Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill — Technical Approval Board — 8 May 2000

Mr Stuart Bell MP, Middlesbrough voted with the majority (No).

(a) six representatives of persons appearing to him to be likely to be subject to technical obligations under this Act; and

(b) such persons with statutory functions in relation to persons falling within paragraph (a).'.-- [Mr. Heald.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 4-- Report of payments made --

Despite assurances given to the Standing Committee, the remarks of Jane Kennedy MP, the Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Bill as at present worded gives the

Government powers to require interception of data and other communications which will mean the commitment by communications service providers of a high level of expenditure on hardware, software and personnel. These costs will fall proportionately more heavily on smaller communications operators than on larger ones, and are therefore likely to be anti-competitive, and inimical to new entry.

The assurances given so far are not comforting . . . Thus, the costs remain unspecific, and Government appears to arrogate to itself the right to decide to what extent the cost of these new regulatory burdens carried out for Government's benefit, would fall upon our industry.

There is no negotiating machinery by which the industry could agree the definition of a reasonable intercept capacity, and there is not even a commitment to negotiate over costs.

The main concern (of City institutions) is over the uncertainty as to who will have what rights of access to their data and communications and the risk of criminal access under guise of a warrant.

we believe that it is important that industry have the powers envisaged under your proposal for a technical approval board . . . I cannot agree with the Minister's statements . . . I thought you easily won the argument on technical approval board.

We have always expected some kind of approval board . . . There is no feeling that confidentiality would be a problem.

report annually to Parliament setting out the payments made under section 13 in respect of each person to whom such payment is made, and where payments are not made, the reasons therefor.

such persons with statutory functions,

Due to the inherently short lifecycle of internet--

infrastructure equipment, and the need to replace and enhance networks due to traffic growth, it is misleading

constantly evolving and expanding and the need for additional engineering work to support the capability for interception will be ever present.

The Government also proposes to appoint an independent body to provide impartial advice on how to balance the requirements of the agencies and CSPs. This should help to ensure that any requirements are reasonable, proportionate and do not place CSPs at a disadvantage.

Question put , That the clause be read a Second time:--

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 296.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 128 (+2 tell)081.3%
Ind0 1033.3%
Lab296 (+2 tell) 0071.8%
LDem0 24051.1%
SNP0 2033.3%
UUP0 1011.1%
Total:296 156071.3%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive