Andrew Sparrow 

Cameron announcing emergency surveillance legislation: Politics live blog

Andrew Sparrow's rolling coverage of all the day's political developments as they happen, including David Cameron announcing emergency surveillance legislation
  
  

David Cameron and Nick Clegg at a press conference, where they announced emergency surveillance legislation.
David Cameron and Nick Clegg at a press conference, where they announced emergency surveillance legislation. Photograph: Reuters Photograph: POOL/REUTERS

Afternoon summary

• Kenny MacAskill, justice secretary in the SNP-led Scottish government, has said he is "disappointed" that the UK government did not consult with Edinburgh before announcing its plans for an emergency surveillance bill. He said he was "disappointed at the lack of prior consultation and discussion from UK government on today's announcement given how much this legislation potentially impinges on areas of Scots law that are clearly devolved and under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Government or our law enforcement agencies, including the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service."

• Ed Miliband's decision to back the bill has been criticised by some in his party. Tom Watson MP said he was "very disappointed" by the move. He added:

To allow this to go through with such unnecessary haste is not just anti-democratic, but I think it’s a political mistake for the Labour party.

And the Labour Campaign for Human Rights has issued a statement saying more time should be set aside to allow MPs to debate the bill properly.

We need time to address these questions. MPs need time to understand and scrutinise what is being proposed. If this is simply rushed through, the public will suspect an establishment “stich-up”, which will in turn undermine confidence in the security services. LCHR would like to see the passage of this bill delayed to allow time for a proper debate.

This is an important issue for Labour. We must show people that today’s Labour Party can be trusted to responsibly balance privacy and security. That’s why we need more time to look at these proposals.

• Miliband has defended his decision to back the bill. In a statement he said:

My first and fundamental duty is to ensure the security and safety of our citizens.

I am convinced major investigations into terrorism and organised crime would be jeopardised if we don't pass legislation and that would jeopardise the security and safety of our citizens. That's why I believe legislation is necessary.

I also believe that we need to ensure that we protect the liberty of our citizens as well as their security and that's why I'm pleased that the Government has agreed that for the first time there is cross-party support for an independent review of all of these issues."

Labour sources have also been saying that it was Labour that insisted on a review of surveillance legislation reporting before the election as a conditon for the party backing the bill.

• Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, has welcomed the bill. This is what he told the London Assembly.

All we're trying to do is to maintain the level of surveillance that we've already got. If we don't do this we lose it, and it's vital. It's vital not only to counter-terrorism operations but particularly to serious crime.

At some levels it geniunely helps us save lives, for example if we have kidnaps it's a vital thing that we need, it's also important in homicide investigations.

If we lose it - and there's some danger that we are already losing it - then we will all be less safe.

Here's my lunchtime summary, with earlier developments.

That's all from me for today.

Thanks for the comments.

Updated

Subhajit Basu, an associate professor in information technology law (aka "cyberlaw") at Leeds University, has sent me a comment about the way the bill extends the definition of a communications service provider (CSP). See 2.53pm and 4.24pm.

He says the bill is "far more intrusive" than the government is suggesting and that it will "expand the jurisdiction of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act".

As I understand this, the proposed new legislation will cover all persons and all means of electronic communication. It extends the type of communication service provider. It is not subject to geographic restriction. It remains to be seen if a CSP would include Wi-Fi cafe or an unsecured router.

Because of this bill, law enforcement authorities can ask Google to decrypt the content (with a warrant - they were able to do it before in the same way), not just Google UK but 'any' company based outside the jurisdiction of UK.

The Home Office explanatory notes to the bill are available here (pdf).

They explain in some detail why, in addition to introducing data retention rules in the light of the European court of justice ruling, the bill is also amending the Regulation of Investigatory Power Act.

This Bill is required in order to clarify the intent of RIPA. While RIPA has always had implicit extraterritorial effect, some companies based outside the United Kingdom, including some of the largest communications providers in the market, have questioned whether the legislation applies to them. These companies argue that they will only comply with requests where there is a clear obligation in law ...

The need to clarify the intent of RIPA reflects the increasingly globalised nature of telecommunications. This makes it vital that overseas companies comply with lawful requests made under RIPA. Since RIPA was enacted, there is a greater expectation that where Parliament intends a statute to apply extra-territorially, it will contain explicit provision to that effect. This has resulted in telecommunications companies, which this Bill clarifies includes those that provide internet-based services, such as webmail, questioning whether RIPA can apply to them in the absence of explicit statutory confirmation that it applies extra- territorially. If this clarification is not dealt with quickly, there is an increasing likelihood that we could see telecommunications companies refusing requests which are critical for national security and the fight against serious crime.

The notes also confirm that the bill is extending the definition of a communications service provider, as rustyschwinnToo pointed out earlier. (See 2.53pm.)

It is important to clarify urgently the definition of a “telecommunications service” to ensure it captures the range of services that are used by terrorists and criminals in their attack planning and criminal activities ...

This clause inserts a new subsection into section 2 of RIPA. New section 2(8A) makes clear that the definition of “telecommunications service” includes companies who provide internet-based services, such as webmail.

David Allen Green, the lawyer and legal blogger, says the data retention bill allows the government to make new laws about data retention.

On the World at One David Davis, the Conservative MP, said the Home Office should have allowed more time for the bill to be debated.

I couldn’t see quite what there was of an emergency here beyond a sort of theatrical emergency. Bear in mind that it was passed through the European court on 8 April, but that didn’t come out of a blue sky – there was a submission to it by an Austrian province called Carinthia some time before that, so they should have been prepared for it. Any competent department of state would have looked at the options, look why it might go through, what might be struck down and so on, had legislation prepared then, and we would have then had three months up until now to consider what we should do, rather than this thing that’s going through in a single day – extraordinarily unusual.

Davis said that he did not accept David Cameron's claims that the government had to act urgently. And he said that that the sunset clause in the bill should make it lapse after six months, not allow it to stay in force until 2016.

If you really wanted to debate this properly, what we should have done is had a sunset clause in six months. If they’d done that, I would have said ‘fine – have whatever bill you like; we can debate it in the autumn, take our time, prepare our data, look at the evidence, look at the law carefully and then get a properly worked-up law before Christmas’. But they didn’t do that.

You can listen to the full interview here.

Labour's Diane Abbott is unhappy about the bill being rushed through parliament.

Updated

Human Rights Watch has criticised the government for rushing this bill through parliament. This is from Izza Leghtas, a Human Rights Watch researcher.

Given what we know about the UK's involvement in mass surveillance, it is outrageous that the government wants to rush through emergency legislation that allows the government to monitor people not suspected of any wrongdoing.

A proper debate about how to reform surveillance powers is long overdue and it has to happen now, not in 2016.

Review of surveillance law - Terms of reference

Labour is saying that, as one of the conditions for it supporting the emergency data retention bill, it insisted that the surveillance review (see 2pm) had to produce a report before the general election.

Here are the terms of reference of the review, which David Anderson, the government's independent reviewer of terror legislation, will lead.

To review the legislation governing the use of communications data and lawful intercept, including the regulation of the investigatory powers act, with particular regard to the following issues:

• Whether the current legislation is sufficient to address current and future threats and whether the safeguards to protect privacy are sufficient, given the challenges of current and future technologies and capability requirements

• Whether the current arrangements for accessing and using data - content and metadata - are necessary, proportionate and have appropriate safeguards

• How the different levels of safeguards and limits for domestic and foreign intelligence apply in light of communication technologies which send domestic messages via international servers

• Whether the different levels of safeguards and limits for domestic and foreign intelligence remain sufficient

• Whether there is a case to be made for making the legislation simpler or more coherent

• Whether existing statistical and transparency requirements should be strengthened

• The effectiveness of current statutory oversight arrangements - including the operational of commissioners and the administrative and resource impact of these

The review will take account of the findings of the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Bill, RUSI review, the ISC Privacy and Security Inquiry.

The review will produce an interim report on its findings by the end of this Parliament, with a view to publication of its final report after the 2015 election.

In the comments rustyschwinnToo says the bill may be extending the definition of a communications service provider.

On a quick this seems to be the nasty in the bill:

Meaning of telecommunications service In section 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (meaning of interception etc), after subsection (8) insert (8A) For the purposes of the definition of telecommunications service in subsection (1), the 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.

I can't quite match up with the online version of RIPA, but his clause in the "emergency" bill seems to extend the definition of a CSP in both RIPA 2000 and Labours 2009 "EC Directive" act to anyone with a web server or an email relay.

If the coalition (supported by Labour) only want to maintain the status quo until proper assessment in 2016, why this massive "clarification" in the act? I am no legal scholar, but this would appear to weaken cryptographic provision by Google for one example and nodes in a TOR network (with particular impact on entry and exit nodes) for another.

If one reads the definition of "intercept", with this additional definition in the emergency act, a requirement to establish an intermediate decryption mechanism is actually mandated.

My reading is that CIF would come under the same definition.

Basically, it makes anyone not a telecom a covered third party if it has "provision of access to, and of facilities for making use of, a telecommunication system [etc]".

I can't wait for the professional legal analysis.

Oh, and the secret blank cheque (I'll not bore you further with my earlier witterings) is there:


(4) Such provision may, in particular, include provision about
[...]
(g) the reimbursement by the Secretary of State (with or without conditions) of expenses incurred by public telecommunications operators in complying with relevant requirements or restrictions,

For some reason, in the Andrew linked government version it's helpfully italicised. So CSPs can find the money in the bill easier?

I will try to get an expert assessment of this.

Updated

Lunchtime summary, including highlights from Cameron/Clegg press conference

• David Cameron has said that failing to pass emergency surveillance legislation published today would increase the chances of Britain being hit by a terrorist attack. At a news conference where he and Nick Clegg defended the data retention and investigation powers bill, which will be rushed through parliament next week with cross-party support (because Labour back it too), Cameron said:

We face real and credible threats to our security from serious and organised crime, from the activity of paedophiles, from the collapse of Syria, the growth of Isis in Iraq and al Shabab in East Africa. I am simply not prepared to be a prime minister who has to address the people after a terrorist incident and explain that I could have done more to prevent it.

In a statement about the bill in the Commons, Theresa May, the home secretary, also explicitly said, twice, that lives could be lost if MPs failed to pass the legislation.

• Cameron indicated that he wanted to revive the so-called "snoopers' charter" after the general election. At his press conference, and in his news release, he stressed the limited scope of today's bill. But, at the news conference, he also said that in the future more wide-ranging legislation was needed.

The time to debate what more we might need to do, we've agreed, is for the future. My own very strong view is that we need to ask ourselves this simple question: Do we want as a country to leave a means of communications for paedophiles, terrorists and other serious criminals to communicate with each other than in extremis we cannot intercept. My own view is that, No, we don't.

Governments up to now have always taken the view, whether it's to do with the mail, whether it's to do with fixed telephony, whether it's to do with mobile phones, that in extremis, to keep the country safe, there are occasions when you need to be able to intercept those communications. I believe that, as technology develops, we will have, over time, to do more to make sure that we don't give paedophiles, terrorists and criminals another way of communicating that we can't, in extremis, intercept. But that debate is for the future. That debate is not for today. Today is simply about maintaining the existing capabilities that we have.

• David Anderson, the government's independent reviewer of terror legislation, is to chair a wide-ranging review of surveillance legislation. Alongside the data retention bill, the government has also announced a series of new measures "to increase transparency and oversight", including a review covering the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. May told MPs Anderson would led this, that he would produce a report before the election (to help the next government legislate) and that he would get the resources he needed to enable him to do the job properly. The Lib Dems and Labour have also welcomed this review, but it is clear that different parties have different expectations. The Tories want the review to pave the way for a revival of the "snoopers' charter" (see above). The Lib Dems, by contrast, hope it will safeguard liberties.

• Cameron has said that he hopes that future changes to internet surveillance laws will be agreed by consensus.

I think this Ripa review that David Anderson and the cross-party can look at may help to build some more consensus. I think it is important to try and proceed on the basis of consensus. I don't want this very difficult and sensitive area to be subject to a whole lot of party-political ding-dong. I don't think that would be good for our country. I don't think that would be good for our security.

(Fat chance, some might say.)

• Clegg has insisted that today's bill does not amount to a revival of the "snoopers' charter". This is what he told the press conference.

Crucially, this bill has nothing to do with the so-called ‘snoopers' charter’. That was a Home Office proposal to store every website you’ve ever visited for a whole year. I blocked that last year, and I’ve blocked every further attempt to bring it back

• Ministers have announced MPs will get just one day to debate all stages of the data retention bill. It will go through the Commons on Tuesday. The Lords will debate it on Wednesday and Thursday, and any Lords amendments will be considered by MPs on Thursday evening. The government says the bill must be on the statute book before the summer recess, which starts the following week.

• Some MPs have strongly criticised the government for rushing the bill through parliament. In the Commons Labour's Tom Watson said the rushed timetable was a mistake. Addressing May, he said:

I have no doubt the home secretary will get her Bill through, but the price will be a perception that it is as a result of a last-minute deal between elites with little scrutiny by parliament or civic society and that the rushed legislation might unravel ...

British people aren't stupid and they aren't ideological when it comes to this kind of thing. Why can they not have time to discuss it with their elected representatives?

But the Conservative MP Philip Hollobone said the Lib Dems were to blame for the fact that the bill was only being published now. And, in the Lords, Lord West, security minister in the last Labour government, said the Lib Dems should be "ashamed" that they did not support May's original communications data bill (aka, the "snoopers' charter). If they had, there would be no need for this bill, he said.

• Cameron has said the bill is needed to avert two "cliff edge" crises that could damage national security within the next few weeks. First, without a new law on data retention, phone companies might start destroying records currently used by the police in 95% of serious crime investigations.

Unless we act now companies will no longer retain the data about who contacted who, where and when, and we will no longer be able to use this information to bring criminals to justice and keep our country safe.

And, second, he said without legislation on investigation powers, phone and internet companies might start very soon refusing to respond to demands for intercept data.

Some companies are already saying they can no longer work with us unless UK law is clarified immediately. Sometimes in the dangerous world in which we live we need our security services to listen to someone's phone and read their emails to identify and disrupt a terrorist plot. As prime minister I know of examples where doing this has stopped a terrorist attack.

• Cameron has said that the transparency safeguards being introduced alongside the bill will reduce the number of organisations that can access communications information using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. "Organisations like the Royal Mail, the Charity Commission, the pensions regulator among more than a dozen bodies that will lose access to this data," he said. Clegg said that in future councils wanting to access data via Ripa would no longer be able to aproach phone companies directly. Instead, they would have to go through a central body, he said.

• Civil liberty campaigners have accused the government of trying to circumvent a European court of justice ruling that declared current data retention practices illegal. (See 9.41am and 12.39pm.)

• Clegg has said that he favours having an opposition politician always chair the intelligence and security committee. This is Labour's position too. Clegg and Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, say this would bolster public confidence in the ISC. Cameron rejected this proposal, although he said recent changes meant the ISC's chair was now elected by its members, which meant an opposition MP could become chair.

And this is from Jimmy Wales, the Wikipedia founder.

It is difficult to comment on legislation based on a press release. If the government expects the public and civil society to accept this, they need to do more than offer platitudes. They have known of this problem for weeks, and there is no reason to rush through legislation without appropriate public and Parliamentary scrutiny.

I hope there is a significant chance that the Lords will reject this timetable to enable sufficient time for a proper debate to take place.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of campaign group Liberty, has criticised the emergency data retention bill.

The government says it's only plugging loopholes but its existing blanket surveillance practice has been found unlawful. We are told this is a paedophile and jihadi 'emergency', but the court judgment they seek to ignore was handed down over three months ago and this isn't snooping on suspects but on everyone.

We are promised greater scrutiny and debate but not until 2016, as it seems that all three party leaders have done a deal in private. No privacy for us and no scrutiny for them. Will Clegg and Cameron's 'debate for the future' really comfort voters and companies today?

Bob Stewart, a Conservative, asks May to confirm that lives could be lost if the bill does not become law.

May agrees. Innocent lives could be lost, she says.

The statement is now over. I will post a summary, including the highlights from the Cameron/Clegg press conference and from May's statement, shortly.

Text of the bill

Philip Hollobone, a Conservative, says the three-month delay was down to the Lib Dems humming and hawing.

May says the coalition has been ensuring that it responds to the EU directive in a way that is appropriate.

May says the European commission will look at the need for a new data retention directive. But that will take some time, she says.

Robert Halfon, a Conservative, asks May to consider a British internet bill of rights.

May says that is an interesting suggestion. This whole question, of the internet and privacy, is one that the review will look at, she says.

Robert Buckland, a Conservative, asks if the recommendations on proportionality in the ECJ ruling will be observed in the bill.

May says they will be. The data retention clauses will apply only to a specific list of particular types of data. And there will be an absolute 12-month time limit for data retention.

May says lives could be lost if this legislation does not get through.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Lib Dem leader, says Roy Jenkins brought emergency legislation dealing with Northern Ireland through the Commons on the same timetable.

Labour's Tom Watson says that May will get her bill through, but at the price of it appearing to be a rushed deal between elites. We have a tradition of policing through consent. Does May think the same should apply to the security services?

May says some MPs think that when the frontbenches agree, that amounts to a conspiracy that should be arrested. But in fact it is a sign of the seriousness of these issues, she says.

Labour's David Winnick says there is "much misgiving" about the bill being rushed through next week. He won't be supporting it, he says.

Pete Wishart, the SNP MP, says the Home Office has not discussed this with the Scottish government, even though it is in charge of policing in Scotland. This is snoopers' charter, the prequel, he says.

May says she will discuss this with the Scottish government. This is about tackling serious crime and terrorism, she says. She is

Mark Field, a Conservative, says he is uncomfortable about emergency legislation. And he is also wary when there is a cross-party consensus. But, in this case, he thinks the bill is necessary.

May says this is not about new powers.

Labour's Chris Bryant says he sympathises with David Davis. Wouldn't it be better to have the bill debated in the Commons over two days, not one day?

May says she understands the point. The draft bill is being published today. She wants the Commons to deal with it in timely way, she says.

May says she does not see the choice between liberty and security as a binary one. You can only have liberty with security, she says.

May says the review that she is setting up is intended to produce a report before the general election, so it can influence legislation after the election.

The DUP's Ian Paisley says all law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland will support legislation that defends the realm.

David Davis, the Conservative backbencher, says the case was put to the ECJ long before the ruling in April. The government had plenty of time to think about this. So why is this an emergency?

May says it was never going to be possible to take this bill through parliament in the normal way.

Until the ECJ had ruled, no one knew what it was going to say, she says.

Keith Vaz, the Labour chair of the home affairs committee, says he supports the bill. May will be giving evidence to the committee next week. That will be part of the scrutiny process, he says.

Sir Alan Beith, the Lib Dem chair of the justice committee, suggests some authority beyond ministers might be needed to justify the highest intrusion of privacy.

May says the joint committee looking at the draft bill said the arrangements in place yesterday were appropriate.

Hazel Blears, the Labour former Home Office minister, says she welcomes the proposals on data retention. But she is concerned about the plans to extend the territoriality of intercept powers.

May says the government has asserted that extra-territorial powers exist in Ripa. But the new legislation with make it absolutely clear that warrants can apply outside the UK to add extra certainty.

Updated

Richard Ottaway, the Conservative chair of the foreign affairs committee, says he thinks the bill is "absolutely essential".

Alan Johnson, the Labour former home secetary, says restoring the status quo is vital, but not sufficient. Haven't we wasted five years that could have been spent addressing the gaps in the legislation? Doesn't that mean the security services are lacking powers they need?

May says this is an issue that needs to be addressed. She still supports the draft communications data bill, she says. (This was the one Nick Clegg blocked.)

Good point from my colleague Patrick Wintour.

May is responding to Cooper.

As for the timing, May says the government has spent "quite a time" thinking about how best to respond to the ECJ ruling. But it was always going to be necessary for this to be fast-track legislation.

She says six select committee chairman were briefed on the bill yesterday.

A draft version of the bill is being published today. The full one will come on Monday.

The bill narrows the scope of the legislation, she says. It clarifies that economic well-being can only be used as a justification for surveillance in the context of national security.

As for the review, it will not just cover the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. It will be more wide-ranging, she says.

Any regulatory changes made after the election should stand the test of "a reasonable amount of time", she says.

May says David Anderson will undertake the review. She is glad, given his expertise. She has not discussed his terms of reference yet. And she will ensure he has the support he needs.

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, is responding to May now.

(She has already set out her views on a letter to Labour MPs. See 11.06am.)

But there will be concern about the lack of time set aside for debate. That is why the safeguards are essential, she says.

She says the late arrival of the bill risks undermining public confidence in it.

It is right that parliament will revisit this next year, she says.

She says Labour called for a review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) earlier this year. She welcomes the fact that the government has agreed.

She says she wants David Anderson, the government's independent reviewer of terror legislation, to carry that out. Does May agree?

Does May agree that an opposition figure should chair the intelligence and security committee?

May says the government would be negligent if it did not give the police the powers they need. They are clear that the government needs to act urgently, she says.

May says the timetable for the bill will be "tight". But the government has to have royal assent by the summer recess.

So it will be as short as possible, she says.

More wide-ranging legislation will be considered after the election, she says.

Alongside the bill being published today, other safeguards will be introduced. (See 8.41am.)

The Labour MP Chris Bryant has tweeted this about what he points out is the DRIP (data retention and investigation powers) bill.

David Cameron is in the chamber for the statement, sitting alongside Theresa May.

May says the government is proposing a "narrow" bill. She is not bringing back the communications data bill that was published in draft. That was blocked by the Lib Dems, she says, and this matter will have to be resolved at the election.

Theresa May's statement on the emergency bill

Theresa May, the home secretary, is making a statement to MPs about the emergency surveillance bill now.

Some of what she says will duplicate what David Cameron and Nick Clegg said earlier. I'll will just focus on the new material.

The most interesting feature of the statement will probably be what backbench MPs have to say. So far only Tom Watson, I think, has spoken out against the bill.

Miliband and Cooper's letter to Labour MPs explaining why Labour is backing the bill

Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, have written a joint letter to Labour MPs explaining why they are supporting the emergency bill. Here is the text in full.

Dear colleague,

As a result of a recent judgement by the European Court of Justice, the police and intelligence agencies are in danger of losing vital information which is used in 95% of serious and organised crime investigations as well as counter terror investigations and online child abuse.

In order to prevent this, UK legislation needs to change to be compliant with EU law. If these changes are not made, the police are likely to suddenly lose vital evidence this summer.

The Government has come forward with emergency legislation and in considering our response, we have been guided by our firm conviction that it is essential to maintain the security of our citizens and also ensure people’s privacy is protected.

Serious criminal investigations and counter terrorism intelligence operations must not be jeopardised. That is why we are supporting this emergency legislation which we accept is designed solely to protect existing capabilities.

However, given the limited Parliamentary time to discuss emergency legislation we have ensured that the Government agree to make this legislation temporary – it will expire in 2016. That will require the Government and Parliament properly to consult on and consider longer term proposals next year.

We have also now secured agreement to our proposal for a major independent review of the legal framework governing data access and interception (the RIPA review we called for earlier this year) in the light of the huge changes in technology. As we have previously argued, in the wake of the Snowden leaks and the concerns raised about whether the legal framework has failed to keep up with new technology, we need a wider public debate about the right balance between security and privacy online, a review of powers and stronger oversight.

This review will enable longer term questions and concerns to be properly dealt with and debated in time for new legislation. Changes will then follow. We have also called for and secured further safeguards to restrict the ways in which communications data and intercept can be used to prevent misuse.

We have raised serious concerns with the Government about this rushed process and we will scrutinise the detail in Parliament next week. But we will support the temporary legislation with the safeguards we have secured as it would be far too damaging to the fight against serious crime, online child abuse and counter terrorist intelligence to suddenly lose these capabilities now, and our safeguards have secured a better process for longer term reform to make sure we have the right capabilities and the right safeguards in place.

Q: How close was the UK to the cliff edge?

Cameron says there were two cliff edges.

On comms data, that would not have disappeared instantly. But companies would have had to start destroying data, unless they were keeping it for a specific use. There would have been a "declining capability". The police and security services were saying that was very worrying.

With intercept information, there was more a cliff edge there, he says. Phone companies were saying they were going to stop sharing the information, he says.

That's it. The press conference is over.

Q: When did you decide on emergency legislation? And your description of the process is very different to what Edward Snowden said was happening.

Cameron says there are two problems: comms data, and legal intercept.

On comms data, the government decided the best way to deal with the problem was through legislation. And, on the legal intercept problem, it came to the same conclusion.

He says the government has been discussing the need for legislation over the past few weeks.

Clegg says the EU directive on data retention did not contain the necessary checks and balances.

On Snowden, Cameron says he looked at this very carefully post-Snowden. He came to the conclusion that a very sound set of arrangements are in place.

If the security services want to listen to a conversation, they need a warrant.

He says the account of how this operates in the report (pdf) from the intercept commissioner, Sir Anthony May, is very good. He says journalists should read it.

Q: Do you admit you are taking a risk by not going further now? And, if a threat materialises, will you have blood on your hands?

Cameron says it would not be right to use emergency legislation to give the government extra powers.

But there is a debate to be had in the future about retaining metadata, and how you allow communications to be intercepted.

The review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) might point to the way forward.

But, Cameron says, he does not want this to be subject to a party-political ding-dong. That would not be good for the country.

Clegg says ISP addresses are not traceable to individuals. That needs to be addressed.

But he does not think that every single power requested by the security services should be granted. That is why he rejected the idea that every website visited by someone should be stored for a whole year. That did not seem proportionate, he says.

Q: The Snowden revelations suggested the security services could do all this anyway? And would you agree to Labour's call for an opposition MP to chair the intelligence and security committee.

Cameron says the Commons has just legislated to change the way the ISC chooses its chair. Now the ISC's members will elected the chair. An opposition figure could be chosen.

Clegg says he thinks it would be a good idea for the chair of the ISC to come from the ranks of the opposition. But that is something for the future, he says.

Q: Did you not set your face against a review of the security services after the Snowden revelations? And why are you doing this under emergency powers?

Cameron says this is an emergency. If the government does not deal with the data retention issue, phone companies might start deleting their records soon.

And companies have said they might start not cooperating with requests for access to lawful intercepts, he says.

On the EU legislation, Cameron says the UK did not have primary legislation in this area. It only had secondary legislation under the EU directive. Countries like Denmark have their own primary legislation. So they don't need to act.

On warrants, Cameron says the British system is a strong one. No one's phone can be listened to unless a warrant has been signed by the home secretary. And the intercept commissioner reviews this. The intelligence and security committee reviews this too. This is one of the best systems in the world.

As for a debate on this issue, Cameron says he is all for a debate. But he wants to ensure that the government has the powers it needs while that debate takes place.

He says, when the phone replaced the letter, it would have been a mistake for the government to not change its intercept law.

Cameron and Clegg are now taking questions.

Q: How is this different from state-sponsored phone and email hacking? And shouldn't we be very suspicious of politicians passing emergency legislation?

Cameron says the government has the power to do two things. First, finding who called who when. In 95% of serious crimes, that has been vital. The government is not extending that. It is just allowing it to continue, and ensuring the phone companies do not destroy that data.

As for whether the public should worry, he says the public should worry if the government does not act.

The time to debate what more can be done will be in the future.

Cameron asks whether the government should allow a means of communications that paedophiles, terrorists and criminals can used without being accessed. His view is that that should not be allowed. In extremis, the government should be able to intercept those communications.

But that is a debate for another day, he says.

Clegg says the public should be sceptical. As an old-fashioned liberal, he thinks people should ask questions.

This is only maintaining existing arrangements, he says.

And he says there is a "poison pill" in the bill that will ensure it lapses in 2016.

That amounts to a guarantee that the government is acting proportionately, he says.

Nick Clegg is speaking now.

As a Liberal Democrat, he thinks successive governments have not done enough to protect liberties.

But he says he will not allow a threat to the public to exist. Liberty and security must go hand in hand. He says he has been persuaded that the government needs to act, and to act fast.

He says this bill has nothing to do with the so-called snoopers' charter. That was a proposal to allow companies to store every website you visit for a whole year. He blocked that, he says.

This bill only restores the existing law, he says.

And he says he is only supporting it because it will mark the start of a wider conversation about civil liberties.

The legislation only lasts until 2016. So the next government will be forced to look again at these big issues, he says.

He says in March he asked the Royal United Services Institute to consider reforms to internet law. That work is on-going.

And the government will be appointing a diplomat to negotiate an agreement on sharing data with the US.

And he says the number of public bodies that can easily access communications data will be cut "radically". Councils will not be able to approach phone companies directly. They will have to go through a central body, and then a magistrate.

This is a "balance package", he says.

Updated

Cameron says he is not prepared to be a prime minister who addressed people after a terrorist incident, saying he could have done more to prevent it.

He will always ensure the security services get the tools they need, he says.

Cameron is now talking about the safeguards that will be introduced. (See 8.41am.)

First, the number of organisations that can access communications data will be restricted. For example, the Royal Mail, the Charities Commission and the Pensions Regulator will no longer get access to information, he says.

Second, a privacy and civil liberties oversight board will be set up.

(The Times columnist David Aaronovitch thinks Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian's editor-in-chief, should be on it.)

Cameron says the bill will restore existing capabilities.

But new safeguards are being introduced too.

And he says he wants this to be the start of a conversation, going into the next parliament, about how legislation in this area can be overhauled.

Cameron is now talking about what the new legislation will do.

He says parliament will consider the bill before the summer recess. There will be a full debate next week.

Cameron is summarising what Downing Street said in the press release about why legislation was needed. (See 8.41am.)

He mentions the European court of justice ruling. He says this did no cover the contents of communications; he is just talking about the metadata, showing who was talking to who, and when.

And he says that, in relation to allowing the security sevices to access the content of communications, the laws are much tighter. Sometimes the security services need to be allowed to read emails to be able to disrupt a terrorist plot.

The government needs the cooperation of companies, he says.

But some companies are now challenging this, because the legal position is uncertain.

Some firms are saying they cannot work with the authorities unless UK law is clarified.

Cameron says he will not stand by and allow this cooperation to end.

Cameron and Clegg hold press conference on emergency surveillance bill

David Cameron and Nick Clegg are starting their press conference on the emergency data retention bill.

You can read what Downing Street is saying about the bill at 8.41am.

The Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert has sent an email to party members defending the emergency bill. Here's an extract.

The European Court of Justice threw out the European Data Retention Directive, which underpins all collection of communications data in this country. I sympathise with the reasons, but we must acknowledge that it causes real problems – we do need to have some way to keep some communications data, but under very careful control.

Some people would love to use this to bring back the awful Communications Data Bill – known as the Snooper’s Charter – that Nick vetoed last year. A number of Tories pushed it and Labour tried something similar themselves. We will not allow this to happen. We’ve blocked it once, and we will continue to do so. This legislation just allows the agencies to continue with their current abilities ...

We need to completely rewrite the law in this area. But that cannot be done quickly. We have to get it right, which will take a lot of work from many experts. We’ve already started that off – our ‘Digital Bill of Rights’ motion calls for a commission of experts to review all state surveillance and information from the Snowden revelations – that takes time. Nick has already started this work with the Royal United Services Institute, and they need to finish that work.

So I think it is right to agree to a stop-gap. A piece of legislation that can be passed quickly, but crucially will automatically expire at the end of 2016, giving time to write something better, and the certainty of knowing it will not just become entrenched.

And in this stop-gap legislation, we should agree to no more than was previously allowed.

And we’ve managed better than that – we’ve also negotiated and won a package of pro-civil liberties measures to go with it.

And the Lib Dem blogger Stephen Tall has posted this in response.

Updated

Labour's Ben Bradshaw also thinks the government could have published this legislation sooner.

The Press Association had a reporter outside Downing Street as ministers were leaving after this morning's special cabinet meeting to discuss the emergency bill.

Ministers did not comment as they left 10 Downing Street after an hour-long emergency meeting of cabinet. Liberal Democrat energy secretary Ed Davey shook his head when reporters asked if the new legislation amounted to a "snoopers' charter".

As he left No 10, work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith was asked whether the legislation was a snoopers' charter. He replied: "I don't know what you mean."

Updated

Big Brother Watch has also condemned the emergency bill. This is from Emma Carr, its acting director.

It is a basic principle of a free society that you don't monitor people who are not under suspicion. Considering the snoopers' charter has already been rejected by the public as well as by the highest court in Europe, it is essential that the government does not rush head-first into creating new legislation.

The EU's data retention laws privatised snooping, meaning companies were paid by governments to record what citizens were doing and retain that information for a year.

We need to get back to a point where the police monitor people who are actually suspected of wrongdoing, rather than wasting millions every year requiring data to be stored on an indiscriminate basis.

Here's David Allen Green, the law and legal blogger (aka Jack of Kent) on the emergency bill.

The Sun's Tom Newton Dunn thinks civil libertarians (see 9.41am) should not be so worried.

The Open Rights Group, which campaigns for digital rights, has condemned the emergency surveillance bill. It says the government is defying the European court of justice. This is from the group's executive director, Jim Killock.

The government knows that since the CJEU [court of justice of the EU] ruling, there is no legal basis for making internet service providers retain our data so it is using the threat of terrorism as an excuse for getting this law passed. The government has had since April to address the CJEU ruling but it is only now that organisations such as ORG are threatening legal action that this has become an ‘emergency'.

Not only will the proposed legislation infringe our right to privacy, it will also set a dangerous precedent where the government simply re-legislates every time it disagrees with a decision by the CJEU. The ruling still stands and these new plans may actually increase the amount of our personal data that is retained by ISPs, further infringing on our right to privacy.

Blanket surveillance needs to end. That is what the court has said.

The group set out its thinking in more detail in this briefing note for MPs yesterday.

And here is a link to the European court of justice ruling from April (pdf).

After the press conference at 10.15am, there will be a statement from Theresa May in the Commons on the emergency surveillance bill, starting at about 11.15am.

Updated

Watson calls emergency surveillance bill 'a stitch-up'

Tom Watson, the Labour MP who described the prospect of emergency legislation on surveillance as "something terrible" on Twitter last night (see 8.27am), told the Today programme it was wrong to rush a bill of this kind through parliament.

He was not just attacking David Cameron and Nick Clegg; he made it clear that he was also unhappy with the Labour leadership for supporting the bill.

This is a secret deal between party leaders. There hasn’t been a bill published and yet we find out this morning, when Parliament is on one-line whip and MPs are in their constituencies, that next week they will railroad emergency legislation to put right a decision made by the European court of justice that the current legislation was beyond human rights law. Now that doesn’t seem right to me.

There are hundreds of thousands of people out there very concerned about this particular policy issue. They’ve not seen this bill either, but it doesn’t really matter this year because there’s been a deal done between the three parties and it’ll be railroaded through. If you’re an MP you probably shouldn’t bother turning up to work next week because what you thinking doesn’t really matter.

Watson said that he would certainly vote against the bill's programme motion (the one limiting the amount of time set aside for the debate on the bill) and that he might vote against other aspects too. MPs needed time to form a view on legislation, he said, and it was wrong for the government to be rushing this through when it knew about the European court of justice ruling six weeks ago. Watson said Rifkind's interview (see 9.10am) showed that the government was "ramping up the rhetoric". "It's a stitch-up," he said. "It's a secret deal between the three parties."

He said out his views in more detail last night on his blog.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg will be explaining the emergency data retention bill at a press conference at 10.15am.

Rifkind says people can be 'very comfortable' with emergency surveillance bill

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the chair of the intelligence and security and a former Conservative foreign secretary, told the Today programme a few minutes ago that he thought people would probably be able to feel "very comfortable" with the emergency bill.

He said that he had been briefed on the plans two days ago. He stressed that his committee didn't "automatically support what the government is doing" and he said his committee would want to look at the terms of the bill. But he said he accepted the case for legislation.

Broadly speaking, what the government is doing, it is not changing the status quo. It is continuing the arrangements that have existed for the last few years and which are of enormous importance to the police and others in preventing serious crime and catching people who have committed serious crimes.

He said the recent European court of justice ruling said the existing current EU directive governing data retention did not contain enough safeguards. Negotiating a new EU directive with appropriate safeguards would take months, he said. In the meantime, the government needed to legislate. He went on:

If that is what they are doing, then it's actually something we can all be very comfortable with ...

The fact that it already has the support of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats - that's pretty unusual for all three parties to come together and say, yes we recognise this is not extending the law, it's confirming it. And if that is the case, and we're satisfied that's what the bill does, then I think the public can be reassured.

It looks as if Julian Huppert, one of the leading civil libertarians in the Liberal Democrats, will be defending the emergency bill.

And this is what Nick Clegg is saying about the emergency data retention bill. (See 8.41am.)

We know the consequences of not acting are serious, but this urgency will not be used as an excuse for more powers, or for a ‘snoopers' charter’.

I believe that successive governments have neglected civil liberties in the pursuit of greater security. We will be the first government in many decades to increase transparency and oversight, and make significant progress in defence of liberty.

But liberty and security must go hand in hand. We can’t enjoy our freedom if we’re unable to keep ourselves safe.

I've taken the quote from the Number 10 press release.

Updated

David Cameron will be speaking about his plans today.

Emergency surveillance legislation - the full details

Downing Street has sent out a lengthy press release with details of the emergency surveillance legislation (or "emergency security legislation", as Number 10 calls it) being announced today. Formally, its the data retention and investigation powers bill.

Here's what it says. I have inserted some headlines to make it easier to read. The headlines are mine, but the text comes from the Number 10 news release.

The only things I have left out are a quote from David Cameron (which I've already posted - see 8.27am) and a quote from Nick Clegg, which I will post later.

Why the law is needed

Emergency legislation to ensure that UK law enforcement and intelligence agencies can maintain their ability to access the telecommunications data they need to investigate criminal activity and protect the public will be announced today by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. This has cross party agreement.

The Government is taking this action following two recent developments. First, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has struck down regulations enabling Communications Service Providers (CSPs) to retain communications data for law enforcement purposes for up to 12 months. Unless they have a business reason to hold this data, internet and phone companies will start deleting it which has serious consequences for investigations – investigations which can take many months and which rely on retrospectively accessing data for evidential purposes.

Secondly, some companies are calling for a clearer legal framework to underpin their cooperation with law enforcement and intelligence agencies to intercept what terrorists and serious criminals are saying to each other. This is the ability to access content with a warrant signed by a Secretary of State.

Both of these issues have left the UK Government with an urgent need to bring forward emergency legislation.

What is happening

The emergency Data Retention and Investigation Powers Billwill enable agencies to maintain existing capabilities. It will respond to the ECJ judgment on data retention and bring clarity to existing law in response to CSPs’ requests. Without action, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies will lose sight of data that is crucial for protecting national security and preventing serious crime, and lose track of some dangerous individuals as a result.

At the same time, the PM and DPM will also announce new measures to increase transparency and oversight. In addition there will also be a sunset clause after two years.

What the extra transparency and oversight measures are

The following steps will also be taken to strengthen oversight and transparency:

    • The Bill includes a termination clause that ensures the legislation falls at the end of 2016 and the next government is forced to look again at these powers.
    • Between now and 2016 we will hold a full view of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, to make recommendations for how it could be reformed and updated.
    • We will appoint a senior diplomat to lead discussions with the American government and the internet companies to establish a new international agreement for sharing data between legal jurisdictions.
    • We will establish a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board on the American model, to ensure that civil liberties are properly considered in the formulation of government policy on counter-terrorism. This will be based on David Anderson's existing role as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.
    • We will restrict the number of public bodies that are able to approach phone and internet companies and ask for communications data. Some bodies will lose their powers to access data altogether while local authorities will be required to go through a single central authority who will make the request on their behalf.
    • Finally, we will publish annual transparency reports, making more information publicly available than ever before on the way that surveillance powers operate.

What communications data is

Communications Data (metadata about communications – not the content of communications) has been used in 95% of all serious organised crime cases handled by the Crown Prosecution Service. It has been used in every major Security Service counter-terrorism investigation over the last decade. It is particularly important for targeting serious criminals, including drug dealers, paedophiles and fraudsters. It has also been used to stop crimes in action and save lives, and to prevent miscarriages of justice.

The ability to access communications dataretrospectivelyis crucial in developing intelligence and evidence about the activities of suspects, victims and vulnerable people for the period before a crime or other incident has taken place.

A large number of criminal investigations rely on communications data that is several months old at the point it is acquired by law enforcement. For example, an ACPO survey has shown that just over half of the CD acquired during child abuse investigations is between six months and 12 months old.

But this capability is under threat. The European Courts recently struck down their legal underpinning for companies to hold on to information for 12 months, which is vital for our security and intelligence agencies to conduct their investigations.

Why keeping communications data is valuable to the police and emergency services

Without a clear legal basis in UK law, and unless they retain it for business need, companies will soon stop providing this data on the regulated, authorisation basis that they have done for many years and may even start deleting data which is essential for law enforcement and national security. The government therefore plans to introduce a simple piece of fast track legislation to restore the legal basis for companies to hold this data - it will take due account of the recommendations the ECJ made in its judgment.

Were these powers lost, it would be harder or impossible to effectively investigate a range of crimes, including:

Murder– those who conspired to assist the killers of Rhys Jones were caught using evidence from mobile phones, which proved they were associating at certain key times and places.

Sexual exploitation– the men who groomed young girls in Rochdale were prosecuted, in part, using mobile phone call evidence which showed their association with each other and contact with victims.

Drugs– a gang operating in Merseyside, Lancashire, Glasgow and South Wales in 2011 was found with 30kg of drugs and £37,000. Mobile phone call and text evidence was used to determine the gang’s hierarchy and identify key individuals. This resulted in the arrest of two gang members not otherwise identified using normal surveillance techniques.

Door step fraud– a gang who conned an 85-year-old were prosecuted using evidence that they had called the victims repeatedly from their mobile phone.

Locating Vulnerable People– Mobile phone location data was used to direct a search by Mountain Rescue and locate an elderly man with medical conditions, who had gone missing following a hospital appointment.

Although it is difficult to be definitive about the impact of not requiring companies to retain this data, a major recent Europol investigation into online child sexual exploitation (known as Operation Rescue) gives an indication of what the impact would be:

Of 371 suspects identified in the UK, 240 cases were investigated and 121 arrests or convictions were possible. One man was sentenced in March 2010 to six years’ imprisonment for sexual abuse of two minors after police discovered more than 60,000 indecent images on his computer.In contrast, of 377 suspects identified in Germany, which has no such data retention arrangements, only seven could be investigated and no arrests were made.

What a lawful intercept is

The interception of communications be it listening to the calls made on a telephone, or opening and reading the contents of a subject of interest's letters or emails, are an important capability for both the police and Intelligence agencies. Authorised by the Secretary of State, it is used, alongside other covert capabilities and techniques, to develop an understanding of the threat posed by individuals and networks, to build our coverage of their activities, and to identify means by which to disrupt them before they damage the UK or endanger lives.

Since 2010, all of MI5’s top priority UK counter-terrorism investigations have used interception in some form to identify, understand or disrupt plots seeking to harm the UK and its citizens.

The value that visibility of online communications can bring to understanding terrorist threats is clear. Just last month it was revealed in court that Mashudur Choudhury, now the first person in the UK to be convicted of terrorist offences in connection with the Syria conflict, had received advice on how to access extremist training and weaponry in Syria through online calls with other extremists based overseas.

This is not an isolated incident - access to communications by and between criminals or terrorists is critical to the ongoing security of the UK and its citizens. The loss or reduction of this capability will seriously harm our ability to investigate and disrupt such threats in the future.

Last night the Labour MP Tom Watson posted a dramatic message on Twitter.

He was referring to emergency legislation on surveillance that David Cameron is announcing today. Patrick Wintour and Alan Travis wrote a story last night previewing what is coming up and, within the last 30 minutes, Downing Street has confirmed that the legislation is being announced this morning. The cabinet is meeting now to discuss the proposals. The BBC's Nick Robinson has some of the details.

The legislation has cross-party support and supposedly it does not give the state new powers. Instead it just cancels out the impact of a recent European court of justice ruling that removed the obligation on phone and internet companies to keep data. But this is a hugely controversial issue, and Watson is unlikely to be the only MP concerned about how quickly it is being rushed through parliament.

Downing Street has just released this statement about the legislation from David Cameron.

It is the first duty of government to protect our national security and to act quickly when that security is compromised. As events in Iraq and Syria demonstrate, now is not the time to be scaling back on our ability to keep our people safe. The ability to access information about communications and intercept the communications of dangerous individuals is essential to fight the threat from criminals and terrorists targeting the UK.

No government introduces fast track legislation lightly. But the consequences of not acting are grave.

I want to be very clear that we are not introducing new powers or capabilities – that is not for this Parliament. This is about restoring two vital measures ensuring that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies maintain the right tools to keep us all safe.

I will be focusing on this announcement, and the reaction to it, during the day.

MPs are likely to discuss the issue when they debate the UK's justice and home affairs opt-outs in a debate starting at around 11.30am. There is unlikely to be a vote, but the debate will allow Conservative Eurosceptics to express their concerns about issues like the European arrest warrant.

My colleague Mark Tran will be covering today's public sector strikes on a separate blog.

If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow.

 

Leave a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*

*