Cryptome 6 May 2015 Part 1 of 7. National Assembly debate of France Spy Bill approved 5 May 2015 http://cryptome.org/2015/05/fr-spy-bill-text-en.pdf Original French source: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/cri/2014-2015/20150212.asp Google translation. _______________________________________________________________________ National Assembly XIV th legislature Ordinary Session 2014-2015 Record integral First meeting of Monday, 13 April 2015 SUMMARY Chairmanship of Mr. Claude Bartolone 1. Intelligence Presentation Manuel Valls, Prime Minister Mr. Jean-Jacques Urvoas, Rapporteur of the Committee on Constitutional laws, legislation and general administration of the Republic Philippe Nauche, draftsman of the national defense and armed forces committee Patricia Adam, President of the National Defence Committee and armed forces Motion to Refer to Committee Mr. Éric Ciotti Manuel Valls, Prime Minister Mr. Jean-Jacques Candelier Pascal Popelin Bruno Le Maire Alain Tourret Sergio Coronado General Discussion Mr. Jean-Jacques Candelier Chairmanship of Mrs Sandrine Mazetier Pascal Popelin Mr. Jacques Myard Hervé Morin Alain Tourret Laurence Dumont Presidency Sergio Coronado Eduardo Rihan Cypel Mr. Christian Estrosi Ms. Marion Maréchal-Le Pen Mr. Sébastien Pietrasanta Alain Marsaud Ms. Marie-Françoise Bechtel Philippe Goujon Chairmanship of Mrs Sandrine Mazetier Laurence Dumont Mr. Bernard Cazeneuve, Minister of the Interior Mr. Jean-Yves Le Drian, defense minister Point of Order Pierre Lellouche General discussion (continued) Ms. Christiane Taubira, Minister of Justice, Minister of Justice 2. Agenda of the next sitting Chairmanship of Mr. Claude Bartolone Mr. President . The meeting was called. (The meeting opened at four pm.) 1 Information Discussion, after engagement of the accelerated procedure, a bill Mr. President . The agenda is the debate after commitment of the accelerated procedure, the draft law on intelligence (Nos 2669, 2697, 2691). Presentation Mr. President . I call the Prime Minister. Manuel Valls , Prime Minister. Mr. Chairman, Madam Minister of Justice, Minister of Defense, Minister of Interior, Mr. Secretary of State for Relations with Parliament, Chair of the Law Committee, Chair the Defence Committee, Mr. Rapporteur of the Defence Committee, ladies and gentlemen, three months after the terrorist attacks of January our country experienced last week, a new aggression of another order. She did not kill him, but she wanted to harm us. I speak of course of piracy and the takeover for several hours, a television channel TV5 Monde. It is a symbol of France and Francophonie that was hit. Already a few weeks ago, a failed attempt had targeted a major newspaper. Freedom of information, expression, opinion - so democracy - were again targeted, as they are everywhere: in Denmark, Tunisia, Kenya, Middle East. It is a global threat that we face. If the investigation is still going on TV5 Monde, the act was claimed by a terrorist movement. It's a fact: the attackers were present in the network management system for several weeks. This aggression is emblematic of a new form of threats: cyber threats. If the digital society carries many promises, it also presents unique vulnerabilities. It is also for this reason that your Assembly will debate the draft law on public service intelligence. From the outset it should be emphasized that public service ambition and the strict framework that accompanies it. For in a democracy, intelligence is an exclusively business focused the protection of citizens and their freedoms and protection to institutions that provide social welfare. Unlike other countries, France has long been uncomfortable to address these issues publicly. The 1991 law on interceptions and stemmed largely from an injunction from the European Court of Human Rights. But the last ten years, a legitimizing device, supervision and control is built gradually. A new stage was to be reached: the intelligence services must have the human, legal and technical to perform surveillance operations that are necessary and proportionate. The law provides that they are strictly focused on the prevention of serious threats against the nation's life. Surveillance of citizens from politics, public debate and the press is outside intelligence missions - everyone knows - and the text strictly prohibited. As previously announced, the Government has tabled an amendment providing for greater protection for professions whose practice is directly related to public debate or defense of individual freedoms: judges, lawyers and journalists. It is exceptional that a Prime Minister has a text before the national representation. I do it to emphasize its importance. This was already the case for the 1991 law on eavesdropping, prepared and presented by Michel Rocard by Édith Cresson. Already at the time, the debate was lively, and the action of enclosed services - in the words of the Prime Minister - a "halo of mystery, suspicion and even fantasies." However, this protective legislation has achieved its goal: who knows that today in our country of 66 million inhabitants, the number of concurrent administrative plays is limited to 2700? The reality is very far from the caricatures that can be heard! But the 1991 law was born before the mobile phone and the Internet: it is no longer adapted to the challenges of the digital society. She oversees intelligence activities only very incomplete. It is time to give France a similar regulatory framework to that existing in most Western democracies, while respecting our legal specificities and our republican values. I said here on 13 January, the principles that would guide our action: the means and exceptional measures to meet the serious security challenges our time, but not exceptional measures. My Government has scrupulously respected the text and presents effective for our services and protector of our freedoms. We do not esquiverons debate, but critics and postures that evoke a Patriot Act or the French political police hints are strictly false and irresponsible, especially in the threat environment that we know. "A dangerous law": How can we say such against-truth? I recall that a number of editorials, during the presentation of the second anti-terrorism law, already evoked dangerous devices - Bernard Cazeneuve remembers. Now everyone knows, it is not. Ladies and gentlemen, the first debate that we will have regard to the delimitation of the missions of the intelligence services. This debate is fully legitimate. The definition of the purpose of surveillance operations should be adjusted threats and their severity. Only certain particularly serious threats justify that involves intelligence services. The terrorist threat today is - do I need to call him? - The most formidable challenge, a challenge that we will face for a long, long time. Everyone must be aware. This is not to frighten, but to be clear and that clear to our countrymen. Now, more than 1,550 French residents or are identified for their involvement in terrorist networks in Syria and Iraq. It is a near tripling since 1 January 2014. You know these numbers, we often recall with Bernard Cazeneuve. The presence of 800 of them was documented in the area; And there are currently 434 - this figure must be reminded - 96 were killed. This phenomenon concerns all European countries and beyond. The European Commissioner for Justice, Vra Jourová, evaluates between 5000 and 6000 the number of Europeans present in Syria, as we feared that the number of foreign fighters from reaching the threshold of 10 000 individuals by the end of the year - and there is no question where the only Europeans. But a new phenomenon has particularly our attention to its risk replica in France, and I give these elements probably for the first time: intelligence services have established that seven of these individuals - I speak of French or residents in France - have died in suicide actions in Syria or Iraq. The youngest was not twenty years. Among them, six were new converts. Is it a deliberate Daech willingness to sacrifice a priority these profiles? Is it for candidates to suicide to demonstrate ideological zeal to prove their commitment? This illustrates in any case the formidable indoctrination Daech capabilities and threat that we face. If this project contains specific provisions for the fight against terrorism, and I will definitely be on the basis of tangible and fantasized elements of a reality that everyone knows now. But the severity of the terrorist threat should not obscure other risks. Intelligence services must protect national sovereignty against attempts to interfere and espionage. Increasingly, espionage against us aims to predation of active scientists, industrial and economic. And when our most innovative companies, large companies such as SMEs or start-up, see their research and development looted, there are thousands of jobs lost. Some critics consider that the project would broaden unduly the purposes and therefore the number of people supervised. This is by no means the government approach, by contrast, has ensured better delineate each of the component areas of a serious threat. In the doctrine of the application of the 1991 Act, for example, preventive monitoring violent hooliganism was sometimes classified under "national security", now in the "prevention of organized crime." It was clearly not satisfactory, hence the definition of a more precise topic around the collective violence likely to endanger national security. But the definition, if it prevents