§ 8. Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull)What estimate he has made of the cost to internet service providers of complying with the provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. [126126]
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke)The Government have estimated that the cost to internet service providers of complying with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill will not exceed £20 million in aggregate over the first four years' operation. I am satisfied that the requirements that we have in mind will be consistent with comparable countries. I should also draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that Parliament will have a further chance to scrutinise the detailed technical proposals before the requirements come into force and before any costs are incurred.
§ Mr. TaylorWhat does the Minister have to say in response to the British Chambers of Commerce report that the Bill will cost the economy £46 billion? [Laughter.] Yes, £46 billion. Will he give an outright commitment that the Bill will not drive British business out of the United Kingdom?
§ Mr. ClarkeMy short answer is that that is total nonsense, as I have told the British Chambers of 652 Commerce. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that on our website, we go through the BCC figures; they are nonsense. We also do not accept the charge that e-commerce will be driven out of the country, although I emphasise that we have entered very close dialogue with the industry to try to ensure full agreement. A requirement for the Act to work effectively will be close working with business. We are extremely conscious of that at every level.
§ Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston)Does my hon. Friend agree that people who oppose the Bill are playing right into the hands of some of the most evil criminals on this planet? Are not charges already imposed in countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, Sweden and France for internet service providers in this field?
§ Mr. ClarkeI half agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to identify the benefits to crime of the way in which the internet can operate and we need to contest it. Examples of his point are clear. In 1996–97, through using such surveillance, there were 1,200 arrests, and the seizure of drugs with a street value of more than £600 million and of more than 450 firearms. I only half agree with my hon. Friend because although some people are motivated in the way that he described, some are partners in dialogue—I mentioned business in this context—who are worried about the process, and it is incumbent on us as a Government to work closely with them. I do not impugn their motives, although I impugn the motives of some of those who have made some of the arguments.
§ Jackie Ballard (Taunton)Given the worries about which the Minister has just spoken, and the increasing concerns of Members of both Houses of Parliament and ordinary, law-abiding citizens who use the internet, will he tell us what changes he intends to make to the Bill?
§ Mr. ClarkeWe are looking at two or three specific changes. The first is to make explicit issues on cost, of the kind with which I dealt in answer to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). The second is to consider definitions of certain aspects of collection of communications data about which questions have been raised. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary commented on that last week. The third is to make more explicit in the Bill the fact that we are principally requiring plain text rather than any encryption key in order to get the data that we want, about which there has been some concern. A number of those points will arise during the third day's consideration of the Bill in Committee in the other place.