Report of the Independent Surveillance Review
63
Other Government Agencies with Access to Communications Data and
Surveillance Powers
3.71
Under Section 6(2) of RIPA 2000, an interception warrant can be issued in response to an
application made by or on behalf of nine named office-holders.30 Alongside more obvious
individuals such as the director general of MI5 and the chief of Defence Intelligence
(Ministry of Defence), they include the commissioners for the HMRC.31
3.72
A number of other public agencies have the power to access communications data, in
support of the legal duties laid upon them which generally do not relate to security
or policing (for example, environmental protection). The acquisition and use of this
data is not well understood by large portions of society. The purposes for which public
authorities may seek to acquire communications data are nevertheless restricted. Their
ability to access each type of communications data (traffic data, service-use information
and subscriber information) also depends on the authority in question.32
3.73
Several attention-grabbing headlines and media articles have brought these other
agencies to greater public prominence, particularly when powers granted under RIPA
2000 are not used as expected.33 For example, in 2008 Poole Borough Council admitted
to using RIPA 2000 powers to monitor a mother’s movements for nearly three weeks
to find out if the family was telling the truth about living within a particular school
catchment area. The local council used directed surveillance on six occasions under the
auspices of the prevention or detection of crime, claiming that it was proportionate in
determining whether the mother had been truthful. However, the activity was labelled
as ‘disproportionate’ and ‘intrusive’ and the IPT subsequently found the Poole Borough
Council guilty of improper use of surveillance powers and acting without justification.
3.74
The example illustrates the problematic nature of surveillance by government authorities.
On the one hand, some believe it is perfectly reasonable for a council to conduct proper
checks to ensure those qualifying for school places are entitled to do so (particularly in
parts of the country where there is significant pressure on school places).34 On the other
hand, some believe that such surveillance – whether directed or via the interception of
communications – is so intrusive that it should only be used in circumstances of national
security, and not to allow for snooping by council officials.
30. In the context of a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty the request may also come from ‘a
person who, for the purposes of any international mutual assistance agreement, is the
competent authority of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom’.
31. See the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000), ‘Interception Warrants’,
Section 6(2).
32. Anthony May, Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner: March 2014
(London: The Stationery Office, 2015), p. 43.
33. Murray Wardrop, ‘Councils Have Mounted Millions of Snooping Operations in Past Decade,
Finds Report’, Daily Telegraph, 4 November 2011.
34. Judith Burns, ‘Schools Face “Places Breaking Point”’, BBC News, 13 January 2015.