Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1135793

	registered interest
	date	01/07/2019
	answering body	Home Office
	answering dept id	1
	answering dept short name	Home Office
	answering dept sort name	Home Office
	hansard heading	Electronic Surveillance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department’s policies in relation to the definition of applicable crime in Part 3 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 of the finding of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Watson & Others that surveillance data retained for the purposes of fighting crime should be restricted solely to serious crime.
	tabling member constituency	Haltemprice and Howden
	tabling member printed	Mr David Davis
	uin	271353
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/07/2019 answer text <p>The retention of, and ability to access, communications data is an essential tool for intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The Government is committed to ensuring that our investigatory powers legislation is compliant with EU law.</p><p>The Government gave careful consideration to judgments by the European Court of Justice and the domestic Courts, implementing changes to UK law to ensure our communications data regime was compliant, while still ensuring our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to solve crimes, catch child sexual offenders and protect the public.</p><p>After consulting widely on our proposed changes and following scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament, the Government passed the Data Retention and Acquisition Regulations in October 2018 which introduced a serious crime threshold for acquiring events communications data.</p><p>In deciding on the definition of serious crime in the context of communications data, the Government fully considered the intrusiveness of the power.</p><p>This approach is consistent with EU case law, which states that the offence must be serious to justify a serious level of intrusion involved in accessing communications data. The Government’s approach reflects this level of intrusion. Events data is more intrusive than entity data and therefore a higher threshold must apply, but it is not as intrusive as interception powers, which can only be acquired if the definition of seriousness set out at section 263 of the Investigatory Powers Act is met. <br>The approach taken by the Regulations seeks to reflect the fact the level of intrusion will vary depending on the data sought and the circumstances of the case while also establishing a clear bar below which the acquisition of the more intrusive communications data is prohibited.</p> answering member constituency Wyre and Preston North answering member printed Mr Ben Wallace question first answered 03/07/2019 15:46:19 answering member 1539 label Biography information for Mr Ben Wallace
	tabling member	373 label Biography information for Sir David Davis

983064

	registered interest
	date	08/10/2018
	answering body	Home Office
	answering dept id	1
	answering dept short name	Home Office
	answering dept sort name	Home Office
	hansard heading	Electronic Surveillance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Big Brother Watch and Others v United Kingdom (no. 58170/13), what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the selection and search processes involved in bulk surveillance arising from the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	Brighton, Pavilion
	tabling member printed	Caroline Lucas
	uin	176214
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/10/2018 answer text <p>The government continues to give careful consideration to the Court’s findings.</p><p>The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 replaced large parts of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) which was the subject of this challenge. This includes the introduction of a ‘double lock’ which requires warrants for the use of these powers to be authorised by a Secretary of State and approved by a senior judge. An Investigatory Powers Commissioner has also been created to ensure robust independent oversight of how these powers are used.</p><p>In addition the Government has already laid regulations which will introduce independent authorisation and a serious crime threshold to the communications data regime in accordance with the requirements of European Law.</p> answering member constituency Wyre and Preston North answering member printed Mr Ben Wallace grouped question UIN 176213 question first answered 16/10/2018 12:37:11 answering member 1539 label Biography information for Mr Ben Wallace
	tabling member	3930 label Biography information for Caroline Lucas

983063

	registered interest
	date	08/10/2018
	answering body	Home Office
	answering dept id	1
	answering dept short name	Home Office
	answering dept sort name	Home Office
	hansard heading	Electronic Surveillance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to paragraphs 493 and 499 of Big Brother Watch & Others v United Kingdom, if he will bring forward legislative proposals under the Investigatory Powers Act to further protect (a) journalistic data from surveillance and (b) freedom of expression.
	tabling member constituency	Brighton, Pavilion
	tabling member printed	Caroline Lucas
	uin	176213
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/10/2018 answer text <p>The government continues to give careful consideration to the Court’s findings.</p><p>The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 replaced large parts of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) which was the subject of this challenge. This includes the introduction of a ‘double lock’ which requires warrants for the use of these powers to be authorised by a Secretary of State and approved by a senior judge. An Investigatory Powers Commissioner has also been created to ensure robust independent oversight of how these powers are used.</p><p>In addition the Government has already laid regulations which will introduce independent authorisation and a serious crime threshold to the communications data regime in accordance with the requirements of European Law.</p> answering member constituency Wyre and Preston North answering member printed Mr Ben Wallace grouped question UIN 176214 question first answered 16/10/2018 12:37:11 answering member 1539 label Biography information for Mr Ben Wallace
	tabling member	3930 label Biography information for Caroline Lucas