We consider that this regime more realistically reflects the nature of the intrusion represented by interception with the consent of one of the parties. Part of what the Government is seeking to do in this Bill is to bring existing interception of communications legislation up to date. This includes providing a level playing field for all those involved in supplying communications services. This allegation is completely false. Interception of communications, will, as indicated above, continue to require a Secretary of State warrant.
Communications data is a very different set of information, representing a lower level of intrusion.
It is analogous to one's telephone bill, and includes details of numbers contacted, duration of calls and associated data held by the service provider, such as details of the subscriber to a particular number. It does not include details of transactions made after an initial connection has been established. My officials are working on a new definition of communications data which will make this unambiguous. We consider that the arrangements prescribed by the Bill do meet the requirement of Article 6 of the ECHR, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. The applicants claimed, amongst other things, that their trial was unfair because they did not have access to possibly relevant material obtained by interception.