Independent review of draft terrorism laws says there is strong case for allowing police and spy agencies to gather private data

This article is more than 4 years old

This article is more than 4 years old

The bulk collection of personal data by British spy agencies is vital in preventing terrorist attacks, an independent review of draft security legislation has found.

David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, concluded that laws giving MI5, MI6 and GCHQ the right to gather large volumes of data from members of the public had a “clear operational purpose”.

The main findings were welcomed by the prime minister, Theresa May, but have prompted concern from Labour and privacy campaigners.

Labour seeks further concessions on snooper's charter Read more

Andy Burnham, the shadow home secretary, said it was concerning that May had not accepted Anderson’s recommendation for an advisory panel on technology.



“She and the home secretary must accept the report in its entirety and deliver on the separate concessions extracted by Labour in the Commons – tougher restrictions on the use of internet connection records and stronger protections for journalists and lawyers,” Burnham said.

Liberty said the review itself had failed to bolster government and security agency claims in favour of bulk powers. “The report provides no further information to justify the agencies’ vague and hypothetical claims and instead invites the public to ‘trust us’. Post-Chilcot, this won’t wash – hard evidence is required instead,” said Bella Sankey, the pressure group’s policy director.

Last November , in her role as home secretary, May produced a draft of the communications data bill, which would give police and spies broad investigative powers they say are vital to help protect the public from criminals, paedophiles and terrorism.



Anderson’s report, published on Friday, said bulk powers “play an important part in identifying, understanding and averting threats in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and further afield”. The techniques were used across the range of agency activity, from cyber-defence, counter-espionage and counter-terrorism to child sexual abuse and organised crime, the review found.



It concluded that there was a “proven operational case” for three of the four powers examined, and a distinct “though not yet proven” operational case for the fourth. Anderson described the pace of technological change as “breathtaking”.

His inquiry recommended that a panel of independent academics and industry experts be appointed to advise on the impact of changing technology, and how the intelligence agencies could reduce the “privacy footprint” of their activities.



Bulk powers are among the most controversial tactics set to be covered by the new surveillance laws, which are going through parliament.



They cover a range of techniques used to acquire information in large volumes. The data is used to generate intelligence about threats that cannot be obtained by more targeted means.



Anderson said in the report that bulk interception was of “vital utility” to the security services while there was no alternative to collecting large amounts of data on people unlikely to be under suspicion, known as bulk personal datasets.



May said in a statement: “Anderson’s report demonstrates how the bulk powers contained in the investigatory powers bill are of crucial importance to our security and intelligence agencies.

“These powers often provide the only means by which our agencies are able to protect the British public from the most serious threats that we face.”

Anderson was appointed in 2011, succeeding Alex Carlile QC. The independent reviewer scrutinises and reports on the operation of the UK’s laws on terrorism. Anderson has been one of the most informed voices in the public debate over surveillance since revelations from the American former National Security Agency contractor Snowden were published by the Guardian and other international media outlets.



Last year Anderson published a 372-page review entitled A Question of Trust, which contained more than 100 recommendations and opened the way for the investigatory powers bill.