recommend that the Home Office considers reviewing the provision of training to
ensure that it is practical and supports the single points of contact and designated
officers in their work.
3.29 The local authorities reported a total of 52 errors in 2007 and a fair proportion
of these were identified during the inspections. In the main these errors have been
caused through failure to comply with technical aspects of the Act or Code of
Practice. In some cases the data was not obtained fully in accordance with the law
because, for example, the Notice was not given by the designated person before
it was served upon the CSP. However, in the vast majority of these instances the
Inspector was satisfied that the acquisition of the data was justified, and that it
could have been acquired lawfully if the proper procedures had been followed. I
have not encountered any cases which would be serious enough for me to invoke
the powers which I have outlined previously in paragraph 3.19 of this report.
3.30 Bearing in mind the difficulties which some local authorities have experienced
and the considerable costs, which are involved in training staff and maintaining
systems and processes, I suggested to the Home Office that better arrangements
should be made for the acquisition of communications data by local authorities. This
has been acted upon and currently the Home Office is conducting a scoping exercise
with the National Anti-Fraud Network (NAFN) to see whether it could provide a
national service for its member local authorities. The exact details have still to be
ironed out but it is envisaged that local authorities will be able to submit approved
applications to NAFN which will then undertake the process of retrieving the data
from the CSPs. Suitable staff from NAFN will be trained by the Data Communications
Group, which trains police SPoCs at the West Mercia Constabulary so that they
will have the appropriate skills and accreditation to process these applications. This
facility should help local authorities, which opt into the scheme, to achieve the best
possible level of compliance with the Code of Practice.
Other public authorities
3.31 There are approximately 110 other public authorities which are registered for
the purpose of acquiring communications data. These include the Serious Fraud
Office, Independent Police Complaints Commission, Charity Commission, Royal
Mail and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHPRA) to
name just a few.
3.32 It has not been possible to inspect every one of these public authorities
during the period covered by this report although they have all been inspected at
least once during the last two years. Many of these public authorities make very
limited use of their powers and only acquire communications data for specialist
purposes. For example, MHPRA investigates alleged breaches of the medicines
and medical devices legislation for which the penalty may be imprisonment or a
significant fine. Communications data is used to investigate these offences and
this is a necessary tool to combat the growing threat of Internet sales of unlicensed
and non-compliant products.
3.33 The inspections established that in almost every case these public authorities
are using their powers responsibly and that the communications data is being
acquired for a correct statutory purpose. They also have a requirement to comply
with the Code of Practice and this is borne out from the inspections. In all cases
the findings of the inspection reports have been accepted and the vast majority of
the recommendations have been implemented.
Section 4: Interception in Prisons
General
4.1 At the request of the Secretary of State I have continued to provide the
oversight of the interception of communications in prisons in England & Wales.
This is a non-statutory role and in practice most of the inspections are conducted
by my Inspectors although I have sight of every report which they produce.
12