This change returns things to what I said the Government wanted in the first place, which was to be able to say that, for example, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—whatever it is called these days—is aware of a warrant just because they know that people issue them. I would like to get some clarity on exactly what “necessary operational awareness” means in practice. The Minister knows this is a contentious situation. From the evidence we have received, we know that the provision is possibly used more often than we are aware of, not because the security services are looking at Members of legislatures, but because of the internet.
I might return to this issue in the stand part debate, but the important person in this scenario is the Prime Minister, which is why it was designated originally as the triple lock. I do see the sense of it: we had a situation with a Prime Minister who was hospitalised. I accept that some of this issue concerns highly classified information, so if we have a Prime Minister who cannot access secure communications, and time is of the essence, it is important. I support the idea but I feel that having had one slight victory, it has been clawed back off us.
]]>