The Government continues to consider the judgment of the European Court. At the present time, we consider that the UK Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009 remain in force. Those in receipt of a notice under the regulations have been informed that they should continue to observe their obligations as outlined in any notice.

As the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), stated to the Home Affairs Committee in answer to a question from the hon. Member on 8 April, we are considering the judgment and its implications carefully. The retention of communications data is absolutely fundamental to ensure law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to investigate crime, protect the public and ensure national security.

I will do that, and NHS England was absolutely right to have a pause so that we ensure that we give people such reassurance—[Interruption.] When we had a pause before, the result was the very good Health and Social Care Act, which is doing good things for patients throughout the NHS. This programme is too important to get wrong, and while I think that there is understanding on both sides of the House about the benefits of using anonymised data properly, the process must be carried out in a way that reassures the public.

The Government works closely, and has regular discussions, with the US Administration to help ensure that British law enforcement have the evidence they need to undertake investigations. This currently includes work, to improve the secure transfer of requests under the US-UK mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT). We are clear that the US-UK MLAT process does not currently provide a reliable or sufficiently timely solution to the requirement for communications data in tackling crime and protecting the public.

The Government works closely and has regular discussions with the US Administration, to help ensure that British law enforcement have the evidence they need to undertake investigations. This currently includes work to improve the secure transfer of requests under the US-UK mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT). We are clear that the US-UK MLAT process does not provide a sufficiently timely or reliable solution to the requirement for communications data in tackling crime and protecting the public.

[holding answer 13 June 2013]: It is a long-standing practice of successive Governments not to comment on matters of security and intelligence.

[holding answer 14 May 2013]: The Communications Capabilities Development Programme funds communications service providers for the delivery of Communications Data (CD) and Lawful Intercept (LI) capabilities. The vast majority of the programme expenditure to date has been on CD and LI delivery under existing legislation, including payments to communications services providers, law enforcement training and programme costs.

[holding answer 8 November 2012]: Staff across the CCD programme and within the associated policy team have as part of their core duties a requirement to work closely with industry and law enforcement. These staff may also be required to produce relevant communications material.

As at March 2013 the Communications Capabilities Development programme includes:

(a) 73 Home Office civil servants

(b) Staff Seconded from:

(i) Other Departments and agencies—6

(ii) The private sector—0.

Although not employed directly by the Home Office, the Communications Capabilities Development programme currently has a number of privately contracted subject matter experts and technical personnel deployed on the programme through support services contracts. Over the lifetime of the Communications Capabilities Development programme the number of these personnel has varied, responding to business need.

[holding answer 11 March 2013]: BAE systems Detica are contracted to provide support under three ongoing contracts as part of the Communications Capabilities Development programme.

[holding answer 11 March 2013]: The Communications Capabilities Development programme currently has a number of Detica (BAE Systems Detica) personnel deployed on the programme through the Client-side Support Services contract, over the lifetime of the contract the number of personnel deployed has varied, responding to business need.

[holding answer 27 November 2012]: The Department for Education is consulting on proposals to amend regulations to allow extracts of data from the national pupil database to be shared for a wider set of purposes. The aim is to increase beneficial uses of the data that promote the education or well-being of children.

All applications for extracts of data from the national pupil database are subject to a robust approvals process. Selected data would only be shared with approved organisations for specific purposes. Organisations must comply with strict terms and conditions on security, handling and use of the data, including processing it in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. The data is typically shared in a format that allows users to analyse the information without the need for names or other identifiers, with sensitive data receded to make it much less sensitive.

The Department has the right to audit compliance with security requirements and terms and conditions. Any failure to comply with the terms and conditions would be considered a serious matter and a breach of contract with the Department of Education. Organisations could also be subject to prosecution under the Data Protection Act 1998, or the Information Commissioner could impose penalties of up to £500,000.

Officials have discussed proposals to widen access to extracts of data from the national pupil database under strict terms and conditions with representatives from the Information Commissioner's Office on a number of occasions over the last year. Information Commissioner Office representatives have said that they would support in principle the release of data under controlled access, as long as a proper system of governance is in place. The Department strengthened its process for requesting access to data from the national pupil database under terms and conditions, details of which are available on the Department's website. See following link:

www.education.gov.uk/npd

The Department for Education does not hold detailed pupil level information relating to independent schools. The Department holds attainment data on all schools for public examinations taken at Key Stage 4 and Key Stage 5, which is provided by awarding organisations. Independent schools are not required to take part in national curriculum tests, but may choose to do so. Any other pupil level data held is provided voluntarily.

[holding answer 27 November 2012]: The Department for Education is consulting on proposals to amend regulations to allow extracts of data from the national pupil database to be shared for a wider set of purposes. The aim is to increase beneficial uses of the data that promote the education or well-being of children.

All applications for extracts of data from the national pupil database are subject to a robust approvals process. Selected data would only be shared with approved organisations for specific purposes. Organisations must comply with strict terms and conditions on security, handling and use of the data, including processing it in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. The data is typically shared in a format that allows users to analyse the information without the need for names or other identifiers, with sensitive data receded to make it much less sensitive.

The Department has the right to audit compliance with security requirements and terms and conditions. Any failure to comply with the terms and conditions would be considered a serious matter and a breach of contract with the Department of Education. Organisations could also be subject to prosecution under the Data Protection Act 1998, or the Information Commissioner could impose penalties of up to £500,000.

Officials have discussed proposals to widen access to extracts of data from the national pupil database under strict terms and conditions with representatives from the Information Commissioner's Office on a number of occasions over the last year. Information Commissioner Office representatives have said that they would support in principle the release of data under controlled access, as long as a proper system of governance is in place. The Department strengthened its process for requesting access to data from the national pupil database under terms and conditions, details of which are available on the Department's website. See following link:

www.education.gov.uk/npd

The Department for Education does not hold detailed pupil level information relating to independent schools. The Department holds attainment data on all schools for public examinations taken at Key Stage 4 and Key Stage 5, which is provided by awarding organisations. Independent schools are not required to take part in national curriculum tests, but may choose to do so. Any other pupil level data held is provided voluntarily.

[holding answer 27 November 2012]: The Department for Education is consulting on proposals to amend regulations to allow extracts of data from the national pupil database to be shared for a wider set of purposes. The aim is to increase beneficial uses of the data that promote the education or well-being of children.

All applications for extracts of data from the national pupil database are subject to a robust approvals process. Selected data would only be shared with approved organisations for specific purposes. Organisations must comply with strict terms and conditions on security, handling and use of the data, including processing it in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. The data is typically shared in a format that allows users to analyse the information without the need for names or other identifiers, with sensitive data receded to make it much less sensitive.

The Department has the right to audit compliance with security requirements and terms and conditions. Any failure to comply with the terms and conditions would be considered a serious matter and a breach of contract with the Department of Education. Organisations could also be subject to prosecution under the Data Protection Act 1998, or the Information Commissioner could impose penalties of up to £500,000.

Officials have discussed proposals to widen access to extracts of data from the national pupil database under strict terms and conditions with representatives from the Information Commissioner's Office on a number of occasions over the last year. Information Commissioner Office representatives have said that they would support in principle the release of data under controlled access, as long as a proper system of governance is in place. The Department strengthened its process for requesting access to data from the national pupil database under terms and conditions, details of which are available on the Department's website. See following link:

www.education.gov.uk/npd

The Department for Education does not hold detailed pupil level information relating to independent schools. The Department holds attainment data on all schools for public examinations taken at Key Stage 4 and Key Stage 5, which is provided by awarding organisations. Independent schools are not required to take part in national curriculum tests, but may choose to do so. Any other pupil level data held is provided voluntarily.

As my hon. Friend will know, scrutiny of the draft legislation is only just starting. I understand that the first sitting of the Joint Committee is due to take place this week. Officials from the Department will consider this matter and give evidence to the Committee. I will commit to keeping the issue under review as the legislative process develops, because we recognise the need to ensure that the Bill and the scrutiny that we will respond to are effective. We need to recognise that this is an important matter in ensuring that crimes continue to be prosecuted.

Statistics on the number of authorisations and notices issued under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), Part 1 Chapter 2, to acquire communications data are held by the independent Interception of Communications Commissioner. Some figures have been published in the Commissioner's annual reports. The next annual report is due for publication shortly.

There are currently no published statistics relating to the number of RIPA obligations that have been rejected by communications service providers. The Act and its code of practice require that any obligation made under the Act is necessary and proportionate, and must apply to a communications service provider (CSP). The system of Single Points of Contact, and the additional code of practice requirements, are intended to ensure that it is reasonably practicable for a communications service provider (CSP) to comply.

There are no published figures linking crime type investigated to numbers of authorisations and notices. However, in 2010 the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office commissioned a targeted survey of all communications data requested by law enforcement in a two-week period. The survey covered all requests in relation to crime, excluding terrorism. This survey showed the following:

The ‘Other serious crime’ category was not further disaggregated in the 2010 survey but will include crimes such as violence against the person, robbery, fraud, forgery and firearms offences.

It is important to note that the data from this survey represent a snapshot from a limited period of time and may be affected disproportionately by particular investigations in progress at the time of the survey. Accordingly, the figures should be treated as indicative rather than definitive.

The Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers have recently commissioned another targeted survey.

Some statistics breaking down usage across the categories of communications data are available in the Commissioner's published reports, although not for the whole period requested. A breakdown is provided in the 2010 report. The Commissioner does not publish a breakdown for the use of the urgent oral process across categories of communications data. Guidance on the use of the urgent oral process is included in the Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data Code of Practice.

Statistics on the number of authorisations and notices issued under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), Part 1 Chapter 2, to acquire communications data are held by the independent Interception of Communications Commissioner. Some figures have been published in the Commissioner's annual reports. The next annual report is due for publication shortly.

There are currently no published statistics relating to the number of RIPA obligations that have been rejected by communications service providers. The Act and its code of practice require that any obligation made under the Act is necessary and proportionate, and must apply to a communications service provider (CSP). The system of Single Points of Contact, and the additional code of practice requirements, are intended to ensure that it is reasonably practicable for a communications service provider (CSP) to comply.

There are no published figures linking crime type investigated to numbers of authorisations and notices. However, in 2010 the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office commissioned a targeted survey of all communications data requested by law enforcement in a two-week period. The survey covered all requests in relation to crime, excluding terrorism. This survey showed the following:

The ‘Other serious crime’ category was not further disaggregated in the 2010 survey but will include crimes such as violence against the person, robbery, fraud, forgery and firearms offences.

It is important to note that the data from this survey represent a snapshot from a limited period of time and may be affected disproportionately by particular investigations in progress at the time of the survey. Accordingly, the figures should be treated as indicative rather than definitive.

The Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers have recently commissioned another targeted survey.

Some statistics breaking down usage across the categories of communications data are available in the Commissioner's published reports, although not for the whole period requested. A breakdown is provided in the 2010 report. The Commissioner does not publish a breakdown for the use of the urgent oral process across categories of communications data. Guidance on the use of the urgent oral process is included in the Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data Code of Practice.

Statistics on the number of authorisations and notices issued under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), Part 1 Chapter 2, to acquire communications data are held by the independent Interception of Communications Commissioner. Some figures have been published in the Commissioner's annual reports. The next annual report is due for publication shortly.

There are currently no published statistics relating to the number of RIPA obligations that have been rejected by communications service providers. The Act and its code of practice require that any obligation made under the Act is necessary and proportionate, and must apply to a communications service provider (CSP). The system of Single Points of Contact, and the additional code of practice requirements, are intended to ensure that it is reasonably practicable for a communications service provider (CSP) to comply.

There are no published figures linking crime type investigated to numbers of authorisations and notices. However, in 2010 the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office commissioned a targeted survey of all communications data requested by law enforcement in a two-week period. The survey covered all requests in relation to crime, excluding terrorism. This survey showed the following:

The ‘Other serious crime’ category was not further disaggregated in the 2010 survey but will include crimes such as violence against the person, robbery, fraud, forgery and firearms offences.

It is important to note that the data from this survey represent a snapshot from a limited period of time and may be affected disproportionately by particular investigations in progress at the time of the survey. Accordingly, the figures should be treated as indicative rather than definitive.

The Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers have recently commissioned another targeted survey.

Some statistics breaking down usage across the categories of communications data are available in the Commissioner's published reports, although not for the whole period requested. A breakdown is provided in the 2010 report. The Commissioner does not publish a breakdown for the use of the urgent oral process across categories of communications data. Guidance on the use of the urgent oral process is included in the Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data Code of Practice.