of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the First
Minister for Scotland. I did, however, meet the Justice Minister for Scotland. It
was evident from my discussion with her that she gives a substantial amount of
time and considerable care to satisfy herself that warrants are necessary for the
authorised purposes, and that what is proposed is proportionate. If she wanted
further information in order to be satisfied that she should grant the warrant then
it is requested and given. The Justice Minister confirmed that outright refusal of
an application is comparatively rare, because the requesting police forces and the
senior officials in her Department scrutinise the applications with care before
they are submitted for her approval. However, she may refuse to grant the warrant
if she considers, for example, that the strict requirements of necessity or
proportionality are not met.
10. Since my appointment, I have visited eleven communication and internet
service providers (CSPs) consisting of the Post Office and the communications
companies who are most engaged in interception work. These visits, mostly
outside London, are not formal inspections but are designed to enable me to meet
both senior staff in each company as well as the personnel who carry out the work
on the ground, and for them to meet and talk to me. I have no doubt that the CSPs
and their staff welcome these visits. We discussed the work that they do, the
safeguards that are in place, any errors that have occurred, any legal or other
issues which are of concern to them, and their relationships with the interception
agencies. Those in the CSPs who work in this field have great enthusiasm in their
work. They recognise the importance of it in the public interest, and the necessity
of doing all their work accurately and efficiently, and show considerable
dedication to it.
11. Between 2 – 4 October 2006 I attended the fifth international biennial
conference of the International Intelligence Review Agencies in Cape Town,
South Africa. The theme of the Conference was “Balancing National Security and
Constitutional Principles within a Democracy”. Members of the Intelligence and
Security Committee were also present. There were delegates from a large number
of countries from around the world – including Australia, Belgium, Canada, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa and the United States
of America – and the primary topic for discussion was the oversight, legislative,
judicial or otherwise of intelligence and law enforcement agencies in their
intelligence work. I found the discussions during the Conference and in the
course of informal meetings to be interesting, informative and valuable.
Part I Chapter II: Acquisition and disclosure of
communications data
12. On 5 January 2004 Chapter II of Part I of RIPA came into force enabling
named public authorities approved by Parliament to acquire and disclose
communications data. Although an important and an extremely powerful and
effective investigative tool, the acquisition and disclosure of communications data
is not as intrusive as the interception of communications themselves. Currently,
the number of public authorities that I am required to inspect and oversee under
Part I Chapter II of RIPA are as follows:
a.
The security and intelligence and law enforcement Agencies – the Security
Service, Secret Intelligence Service and Government Communications
Headquarters.
b.
The Serious Organised Crime Agency and HM Revenue and Customs.
c.
52 police forces.
d.
12 other Law Enforcement Agencies such as the Royal Military Police and
the British Transport Police.
e.
474 local authorities authorised to acquire communications data.
f.
110 other public authorities such as the Financial Services Authority, the
3