§ Mr. BercowTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the effect of the Users Network/Service Providers Technical Requirements Resolution, and the Mutual Legal Assistance Convention, on access to private communications by(a) United Kingdom and (b) foreign surveillance bodies; and if prior request for a warrant will always apply; [85270]
(2) if he will estimate the cost of implementing the (a) User Network/Service Providers Technical Requirements Resolution and (b) Mutual Legal Assistance Convention; and what representations he has received on them. [85238]
§ Kate HoeyThe draft Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance Convention in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union requires the requesting Member State to obtain authority for interception under its domestic law before making a request. The requested Member State is also required to obtain a warrant in accordance with national law where the 149W subject of the request is on its territory. Any interception on the United Kingdom public telecommunications network will, therefore, continue to require a warrant issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The cost of transmitting the intercept product in response to such a request falls to the requesting Member State.
The draft Convention also provides a legal basis for the "service provider" solution to satellite interception. It places an obligation on Member States not to prevent satellite telecommunication operators from making their facilities available for the purpose of complying with an interception warrant issued by another Member State, provided that the subject of the interception is on the territory of the Member State ordering the interception. It does not, however, impose any obligations or costs on satellite operators to make such facilities available.
The draft Convention also contains a number of non-interception provisions. These are not expected to have any significant financial implications for the United Kingdom. Indeed, simpler and quicker procedures for seeking and providing legal assistance under the draft Convention could result in some cost savings.
The draft Council Resolution on the lawful interception of communications in respect of new technologies is intended to supplement an existing 1995 Council Resolution. Its purpose is to make clear that law enforcement agencies have similar interception requirements for traditional telephony and new technologies such as the Internet and satellite communications.
The 1995 Council Resolution has not been incorporated in United Kingdom law, and, therefore, does not place obligations on telecommunications operators. Similarly, the draft Resolution is not legally binding and will not impose any obligations or costs on satellite operators or Internet Service Providers.
The draft Convention and draft Council Resolution remain under Parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses in accordance with the normal procedures. I am aware of representations from Justice and Liberty.