Investigatory Powers Commissioner ’s Annual Report 2019
9. Secret Intelligence
Service (SIS)
Overview
9.1
We conducted regular inspections of the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) in 2019. The
majority of our investigations related to their work overseas, which is SIS’s primary focus.
The Deputy Investigatory Powers Commissioner (IPC) oversaw our work with SIS. As in
previous years, we conducted inspections at three overseas stations, speaking to the
range of operational staff working at each station about their work under section 7 of
the Intelligence Services Act (ISA) and more broadly. During our London inspections, we
speak to officers based overseas, as well as legal and operational staff working in the UK.
This provides an opportunity for us to consider the working culture at SIS and the level of
understanding of the legislative framework, both for officers working overseas and in the
UK.
9.2
In October 2019, the IPC wrote to the Prime Minister about oversight of SIS’s agent
running activities overseas. This activity has a statutory basis under section 1 of the
Intelligence Services Act 1994 (ISA). SIS agent running overseas is subject to oversight by
the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO) only in so far as it involves approvals
under section 7 of the ISA. All other overseas agent running is not, and has never been,
subject to oversight by IPCO or its predecessors. Further, the obligations under Part 2 of
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) do not apply to overseas agent running.
9.3
In his letter to the Prime Minister, the IPC acknowledged that the Government may have
taken a policy decision that the running of agents overseas requires less detailed and
intrusive oversight than those run in the UK. However, the IPC recommended that the
Government ought carefully to consider whether this is still the right policy position. We
expect to receive a response to the IPC’s letter in 2020 and will reflect this in our 2020
annual report.
Findings
9.4
A focus of our inspections at SIS this year has been the adequacy of information provided to
the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in advance of and during overseas operations.
Noting that the FCO has imposed certain restrictions on the format and length of what SIS
can provide as briefing material to the Secretary of State, we have found that briefings have
been clear and, in most cases, comprehensive. We have identified that on some occasions,
particularly around changing circumstances during a live operation or where conflicting
legal advice has been voiced, SIS could usefully have expanded on what was provided for
consideration by the Minister. Nonetheless, we have concluded that SIS was entitled to act
as they did in all the operations we have reviewed, and the Secretary of State was given
adequate information to make informed judgements, in particular in relation to reliance on
section 7 of the ISA and the Consolidated Guidance.
51