There Aren't Many People Watching the Watchers in the UK

There are people watching the watchers. But not many, and their methods are out of date.

That’s one of the criticisms in a report released today by British MPs who criticise the oversight of the country’s security and intelligence agencies. While in the US is already considering reforms to the NSA (though admittedly ones that fall short of what civil liberties’ groups wanted), criticism of the checks and balances on GCHQ, the UK’s answer to the NSA, are just starting to be raised in parliament.

The Home Affairs Committee published their findings in a report on counter-terrorism, and chairman Keith Vaz held no punches in his comments on the review into the oversight of agencies including GCHQ following the Snowden leaks.

“The current system of oversight is designed to scrutinise the work of [fictional 20th century spy] George Smiley not the 21st Century reality of the security and intelligence services,” he said in a statement. Obviously referring to Edward Snowden and the publications that worked with his leaked documents, he commented, “It is an embarrassing indictment of our system that some in the media felt compelled to publish leaked information to ensure that matters were heard in Parliament.”

In the report, the MPs wrote that the system of oversight came from “a pre-internet age, a time when a person's word was accepted without question.” Ah, the good old days. But the nostalgia soon wears off when something happens like, I don’t know, revelations of mass digital surveillance. Against that assessment, it's not surprising that those in watchdog positions found themselves floundering in the face of the Snowden leaks, (and, apparently, thinking “Crikey”).

One main point to come out of the investigation is the lacking resources of those responsible for judicial oversight of the intelligence and security agencies’ work.

For the report, the MPs spoke to both the Interception of Communications Commissioner Sir Anthony May (in charge of oversight for comms interception) and Intelligence Services Commissioner, Sir Mark Waller, who “provides independent judicial oversight of the conduct of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), Security Service (MI5), Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and a number of other public authorities.” They are both appointed by and report to the prime minister.

Those might seem like quite hefty jobs—but they’re actually both part-time. And while May has a team of nine, Waller works with just one staff member: a personal assistant.

There is a logic to keeping watchdog roles small; that way there’s a clear personal responsibility for the job. However, the report highlighted that in 2012 the Intelligence Services Commissioner had only examined 8.5 percent of warrants, and the Interceptions of Communications Officer 5-10 percent. The committee suggested that number should be 50 percent or higher, something that clearly requires greater resources.

To be fair, the MPs sympathise that the two commissioners are “good people doing impossible jobs.” But if the jobs are impossible, that’s surely all the more reason to change the system. At the moment on the judicial side there's also the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which has been criticised as weak. Then there's a parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, which has been criticised for lacking openness.

Whether the recommendations in this report will see any action seems doubtful, but at least it adds a few more voices to a growing number of politicians speaking out on the issue of surveillance by the NSA and GCHQ, which the British government has been noticeably quiet on. Emma Carr, acting director of Big Brother Watch, told me in an email that by putting more pressure on the government, the report was “a hugely important step towards further scrutiny and transparency of the oversight mechanisms in place for our security and intelligence agencies.”

Her organisation suggests that the “entire system should be re-drawn, including Inspectors General, the ability to challenge surveillance in court and for far greater transparency about how powers are used, why, and by what organisation.”

Of course, not everyone in parliament will agree with the committee of MPs. Other politicians, such as foreign secretary William Hague, have repeatedly peddled the line that the UK has some of the best checks and balances.

Carr disputed that. “This report is a wakeup call to those blindly parroting the line that the UK has the best oversight system in the world,” she said. “The law is out of date, the oversight is weak and the reporting of what happens is patchy at best. The public are right to expect better.”