2013 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner
(2) Single Point of Contact (SPoC). The majority of the recommendations in this
category fell into two key areas; guardian and gatekeeper role and efficiency.
The SPoC has an important guardian and gatekeeper role to perform to
ensure that the public authorities act in an informed and lawful manner when
acquiring communications data. The overall picture is that the SPoC process is
a stringent safeguard. However, recommendations were made for the SPoC to
exercise their guardian and gatekeeper role more robustly in a small number
of the inspections.
In the vast majority of inspections the inspectors did see ample evidence of
SPoCs challenging applicants in cases where they believed the requirements
had not been met. This year our office obtained some further statistical
information in relation to the number of applications that the SPoCs are
returning for further development or improvement. The figure is not
complete, as only the larger users were surveyed and not all could provide the
information for reasons I have alluded to earlier in my report. It does indicate
however that on average a quarter of applications are returned by the SPoC.
This figure should also be treated with caution as we do not have the reasons
for the returns, and some may have been returned for purely administrative
reasons or because the data was not available, rather than for quality issues.
However, the return rate does provide evidence that the SPoCs are scrutinising
and challenging applications. Our inspectors also see evidence of the SPoCs
suggesting less intrusive or more effective ways that the applicant might meet
their objective.
Our inspections identified that some public authorities were experiencing
serious backlogs in dealing with applications due to a lack of staff or
inadequate systems in the SPoC. This is concerning as it could have an impact
on compliance. In addition it is also questionable whether the necessary and
proportionality justifications are still valid in cases where it has taken weeks to
process an application.
(3) Designated Persons (DPs). The majority of the recommendations in this
category fell into three key areas; DP considerations, timeliness of approvals
and DP independence.
Overall the inspectors were satisfied that the large majority of DPs had
discharged their statutory duties responsibly. There is evidence that the DPs
are questioning the necessity and proportionality of the proposed conduct.
This year it is possible for me to report the percentage of applications
that were rejected or returned for redevelopment by the DPs in the larger
public authorities as these were included in my request for further statistical
information. In the larger users, 5% of applications were rejected or returned
for redevelopment by the DPs.
32