I shall speak to new clause 2 standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It would be helpful to start by providing some background to clause 17, although I do not wish to pre-empt the Minister’s comments. I must say at the outset that clause 17 is not the easiest clause to follow, and reference was made to that on Second Reading.
2.15 pm
Clause 17 amends the definition of “relevant communications data” as found within the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. Some of clause 17 appears to tidy up drafting issues, such as the definition of communication, from the DRIP Act. However, the clause also expands the definition of relevant communications data to include an extra category of data described as “relevant internet data” in section 2 of DRIP in order to allow the Home Secretary to use powers under section 1 of DRIP to bring in regulations to ensure that this relevant internet data is retained by communications service providers.
Essentially, the Government are using this fast-tracked primary legislation in early December to amend emergency primary legislation from July to enable the Home Secretary to bring in secondary legislation, but it is important to remember that while DRIP maintained the status quo in respect of data retention, clause 17 extends the current provision. That is why I think it important to pay close attention to the clause.
The use of the term “relevant internet data” to define the extra data being provided for in clause 17 is, I think, problematic. The use of such a broad term suggests a wide new category of data retention, while the Bill’s explanatory notes suggest, it seems to me, a much narrower category of data—namely, the data necessary to allow relevant authorities to link the unique attributes of public internet protocol, or IP addresses, to the person or device using it.
Amendment 5 is designed to ensure that the text of clause 17 matches the claims made in the explanatory notes. I understand that the change in the rules on data retention is a response to the increasing use of floating IP addresses by communications service providers, whereby one IP address is allocated to numerous devices. This is particularly common for mobile devices, which may connect to the internet only a second at a time, so numerous IP addresses may be allocated. The extra data retention, as provided for in clause 17, is to ensure that the data required to allow the relevant authorities to see who is the recipient of a communication such as an e-mail or a bit torrent, is retained by the CSP.
While there is considerable and fully understandable public concern about the extent of data storage, the Opposition broadly accept the need for this extra category of data. It has always been the case that phone companies have kept records of phone calls made. People understand and generally accept that their phone company keeps a record of these calls and that they may be used by the police. We feel that the same principle should apply to electronic communication, and that this amendment is broadly in line with this principle.