I am not sure that my hon. Friend would ever be out to lunch, particularly at 3.26 in the afternoon. I think he is talking about interception. The clause is about the connection, the metadata—about who communicated with whom—rather than the content of the communication. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke specifically about interception and the way in which certain protected categories of individual may be affected. My hon. Friend highlights a specific point, but I will come on to communications data, DRIPA and the codes of practice, and the status of certain individuals in respect of requests that may be made for that information.
Amendment 5, as the hon. Lady explained when she moved it, seeks to limit the scope of the provision to the retention of data that is necessary to allow the identification of a user from a public internet protocol address. I am pleased to say that there is no difference of principle between us on this issue. It is important that this provision goes no further than necessary to ensure that communications service providers can be required to retain the data necessary to link the unique attributes of an internet connection to the person or device using it at any given time.
I can confirm that the provision is already limited in the way the Opposition propose. Subsection (3) defines the data to be retained as data that
“may be used to identify, or assist in indentifying, which internet protocol address, or other identifier, belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication”.
As such, any data that cannot be used to identify, or assist in identifying, the user of an IP address are already outside the scope of the provision. A requirement to retain the data may only be imposed where it is necessary and proportionate to do so.
On the hon. Lady’s specific point about web logs, I can assure the Committee that the Bill is already tightly drafted. In particular, clause 17(3)(c) excludes so-called web logs. It provides for the retention of data relating to IP resolution, and only such data. Anything else is already beyond the scope of what the clause permits. Accordingly, although I entirely agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary.
3.30 pm
The hon. Lady sought to look at some of the broader issues on definition, so perhaps this is an appropriate point to respond to some of them. She asked about the definition of “identifier”. We have said that that might be the IP address or another identifier, such as a MAC—media access control—address, which might be needed to specify the relevant identity, which is why the clause is drafted in that way. It is also intended to ensure that the provisions are technology neutral. “IP address resolution” is not a technical or legal term; it is a phrase commonly used to describe the process of attributing an internet connection to an individual or device. That process can require a number of different pieces of communications data of different types. None the less, the Bill carefully defines what it is intended to cover. I want to reassure her in that regard.
I will try to answer the hon. Lady’s 10 specific questions with the information I have in front of me, but if I miss any I will reflect on the Hansard report of this debate and write to her with any information she is seeking. She asked for a list of the data types in the Bill. It is important that the legislation is technology neutral, and spelling out a detailed list of data types that could change over a short period would not make it future-proof. The Government made it clear during the scrutiny of the draft Communications Data Bill that any long-term replacement legislation must be technology neutral so as to keep pace with technological change in the communications industry. That remains the case.
The hon. Lady will be well aware of the review that David Anderson is conducting, which is due to report next May. She will also know that, as per the discussions we had on DRIPA, the Bill is time-limited to December 2016. Indeed, she will note that the provisions in clause 17 are time-limited to December 2016, for the very reason that the House will need to return to these matters in the next Parliament. I think that is right and proper, so that the issue can be considered in the round and in the light of the different reports, including the ISC report, David Anderson’s report and the Home Affairs Committee’s report, which was published in the past few days, in order to inform a measured, proper debate in the next Parliament on these issues, recognising the speed at which DRIPA was brought before the House and, equally, to ensure that the legislation remains in the right place.