This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

GCHQ tried to open up a privileged channel of communication with the oversight commissioner responsible for monitoring its activities, according to letters released in a surveillance court case.



The government’s monitoring agency in Cheltenham wrote to Sir Adrian Fulford, the investigatory powers commissioner, asking if an “appropriate process or protocol” could be set up to “better liaise” with his office.

The initiative comes amid legal challenges at the investigatory powers tribunal (IPT) brought by Privacy International, Liberty and others over legal safeguards governing the interception and retention of emails and digital data.

GCHQ said in the letter, sent in November, that it did not wish to undermine Fulford’s independence or prejudice court hearings, but it suggested exploring whether “there may be appropriate options for resolving any factual issues which may exist in relation to evidence currently before the IPT”.

Millie Graham Wood, a solicitor at Privacy International, said: “It is extraordinary that GCHQ has written to its independent regulator to ask if it and ‘wider government’ can work together, essentially to head off legal claims. It is a blatant attempt to bury embarrassing evidence and claims against them.”

Fulford, an appeal court judge as well as head of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO), dismissed the GCHQ approach, informing the agency: “I do not anticipate any situation where that engagement could be the subject of any form of prior agreement, however transparent, especially with a party which is subject to my oversight.”

A GCHQ spokesperson said: “We take our obligations to our oversight bodies seriously and, as demonstrated by the correspondence, support the IPCO’s independence.”

Other internal documents released in the course of the court challenge confirm that a permanent military detachment operates out of GCHQ headquarters in Cheltenham.

“Members of the military unit embedded” in the monitoring agency come from all the main branches of the armed forces. There is a one-star senior officer – a rank equivalent to brigadier – who acts as senior military adviser to the director of GCHQ. The unit’s role covers gathering and handling intelligence.

GCHQ declined to comment on whether its responsibilities extended to supporting the deployment of RAF drones used against British jihadis in Syria who are said to pose an imminent threat against the UK.

Reyaad Khan, Ruhul Amin and Mohammed Emwazi, the Islamic State executioner nicknamed Jihadi John, were all killed by airstrikes in 2015 after their locations were tracked down partially through the electronic signals emitted by their phones and laptops.

GCHQ’s close working relationship with the armed forces is acknowledged by the agency. Photographs of troops in uniform forming a vast red poppy at the Cheltenham base appeared on Remembrance Day on GCHQ’s website.

Parliament has been informed about a separate military group, the Joint Forces Cyber Group, that works at GCHQ as well as in military bases elsewhere across the UK.

Privacy International has raised concerns about the degree of systems access given to outside software contractors working at GCHQ.

A statement by GCHQ’s deputy director acknowledges: “Following a change in policy introduced a few years ago there are contractors within GCHQ who are administrators of operational systems. This is because much of the hardware and software for these systems is provided by industry partners and they are therefore best placed to support those systems.”

Up to 100 contractors had “privileged user” accounts, the deputy director said, but the likelihood of illegal access taking place was said to be low because there was “system monitoring and auditing for malicious behaviour”.

