3.4 I have a responsibility to oversee the use which public authorities have
made of their powers under the Act and how they have exercised their rights and
responsibilities. Although I retain sole oversight of anything to do with interception,
in relation to communications data I am supported by a Chief Inspector and five
Inspectors who are all highly trained in the acquisition and disclosure processes,
and in the extent to which communications data may assist public authorities in
carrying out their functions. A programme of inspections is drawn up with the
assistance of members of my Secretariat and the Inspectors initially engage with
the SRO from the public authority concerned. For example, in a police force this
must be at least a Superintendent or a Head of Service in a local authority.
3.5 Within every public authority each SRO must be responsible for:
•
•
•
the integrity of the process to acquire communications data;
compliance with the Code of Practice;
oversight of the reporting of errors to me, identifying their causes and taking
appropriate action to minimise the repetition of errors;
•
engagement with my Inspectors and ensuring that all relevant records are
produced for the inspection.
•
oversight of the implementation of post-inspection Action Plans, approved
by me.
3.6 Following each inspection a detailed report is prepared by the Inspector
and this will outline inter alia what level of compliance has been achieved with
the Code of Practice. Where necessary the Inspector will produce a schedule
of recommendations or an Action Plan which will address all areas that require
remedial action. I have sight of all of those inspection reports in order that I can
properly discharge my oversight functions. The top copy of the report is sent
to the head of the public authority concerned, e.g., the Chief Constable or the
Chief Executive in the case of a local authority and they are required to confirm,
within a prescribed time period, whether the findings are accepted and that the
recommendations or action points will be implemented.
3.7 I believe that it is in the public interest that public authorities should
demonstrate that they make lawful and effective use of regulated investigatory
powers. My annual report should provide the necessary reassurance that the use
which public authorities have made of their powers has met my expectations and
those of my Inspectors, although there is no reason why public authorities cannot
make a further disclosure in compliance with a request under the Freedom of
Information Act if they so wish. There is provision for this in the Code of Practice
although each public authority must seek my prior approval before making any
further disclosure.
3.8 During the year ended 31 December, 2009, public authorities as a whole,
made 525,130 requests for communications data to Communication Service
Providers and Internet Service Providers. I do not intend to give a breakdown
of the requests because I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose,
although the intelligence agencies, police forces and other law enforcement
agencies are the principal users of communications data. This figure is above the
number of requests which were made in the previous year (504,073) and this is
because certain police forces have increased their demands for communications
data. I cannot give a precise reason for this but there is evidence that more and
more police forces have to investigate Internet related crime, including paedophile
rings and the requirements to obtain communications data in these types of cases
can be quite extensive. In other words one police investigation can generate a large
number of requests for data. Later in my report I will give some indication of the
extent to which local authorities use communications data, as I believe that this
should be placed in context. Any suggestion that a low ranking council employee
8