Here are the main points from the home affairs committee hearing.

• Sir Mark Waller, the intelligence services commissioner, told MPs that he dismissed the Edward Snowden allegations about GCHQ circumventing the law because a senior GCHQ official told him they were not correct. His account of how he “investigated” seemed to surprise the committee chairman, Keith Vaz, on account Waller’s willingness to accept what GCHQ said at face value. For more, see 4.08pm.

• Vaz suggested that Waller needed more resources to do his job properly. At the very least, he should be full time, Vaz suggested. Waller said that he only worked about 120 days a year, and that his entire staff consisted of one personal assistant. He said that he visited GCHQ about twice a year. And he said that he only inspected about 12% of warrants.

• Waller defended the current arrangements. At first he was sceptical about the system, he said. But he realised the possibility that a warrant application being inspected by an ex-judge like himself was enough to ensure GCHQ staff behaved properly, he said.

When I started the job I had a scepticism about the agencies, and I really did wonder whether this two visits a year and inspecting, as it were dip sampling, was really sufficient ... You suddenly also realise that actually these people don’t want to break the law, individuals don’t want to be liable for criminal offence ... The important thing is you suddenly realise that each person who is filling in the case has in the back of their mind that there is a chance, a good chance, that some senior judge is actually going to read these papers and hold them to account.

He also said that he thought more regular inspections could waste the time of the agencies.

• He said that new guidance telling intelligence officers to report concerns about suspects being tortured meant some of the abuses of the past would not be repeated.

• James Brokenshire, the immigration and security minister, said that he was “not passing any judgement on anyone” when he used a recent speech to point out that a “wealthy metropolitan elite” had gained most from immigration.

• He refused to tell MPs whether or not communications firms like BT were supplying government agencies with metadata.

• Vaz told Brokenshire that the committee is concerned that, with a portfolio covering security and immigration, he could have too much to do. Brokenshire had 52 areas of responsibility, Vaz told him.

• David Davis, the Conservative MP, said the arrangements in the US to control the work of the intelligence agencies were “1,000 times more robust” than those in the UK.



There’s much more public information available, qualitatively different levels of public information. There’s more rigorous oversight, by many more organisations than here. There are legal protections for the privacy of citizens which don’t exist here. There’s a constitutional bar on general warrants which we don’t have here. There are proper separation of powers, so the legislators actively challenge the executive in the interpretation of the law, something very important on the torture issue. And, of course, they have a far stronger IT industry than we have here, who have a strong, vested interest in making sure that [the powers of the agencies are contained].

That’s all from me for today.

Thanks for the comments.