Spies need snooping powers to protect public from terrorists, committee warns The joint committee, which was set up to scrutinize the draft plans, said the moves would "trample over privacy" and could lead to authorities carrying out "fishing expeditions" into people's internet and phone activities. Measures in the draft Communications Bill will allow the Government to order communications companies to keep every detail of their customer's activities for up to a year. Ministers say it is necessary to allow the police and intelligence agencies to stay ahead of terrorists and major criminals who are able to exploit all forms of modern communications. They say the authorities will be able to see who is in contact with whom and when, but not the content of any communication. Mrs May said: "This was a (Coalition) Government commitment. It was recognized this was so important to protect the UK from a number of threats including terrorists, paedophiles and criminals. But Mr Clegg said: "We cannot proceed with this bill and we have to go back to the drawing board. That must be done in a proportionate way that gets the balance between security and liberty right. Any modernisation of the powers, including possible new legislation, must meet the concerns of the Joint Committee by having the best possible safeguards and keeping costs under control. The ISC heard evidence on the plans from the security and intelligence agencies in private and released a brief summary of its report today. It said: "We recognise that changing technology means that the agencies are unable to access all the communications data they need, that the problem is getting worse, and that action is needed now." It concluded: "We believe that the decline of available communications data will begin shortly to have a serious impact on the intelligence and security Agencies." Communications data is especially crucial in the early stages of an investigation to see whether there is a potential terror plot and who may be involved, it said. The committee said communications data played an "integral part" and is used in every single investigation carried out by MI5. Measures in the bill will also make it easier to obtain details from providers who are based overseas but whose communications pass through the UK. However, the ISC said the Government needed to do more to convince parliament and the public if the bill in its current form was to be passed. The separate, joint committee report was more critical and said the bill needed a "significant" rewrite. The committee was set up to allay concerns by Mr Clegg over the proposals. It said the proposed, blanket powers to demand any or all communications to be retained were too sweeping and must be narrowed. A better balance needed to be drawn between the needs of enforcement and security agencies and the privacy of the public. Estimated costs and benefits from the scheme were also described as "fanciful and misleading." The committee also raised the prospect of an effective national database being set up. The last Labour government was rounded criticised when it proposed setting up a central, Government run database containing everyone's communications activities. Under the latest bill, communications companies will each have a database of their own to hold the information. However, there are also plans for a filter system that would automatically draw details from each database when a request comes in. The committee concluded: "Although they (the databases) are privately owned, the Government can stipulate what should be held on them, for how long and in what format it should be supplied. The differences therefore are not as great as the Home Office suggests. The Request Filter can be equated to a federated database. It said while the filter could speed up requests it "introduces new risks, most obviously the temptation to go on "fishing expeditions." One group said the technology could, for example, meet a request for all mobile phone users in Trafalgar Square on a given day and time and specific websites each of those people visited in the last year. Lord Blencathra, chairman of the joint committee, said: "There is a fine but crucial line between allowing our law enforcement and security agencies access to the information they need to protect the country and allowing our citizens to go about their daily business without a fear, however unjustified, that the state is monitoring their every move. The breadth of the draft Bill as it stands appears to be overkill and is much wider than the specific needs identified by the law enforcement agencies. However, Mrs May seized on the fact both committees had accepted the need in principle for the powers and said she would consider their recommendations. She said she was not going to "duck" the issue and was hoping to have cross-party talks to ensure any future bill is passed within the current parliament. However Lib Dem sources suggested there was no way any bill would now be through during this parliament. Julian Huppert, a Liberal Democrat MP on the joint committee, said: "This Bill cannot proceed. "It was absolutely ridiculous for the Home Secretary to ask for a "snoopers charter" based on political scaremongering, when what we actually need is sensible reforms working with the major tech companies." Yvette Cooper, Shadow Home Secretary, said: "Given the importance of technology in fighting crime, the Home Secretary needs to urgently rethink this legislation and get her approach right so that the police can do their job in fighting crime whilst the public have confidence their privacy is well protected too."