senior officials in the Secretary of State’s Department scrutinise the applications
with care before they are submitted for approval. However, the Secretary of State
may refuse to grant the warrant if he or she considers, for example, that the strict
requirements of necessity or proportionality are not met, and the agencies are well
aware that the Secretary of State does not act as a “rubber stamp”.
15. In the course of the past year, 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 the Senior Executives in each company and 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 discuss the work that
they do, the safeguards that are in place, any errors which have occurred, any legal
or other issues which are of concern to them, and their relationships with the
interception agencies. These meetings were particularly valuable at the outset of
implementation of Chapter II when some of these organisations were having
“teething problems” – now, I believe, happily resolved. Those who work in this
field in the CSPs 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. It is of the
greatest importance that nothing should be done which would detract from their
enthusiasm and dedication (see below at paragraph 46vi).
16. In March 2005 I met officials from a Canadian Commission of Inquiry who
were appointed to make recommendations to the Canadian government on a
review mechanism for the national security activities of Canada’s national police
force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Commissioner leading the
Inquiry was the Honourable Dennis O’Connor although he was not part of the
team visiting the United Kingdom. My discussions with the Inquiry team were
wide-ranging and fruitful.
17. In November 2005 I met a team of police officers from Turkey who were
examining various issues relating to the interception of communications. The visit
focussed on how the United Kingdom legislation works in practice, the methods
of oversight and accountability, compliance with the Human Rights Act and the
admissibility of intercepted material as evidence. The discussion I had with the
officers provided an interesting insight and difference in procedures and
practices.
18. With the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the Rt Hon Lord Brown of
Eaton-under-Heywood, I attended the Intelligence and Security Committee in
February 2006 for an informal discussion on our respective roles. With a new
Chairman and new members, the Committee had changed significantly since my
last informal discussion with them in December 2001. There was a frank
exchange of views from both sides on a number of current issues.
Communications Data and the Work of the
Inspectorate to Date
19. The acquisition of communications data is a very valuable investigative tool,
and is primarily aimed at acquiring information in relevant cases as to “who”,
“when” and “where”. It is valuable in terrorist and criminal cases, for example
kidnapping cases, and tracing missing persons and identifying seriously injured
people and attempted suicides (e.g., by the ambulance and lifeboat services).
20. Those entitled to acquire communications data are set out in Section 25 of
Chapter II of Part I of RIPA and subsidiary legislation and have been approved by
Parliament. The Act defines communications data and in Section 22 sets out the
requirements and conditions that must be fulfilled before communications data
can be acquired. In particular, it must be shown that it is necessary to acquire the
data as defined in the Section (e.g., for the purpose of preventing or detecting
crime or preventing death or injury) and is proportionate to what is sought to be
achieved by obtaining the data.
5