Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP

Shadow Home Secretary

House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA t 020 7219 8250 e andy.burnham.mp@parliament.uk

Rt. Hon. Theresa May MP

Home Secretary
6th November 2015

Dear Theresa
Investigatory Powers Bill
I want to begin by reiterating our intention to work constructively with you on the Bill but, as I said in my
response to your statement on Wednesday, to strengthen the safeguards within it.
As you know, the two safeguards which I consider to be most important are judicial authorisation of
warrants and the threshold for use of the powers outlined in the Bill.
In advance of the publication of the Bill, I was clear that full legal authorisation of warrants was the key test
that Labour was setting for this Bill.
I have now had the opportunity to study your proposals in detail and have taken advice from the Shadow
Justice Secretary. This has given rise to concerns that the safeguards you are proposing are not as strong as
it appeared when they were presented to the Commons.
First, on judicial authorisation, you said in your statement that the authorisation of intercept warrants
would be a two-stage process, or a double-lock. This created the impression that both the Home
Secretary and a senior judge would review the evidence. Indeed, you may recall that I asked you in the
House about what would happen if there was a difference of opinion between the two.
On closer inspection of the wording of the Bill, it would seem that it does not deliver the strong safeguard
that you appeared to be accepting. The current wording of the draft Bill requires the judge to review the
process undertaken by the Home the Secretary in the same way applied to a judicial review:
'apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review.
Legal advice we have sought confirms that the current wording does not deliver what we believed was
being proposed in terms of the Home Secretary and Judicial Commissioner double-lock for warrant
authorisation.
I would be grateful if you could clarify this situation as a matter of urgency. If our understanding is correct,
then I wanted to give you notice that we will be looking to amend the wording of the Bill in Committee to
ensure it delivers what we thought was being offered - ie a judge to review the evidence and authorise, or
not, the approval of a warrant, as well as the Home Secretary. This will provide the proper double-lock
that you referred to you.
On the powers in the Bill, I remain of the view that there should be a clearly defined threshold justifying
their use. This should also apply to the Police's ability to access internet connection records.
I believe additional safeguards may be required to provide reassurance to the public. Whilst the public will
understand the need for police to be able to access these records in order to investigate child sexual

Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP

Shadow Home Secretary
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA t 020 7219 8250 e andy.burnham.mp@parliament.uk

exploitation, kidnap and similarly serious crimes, they will be concerned that police officers should not
have unrestricted access in relation to the investigation of lesser offences.
Therefore, I believe the Bill needs to include clearly-defined thresholds for access to internet connection
records. The threshold should be based on the seriousness of the crime being investigated. This would
provide reassurance that the police could not access the internet connection records of any and every
individual.
On this issue, further reassurance could be achieved by limiting access to internet connection records to
police officers of a specified seniority.
As I said on Wednesday, I believe you have produced a framework which has the potential to give the
authorities the powers they need whilst also commanding public trust. But that will only be achieved by
strengthening the safeguards in the areas I have identified.
Yours sincerely

Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP

Shadow Home Secretary