Section 5: Other Matters
Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Northern
Ireland Office warrants
5.1 In paragraphs 31 – 33 of my Annual Report for 2006, I set out the reasons
for not disclosing the number of warrants issued by the Foreign Secretary and the
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the main part of the Report. I take this
opportunity to emphasise again the reasoning behind this decision.
5.2 This practice is based on paragraph 121 of the Report of the Committee of
Privy Councillors appointed to inquire into the interception of communications
and chaired by Lord Birkett. The Birkett Committee thought that public concern
about interception might to some degree be allayed by the knowledge of the
actual extent to which interception had taken place. After carefully considering
the consequences of disclosure upon the effectiveness of interception as a means
of detection, they decided that it would be in the public interest to publish figures
showing the extent of interception, but to do so only in a way which caused no
damage to the public interest. They went on to say:
“We are strongly of the opinion that it would be wrong for figures to be
disclosed by the Secretary of State at regular or irregular intervals in the
future. It would greatly aid the operation of agencies hostile to the state if
they were able to estimate even approximately the extent of the interceptions
of communications for security purposes.”
5.3 Like my predecessors I am not persuaded that there is any serious risk in the
publication of the number of warrants issued by the Home Secretary and the First
Minister for Scotland. This information does not provide hostile agencies with any
indication of the targets because as Lord Lloyd said in his first Report published
in 1987 “the total includes not only warrants issued in the interest of national
security, but also for the prevention and detection of serious crime.” These figures
are, therefore, set out in paragraph 2.32 of this Report. However, I believe that
the views expressed in Lord Birkett’s Report still apply to the publication of the
number of warrants issued by the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State
for Northern Ireland. I also agree with the view of my predecessor, Lord Nolan,
that the disclosure of this information would be prejudicial to the public interest.
I have, therefore, included them in the Confidential Annex to this Report.
Safeguards
5.4 Sections 15 and 16 of RIPA lay a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that
arrangements are in force as safeguards in relation to the dissemination, disclosing,
copying, storage and destruction etc., of intercepted material. These sections of
the legislation require careful and detailed safeguards to be drafted by each of the
agencies and for those safeguards to be approved by the Secretary of State. This has
been done. My advice is sought on proposed amendments to the safeguards when
they are updated in light of technical and administrative developments. During the
period of this report I saw and commented on the revised handling arrangements
for the Metropolitan Police Service Counter Terrorism Command. I also reviewed
and approved GCHQ’s Compliance Documentation, which is readily available to
all who work in GCHQ.
Section 6: The Investigatory Powers Tribunal
Statistics
6.1 The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (the Tribunal) was established by section
65 of RIPA. The Tribunal came into being on 2 October 2000 and from that date
assumed responsibility for the jurisdiction previously held by the Interception
of Communications Tribunal, the Security Service Tribunal and the Intelligence
22