The Responsibility to Provide?

The Guardian reports that secret police intelligence on the movements and meetings of climate change protesters was passed on to energy firm E.ON, presumably gathered by surveillance which E.ON would not have been permitted to carry out itself.

I blogged previously about Omand's IPPR paper on the future of intelligence gathering. The phrase that jumped out at me in that paper was 'The Responsibility to Provide'. As I understood it, Omand's recommendation was that, rather than access to intelligence being restricted on a 'need to know' basis, instead intelligence ought to be readily provided to the various different levels of the policing and security services to which such intelligence might be pertinent - letting the local police know, for example, that they should keep an eye on a particular suspect. These reports seem to imply that this 'responsibility to provide' extends not only to the police but also private companies. I want to know who else is entitled to this sort of access to intelligence? What is the criteria? And also, as I said in my post on the Omand paper, can this access be reconciled with Omand's 6 conditions for oversight?