division_name: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill - Technical Approval Board
motion: <p> 
  (a) six representatives of persons appearing to him to be likely to be subject to technical obligations under this Act; and
   
  
   
  (b) such persons with statutory functions in relation to persons falling within paragraph (a).'.-- [Mr.  Heald.] 
  <p>Brought up, and read the First time. 
  <p>
   I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
   
  
  <p> 
     Mr. Deputy Speaker  (Mr. Michael Lord):   
   With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 4-- Report of payments made --
   
  
  <p>Despite assurances given to the Standing Committee, the remarks of Jane Kennedy MP, the Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Bill as at present worded gives the <p>Government powers to require interception of data and other communications which will mean the commitment by communications service providers of a high level of expenditure on hardware, software and personnel. These costs will fall proportionately more heavily on smaller communications operators than on larger ones, and are therefore likely to be anti-competitive, and inimical to new entry.
  <p> 
   
  The assurances given so far are not comforting . . . Thus, the costs remain unspecific, and Government appears to arrogate to itself the right to decide to what extent the cost of these new regulatory burdens carried out for Government's benefit, would fall upon our industry.
  <p> 
   
  There is no negotiating machinery by which the industry could agree the definition of a reasonable intercept capacity, and there is not even a commitment to negotiate over costs.
  <p>The main concern (of City institutions) is over the uncertainty as to who will have what rights of access to their data and communications and the risk of criminal access under guise of a warrant.
  <p>we believe that it is important that industry have the powers envisaged under your proposal for a technical approval board . . . I cannot agree with the Minister's statements . . . I thought you easily won the argument on technical approval board.
  <p>We have always expected some kind of approval board . . . There is no feeling that confidentiality would be a problem.
  <p>report annually to Parliament setting out the payments made under section 13 in respect of each person to whom such payment is made, and where payments are not made, the reasons therefor.
  <p>such persons with statutory functions,
  <p>Due to the inherently short lifecycle of internet--
  <p>infrastructure equipment, and the need to replace and enhance networks due to traffic growth, it is misleading
  <p>constantly evolving and expanding and the need for additional engineering work to support the capability for interception will be ever present.
  <p>The Government also proposes to appoint an independent body to provide impartial advice on how to balance the requirements of the agencies and CSPs. This should help to ensure that any requirements are reasonable, proportionate and do not place CSPs at a disadvantage.
  <p>Question put , That the clause be read a Second time:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 156, Noes 296.
  