve the Bill in a generally constructive way. It is appropriate to pay tribute to those who have been involved in that process. The purpose of this group of amendments is to draw the definition of communications data in the Bill tightly enough to exclude the possibility that the contents of the communication could be assessed. We all understand that when reading telephone bills it is possible to find where the calls go. Everybody was concerned to ensure that the content of, for example, a webpage or whatever should not be caught by the Bill. We were ready to deal with that, so the new definitions set out in the amendments satisfy, we believe, three areas of concern. They include in what manner and by what method a person communicates with another person or machine. They exclude what they say or what data they pass on once the connection has been established—for example, the content of communications. Importantly, they still allow for dial-through fraud to be properly investigated. Redrafting the definition has been a complicated process, and so it may assist the House if I explain briefly what each part of the new definition as set out in amendments Nos. 3 and 24 is designed to achieve. First, paragraph (a) covers subscriber information. Paragraph (b) covers routing information. Paragraph (c) is designed to address dial-through fraud. Paragraph (d) catches the data which are found at the beginning of each packet in a packet-switched network, which indicates which communications data attach to which communication. The tailpiece to the new definition puts it beyond any doubt that, in relation to internet communications, traffic data stop at the apparatus within which files or programmes are stored, so that traffic data may identify a server but not a website or page. Amendment No. 31 adds the Inland Revenue as a public authority that may be allowed to seek access to communications data under clause 24. We decided, with the agreement of others, to put that in the Bill in response to the recommendations of Lord Grabiner, to deal with the black economy in a way which I think most people consider positive and effective. The Bill makes provision for orders that may add to the purposes for which communication data can be accessed, and similarly add to the list of those public authorities that may access such data. Amendments Nos. 27 and 32 ensure that these order-making powers are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We need these order-making powers to take account of changing circumstances. We think it important to understand that the process is changing. We need order-making powers, and we accept that they should be affirmative subject to the resolution procedure. We discussed this complicated and difficult area of the Bill in great detail in Committee—I put on record the efforts of the hon. Member for Hallam in trying to clarify these matters and develop them—and we believe that the definition of communications data is drawn tightly enough to exclude the possibility of accessing content. On that basis, I hope that the House will agree to accept the amendment.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

We have come a long way since Third Reading in this place. I thank all those organisations and individuals that have been involved in helping the Opposition in the House of Lords and in this place. I refer to bodies such as the Federation of the Electronics Industry, the Alliance for Electronic Business, the Internet Service Providers Association, the London Internet Exchange, the London Investment Banking Association, Justice, Liberty, the Conservative technology forum, Mr. Steven Brine, and the European Informatics Market. I make no apology for listing those organisations and including Mr. Brine. They all have important interests in these matters. They have said from the outset that they support the principle that crimefighters should have the powers that they need and that there should be a proper framework for surveillance and the use of informants. We reached the point on Third Reading in this place where the Government seemed unwilling to move further. The Opposition felt that the Government had not moved far enough. I join the tribute that has been paid to the work done by those in the House of Lords. I refer especially to Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Astor, with their team of Lord Goschen, Lord Northesk and Lord Lucas of Crudwell. The Liberal Democrats were ably led by Lord McNally. I even pay some tribute to Lord Bassam of Brighton, the Labour spokesman, who was forced to listen. When we came to the end of Third Reading, I tabled a written question to the Minister to ascertain what amendments he intended to table in the Lords. He replied to the effect that he expected a very small number of minor and technical amendments. It is a tribute to the way in which matters have changed since the Bill was last in this place that we now have 29 pages of complete rewriting of the sections that most concerned the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. I join in the welcome for these amendments, which deal with the important issue of communications data.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Before I do so, I should say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said at the outset, on Second Reading, that she was concerned at the wide range of information which was covered by the power dealing with communications data. She expressed those difficulties fully. In Committee, we tabled amendments, which dealt with the issue. We tried to limit the power to cases where it was absolutely necessary to provide information and to deal with definitional problems. We failed to make the progress that we should have done on that issue. However, it has been possible in the Lords, as a result of the new co-operation, to tighten the definitions of traffic data and address the issue of dial-through fraud, which had not been fully noted in this place. We therefore welcome the changes. 8 pm At the end of the proceedings in the House of Lords, my noble Friend Lord Cope observed that the Bill had been much improved. Earlier today we heard from Madam Speaker how important it is to scrutinise legislation properly. This is a case in which the two Houses together have achieved a great deal. I have joshed the Minister slightly so far, but I agree with him that, as regards the first groups of amendments, the position is much improved. It is right that the Bill should have passed through the House of Lords, and we accept the burden of the amendments, although we will want to see how the Bill works in practice, we will want to study the codes of practice in detail when they come before the House, and we will want to be sure that any order-making powers are exercised sensitively.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

My hon. Friend kindly read a list of organisations that had helped with the Bill. Will he put it on record that the group from the European Informatics Market group, EURIM, of which I am chairman, was headed by Chris Sundt, who had previously worked for ICL and was brought out of retirement to help? He worked constructively with that group, with the Confederation of British Industry group and with Government officials. I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that Chris Sundt was particularly helpful.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I am happy to do that. I did not list all the names of all the people who helped, but perhaps I should have done. I did not think that the House would want me to do so. Certainly, Chris Sundt of EURIM made a substantial and detailed contribution, as did Philip Virgo, who is with EURIM as well. I could also mention Tom Wills Sandford of the Federation of the Electronics Industry, Caspar Bowden of the Foundation for Information Policy Research, and Tim Baker of the London Investment Bankers Association. I could go on all night, but I shall not.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I make no apology for speaking again on communications data, as I did at various stages in the passage of the Bill through the House. As the Minister knows, I think that the provisions dealing with communications data are born of complacency, are unsatisfactory, and have little regard for the protection of privacy and commercial confidences. Despite the Lords amendments, I believe that the situation remains unsatisfactory. I have no intention of going over issues previously debated, and if I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that you would rule me out of order. However, I seek a simple answer to a simple question, to which the Minister can say yes or no. The question is: can communications data obtained by one body under a notice given to a telecommunications operator be disclosed at a later time to another body for use for another purpose? That should be easy to answer, one way or the other. If the Minister says, "No, communications data cannot ever subsequently be used for purposes other than those originally specified in the notice given to the telecommunications operator," I can stop speaking now. My view is that communications data can be obtained legitimately under the Bill and, at a later stage, the data can be disclosed to another body for another purpose. For example, if such data were obtained by the police, it is possible to see how the data could subsequently be disclosed to the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise, if powers described in some other legislation were exercised by those bodies.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I hope that I can help my hon. Friend, who has been assiduous in pressing this important point. The Data Protection Act 1998 already places restrictions on the use that can be made of personal data. In particular, the second data protection principle states: Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the Bill does not remove or subtract from that principle. There is a national security exemption in the 1998 Act, but the existing law also provides safeguards against the dissemination of information by the intelligence service in relation to the form of special arrangements that must be in place under the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the Bill covers the point that he raises.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I am grateful that the Minister has put that on the record. It is an interesting assurance, which I want to explore. I am not challenging the national security exemption, but let us consider the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, which offer another route for a large number of subsequent disclosures for other purposes. For example, on Second Reading, I raised the matter of communications data being available for council tax purposes. The Minister denied that that would happen. Indeed, I was told in a parliamentary written answer on 10 July that the Data Protection Act places restrictions on the degree to which information may be shared by organisations—the point that the Minister has just made—but that shows that information can, indeed, be shared. My understanding of section 29 of the 1998 Act is that its broad provisions permit a local authority to collect personal data for council tax purposes from any data controller, and that such disclosure of communications data would therefore be consistent with the non-disclosure provisions outlined in section 29(3) of that Act—for instance, if the police decided to disclose communications data to local authorities, where those authorities had shown that failure to disclose would prejudice the collection of council tax. The non-disclosure provisions in clause 27(4)(b), in the circumstances that I described, have the effect of negating the impact of the second principle, contrary to what the Minister said, and most of the other principles as well. I cite again the parliamentary answer that I received recently, in particular the reference to restrictions found in the Data Protection Act 1998. I am at a loss to understand what those restrictions are, if the effect of the principles is negated by section 29 of that Act. I do not see what protection the Act offers in these circumstances. Furthermore, I note that on the Home Office's website with respect to the Bill, Customs and Excise confirms that it obtains communications data 18, 000 times per quarter under the current arrangements. That represents 72, 000 notices a year under the Bill. I am not sure of the final number for all the self-authorising officials, but if we take into account the fact that communications data will be obtained by the Inland Revenue, more than 50 police forces, 400 local authorities and their benefits inspectors, the Department of Social Security, MI5, MI6, Government communications headquarters operations and possibly staff of the worthy egg inspectorate, among others, it is clear that we are dealing with half a million authorisation notices a year issued by hundreds of self-authorising officials.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Does my hon. Friend accept that Customs and Excise is involved in that because one of its principal responsibilities is fighting organised crime, particularly organised drug crime? The relationships between the organised criminal networks are a key source of data in that fight. That is why, for Customs and Excise, that level of data collection is extremely important.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I hear that point, but I am not sure that the—

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am explaining why I am not satisfied that the Lords amendments go far enough in respect of communications data I return to the point about the notices from hundreds of self-authorising officials. How on earth will such a rate of communications data obtaining be supervised by an overworked interception commissioner, presumably with just a handful of staff? Is he going to say, "Hey, Bob, can you look at this batch of 100,000 self-authorisations before lunch?" How can we expect the commissioner to supervise the hundreds of self-authorising officials, and hundreds of thousands of different acts of obtaining information?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the egg inspectorate as an example. Is he not worried about the new schedule, which does more than name a few other specific sub-departments in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Department of Health? Under the schedule, the relevant authority would be the whole Ministry or Department involved, and all its officials, who would then have a power that they did not have before.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, who may want to expand on it later. The problem is especially acute if self-authorising officials are later able to pass communications data to another body without anyone's knowledge. I have described how the later disclosures are not expressed in the notice given to a telecommunications operator.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

The officials cannot do that.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

But they can pray in aid other legislation to get data from those who collected it originally. It follows that the interception commissioner examining the authorisation process would not know about such subsequent disclosures either, for the simple reason that they would not appear on the notice in the first place. To put it bluntly, the authorisation mechanism and other protections under chapter II of the Bill could be reduced to a meaningless sham if no record of subsequent disclosures is kept as part of the authorisation process. I am not satisfied with the concessions made in the Lords. My hon. Friend said that the Data Protection Act 1988 was a protection. He repeats that as a mantra, but detailed examination reveals that the protection offered is not very strong. I suspect that it could be overridden easily: information could then be transferred and data used for purposes other than those specified when collected. The interception of communications commissioner would have little power to prevent that transfer of information; in fact he would have little knowledge of it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister about the need to tackle organised crime, but at the beginning of our deliberations on the Bill he said that it was about striking a balance between what is public and what is private. That has not been properly achieved in respect of communications data. It is sad that the Bill does not contain the necessary safeguards in respect of the subsequent disclosure of communications data to a body not described on the original notice. I am disappointed by the Lords amendments. My hon. Friend the Minister does not seem to have been fully advised about what the Data Protection Act 1988 would protect.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Liberal Democrat Members are pleased with the Lords amendments, which are precisely what we hoped would be agreed in the other place. I remind the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said on Third Reading that we anticipated further amendments. The Minister was kind enough to say that I raised in Committee the key point covered by the amendments. The Hansard record shows that the Minister did his best to defend the Bill, but at the time I felt that he was listening to our arguments. I had every confidence that he would think about them and perhaps that he would seek to amend the Bill. We are pleased that that is what happened. The amendments deal with the problem that communications data in the historical sense were not appropriate to be covered by the Bill. An example of such data might be the records on a telephone bill of calls made. The amendments' adoption of the term "traffic data" is welcome, but the change is more than cosmetic. It extends the definition to include matters appropriate to the internet, and it goes beyond the older forms of telecommunication, which merely involve voice calls between specific numbers. The phrase "big browser is watching you" has been used to encapsulate the concerns that have been raised about the Bill's effect on browsing among internet websites, and the extent to which communications data could bleed into that activity. We are pleased with Lord Bassam's specific assurance on the matter, when he said that the amendments ensure that the definition cannot be interpreted to include any content of communication or interaction with websites.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 2000; Vol. 615, c. 257.] That is a very important and welcome change. We will need to see the codes of practice, and more work will have to be done to verify Lord Bassam's statement, but Ministers in both Houses have made clear the intention behind the amendments, and that is reassuring. 8.15 pm My noble Friend Lord McNally said in another place that the new amendments offered a definition that we could live with. We do not intend to reduce our scrutiny of the application of the new definition of "traffic data", or of any codes of practice or regulations that are introduced, but we consider that we can live with the new definition. The Internet and e-commerce communities had been worried that the Bill would be so intrusive that it would damage this country's business interests, as well as the right to personal privacy that everyone expects to enjoy. We accept that that enjoyment must recognise the reasonable limits imposed by the need to deal with serious crime and national security. We are pleased with the amendments. I am grateful for the Minister's kind words about the work that has been done by Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members in this House, and by Members of the House of Lords. My noble Friends Lords McNally and Phillips of Sudbury have been especially active, as have the Conservative peers with whom they have worked and to whom I also pay tribute. That was a good example of how to work together on complex and detailed matters. There is no need to go into detail about the amendments. We will look at the codes of practice when they are published, but we now have a definition of "traffic data" that we can live with. The previous definition, of "communications data", would have been too intrusive, and not proportional to the safeguards covering matters of lesser security. It is quite proper that the interception of communications should require more stringent safeguards in terms of authorisation, and of those who can take out warrants for that purpose. The amendments have general cross-party support. We welcome them, and hope that the House agrees to them.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I shall be brief. Conservative Members are pleased that the Government eventually listened to criticism of the Bill and introduced these amendments. We are also pleased with the level of co-operation extended by the Home Office. We warned at the outset of our proceedings about the effect of the Bill's provisions in respect of telecommunications. The Department of Trade and Industry washed its hands of the Bill, as did Oftel when it was confronted with the provisions relating to interception of communications. The Home Office was left to rescue the Bill on its own, and Ministers and their officials have done their best. However, although I do not want to seem mealy mouthed, the latest briefing that I have received from FIPR describes the Bill as being technically inept: ineffective against criminals while undermining the privacy, safety and security interests of honest citizens and businesses. I will not go through that briefing. It is very long, but it does reveal the holes in the Bill. I will not even be tempted to read out some of the examples of possible complications that have been sent to me. I understand that the Government are attempting to deal with difficult issues. The Human Rights Act 1998 precludes authorities from looking at various matters, while complicated regulations allow the Government, according to certain criteria set down in law, to overturn what is supposedly a basic human right. That difficulty is a result of human rights legislation overturning quite sensible regulations that the Government would want to introduce for the safety of individuals while ensuring that we find out about crimes that are being committed. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that we must look at the way in which the regulations will be introduced. As for the amendments on the cost of introducing the legislation, I do not want Her Majesty's Government to spend my taxpayers' money in dealing with matters that can be bypassed so simply. We want a simple set of regulations. We need to ensure that when a criminal is investigated, there are no loopholes—which the Bill and the amendments could well provide—that could allow a clever lawyer to say that under subsection so and so, somebody did not put the right tick in the right box at the right time. In that way, although everyone can see that someone is guilty of a crime, all the evidence that had been collected would be thrown out. The Minister has clearly tried to do a workmanlike job. I do not blame him for being left with this mess to sort out, but unless the measure provides a simplified, cost-effective way of dealing with this issue that will make it easier for the police services and others that have a role in such investigations, I am afraid that we will be coming back in a year or so to try and untie this Gordian knot.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

First, I think that there is a misunderstanding between my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) and me. I believe that the safeguards in the Bill are sufficient to cover the points that he makes. I am happy to continue discussing this point with him, but I think that it is dealt with in the Bill. Secondly, I do not accept that the comments quoted by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) that the Bill is technically inept, ineffective against criminals, and so on. We have made it clear from the outset that law enforcement faces a number of serious technical challenges as a result of technological innovation. It is also a simple and important fact that criminals need to communicate. That is particularly true in the case of organised crime involved in trafficking drugs and people. This power is therefore very important in contesting those criminal organisations. Thirdly, and very importantly, interception powers are carefully targeted—that is what the Bill is all about. We are very keen, and have been throughout the Bill's passage, to work not only with the Opposition but also with industry. We do not want a breakdown of trust or confidence. However, I do not accept the comments of the Foundation for Information Policy Research quoted by the hon. Member for South Dorset. I would not have responded to this debate except to say that, but I cannot let his remarks stand on the record unchallenged. I accept the genuine feeling with which he said that we had tried to address the point, but not the views of the Foundation for Information Policy Research. We also do not accept that we can do nothing in the face of criminal organisations which work in this way—we must try and deal with the problem. I hope that the House will agree with the Lords amendments.

MAINTENANCE OF INTERCEPTION CAPABILITY

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am afraid that I need to give slightly more time to this debate, as it reflected a very serious discussion in the other place. I need to explain why these amendments are before the House. The purpose of amendment No. 12 is to clarify those commercial and other organisations that provide a telecommunications service as a means of accessing a further service of theirs will not be subject to any order under clause 12. For example, a bank may decide that it will offer a telecommunications service to its customers as a means of providing access to its banking service. As a result, customers can communicate with that bank. Where such a service is provided, the amendment will exclude its provider from any obligations that might otherwise be imposed under clause 12 to develop or maintain an interception capability. That measure was in response to the submissions made to us as we considered the issue. The amendment also puts outside the scope of clause 12 a telecommunications service that is necessarily incidental to a different service. Amendment No. 15 is the outcome of our consideration of how best to ensure that the interception commissioner and his staff are able effectively to scrutinise any interception equipment designed and maintained in obedience to a notice served under clause 12. Amendment No. 15 will mean that notices served on an Internet service provider will specify what should be done to provide the commissioner with reliable and verifiable technical means of fulfilling his duties. It also applies to any orders made under clause 12. Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 16 and consequential amendment No. 125 deal with a technical advisory hoard. Whether to set up a statutory body such as a technical advisory or approvals board has been much discussed not only in both Houses of Parliament but within Government and between Government and industry. Opinions have differed as to whether such a body was necessary, whether it should be a statutory body, whether it should have an advisory role or be an approvals board as originally suggested, what its composition should be and what its remit should cover. We consider that the amendments, which have been accepted in another place and are before us for consideration are a sensible and reasoned compromise as a result of all the discussions and debates that this issue has engendered. I hope and believe that they will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly as they were jointly tabled by all parties in the other place. The amendments achieve the following: first, they set up in statute a technical advisory board. Secondly, they introduce an element of flexibility as to the constitution and membership of that board. That is important, as we live in a rapidly changing environment. Thirdly, they clarify the function of the board when considering a notice that has been referred to it. Fourthly, they provide that a notice is effectively suspended pending consideration by the board. Finally, they make it clear what may happen when a reference is made. I know that the membership of the board is an important issue. The current intention is that it will consist of representatives from industry and the agencies. There have been suggestions that membership of the board should extend beyond those of the communications industry and law enforcement. I am not entirely convinced that that would be appropriate. However, the order-making power proposed in amendment No. 16 allows for some flexibility in this area and thus allows us to look at the situation as it proceeds. On costs and clause 13, which are dealt with by amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 relating to the drafting of clause 13, prior to these amendments, the obligation on the Secretary of State under subsection (3) was stronger than the discretion under subsection (1). The effect of those amendments will be to introduce an obligation under subsection (1). Since both subsections now impose an obligation to pay contributions or to ensure that contributions are paid, it is right that they should now be wrapped up into a single duty. 8.30 pm Amendment No. 18 describes the "arrangements" to ensure that contributions will be paid, since that will allow other means of payment than direct payment from the Home Office. For example, contributions to the marginal costs for telephone interception may well come from the National Criminal Intelligence Service. However, the issues for which payments can be made, which are listed in subsection (2), remain unchanged. Amendment No. 19 removes subsection (3) to make way for amendment No. 18. Amendment No. 17 specifies that considerations of "fairness", rather than "appropriateness" as previously drafted, should be taken into account when considering the particular circumstances of the case in question. In other words, particular notice should be taken of the circumstances of the service provider on whom the obligation is being imposed. I emphasise that point given that every service provider will have to deal with different circumstances. I would expect the particular notice to be taken of those circumstances to include consideration of a wide variety of factors, such as comparisons with international practice, the nature of any additional burden and the size of the company in so far as that may be related to the ability of the company to absorb the burden. I should like to conclude by recognising the legitimacy of the debate during the past few months about the issue of costs, even if at times the figures bandied about in the press by opponents of the Bill bore little resemblance to reality. There were silly and seriously misleading and damaging figures in the media. That was not the Opposition's responsibility, nor even that of those who commissioned the reports that were published if one judges by what they say, but the fact is that those figures distorted the debate in a seriously damaging way, whereas the debate about costs is genuine, and we tried to take it seriously at every juncture in considering the Bill, in the Chamber, in Committee and in bilateral meetings and so on. We have endeavoured to assuage the concerns of industry at every opportunity. It is not now, and has never been, our intention to impose unnecessary burdens on industry in particular or the economy in general. We have absolutely no motive whatever to do that. We believe that the worry that the Bill will cause financial crises for particular companies is unfounded. The Government have not only no intention, but no ability under the Bill, to create such burdens. I am confident that the assurances that we have given in Parliament, together with those amendments, should provide sufficient reassurance that we wish to work with industry at all times—not just in considering the Bill, but during its implementation—to ensure that the regime that we implement enjoys the confidence of all parties concerned. I hope that the House will agree to these Lords amendments.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I shall start with amendment No. 12, as the Minister did. Amendment No. 12 is the result of concerns that commercial organisation have raised about telecommunications services provided to their customers that are incidental to their business, rather than being telecommunications businesses themselves. The Government rightly tabled that necessary amendment in the other place, which supported it, and we support it now. The Minister will recall—as you may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the debates on Report—that there has been something of a battle royal about whether a technical board should exist. We thought it important to reassure business partly because of the procedures that have been adopted in the Bill, which pre-date the current Minister, but which have not been entirely satisfactory. For example, no technical specification of the equipment that could be used for interceptions was obtained at an early stage. It was only in January this year, when the Minister took the matter seriously in hand, that such a request was made to the Smith group. I believe that many fears have been generated by the fact that business has not known what is expected of it. Therefore, we have tried to include confidence-building measures in the intercept capability provisions to make it clear to industry that it is negotiating with the authorities not from a position of entire weakness, but from one where it can have recourse to an independent body if it is dissatisfied with the measures it is asked to take. We are happy with the technical body that is proposed, although it is slightly different from the original proposal. Internet service providers may be served with a notice that requires them to take detailed technical measures to provide an intercept capability. If they think that those measures are disproportionate or that the matter can be dealt with more easily, they can ask for the technical board's view on the matter and have an independent view taken. The Minister was very dismissive when we discussed that matter in Committee. He described such a board as an expensive quango to give technically sensitive information to competitors.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 28 March 2000; c. 206.]

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman may correct me if I am wrong, but I think that, at that time in Committee, he was talking about a technical approvals board. That matter exercised us strongly for the reasons stated in Committee. We are now talking about a technical advisory board, which will have much more power and effect in what he perfectly reasonably seeks to achieve.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Yes, the essential ingredient of both systems is that there should be an independent body to which such cases can be taken. As the Minister will recall, I tabled several amendments, all of which provided different solutions to that problem. One possibility was that people could go to court. Another route was a review by the technical approvals board. I had two or three other ideas, although I have forgotten them.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

They were creative.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for describing them as creative. It is welcome that, in the other place, it has been possible to find a solution that provides business with that extra reassurance. That reassurance is in the Government's interests, as much as it is in those of the industry. It will not now just be a case of the Secretary of State introducing an order and a whole series of black boxes springing up in appropriate parts of the economy; there will be an element of independent advice and the ability to put such cases to the board to find out whether it agrees that what is proposed is right. It has been said that no one in the industry supported the idea of having a technical board. On Report, I read out a list of bodies that supported that idea—they are shown in Hansard. It was made clear to my noble Friend Lord Cope that various bodies supported that idea, including the Internet Service Providers Association, the London Internet Exchange, the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of the Electronics Industries and the Alliance of Electronic Business, and others. That shows that there are sometimes misunderstandings about such issues. However, I welcome the fact that there will be a technical board, but it is a pity that it was necessary to defeat the Government in the other place to achieve that. [Interruption.] The Minister laughs, but that is true. In Committee and on Report, we said that it should be a requirement that the Government shall make a contribution to the costs of Internet service providers who have to provide such facilities. That was strongly resisted until a defeat in the other place. Again, it is good that the Minister now accepts the decision taken in the House of Lords that he shall make a fair contribution. That will build confidence in the industry, which the Government need if they are to implement the legislation effectively. It is good to talk, as the saying goes—[Interruption.] It is good to talk, and we appear to have an amendment with which we may all be content.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

My declaration of interest will probably last longer than my speech, in that I advise the Telecommunications Managers Association and a company, Trevor Gilbert and Associates, which, at the periphery of its business, runs telephone exchanges. Both organisations were concerned that the Bill was originally too widely drawn and that people who work in the field peripherally or those who have large telephone exchanges as part of their normal business might be dragged in. Therefore, I welcome amendment No. 12, which sets that aside. I rose simply to ask the Minister what he expects the Bill to cost. He was right to say that many of the figures bandied about were extraordinarily high. That does not let him off the hook, however, of how much he thinks the Bill will cost and how much he has asked the Chancellor to provide. Out of the £43 billion, has he asked for £500 million, £250 million or £5 billion? How much will the Government have to pay? We should not agree with the Lords amendment until that figure is on the record in Hansard so that we may later measure whether the Minister was correct.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I feared that I would left stranded without my cavalry when we reached the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who knows most about these matters, has had to depart, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who also served on the Committee, had not quite arrived when we began. I have been rescued by his arrival: more than one of us will now deal with the amendments and we have the benefit of some of the expertise that went into the Committee stage. I shall make one preliminary point so that I will not have to make it later. It reflects the words of the Minister and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). The Bill's process in the Lords was a model of intelligent co-operation, and I pay tribute to the Conservative spokesman, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and his colleagues, to the ministerial team, and to my colleagues, Lord McNally and his team. The huge amount of co-operation that occurred is evident in the fact that the technical advisory board proposal came originally from Lord Cope. We worked happily with him to support it as a positive improvement and the Minister has been glad to accept it. When the Bill left the House of Lords, I asked my colleagues what remained for us to do to make the Bill even better. I was told that there were three outstanding matters—overlapping warrants, tipping off and authorisation when the key was converted into plain text. My senior researcher, Steve Bradford, my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam, Lord McNally and I talked to the Clerks, but found, by one of the paradoxes of this place, that those are the very matters on which we were technically unable to table amendments—we can amend only what has been sent to us as Lords amendments. That is why there are no amendments to the Lords amendments, and I am sure that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and his team have been through the same process. I make no complaint, but we are limited to considering only what has been sent back from the Lords, all of which improves the Bill. Amendment No. 12 improves the Bill for the reasons given by the Minister, and amendments Nos. 9, 14 and others will produce a board sufficiently flexible and encouraging to give the industry the confidence that it did not have when the Bill went to the Lords. Even though there may have been some hype from industry—certainly, we all had an avalanche of correspondence from people who saw the Bill as the most draconian and awful piece of legislation—matters have been reappraised and industry has been reassured that the process can be called in so that it may give its expert opinion. The amendments are welcome and make the Bill more satisfactory to industry and commerce. We welcome it.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

All that talk about the cavalry arriving and Lord Cope reminded me of the words of a Jacobite song following the battle of Prestonpans. It seems on this occasion that the English general, Johnny Cope, was wide awake in the morning, got his drums a-beating and got down his amendments on the technical advisory board. Lord Cope seems to have been more successful than his predecessor of more than 200 years ago. One naturally supports the technical advisory board. [Interruption.] Some Labour Members, of Scottish ilk, will appreciate the importance of the battle of Prestonpans. I recall that the technical advisory board was raised in Committee, and I am pleased that, following the normal parliamentary processes, the Government are willing to accept it. It is a good idea and everyone agrees. I make no criticism of the Government for being slightly nervous of the concept in Committee. If a Government accepted every suggestion made in Committee, goodness knows what would be in a Bill by the time we reached the final stages of the parliamentary negotiations. All is as it should be, and the Minister has wisely accepted the amendment. My only small quibble with the technical advisory board is with the view that it should be precisely balanced. It will not be so: the Minister is bound to ensure, using amendment No. 16—"that such other persons"—that he includes a couple of people so that the Government side and the agencies that want warrants will always have a small inbuilt majority in case the industry people become a little troublesome. There should be no need for that. The Government are not making policy, and as the board is merely advisory the Government should not have to ensure that it is stuffed with their people in case other members come up with some crazy idea that the Government do not like. The Government can draw up terms of reference to ensure that the board does not have draconian powers that the Government will not like. They could then pick the best people to serve on the committee, and if nine out of 10, 11 or 12 turn out to work in private industry, so be it. Of course, the Government must have an input to the board via those who seek the warrants, but the bulk of expertise lies beyond Government circles. The Government should not feel that they must have a majority on the technical advisory board, which will not stitch up the Government on a policy that they wish to avoid. My other point relates to clause 13 and the amendments proposed to it. It concerns the cost. I accept that adding the words a fair contribution towards the costs is an improvement on "an appropriate contribution" but what is a fair contribution? Let us say that the Government get cast-iron audited accounts from an internet service provider to prove that it has incurred a total extra cost of £5,000 in the course of the year providing the interception service. That may not be much in the overall scheme of things, but it has been an additional cost and there is no quibble about it. In those circumstances, if a business has had to pay out £5, 000 purely to do something that it would not normally do but that the Government have asked it to, what would be a fair contribution towards the cost? I believe that it would be £5, 000, and if a company had to spend £10, 000 doing what the Government want, the fair contribution would be £10, 000. I appreciate that the Government have not wanted to pick a form of words that would amount to, "We will pay whatever it costs". That would create a difficulty. Some companies would do the gold-plated version and ensure that the Government picked up a heavier tab than necessary. Of course, the Government must reserve the right to say, "No, we are not going to pay every penny in case you try to rip us off. It will be a fair contribution and in most circumstances we anticipate that it may be 100 per cent." I would like to hear a statement from the Minister tonight. No Minister wants to comment on a hypothetical scenario, such as, if I give him a bill for £5, 000, how much of it will he pay—[Interruption.] If I were an internet service provider, I would give him a bill for £5, 000. We need to find out the Government's thinking as to what is a fair contribution in the case of a small provider who proves legitimately that the bill is not a rip off or fiddled, but that his costs were £5, 000. Roughly what percentage would the Government anticipate paying? My final quibble or criticism is that while the amendment deals with a fair contribution towards the running costs, we are still stuck with the old wording in clause 13(3) for the capital costs. Those who are forced to put in equipment or machinery under clause 12—what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) referred to as the "black box"—will be under an obligation to install some equipment that may make interception easier, and will receive only such contributions as the Minister thinks appropriate towards the cost involved. I confess that I did not read the debate on this matter in the other place. I do not know why their lordships did not table a similar amendment there. For the running costs of operating an interception system there will be a fair contribution, but the company will get only what the Minister thinks appropriate for the capital costs incurred. I want to hear the reason for that distinction from the Minister. For example, if a company proves beyond any doubt that the equipment that it has installed cost £50, 000—the bill is not fiddled, the auditors have gone through it and everyone agrees that the additional equipment that the Government have demanded cost X—what amount does he think it would be appropriate to pay? Given those few words, I generally welcome the amendments.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I will try to deal with the questions directly in responding to an interesting discussion, which has been the subject of substantial debate in the media and elsewhere. First, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made an important point when he said that one of the problems was that business was not clear what was expected of it throughout the process. In saying that, I do not think that he was criticising business, Government or anyone else. This is an evolving process and it is difficult to get the expectations right. There is no doubt in my mind that a lack of clarity in that discussion has led, not unreasonably, to fears and concerns being abroad that, although not justified, are understandable. That has certainly been a major influence in persuading the Government to make the changes that we are considering, to ensure that fears and concerns about those aspects could not be inflated wrongly or unreasonably. Perhaps I ought to place it on record that, through the codes-of-practice process and so forth—the subsequent process of implementing the Bill—we are committed to precisely what the hon. Gentleman focused on, which is giving everyone involved absolute clarity about what is expected of them and how to deal with the situation. He was correct in making that point, which was insightful. That problem has been the cause of much of the discussion around the Bill. We have worked extremely hard to deal with it in dialogue and in a variety of ways. Nevertheless, there is still a distance to go. That is the context in which I wish to deal with the arguments about the technical board. As the hon. Gentleman said, we were sceptical about the necessity for setting up a statutory body at the outset, but that was because there was also initial scepticism in industry about the virtue of the consultation process taking place through a statutory body. Many people said at the time that they favoured a non-statutory advisory group rather than a statutory body. We were also seriously sceptical about having technical approvals rather than a technical advisory board, owing to the different functions of the board. Once we were clear that we were talking about an advisory process, there was a lot of discussion on the best form of that process, which was mentioned, quite reasonably, by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. We are content with the arrangement that we are agreeing this evening, but, to be frank, there are alternative formulae that might have been appropriate and with which we would also have been content. The key matter is to establish a flexible structure that can deal with the situation. I take issue with what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said. I accept his point about the inbuilt majority, but I do not think that it will come to that in this body or any other body, for exactly the reason that he gave. The Government will rely profoundly on the private sector's knowledge of the issues. We will do that, as we will need to know. Equally, the private sector will need to know from the Government what we have in mind. The purpose of the structure that we are setting up is to establish a body of dialogue through which we shall reach clarity about such matters and take them forward. A situation in which voting takes place will not arise, and would be a disaster if it did. It would be a poor state of affairs if the Government voted one way and business, whether through a committee, board or any other structure, voted another, so we would work very hard to try to avoid that.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

As the Minister will know, we insisted that there should be a balance between agencies and the involvement of the private sector in the body so that there is not an imbalance that makes it impossible for them to work together effectively as a team. Certainly, our hope is that, over a period, they will work together and understand each other's concerns, which is the key to making the arrangement work. I hope that the Minister agrees that it is important to have a fairly close balance at least.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I completely agree, and was taking issue only with the idea that a couple of votes either way were important. We need the kind of co-operation described by the hon. Gentleman, and are committed to it. As I have said in Committee and on the Floor of the House, a general criticism that I would make of Government, both Conservative and Labour—although we are working to improve the situation, given the appalling inheritance that we had to deal with—concerns the difficulty of getting proper partnership in these areas. In many areas, I still feel that we do not have a proper dialogue between the Government and industry. We welcome the new structure, as it will help that process, and I believe that it will work positively and effectively I come to the issue of money and costs, and shall deal first with the points made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. Clause 14(2)(b), which deals with running costs, and clause 14(2)(c), which deals with capital, set out the fact that the Bill's requirement for fairness applies to both capital and running costs. The right hon. Gentleman would be right in what he said if the fairness did not apply to both, but the intention behind the provision's wording is that it does. The right hon. Gentleman made an important point about criteria. I hope that we can offer him some reassurance, as the same criteria will be applied to all service providers, regardless of the position, in considering what costs should be paid. The first criterion is the question of whether a new requirement is being imposed on the service provider and the second is the significance of the cost in relation to the overall size and turnover of the company. Those are both serious considerations. For example, many people have said a requirement of some kind could be extremely damaging for a small Internet service provider that is in the process of starting up. We would not impose such burdens on them, so it is important to look at the costs in relation to the company's overall size and turnover. The code of practice that sets out the way in which we will do that will provide the reassurance sought by the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) made a financial point and put forward some figures. Throughout, we have estimated that costs to those communication service providers who are not covered at present, but who will be covered under the Bill will not exceed £20 million over three years. That estimate was published in the regulatory impact statement when the Bill was first introduced in the House. We stand by that estimate, and none of the research since has caused us to alter our view. We are of course aware that alternative estimates have been made and we certainly do not claim a monopoly of wisdom on this complicated and different area. When the United States implemented such measures, albeit of a different character, great claims were made about the amount of money that would be needed. In practice, however, much less was needed to deal with the situation. Our best estimate, therefore, is the one that we made in the regulatory impact assessment. As with all these things, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been positive in dealing with this matter because he shares our concern to ensure that nothing that we do will damage our position. I now realise that I made a mistake in responding to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I was referring to what will be clause 14 once the Bill is amended; it is clause 13 in the Bill before the House. I apologise for misleading him through my lack of numeracy. Thirteen may be unlucky for some.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I apologise to the Minister for being obtuse earlier by not studying the amendment properly. If subsection (3) of the clause—whatever its number—is deleted, I assume that subsection 2(c) deals with the capital costs. I see nodding coming from those seated to the Minister's left. My point was wrong: the word "fair" applies to capital and to running costs, in which case I am content.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The right hon. Gentleman is correct. As he said, subsection (2)(c) deals with capital. I do not criticise him for being wrong on this matter, as this is one of the most complicated pieces of legislation that I have seen. Moreover, he does not have the advantage that I have of a dedicated Bill team, who have tried throughout the Bill to serve all parts of Parliament in a positive way.

GENERAL SAFEGUARDS

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22, 156, 157 and 162.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I am conscious that we are making good progress, and I hope that hon. Members welcome these amendments. Amendment No. 20 recognises that the commissioner is responsible for the oversight of communications data as well as interception material. Amendment No. 21 deals with the question of intercept material that is lost or stolen. It is fairly straightforward. Amendment No. 156 is a technical amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. I should like to say one or two words about amendments Nos. 22, 157 and 162, which deal with some of the exceptions to the prohibition in clause 16 and—

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I apologise to the hon. Lady for interrupting her flow. Surely amendment No. 21 deals with the secure storage of intercepted material, not theft. It says that the arrangements for the time being in force…for securing that the requirements of subsection (2) are satisfied…must include such arrangements as the Secretary of State considers necessary for securing that every copy of the material or data that is made is stored…in a secure manner.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

That is right. I said that amendment No. 21 deals with the question of intercept material that is lost or stolen, and the risk that such material may be outside the scope of clause 14(2). Although the storage and handling of intercepted material already involves the highest levels of physical, technical and personnel security, I hope that an explicit requirement to store intercepted material and data securely will reassure those who have been concerned that it might otherwise not be so stored. I am sorry if, by trying to make progress too swiftly, I obscured that.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

The amendment was tabled in response to representations made by my noble Friends in the other place, who will be pleased that it meets that requirement.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Let me move swiftly on while we are all in agreement. Amendments Nos. 22, 157 and 162 deal with some of the exceptions to the prohibition in clause 16 and enable intercept material to be considered by the court in cases before the proscribed organisations appeal commission and the special immigration appeals commission, and in any proceedings arising out of proceedings before those commissions. In order to ensure that, in those special circumstances, the commission can in each case consider any intercept material which may be relevant, the rules governing their procedure have been devised in such a way as to ensure that sensitive material is protected. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of amendment No. 22 reflect that aim, ensuring that intercept material is not disclosed to the appellant himself, or to anyone who represents him. However, there is provision for a special advocate—we have discussed these—to represent the interests of the appellant in any parts of a hearing from which he is excluded. I hope that the amendments will find favour with the House.

CONDUCT TO WHICH PART II APPLIES

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 37 and 50 remove from the intrusive surveillance provisions covert surveillance carried out by television licence evasion detector equipment. One of the benefits of the legislation is that, as we have gradually sought to apply the human rights requirements to every act of surveillance undertaken by public authorities in Britain, we have established more clarity about what has been happening and about what, therefore, needs to be reported and regulated in a proper way. That is reflected in the Lords amendments that we will come to later when we consider the schedule that we have published in response to the suasions of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). One such activity is the BBC's television licence evasion detector equipment, and we have thought it right to amend the Bill to deal with that. A police officer carrying out covert surveillance from an observation post sited on residential premises of a third party of a target outside those premises would be caught by the intrusive surveillance provision. That was not intended, so amendments Nos. 35 and 36 limit the category of intrusive surveillance to where a surveillance device is on residential premises or in a private vehicle and is providing information on what is taking place in those premises or in that vehicle, or, where a device is not on the premises, but is providing, in relation to anything taking place on the premises or in the vehicle, information of the same quality or detail as might be expected from a device on the premises or in the vehicle, or where an individual is present on the premises or in the vehicle under surveillance. That is the meaning of and reason for the amendments and I hope that the House will support them.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

We support the amendments. I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Lucas, who brought to the attention of the Minister in the other place the unintended consequence of the Bill as it relates to intrusive surveillance, where a police officer using residential premises as an observation post to carry out covert surveillance would have been caught by the definition of intrusive surveillance. The fact that amendments Nos. 35 and 36 deal with that is welcome.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

It makes sense to have the amendments and remove the BBC detector vans from the provisions for the time being. So long as we have, in the new millennium, a grubby system whereby people crawl around the countryside in vans trying to find out whether criminals are using a television without a licence, it is probably sensible that we should have these amendments to remove that unnecessary work from this important Bill. I look forward to the time when a Minister from whatever party will be able to come to the Dispatch Box and say that we no longer need the provision because we have a different way in which to fund media organisations, other than requiring people to crawl around in detector vans to see if we are misbehaving by illegally watching a television.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Out of interest, what is the right hon. Gentleman's proposal? Does it involve a spending commitment for the Opposition?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I could not go down that route without incurring your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The proposal would not cost the Government money; it would save them money. However, that is another debate for another time. I would trust the free market to provide all the television services that we need.

PERSONS ENTITLED TO GRANT AUTHORISATIONS UNDER SCHEDULES 27 AND 28

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall comment on the amendments briefly. The serious matter with which they deal was debated at length in Committee, on Report and in the other place. I was sympathetic to the view expressed in this House during our earlier discussions on the Bill: the public authorities empowered to authorise the use of directed surveillance and the use or conduct of covert sources should be set out in a schedule to the Bill. I believed that it was important for public debate that we had as much information as possible. A central record had never been drawn up or held of Departments and other public bodies that used those covert techniques, and it has taken us some time to devise a definitive list. The provision of such information is an important development in government in Britain. I make no criticism of previous Governments, Conservative or Labour. However, the fact that we did not know properly about those matters is a serious reflection on the state of affairs. On behalf of my officials, I emphasise it has not been easy to establish the precise circumstances across government. They have done a good, professional job. However, as they would be the first to say, even now we may not yet understand everything that has taken place. The schedule that we are considering has changed considerably from the list that I circulated in Committee. When considering that list, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) entertained us with his comments on ice cream salespeople and various other issues of great substance. Since then, we have discovered that a greater number of public authorities than we had first thought use part II powers, and that a much greater number of public authorities use covert sources. We are still learning about public authorities whose activities have not previously come to our attention. That learning process is likely to continue for some time in future. I have no doubt that it will be necessary to introduce orders that add further public authorities to the schedule as a result of case law developed from judgments on the definition of a public authority once the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into force in October. Any additions to the schedule or moves of authorities from part II to part I of the schedule will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The House will therefore be able to discuss ice cream salespeople in great detail, as the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border would like.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

When the matter was discussed in the other place on 28 June, my noble Friend Lord Lucas asked whether the Department for Education and Employment should be on the list because of university grant fraud which had apparently occurred. It was suggested that surveillance was useful in tackling that.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall respond to that point when I wind up. I want to check so that I can give the hon. Gentleman an accurate reply. Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 tidy up the provisions that relate to specific activities in Northern Ireland. They have now become sufficiently substantial to merit a separate clause. We are considering important issues, which graphically illustrate the development of law as we move forward. I commend the amendments to the House.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

To me, these will always be the Maclean amendments because my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) discovered that rather than two or three authorities being involved, the list ran to a page and a half. It is right that they should be in the Bill and I welcome the fact that Departments are considering whether all relevant public authorities are listed. It is better to have a proper list. I understand that that issue has also been raised by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in the other place, which also thought that the measure should be set out as it now is. We welcome that initiative. I could make a number of other minor points, but the Minister covered them. However, I should be grateful to know the position on grant fraud. Apparently, people overseas have undertaken enterprising frauds involving university grants and funding for education in this country. Clearly the types of surveillance that we are discussing might be useful.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I was one of those who raised the issue in Committee. My favourite example is the Government Whips' Office, which I strongly suspect of using directed surveillance—for example, to discover whether Labour Members used their constituency weeks or disappeared to some other place. Perhaps we should put these measures in context. We must recognise that they will draw into regulation large areas of activity that were not previously the subject of regulation and accountability. The Bill has received a bad press as being fundamentally oppressive and extending the power of the Government, but on both sides of the Committee it was felt that the initial stab at these measures was unsatisfactory and that we ought to declare, so far as is known, what bodies use directed surveillance. Those bodies ought to be covered. In Committee, the Minister gave an assurance that he would seek to achieve that. It has been achieved and we are grateful to him and his officials. However, I accept that other bodies may need to be added to the list, using the affirmative resolution procedure. Unlike other provisions, these measures will not create the legitimate fear that bodies will take up such activities in a cavalier fashion. Surveillance to check that fraud is not taking place is a commonplace in all sorts of organisations—private business, for example—as it is sometimes necessary to check that taxpayers' money or customers' money is not being abused. We must realise that there is a wider area to regulate and I welcome the fact that previous amendments have ensured that the affirmative resolution procedure will be used to add bodies to the list. Taking those two together, a welcome improvement has been made to the scope of the Bill. I appreciate that the Government have listened to representations from all sides.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I am pleased to speak for a few moments to the Maclean new schedule. I am not proud, but, for the relevant fee and after making an appropriate declaration in the Register of Members' Interests—just as we are happy to save private Members' Bills on various Fridays despite vicious Government attempts to vote them down—I should be happy to assist the Government should they wish to privatise some aspect of parliamentary drafting. The new schedule—amendment No. 142—is remarkable in many ways because the need for it came to light on a Thursday morning. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Committee business starts at a ridiculously early hour on Thursday mornings—indeed, before most Members have breakfasted and are fully alert as to a Bill's consequences. Fortuitously, we spotted a possibility in clause 27.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Is the right hon. Gentleman converted to the merits of Thursday morning sittings?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Absolutely not. That was the only Thursday morning on which I was alert. I do not know on how many Thursdays I, and perhaps Labour Back Benchers and other colleagues, were not fully alert at 10.30 am. Had we considered the Bill in Committee at a proper time, another dozen new schedules could have been before the House tonight. We had some fun over the ice cream salesmen, but the matter came to light—I am not being unkind—when the Minister, following his brief, quickly discussed clause 27, referring to those who may need intercepting on grounds of national security, detecting serious crime or the economic well-being of the nation. There was also a curious reference to protecting public health. It seems odd to include that in a clause that refers to NCIS, MI5 and MI6. I asked the Minister to give an assurance that the sandwich gestapo of the NHS would not be involved. His answer alerted the whole Committee to the fact that other bodies could be involved as well as NCIS. The Minister produced a helpful although frightening list of organisations that have these powers. He is right and is to be congratulated on being the first to draw up such a comprehensive list. I am not suggesting that the Government are granting new powers to all those funny bodies to direct covert surveillance, because they had such powers in the past, and the Minister is trying to pull them together. I have one little concern, however. The Minister's list broke down the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and the other organisations with those powers into their different parts. We found it slightly amusing that MAFF' s egg inspectorate had those powers but not the banana directorate. If I may mix my fruit metaphors, the banana directorate is the plum posting in MAFF, because its officials have to go to exciting parts of the world to decide on the quota of bananas that Britain receives each year from those countries. I suspect that there are quite a few rackets, not among officials of course, but in the operation of the banana industry throughout the world. That directorate may need those powers of surveillance, but it is not on the list. The regulations merely stipulate the Government Department: for instance, they just refer to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and do not say which bits will have those powers. The egg inspectorate, the intervention board for agricultural produce and the sheep inspectorate, which checks on sheep numbers for the European Union, will presumably have those powers. I suspect that the wine intervention board will also need such powers. That is the second best job in MAFF. It is a burden that officials carry with equanimity, but a certain number of them are sent each year on a master of wine course and have the difficult task at certain times of the year of going round wine shops and confiscating two bottles of wine to ensure that it is labelled correctly in accordance with EU regulations. They discharge that duty every December. One bottle is sent for inspection, and the other is kept a few days for evidence. It would be wasteful to destroy it, so it comes in handy for other purposes, such as Christmas parties. We presume that that organisation would also have these powers. I do not want to labour the point and try the House's patience, but I should like the Minister to tell us whether, if it is not appropriate to put in the schedule the different subsections of each Department—the various bits of MAFF and the Department of Health that will have these powers, such as the sandwich gestapo unit, so as to ensure that the egg in the sandwiches is not more than five degrees centigrade—he will publish the list annually or give an undertaking that, if asked a parliamentary question, he will list the units of each Department. We do not want to know details about NCIS, the National Crime Squad and the Serious Fraud Office, but if MAFF, the Home Office and the Department of Social Security are listed as bodies that can direct surveillance, the Minister must answer parliamentary questions on the issue or publish each year a list of the separate divisions in each of those Departments that are using the powers. He cannot put that in the regulations, because the information may change weekly or monthly. I accept his word that the list in the schedule will have to change as more bodies come to light or as Departments change their names. I hope that the Minister will assure me that the Maclean schedule is not the end of the matter, and that he will publish annually a list of the subsections within Departments.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I can pretend to none of the expertise demonstrated by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in the consumption of wine, whisky, bananas, eggs and various other commodities about which he clearly understands far more than I ever could. I am grateful for what he has said, however, because it allows me to clarify the position. The Department for Education and Employment was asked whether it wished to be listed in the schedule, but it did not, as it does not use covert techniques, even for the services that are mentioned. If the Department wanted lawful cover for such covert techniques, they would have to be specified in the Bill: that would be a policy matter that the Department would have to address directly. I hope that one of the benefits of the discussion will be the need for Departments and agencies to consider whether they really need the techniques involved. It will be an interesting discussion. I think that people have drifted into the sphere of techniques which, although they may be critically important in some contexts, may be less important in others. The intervention board is listed separately in the schedule. We listed only the public authority in the schedule because it, rather than its constituent parts, is the statutory body. However, we intend to narrow the range of agencies within a public authority that can authorise activity under part II. That will be achieved through the order for which clause 29 provides. The order will specify precisely the individuals holding certain offices, ranks or positions in the relevant public authority who can authorise such activity. For example, it might say that a senior immigration officer in the Home Office could authorise the conduct or use of a covert source. I think that that power to authorise covert activity will be of the greatest public interest. We have no interest in hiding these matters. Indeed, we have worked to bring them into the open. I jib rather at the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in Committee that I was trying to skip over the point, for that was certainly not my intention. I felt, and still feel, that not just the Committee and the House but the country should have a chance to see the matter in the round. We will, of course, be ready to answer parliamentary questions as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but we intend to identify the individuals concerned directly. I hope that that gives him some reassurance.

NOTICES REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF KEY

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

As hon. Members know, part III has continued to be a subject of great debate both in another place and more generally. We have proposed a number of significant changes, in response to representations from and discussions with industry and other interested parties. We have also had constructive discussions with the Opposition in the other place. I do not want to go into all the details of this substantial issue. The thrust of what we seek to do is this: we want to reassure all concerned that, in cases in which appropriate authorisation has been established under the Bill for reasons given in it, we seek to obtain a copy of the plain text—that is, the actual message that is exchanged, rather than the key. The amendment is designed to provide in the Bill the reassurance that I have given orally, in Committee and here, that we do not seek keys for a general purpose, that we do not seek a back-door route for mandatory key escrow, and that what we want is the plain text. I am aware that Members on both sides of the House—in Committee, here, in the other place—and those outside it—have been worried about that, and have wanted reassurance in the Bill that we seek plain text. That is the main point of the amendments. We believe that the requirement is proportionate to what is sought. The amendments propose to recast part III in terms of our preference for plain text rather than keys, and to leave it to the recipient of a notice to decide how to comply with a disclosure requirement. 9.30 pm As I say, the specific amendments are complicated and detailed. I shall not go through the detail further now, although I will be happy to respond as appropriate to points that are made in the debate, but the reassurance that I offer to the House and to all who are watching our proceedings in the industry is that it is our desire lawfully to get access to communications as appropriately authorised. It is not our desire to behave in a way that could make the communication systems of corporations vulnerable, or to give a power to demand a key that could be used irresponsibly to damage the security of organisations. Contrary to what may have been thought—not in the House, where people have understood the issue but more generally—the representations that we have received have not come only from that industry, the internet service providers and so on. They have been from investment bankers and the financial community, on which the economic health of the nation depends. They have been concerned that inadvertently, by clumsiness or some other means, the Government might undermine their confidentiality requirements, which are a precondition for the operation of their businesses. We are keen to reassure. We have done so verbally, and we think that, through the amendments, we have done so in the Bill. For those reasons, I commend the string of amendments to the House.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Before turning to the issue of keys in general terms, may I deal with Lords amendments Nos. 58 and 59? One of the points that I and others made regularly in Committee was that there was a danger, which had been highlighted by some in industry, that criminals would serve completely bogus notices on financial institutions and other companies seeking keys, or intelligible information on communications that they had obtained—protected information—and that the companies would find it difficult to verify the genuineness of the documents. Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 are important because they require that the office, rank or position of the person who granted permission for the giving of a notice under schedule 1 be on the face of the notice. That gives extra reassurance to those who have received notices that they are genuine. Such measures are welcome. I know that the codes of practice, when they are before the House, will deal with those issues to a considerable extent, but I am glad that that theme, which has run throughout our deliberations, has been recognised in that way. I turn to the general proposition about keys and the obligation to provide plain text. The original drafting of the Bill carries some of the blame. It was drafted on the basis that the notice would be to provide a key—that the requirement was for the key—so I do not think that we can blame those outside this place for thinking, "Look. It is all about the Government or authorities obtaining keys." Of course, the Minister has given assurances at various times during our proceedings that that is not the case, but the way in which the measure was originally drafted was rather odd—I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees. I welcome the fact that that whole section of the Bill has been turned the right way round, so that the requirement is for the plain text and the key is provided only in special circumstances. Those changes are welcome. We still have a certain concern that the provision of the key is on the say-so of the chief constable. As the Minister will know, in the other place we fought hard for that approval to be given by the Home Secretary. We feel that it should be the person who is giving the assurances—the Home Secretary—who makes those decisions, rather than the chief constable. Giving up the key is seen as quite a high security risk by financial institutions, companies, banks and the like. After all, many of them have international agreements not to disclose the key in any circumstances. They have sophisticated computer equipment that tries to avoid the same key existing for long. One can understand their reticence. We therefore proposed in the other place—where we lost the vote by one—that the Home Secretary should make those decisions. I accept that since that defeat, the Government have held further discussions with all the parties and come up with the solution that the commissioner will immediately be notified that the chief constable has given approval, and that the commissioner will be able to make special reports to the Prime Minister about such instances at any time rather than only annually. However, although we are pleased about the extra protections, we shall be watching how the provision operates in practice. We still have that slight reservation about whether there should not be approval at a higher level. As for the offence itself, the Minister will recall that one of the points made in the Opposition's reasoned amendment on Third Reading was that the offence created in clause 49 was repugnant to justice. Creating an offence in which a person must prove his or her innocence is not in line with what is often called the golden thread of British justice. We were strongly opposed to the creation of such an offence. We said that the offence should contain an intent element, and that it was not satisfactory to establish defences whereby people had to prove their innocence. We very much welcome the fact that in the other place, it has been possible to add a mental element to the offence—the word "knowingly"—and that the defence has been amended so that it is no longer necessary to prove one's innocence on a balance of probability. It will be enough to raise the issue, which the prosecution will have to disprove. Therefore, looking at the issue in the round, we accept that the original bad drafting caused considerable concern to industry, and not—as the Minister said—only to internet service providers. We think that recasting and rewriting part III has moved the Bill very much in the right direction, and that it is much improved. Nevertheless, I think that it is also possible to lay the charge of, "new Labour, new clause". The first 22 pages of amendments have certainly transformed the Bill from a rather ugly beast into something that may eventually even attain beauty. [Interruption.]

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I shall keep off the subject of beauty, in the light of the Minister's sotto voce comments about his own appearance. There is no doubt that their lordships have rewritten part III—it is a substantial, almost total rewrite—or that it was necessary to do so not least to allay the considerable fears that had arisen in industry. I think that sometimes, in some of the press reports, those fears were not accompanied by any recognition of the purpose of the provisions. In an age in which electronic communications will be the norm, it would be a very serious omission to have no means of intercepting and reading encrypted communications between dangerous criminals embarking on a very serious crime, or between people attempting to threaten the lives of the people of this country. Such powers are of course very dangerous, and therefore have to be the subject of very strict regulation. Liberal Democrat Members have said at various points in the Bill's passage that we would prefer a judicial basis for that type of approval in the various spheres in which it will operate, rather than the basis provided in part III and elsewhere in the Bill. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there are circumstances in which such powers have to be used. It was wrong that the Government were sometimes characterised as engaged in a wholly unjustified snooping exercise, intent on destroying all electronic commerce in the process. The evolution from our original consideration of the Electronic Communications Act 2000, in which these provisions were first encapsulated, to the closing stages of our consideration of the rewritten version of this Bill, has been long and remarkable. As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, the overall cast of the Bill's provisions has been reversed, so that the intention is much clearer. I welcome those changes. I also welcome the Government's willingness to accept the advice that they received about how those changes could be made and the way in which that process was conducted. It would be foolish to imagine that even now, we have got it all right. Clearly, lawyers will find scope to explore the provision pretty intensively, and we may have to return to some aspects of it. Some people might make quite a bit of money out of doing so, but we must ensure that serious threats to the physical safety of the people of this country, whether from criminals, hostile powers or terrorists, can be countered by the judicious and regulated use of such powers. We must do so in a way that does not disrupt an industry that has great earning power for the country and potential for the future. I hope that that has been achieved. If it has not been achieved fully, we might have to return to some of the details another time.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

There is no doubt that, with this Bill as with others, there will be lawyers who will try to find loopholes. We must hope that there are sufficient men and women of principle left to plug those loopholes. The Government's mistaken drafting perhaps made it inevitable that some in industry and financial institutions would overstate their case and panic at the thought of having to release their keys. The Government's mistake was probably inevitable because of the amount of legislation being pushed through in such a short time, and the burdens on parliamentary draftsmen. Part III was drafted the wrong way round. The Government had a fetish with and concentration on getting the keys—why? They wanted the keys to get the information. Sensibly, the provisions have been redrafted to emphasise getting the information, which is what the Government always wanted. That will satisfy many in the industry. Concern was inevitable because all movement in the industry has been towards encryption and keys. All those concerned with developing the internet, internet banking and so on, are excited by secure systems into which no one can hack. Encryption and double encryption is the trend in America, then along came the British Government to say, "Ah, but we want you to hand over the keys." I grant that such a perception was unfair. The Minister did his best in Committee to explain that the Government were really after plain text, for which they needed such powers. Now, late in the day, but properly in accordance with our parliamentary procedures, we have the right drafting. That will help the Minister to reassure industry about the Government's intentions. He can embark on a propaganda drive with our financial institutions and the computer-internet world, with all its whiz-kids, peeks and other things—whatever they are called—who run the industry. More and more they are the driving force behind our economy. They are not just anoraks; they are incredibly sensible and powerful, and a good driving force. The Minister now needs to take to such people the message that we have struck the right balance and that their keys are safe. The Government are no longer giving the impression that they want the encrypted keys to everyone's e-mail and internet systems. Instead, the emphasis is on plain text. I congratulate the Minister on achieving that, with the help of the Lords, and producing a better Bill.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I genuinely thank the right hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for emphasising in this brief debate the points about drafting. I accept that the drafting has been fundamentally and positively changed, for the reasons stated by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, in order to make it clear that it is the information, rather than the key, that we are after. That is important in reassuring people. I am grateful to all three right hon. and hon. Members—particularly the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—for emphasising the purposes of the Bill as well. We need the information in the areas described for very good and important public interest reasons. We are contesting very highly effective crime, which may now be organised worldwide. That is part of globalisation. We see the impact of such crime—trafficking in drugs and in people, paedophilia and so on—in so many areas of our lives, and we must maximise our defences against it. It is a requirement in defending the liberties of our citizens that we do so. We know that, as technology develops, we will take a hit and find it difficult to be as effective in tackling such crime. We have a duty to do what we can to protect our citizens from such an organised international threat. I sense that some of the debate—not today's, but generally—has missed that key purpose of the Bill, so I am genuinely grateful to the three right hon. and hon. Gentlemen for re-emphasising that. No one who has participated in the debate outside has cavilled at the need for law enforcement, or the need to address the issues with which the Bill deals. There have been arguments about how that should be done, but it is fair to say that the whole industry acknowledges its importance to the welfare both of society and of the industry itself. If financial institutions are penetrated by money launderers of various descriptions, that will undermine those institutions. If internet companies are undermined by paedophiles using their organisation to get material to others who use it, that undermines the future prospects of the industry. That is the fundamental argument that should, to a greater extent than it has, inform the debate on the future relationship between the industry and the Government. We have a strong mutual interest in ensuring that the Bill works properly. The Government recognise that, and I am grateful for the acknowledgement that the redrafting of the first part of part III, with its emphasis on plain text and information rather than keys, provides the required assurance. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is the one who raised the issue of plain text and keys. The changes in amendments Nos. 52, 54 to 57, 64, 66 to 68 and 76 are positive and all relate to the redrafting on which speakers have, rightly, focused. He was right also to focus on amendments Nos. 58 to 62, which provide further stipulations, in addition to those set out in clause 46(4), about the form that a disclosure notice must take. They stipulate, for example, that a notice must contain details of the person who gave permission for it to be served, and that the time set for complying with the notice must be reasonable in the circumstances. The initial draft code of practice that we have published for part III sets out our first stab at drawing up a disclosure notice. The main purpose of the notice is to provide certainty about what everyone is being asked to do, and I shall be interested in the industry's response to our draft. It is possible that we shall be able to improve it, so that it better achieves that purpose, although the amendments have already moved us closer to that goal. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned authorisation, which is covered in amendments Nos. 69 and 71. Amendment No. 69 raises the authorisation level for access to keys to chief officer or its equivalent, which represents a significant increase. Amendment No. 71 provides additional safeguards by requiring that any directions for the disclosure of keys be notified to either the intelligence services commissioner or the chief surveillance commissioner, as appropriate, with the possibility of onward referral remaining open. Taken together, the two amendments should provide all the assurance needed. I am grateful for the positive remarks made in the debate. I take seriously the points made about propaganda by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, who is a past master of propaganda, as evidenced by his promotion of Scotland and the drinks industry. After the Bill receives Royal Assent, we shall work with the industry—and the Opposition, if they are willing—to promote it both in this country and internationally. Given the comments made in the overseas media, we must explain clearly what the Bill is and is not, and why we do not believe it poses a threat to e-commerce in Britain; on the contrary, it will help to achieve the Government's aim of a strong and secure e-commerce economy, to which we are all committed. Propaganda is needed, and I hope that the whole House will help to promote the interests of this country's businesses when the time comes. In the meantime, I have no hesitation in commending the Lords amendments to the House.

TIPPING-OFF

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

It is appropriate that I give due credit to Opposition Members, who raised the issue of the number of commissioners on Second Reading and pursued it in Committee. Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 and related amendments respond directly to those concerns. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) will remember that in Committee we discovered that the security service commissioner and the intelligence services commissioner were in practice roles performed by the same person. Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 formalise that arrangement by having one commissioner carrying out both functions, together with the additional functions required of him under the Bill. The streamlining of the number of commissioners has required a slight change to the title of the Bill, and I refer the House to amendment No. 163. Amendments Nos. 78, 97, 101, 114, 117, 134 and 153 result from the earlier decision to remove from the Bill, when the provision was last before the House, the post of a covert investigations commissioner. The role of that commissioner was amalgamated with that of the chief surveillance commissioner under the Police Act 1997. However, in making these changes, we set the chief surveillance commissioner a wide-ranging and onerous task. We must therefore provide the commissioner with further assistance to ensure that he is able to be effective. We believe that he cannot act alone and we anticipate that he will need some form of inspectorate to assist him. We think also that it is important that he should be provided with some judicial support for this function. The amendments will achieve that by allowing the Prime Minister, after consultation with the chief surveillance commissioner, to appoint serving or former circuit or Crown court judges to assist in the monitoring process. By this means, we will ensure independent judicial scrutiny of authorisations by all public authorities. Amendment No. 86 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to provide the interception of communications commissioner with such technical facilities and staffs as are sufficient to enable him properly to carry out his functions. Amendment No. 87 is designed to remove any doubt that there may previously have been that the interception of communications commissioner may report at any time to the Prime Minister on any matter relating to his functions, as he thinks fit. Having made such good progress in streamlining the numbers of commissioners, it is somewhat ruefully that I turn to amendments Nos. 90, 93, 100, 113 and 119, where we introduce a new commissioner. I seek to reassure the House that the new commissioner has a role that is clearly circumscribed in three different ways. First, it is limited to Northern Ireland. Secondly, it is limited to actions under part II of the Bill—to directed surveillance and covert sources. Finally, the role of this commissioner is limited to the actions of public authorities, the responsibility for which is transferred to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I commend the amendments to the House. I am sure that they will be welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I thank the Minister for her generous comments. It is true that the amendments relate to a theme that we have pursued throughout our consideration of the Bill. That began with, in effect, its first outing, which was Second Reading in this place. We are pleased with the progress that has been made. We had hoped originally for a uniform commissioner, but we are satisfied with the Minister's explanations. We are getting what amounts to a unified secretariat. There has been much streamlining, and that is most welcome. We always imagined that there would have to be separate arrangements for Northern Ireland. We do not really count that commissioner, if the hon. Lady will accept that. We think that good progress has been made and we are pleased with the amendments.