Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner - July 2016
Section 5
Investigatory Powers Bill
5.1
We mentioned earlier in this report that in 2015 three independent reviews
reported on the capabilities and investigatory powers required by law enforcement and
the intelligence agencies, the regulatory and oversight frameworks and the privacy and
security implications of the powers.
5.2
We have carried out a significant amount of work and published a number of
documents to assist the various reviews, committees, parliamentarians and other key
stakeholders. Our aim has been to help them to understand the safeguards to protect
privacy, the case for amending or replacing legislation, the statistical and transparency
requirements that should apply to the powers, and how the oversight provisions can
be developed and strengthened to improve the effectiveness of the current oversight
arrangements.
5.3
This section describes that work in chronological order and provides links to our
numerous publications. We would encourage the reader to review our publications to
track the status of the various suggestions for enhancements or recommendations that
we have made.
5.4
We published written evidence18 to David Anderson QC’s review and gave
oral evidence to the ISC and RUSI reviews during which we shared our experiences,
concerns, observations and findings. The reports19 of the three independent reviews were
comprehensive and, as well as informing the public and political debate, they set out an
extensive series of proposals for reform.
5.5
The review reports addressed a number of the concerns and inadequacies that
we highlighted with regard to the current legislative framework and the safeguards to
protect privacy. David Anderson QC in his “A Question of Trust” report recognised the
significant efforts that we have made to improve transparency and accountability through
our reports to Parliament, additional inquiries, investigations and publications, various
public engagements and social media presence. David Anderson QC said that “having
spoken in depth to IOCCO, and reviewed a number of reports of similar review bodies from
different countries, I would comment that they are a model of their kind”. RUSI commented
that “the offices of some of the commissioners are very proficient (especially IOCCO).”
18 http://www.iocco-uk.info/docs/IOCCO%20Evidence%20for%20the%20Investigatory%20Powers%20
Review.pdf
19 Privacy and Security Inquiry by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) reported in March 2015
http://isc.independent.gov.uk/news-archive/12march2015. David Anderson QC’s Investigatory Powers
Review reported in June 2015 https://terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/a-question-oftrust-report-of-the-investigatory-powers-review/. The Independent Surveillance Review by the Royal
United Services Institute (RUSI) reported in July 2015 https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/20150714_
whr_2-15_a_democratic_licence_to_operate.pdf .
www.iocco-uk.info
11