3.37.
On the following day, Mr Grieve told the House of Commons that subject to
safeguards to ensure their use was limited (again, subsequently provided), he
was satisfied that class warrants were appropriate when the privacy
considerations were identical.141
3.38.
More generally, he reiterated the operational case for bulk powers as follows:
“[i]f there were not bulk powers to enable the Agencies to look to intercept
bulk and then to search it to find what they are looking for, it would be very
difficult for the Agencies to defend our security both against espionage and
particularly terrorism. That is the reality.”142
(4) Proceedings in the IPT
3.39.
The IPT regards itself as having “very distinct advantages over both the
Commissioner and the ISC”, prominent among them its ability not only to access
all secret material but to hold inter partes hearings at which “forceful legal
submissions can be made on behalf of Claimants who seek to criticise the
system”.143
3.40.
That said, the IPT has not so far been called upon to answer the question at the
heart of this Review: how strong is the operational case for the bulk powers, and
could equivalent results be achieved by other means?
3.41.
The IPT has looked at bulk interception in two cases, dating from 2004 and
2014-2015.144 It looked at bulk EI in a judgment of February 2016,145 and is
considering bulk acquisition and BPDs in a pending case.146
3.42.
No material disagreement was expressed in those cases with SIA witnesses
whose evidence stated or assumed the utility of the powers with which the cases
were concerned. It is fair to say though that in none of the cases was the IPT
required to adjudicate on a submission that the bulk powers were useless, or to
evaluate the operational case for them. As the IPT recently stated: “It is not .. our
role, as it is that of the Commissioners, to supervise and oversee the
performance of the Agencies. Our role is to investigate individual complaints that
141
142
143
144
145
146
Hansard HC, 7 June 2016, vol 611 col 1063.
Hansard HC 7 June 2016, vol 611 col 1059.
Liberty v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and others [2014]
UKIPTrib 13_77-H, para 46.
British-Irish Rights Watch v Security Service, SIS and GCHQ IPT/01/77 (2004); Liberty and
others v Security Service, SIS, GCHQ IPT/13/77/H.
Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and GCHQ
[2016] UKIPTrib 14_85-CH.
Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others
IPT/15/110/CH.
56