Department (e.g., the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence
and by similar officers in departments in the Northern Ireland Office and Scottish
Executive). They are all skilled in their work and there is very little danger of any
defective application being placed before the Secretary of State. I will refer in
some detail to errors which have occurred during the period under review. Where
errors have occurred, they are errors of detail or procedure and not of substance.
If there is any product obtained through such errors it has been immediately
destroyed. The Agencies always make available to me personnel and documents
that I have requested. They seem to welcome my oversight, as ensuring that they
are acting lawfully and appropriately, and they seek my advice. It is a reassurance
to the general public that their activities are overseen by an independent person
who has held high judicial office. I am left in no doubt at all as to the Agencies’
commitment to comply with the law. In case of doubt or difficulty, they do not
hesitate to contact me and to seek advice.
Meetings with the Secretaries of State
2.3 During the period of this Report I met the Home Secretary, the Foreign
Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland. I was unable to meet the First Minister for Scotland but I did, however,
meet the Justice Minister who, in reality, signs most of the warrants in Scotland.
It is clear to me that each of them gives a substantial amount of time and takes
considerable care to satisfy himself or herself that warrants are necessary for the
authorised purposes, and that what is proposed is proportionate. If the Secretary
of State wishes to have further information in order to be satisfied that he or she
should grant the warrant then it is requested and given. Outright and final refusal
of an application is comparatively rare, because the requesting agencies and the
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 and proportionality are not met. The agencies are well
aware that the Secretary of State does not act as a “rubber stamp”.
Visits to the communication service providers and internet service providers
2.4 During 2007, I visited a total of ten communications service providers
(CSPs) and internet service providers (ISPs) consisting of the Royal Mail 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 staff in the CSPs and ISPs 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 and ISPs who work in this field have great enthusiasm;
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.
Intelligence and Security Committee
2.5 Along with the Intelligence Services Commissioner, Sir Peter Gibson, I
attended the Intelligence and Security Committee on 1 May 2007 for an informal
discussion about our respective roles. There was a helpful exchange of views
on a number of current issues including the work of the agencies, errors, the
admissibility of intercept as evidence and the Wilson Doctrine.
Privy Council Review of Intercept as Evidence
2.6 On 25 July 2007 the Prime Minister announced a Privy Council Review of
Intercept as Evidence under the chairmanship of Sir John Chilcot. I attended the
committee as a witness on two occasions – the first when I met Sir John Chilcot
himself in August 2007, the second was in November 2007 when I met and talked
to the whole committee. I have read their Report (published on 30 January 2008:
3