Trade union funding also to be curbed by ‘opt in’ system whereby union members are to choose to pay rather than choose not to pay political levy

David Cameron is to use the Tories’ unexpected parliamentary majority to press ahead with a “turbo-charged” version of the snooper’s charter that will extend the powers of the security services in response to the debate that followed surveillance disclosures by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Threat to exit human rights convention must be dropped, Tories tell Cameron Read more

In a surprise move, the government is to introduce an investigatory powers bill far more wide-ranging than expected. The legislation will include not only the expected snooper’s charter, enabling the tracking of everyone’s web and social media use, but also moves to strengthen the security services’ warranted powers for the bulk interception of the content of communications.

The extension of the bill to “modernise the law” on tracking communications data, which was agreed within government only this week, came as the prime minister used his fresh majority to challenge the chief source of funding for the Labour party.

The trade union bill, put forward by Sajid Javid, the business secretary, will create a shift from a current system whereby union members have to opt out from paying the political levy to one in which they have to opt in. The change, from a system of inertia to one in which members actively choose to pay, which is likely to lead to a significant drop in union income, was condemned as a return to the 1920s by union leaders.

In the 62nd Queen’s speech of her reign, the monarch also outlined bills to pave the way for:

Alex Salmond challenges Tories' plan for English votes for English laws Read more

A referendum on Britain’s EU membership to be held by the end of 2017.

No income tax for those working 30 hours a week on the minimum wage.

A tax lock to guarantee there will be no increase in the rates of VAT, income tax or national insurance.

Further Scottish devolution and measures that will give English MPs more say over laws that only affect England.

An increase in free childcare for three- and four-year-olds, to 30 hours a week.

The muscular approach by the prime minister on surveillance and trade union reform contrasted with a more cautious approach on his manifesto commitment to repeal the Human Rights Act. Downing Street, which had assumed its plans would not survive in a hung parliament, has delayed plans for a new British bill of rights after senior Tories warned No 10 that threats to withdraw from the European convention on human rights would lead to a crippling backbench rebellion.



But the prime minister was warned that his plans for an investigatory powers bill will face a major challenge in the House of Lords. Lord Wallace of Tankerness, the Liberal Democrat leader in the upper house, suggested that his party would adopt a robust approach to the Salisbury convention, which says that the upper house should not seek to challenge manifesto commitments by a winning political party. The Tories outlined their plans for the new bill in three sentences on page 63 of their manifesto.

Nick Clegg, the former deputy prime minister, led the charge against the new investigatory powers bill. In his response to the Queen’s speech Clegg warned that fundamental rights of British citizens were “threatened by a turbo-charged snooper’s charter”.

The Guardian view on the Queen’s speech: it all comes back to Europe | Editorial Read more

David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, claimed that the government move contrasted with the approach in the US. Davis told MPs: “Our primary ally, the United States with the NSA which entirely mirrors GCHQ, is as we speak moving away from bulk collection of date and treating it as wholly unconstitutional.”

The Home Office says the investigatory powers bill will “better equip law enforcement and intelligence agencies to meet their key operational requirements, and address the gap in these agencies’ ability to build intelligence and evidence where subjects of interest, suspects and vulnerable people have communicated online.”



Ministers promise to provide for “appropriate oversight arrangements and safeguards”, but there is no immediate detail on how the complex web of intelligence and surveillance commissioners and parliamentary oversight might be strengthened.

The government says the legislation will respond to issues raised by David Anderson QC, the official reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, in his assessment of bulk surveillance powers used by the police and security services under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Anderson delivered his report to Downing Street on 6 May, the day before the general election, and it is expected to be published in the next few days. Anderson has said his review considered the safeguards to privacy, issues of transparency and oversight as well as the powers needed to meet the challenge of changing technologies. He has said it was a “substantial piece of work” which involved fact-finding travel to Berlin, California, Washington DC, Brussels and Ottawa.

The extended scope of the bill may follow some of the recommendations of the intelligence and security committee (ISC), which suggested in March that the entire existing surveillance legal framework should be replaced by a single new act of parliament. The MPs and peers suggested that the new legislation should list every intrusive capability available to the security services and specify their purpose, authorisation procedure and what safeguards and oversight procedures exist for their use.

David Cameron packs plenty into his one-party Queen's speech Read more

The other surprise element of the Queen’s speech will lead to the biggest change in the collection of the political levy by trade unions since the 1927 Trade Union Act. This resulted in a fall in the number of political levy payers from 3.5 million to 2 million, and a drop in party income of 20%. Between May 2010 and December 2014, Labour received donations of £48.6m from trade unions, nearly half the £110m that the party took over that period.

The Tory manifesto said in vague terms that a Conservative government “would legislate to ensure trade unions use a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions”, but made no mention of the political levy.

Trade union officers and the Labour party seemed to have been caught unaware of the reforms on Wednesday, and saying the proposals appeared to breach the previous understanding that reforms to the funding of political parties would be conducted on a bipartisan basis.

A Unite spokesman said: “The Tories are taking Britain back to the 1920s with this shamelessly partisan attack on the funding of the opposition party. Political funds are already subject to approval being given in regular ballots by unions. It is clear there is no place for trade unions in Cameron’s ‘one nation’.”