My Lords, the Government have already strengthened the provisions in the Investigatory Powers Bill by accepting a Labour amendment to add protections for trade unions. It is already illegal for the security and intelligence agencies to further the interests of any political party. The Bill goes further by putting the Wilson doctrine on to a statutory footing, requiring the Prime Minister’s approval for the targeting of parliamentarians’ communications in addition to Secretary of State and judicial commissioner authorisation.

My Lords, I have had round-table meetings with a number of organisations, including those representing the journalist profession and freedom of information bodies. The adherence of any public authority to existing legislation is an issue for the commissioners and the relevant courts or regulators, and any complaints can be followed up through those channels. The Bill we are debating provides for a whole range of safeguards in addition to those that currently exist: statutory oversight of the use of investigatory powers and greater powers for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to carry out investigations. In addition, we are creating a number of offences. I hope the noble Baroness will see that we have done our best to strengthen the safeguards that exist under current legislation.

The Investigatory Powers Bill creates a “double lock” for the use of the most intrusive in-vestigatory powers such that a decision to issue a warrant must be approved by a Judicial Commissioner.

As the Secretary of State for the Home Department set out last November, this system balances Parliamentary accountability with independent consideration by a judicial authority. The application of judicial review principles is a robust, yet flexible, approach that the judiciary have significant experience in applying as the framework for independent scrutiny of Executive decision making. The ‘double-lock’, including the use of judicial review principles, was considered in detail by the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill. The Committee concluded that they were satisfied with the use of judicial review principles and that they would afford the Judicial Commissioners considerable flexibility in reviewing decisions to authorise the use of investigatory powers.

In response to concerns expressed during Commons Committee Stage, the Government tabled an amendment to the test at report. That amendment makes it clear that when carrying out their review of the decision to issue the warrant, the Judicial Commissioner must do so with a sufficient degree of care so as to ensure that the Commissioner complies with their duties under clause 5 (General duties in relation to privacy). There was strong support from across the House for this amendment.

I am obliged to the noble Baroness. Let me be clear: Clause 217 is not concerned with warrants but with technical capability notices. They precede any question of a warrant. A warrant or a notice would proceed under a different part of the Bill. I do not want to elaborate on this because the Bill will be before this House in the very near future, at which time these details can be considered. However, to pick up on the noble Baroness’s last point, on companies that are overseas but have a presence here and provide services here, the warrant does extend to those companies. With regard to companies overseas, the warrant may be served there. They may have an answer that it is not reasonably practicable to respond because, for example, their own domestic law forbids them doing so. However, the Government have already initiated discussions with the United States of America to come to an agreement on reciprocal enforcement of these relevant and important provisions.