Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill — Second Reading — 15 Jul 2014 at 16:53

Zac Goldsmith MP, Richmond Park voted in favour of requiring the mass retention of information about communications, (but not the content of those communications); in favour of arrangements to limit access to such information; in favour of requiring those based outside of the UK to comply with warrants to intercept the content of communications and to state operators of internet-based services may be required enact such intercepts; and also in favour of limiting the use of intercepts, and police access to communications data, on economic grounds to cases involving the interests of national security.

The majority of MPs voted in favour of requiring the mass retention of information about communications, (but not the content of those communications); as well to support arrangements to control access to such information once retained.

The majority of MPs were also voting to require those based outside of the UK to comply with warrants to intercept the content of communications and to state operators of internet-based services, such as webmail, may be required enact such intercepts.

The majority of MPs were also voting to limit the use of intercepts, and police access to communications data, on economic grounds to cases involving the interests of national security.

MPs were considering the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill[1]. The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The passing of this motion indicated support for the general principles of the Bill and enabled it to continue on its path to becoming law.

The Bill had been introduced following a judgement of the European Court of Justice on 8 April 2011[2] which ruled invalid the EU Electronic communications — Directive 2006/24/EC[3] which was brought into effect in UK law via The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009[4].

The court judgement concluded that the mass communications data retention provided for via the directive and regulations is not proportionate and is incompatible with Article 7 (Respect for private and family life) and Article 8 (protection of personal data) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights[5].

The provisions of the Bill:

  • Enable the Secretary of State to issue a "retention notice" requiring a communications service provider to retain "relevant communications data" (as defined in the Schedule[6] to The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009). This power is subject to a condition that the Secretary of State considers the notice "necessary and proportionate"; this condition was not contained in the 2009 regulations.
  • Set out what a "retention notice" may require, including "the retention of all data or any description of data", and "the period or periods for which data is to be retained". The Bill provides for the maximum period for which data can be required to be retained to be one year.
  • Set out arrangements for access to retained communications information. Access is limited to police forces under Part I Chapter II of The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, via a court order or other judicial authorisation or warrant, or by other means to be provided for in regulations made under the resultant Act.
  • Provide for an amendment to Section 5(3)(c) of The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 which sets out one of the reasons for which the Secretary of State may issue a warrant for the interception of the content of communications. The amendment restricts interceptions "for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom" to circumstances "appearing to the Secretary of State to be relevant to the interests of national security".
  • Provide for an amendment to Section 22(2)(c) of The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 which sets out the grounds under which the police may require communications data to be obtained and provided to them. The amendment restricts the ground "in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, adding a caveat "so far as those interests are also relevant to the interests of national security".
  • Provide that a warrant to effect the interception of communications content under Part I of The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act may relate to conduct outside the United Kingdom. The explanatory notes to the Bill[7] state: "this is because companies providing services to individuals within the United Kingdom, but which are not themselves based in the United Kingdom, have questioned whether RIPA applies to them."
  • Extend the definition of "telecommunications service" in Section 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act which sets out who may be required to enact a warrant requiring the interception of the content of communications to explicitly include "cases in which a service is to be taken to consist in the provision of access to, and of facilities for making use of, a telecommunication system include any case where a service consists in or includes facilitating the creation, management or storage of communications transmitted, or that may be transmitted, by means of such a system". This extended definition is summarised in the explanatory notes as covering "companies who provide internet-based services, such as webmail."

==

Debate in Parliament | Source |

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 (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con247 (+1 tell) 4082.6%
DUP6 0075.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent1 0050.0%
Lab198 13 (+2 tell)082.6%
LDem46 (+1 tell) 0083.9%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 30100.0%
SNP0 60100.0%
Total:498 31082.9%

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
Peter BoneWellingboroughCon (front bench)no
David DavisHaltemprice and HowdenConno
Anne MainSt AlbansCon (front bench)no
Andrew TurnerIsle of WightCon (front bench)no
Diane AbbottHackney North and Stoke NewingtonLabno
Ronnie CampbellBlyth ValleyLabno
Katy ClarkNorth Ayrshire and ArranLab (minister)no
Jeremy CorbynIslington NorthLab (minister)no
Roger GodsiffBirmingham, Hall GreenLabno
Kate HoeyVauxhallLab (minister)no
Kelvin HopkinsLuton NorthLab (minister)tellno
Eric JoyceFalkirkLabno
Ian LaveryWansbeckLab (minister)no
John Martin McDonnellHayes and HarlingtonLab (minister)tellno
Grahame MorrisEasingtonLab (minister)no
Jim SheridanPaisley and Renfrewshire NorthLab (minister)no
Dennis SkinnerBolsoverLabno
Tom WatsonWest Bromwich EastLabno
David WinnickWalsall NorthLab (minister)no

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