Investigatory Powers Act 2016

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (nicknamed the Snoopers' Charter^[1] or Snooper's Charter) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that has been passed by both Houses of Parliament,^[2] and the Queen signified her royal assent to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 on 29 November 2016.^[3][4]

Drafting and scrutiny

In 2014 the UK government asked the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to review the operation and regulation of investigatory powers available to law enforcement and intelligence agencies, in particular the interception of communications and communications data. This report was published in June 2015 and recommended a new law to clarify these powers.^[5]

The Draft Investigatory Powers Bill was published in November 2015, and a Joint Committee of the House of Commons and House of Lords was established to scrutinise the draft bill.^[6] Some parts of the bill referring to bulk personal datasets came into effect in November 2015, before parliamentary scrutiny began.^[7] The Joint Committee published its pre-legislative scrutiny report in March 2016. The Government accepted a number of its recommendations,^[8] and the revised bill was introduced in the House of Commons,^[9] where it was subject to debate by Members of Parliament.^[10][11] In March 2016 the House of Commons passed the Investigatory Powers Bill on its second reading by 281 votes to 15, moving the bill to the committee stage.^[12] The Labour Party and Scottish National Party abstained from the vote, while the Liberal Democrats voted against it.^[13][14]

At the committee stage constitutional,^[15] technology,^[16] and human rights issues were examined. The Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Harriet Harman said:

The Bill provides a clear and transparent basis for powers already in use by the security and intelligence services, but there need to be further safeguards. Protection for MP communications from unjustified interference is vital, as it is for confidential communications between lawyers and clients, and for journalists’ sources, the Bill must provide tougher safeguards to ensure that the Government cannot abuse its powers to undermine Parliament’s ability to hold the Government to account.

— Harriet Harman, ^[17]

On 16 November 2016 the House of Lords approved the final version of the Investigatory Powers Bill, leaving only the formality of Royal Assent to be completed before the Bill became law.^[18]

Provisions of the Act

The Act:^[19][20][21]

• introduced new powers, and restated existing ones, for UK intelligence agencies and law enforcement to carry out targeted interception of communications, bulk collection of communications data, and bulk interception of communications;^{[22][23][24][25]}
• created an Investigatory Powers Commission (IPC) to oversee the use of all investigatory powers, alongside the oversight provided by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The IPC consists of a number of serving or former senior judges. It combined and replaced the powers of the Interception of Communications Commissioner, Intelligence Services Commissioner, and Chief Surveillance Commissioner;^[26][27]
• established a requirement for a judge serving on the IPC to review warrants for accessing the content of communications and equipment interference authorised by a Secretary of State before they come into force;^[28]
• required communication service providers (CSPs) to retain UK internet users' "Internet connection records" – which websites were visited but not the particular pages and not the full browsing history – for one year;^[29]
• allowed police, intelligence officers and other government department managers (including HMRC, the Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency, the Gambling Commission, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Department for Transport)^[30][31][32] to see the Internet connection records, as part of a targeted and filtered investigation, without a warrant;^[33]
• permitted the police and intelligence agencies to carry out targeted equipment interference, that is, hacking into computers or devices to access their data,^[34] and bulk equipment interference for national security matters related to foreign investigations;^[35]
• placed a legal obligation on CSPs to assist with targeted interception of data, and communications and equipment interference in relation to an investigation; foreign companies are not required to engage in bulk collection of data or communications;^[19]
• maintained an existing requirement on CSPs in the UK to have the ability to remove encryption applied by the CSP; foreign companies are not required to remove encryption;^[19]
• put the Wilson Doctrine on a statutory footing for the first time as well as safeguards for other sensitive professions such as journalists, lawyers and doctors;^[19]
• provided local government with some investigatory powers, for example to investigate someone fraudulently claiming benefits, but not access to Internet connection records;^[19]
• created a new criminal offence for unlawfully accessing internet data;^[19]
• created a new criminal offence for a CSP or someone who works for a CSP to reveal that data has been requested.^[19]

Authorities allowed to access Internet connection records

List of authorities allowed to access Internet connection records without a warrant:^[30][31][32]

• Metropolitan police force
• City of London police force
• Police forces maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996
• Police Service of Scotland
• Police Service of Northern Ireland
• British Transport Police
• Ministry of Defence Police
• Royal Navy Police
• Royal Military Police
• Royal Air Force Police
• Security Service
• Secret Intelligence Service
• GCHQ
• Ministry of Defence
• Department of Health
• Home Office
• Ministry of Justice
• National Crime Agency
• HM Revenue & Customs
• Department for Transport
• Department for Work and Pensions
• NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England that provide ambulance services
• Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service
• Competition and Markets Authority
• Criminal Cases Review Commission
• Department for Communities in Northern Ireland
• Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland
• Department of Justice in Northern Ireland
• Financial Conduct Authority
• Fire and rescue authorities under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
• Food Standards Agency
• Food Standards Scotland
• Gambling Commission
• Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
• Health and Safety Executive
• Independent Police Complaints Commissioner
• Information Commissioner
• NHS Business Services Authority
• Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust
• Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board
• Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Regional Business Services Organisation
• Office of Communications
• Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
• Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
• Scottish Ambulance Service Board
• Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
• Serious Fraud Office
• Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust

Public debate

The draft Bill generated significant public debate about balancing intrusive powers and mass surveillance with the needs of the police and intelligence agencies to gain targeted access to information as part of their investigations.^[37][38] Although the Home Office said the Bill will be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights,^[39] the content of the draft Bill has raised concerns about the impact on privacy.^[40][41]

In January 2016 a report published by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament recommended that the bill should focus on the right to privacy. Committee chairman, Conservative MP Dominic Grieve, said: "We have therefore recommended that the new legislation contains an entirely new part dedicated to overarching privacy protections, which should form the backbone of the draft legislation around which the exceptional powers are then built. This will ensure that privacy is an integral part of the legislation rather than an add-on." The committee also recommended that Class bulk personal dataset warrants are removed from the legislation.^[42] Dominic Grieve later clarified the extent of these freedoms, "the principle of the right to privacy against the state is maintained except if there is a good and sufficient reason why that should not happen."^[43]

The Chinese government cited the Snooper's Charter when defending its own intrusive anti-terrorism legislation.^[36]

Gavin E. L. Hall, a doctoral researcher at the University of Birmingham, argues that public fear of the bill is not justified, writing that there are benefits to formally codifying in law what state security services can and cannot do and that "While it may technically be possible under the bill to impugn individual freedom, John Bull has little to fear."^[44]

See also

• Bill on Intelligence (French law)
• Draft Communications Data Bill, a draft bill produced for consultation in 2012 but never introduced to Parliament
• Gesetz zur Beschränkung des Brief-, Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnisses (German law)
• Mass surveillance in the United Kingdom
• Patriot Act

References

External links

• "Draft Investigatory Powers Bill". Home Office. 
• "Draft Investigatory Powers Bill". House of Commons Library (Commons Briefing papers CBP-7371). 19 November 2015. Retrieved 8 June 2016. 
• "Investigatory Powers Bill". House of Commons Library (Commons Briefing papers CBP-7518). 11 March 2016. Retrieved 8 June 2016. 
• "Have your say on the Investigatory Powers Bill". UK Parliament. 16 March 2016. Retrieved 8 June 2016. 
• "Investigatory Powers Act 2016 Chapter 25". legislation.gov.uk. 2016-11-29. Retrieved 2016-11-29.