Select Committee on European Communities Fourteenth Report


APPENDIX 4 (continued)

INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM: EXPLANATORY NOTE

  The Interception of Communications Act (IOCA) set outs the statutory framework for the lawful interception of communications. The Act allows a Secretary of State to issue a warrant requiring the person to whom it is addressed to intercept communications in the course of their transmission by post or by means of a public telecommunications system.

  Under Section 2 of IOCA warrants are not issued unless the Secretary of State considers the warrant necessary for one of the following reasons:

       -    in the interests of national security;

       -    for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime;

       -    for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.

and providing that the information necessary to acquire could not reasonably be acquired by other means.

  Section 6 of the Act provides a number of safeguards regarding the intercept material. This includes ensuring that the Secretary of State approves the arrangements relating to, for example, the number of people to whom the material is disclosed and the number of copies made. It is also a requirement for intercept material to be destroyed after it is no longer necessary for the purpose it was issued.

  An independent Commissioner reviews the exercise by the Secretary of State of his power to issue warrants, and an independent Tribunal provides a mechanism for complaints by any member of the public who believes his or her communications may have been unlawfully intercepted. The Commissioner makes an annual report to the Prime Minister and his report is laid before Parliament, subject to the exclusion of any material which, in the Prime Minster's view (and after consultation with the Commissioner) would be prejudicial to national security (etc.) if published.

  The Mutual Legal Assistance Convention is expected to contain articles on interception with the objective of providing a legal framework for judicial co-operation between Member States on the interception of communications in connection with serious crime.

  The impetus for the inclusion of these Articles is the expected launch in 1998 of satellite personal communications systems. When these systems are launched, the signals from them can only be intercepted at the point they reach a ground station. This may be in a different EU Member State to that where the person who is making the call is located. Thus, for example, someone using a satellite phone in the UK may only be able to be intercepted in France. The UK, therefore, supports the proposal that the Mutual Legal Assistance Convention should provide for co-operation between Member States so that a law enforcement agency in the UK, to whom a warrant has been issued is able to maintain their existing interception capabilities. In practical terms, the UK is, at least initially, not expected to be the host for a ground station and is not therefore likely to be the recipient of such requests in relation to satellite communications.

  It is, however, expected that the Convention will also provide for Member States to request the interception of terrestrial communications on the public communications system for another Member State. In this scenario the UK is arguing that requests for interception should be subject to tests and safeguards equivalent to those which apply in the Member State which receives the request. Therefore, the UK would not, for example, issue a warrant authorising interception (which would be carried out in the UK for transmission to the requesting State), unless a warrant could be issued in similar circumstances under IOCA. It is also expected that the UK would not seek assistance under the Convention from another Member State unless a warrant had already been issued under IOCA within the UK.

12 December 1997

Letter from Joyce Quin MP, Miniser of State, Home Office, to Lord Tordoff, Chairman of the European Communities Select Committee

  I wrote to you on 1 December enclosing the latest version of the EU Convention on mutual assistance. As you know, this does not include draft Articles on interception.

  I am now enclosing a UK Presidency proposal for draft Articles on interception which we have sent to the Council Secretariat. I hope you find this helpful. The text of the new Articles is consistent with the evidence we gave to Sub-Committee E on 17 December, and the covering paper provides a brief explanation of their provisions.

12 January 1998

INTRODUCTION

  Further to the meeting of the Working Party on Mutual Assistance on 7 October, the United Kingdom Presidency has prepared the attached draft Articles on interception for consideration at the meeting of the Working Party on 26-27 Janaury.

  The draft Articles aim to establish a relatively simple framework for mutual assistance on the lawful interception and immediate transmission of telecommunications. The Presidency would like to take this opportunity to emphasise the importance it attaches to reaching agreement on Articles on interception as soon as possible, so that they may be included in the draft Convention.

BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE ARTICLES

Article 6

Paragraph 1

  This is intended to limit the Convention provisions on interception to requests for the immediate (real-time) transmission of intercepted communications to the requesting Member State. This does not preclude Member States from bilateral/multi-lateral arrangements for ex post transmission of intercepted communications or requests for assistance in obtaining information related to the interception (see paragraph 8).

  For the sake of consistency, the requested Member State is always the Member State which is requested to facilitate the interception (regardless of where the subject of the investigation is using the telecommunications equipment).

  All references to the requesting Member State and requested Member State shall be taken to refer to the competent authorities in those Member States.

  It might well be necessary to incorporate a definition of telecommunications into the text of the Articles. The definition in the Council Resolution of 17 January 1995 on the lawful interception of telecommunications might be used in this context: "telecommunications means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectric or photo-optical system".

  The Presidency would also welcome comments on whether the following phrase should be included at the end of paragraph 1: "not intended for the public by means of the telecommunications infrastructure or a telecommunications system used to provide services to the public".

Paragraph 2

  This is intended to ensure that the competent authority in the requesting Member State is satisfied that the requirements of its domestic law have been met before making any request to another Member State. The three scenarios described are intended to cover the circumstances in which the requesting Member State may need to seek the assistance of the requested Member State to intercept the communications of a person within the European Union.

Paragraph 3

  This establishes the basic information required to comply with all requests.

Paragraphs 4-7

  In the case of a request under paragraph 2(c), the requesting Member State must always obtain the consent of a competent authority in the third Member State before making a request to the Member State which will carry out the interception (the requested Member State).

  These paragraphs establish two principles under the Convention:

    (i)   where the subject of the interception is not in its territory, the requested Member State undertakes to comply with a request for interception on being provided with the information in paragraph 3; and

    (ii)   where the subject is in its territory, that Member State undertakes to comply with a request where it would be granted if it had been made by one of its own national authorities.

  In order to meet the requirements of (ii), the requesting Member State must provide an explanation of why it is considered necessary to use interception instead of less intrusive means having regard to the full circumstances of the investigation.

  In the case of (ii), the Member State will be able to refuse a request where it would not have been granted if it had been made by one of its own national authorities (e.g., the Member State will be able to take into account the seriousness of the crime under investigation, the personal status of the individual involved etc.).

Paragraph 8

  This Article is intended to ensure that the Convention does not inhibit closer co-operation between Member States on interception matters within the general provisions of the 1959 Convention. For example, this would not prevent Member States from agreeing arrangements for the ex post transmission of interception material or other information related to the interception in accordance with their national laws.

Article 7

  The basic principles underpinning the idea of the continued interception are borrowed from the provisions on cross border surveillance in the Schengen Agreement and the Naples II Convention.

Article 6

INTERCEPTION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS

  1. For the purpose of assisting in a criminal investigation, a competent authority in any Member State (the requesting Member State) may make a request to a competent authority in another Member State (the requested Member State) for the interception and immediate transmission to the requesting Member State of telecommunications.

  2. The requesting Member State may, after satisfying itself that the requirements of its domestic law have been met, make a request under paragraph 1 in relation to the use of terrestrial or satellite telecommunications by the subject of the investigation:

    (a)   in the requesting Member State, and where the requesting Member State needs the assistance of the requested Member State to intercept his communications;

    (b)   in the requested Member State, and where his communications can be intercepted in that Member State; or

    (c)   in a third Member State, and where the requesting Member State needs the assistance of the requested Member State to intercept his communications.

  3. All requests as referred to in this Article shall include, in addition to the information given in Article 14(1) of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20 April 1959 and Article 37(1) of the Benelux Treaty:

    (a)   the name of the subject of the interception;

    (b)   the nature of the criminal investigation;

    (c)   the desired duration of the interception; and

    (d)   the provision of sufficient technical data to ensure that the request can be met (including if possible the relevant network connection number).

  4. In the case of a request pursuant to paragraph 2(b), a request shall also include an explanation of why it is considered necessary to use interception instead of less intrusive means having regard to the full circumstances of the investigation.

  5. In the case of a request pursuant to paragraph 2(c), the requesting Member State shall always seek the consent of a competent authority in the third Member State to the interception. The requesting Member State shall provide the competent authority in the third Member State with the information in paragraph 3 and an explanation of why it is considered necessary to use interception instead of less intrusive means having regard to the full circumstances of the investigation.

  6. In the case of a request pursuant to paragraph 2(c), the competent authority in the third Member State undertakes to give its consent where it has been given the information in paragraph 5 and the request would be granted if it had been made by a national authority of the third Member State.

  7. A requested Member State undertakes to comply with a request;

    (a)   in the case of a request pursuant to paragraph 2(a) on being provided with the information set out in paragraph 3;

    (b)   in the case of a request pursuant to paragraph 2(b) where the requested Member States has been given the information in paragraphs 3 and 4 and the request would be granted if it had been made by a national authority of that Member State;

    (c)   in the case of a request pursuant to paragraph 2(c) on being provided with the information set out in paragraph 3 and a statement of the consent of a competent authority in the third Member State to the interception.

  8. Nothing in this Article shall preclude any bilateral or multi-lateral co-operation between Member States on interception matters which falls within the scope of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20 April 1959.

Article 7

CONTINUED INTERCEPTION OF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT

  1. If the subject of an interception under Article 6 is using mobile terrestrial or satellite telecommunications equipment and moves to another Member State (hereinafter "the third Member State") and uses that equipment within the territory of the third Member State, the interception may continue only if the requesting Member State:

    (a)   notifies a competent authority in the third Member State of the continued interception no later than 24 hours after first becoming aware that the subject is using the equipment within the territory of the third Member State; and

    (b)   submits a request under paragraph 2(c) of Article 6 as soon as possible thereafter.

  2. The continued interception shall be terminated as soon as the third Member State so requests following notification or the receipt of a request under paragraph 1.

Letter from Joyce Quin MP, Minister of State, Home Office to Lord Tordoff, Chairman of the European Communities Select Committee

  I attach for information a note on the overlap between the provisions of the draft EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and those in the Schengen Agreement on the gradual abolition of checks at common borders. I said that I would provide this information when I attended the hearing of Sub-Committee E of the House of Lords European Communities Committee on 17 December to discuss the draft Convention.

13 January 1998


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998