I beg to move amendment 520, in clause 131, page 104, line 9, at end insert—

“(3B) Subsection (3) shall not be applicable where the person outside the United Kingdom has its principal office in a country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services with which the United Kingdom has entered in to an international mutual assistance agreement or is subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”

This amendment would exclude the extraterritorial provision in cases where any mutual assistance arrangement exists between the UK and the provider’s jurisdiction. This amendment would continue to enable government to seek voluntary assistance from CSPs in non-MLA countries.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 521, in clause 147, page 115, line 39, at end insert—

“(3B) Subsection (3) shall not be applicable where the person outside the United Kingdom has its principal office in a country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services with which the United Kingdom has entered in to an international mutual assistance agreement or is subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”

This amendment would exclude the extraterritorial provision in cases where any mutual assistance arrangement exists between the UK and the provider’s jurisdiction. This amendment would continue to enable government to seek voluntary assistance from CSPs in non-MLA countries.

Amendment 524, in clause 167, page 129, line 39, at end insert—

“(3b) Subsection (3) shall not be applicable where the person outside the United Kingdom has its principal office in a country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services with which the United Kingdom has entered in to an international mutual assistance agreement or is subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”

This amendment excludes the extraterritorial provision in cases where any mutual assistance arrangement exists between the UK and the provider’s jurisdiction. This amendment would continue to enable government to seek voluntary assistance from CSPs in non-MLA countries.

These amendments deal with the implementation of warrants. The implementation scheme is similar to that for other warrants. The amendments, as with previous similar amendments, have been tabled to restrict the arrangements because of concerns raised by those who may be required to assist in the implementation of warrants. As the Committee will have observed, the amendments are of same type and species as those previously discussed in relation to implementation of warrants and, again, I will not repeat the arguments about them.

The Bill maintains the existing position in relation to extraterritorial jurisdiction and the obligations that apply to overseas companies. I have said before and I happily repeat that it is right that companies providing communications services to customers in the UK should comply with UK law. That remains our position. On that basis, I resist the amendments and invite their withdrawal.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment 528, in clause 131, page 104, line 23, at end insert—

“(7) A warrant may be implemented only to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued.”

This amendment would bring the implementation of warrants into line with section 16(8) of PACE 1984.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 529, in clause 147, page 116, line 6, at end insert—

“(6) A warrant may be implemented only to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued.”

This amendment would bring the implementation of warrants into line with section 16(8) of PACE 1984.

Amendment 530, in clause 167, page 130, line 12, at end insert—

“(7) A warrant may be implemented only to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued.”

This amendment would bring the implementation of warrants into line with section 16(8) of PACE 1984.

These amendments are of the same type and advanced for the same reason.

Again, we note that the amendments are similar to previous amendments. We still say that they are unnecessary. The clauses already provide safeguards so that any bulk warrant may be implemented only to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued. For example, in relation to bulk interception in clause 119(4) and (5), a warrant may only authorise conduct that is described in the warrant or conduct that

“it is necessary to undertake in order to do what is expressly authorised or required by the warrant”.

That clearly sets out the scope of the authorised conduct. Well-intentioned though the amendments are, we submit that they are unnecessary.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided:

Ayes 9, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 131 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 132