Agenda item

(Copy herewith)

The Borough Secretary and Monitoring Officer submitted the report as set out in the agenda.  The report outlined the implications of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (‘RIPA’) as it relates to covert surveillance carried out by local authorities. 

The Borough Secretary and Monitoring Officer commented that local authorities had been subject to criticism about how they used powers under RIPA, for example, for using RIPA to carry out covert surveillance to investigate low level offences such as dog fouling, which was not what the legislation was intended to be used for.  The Borough Secretary and Monitoring Officer commented that citizens should be able to go about their ordinary business without local authority monitoring as there are clearly human rights implications in carrying out covert  surveillance.  He further explained that covert surveillance carries the risk of collateral intrusion, where private information is obtained about people other than the subject of the surveillance (for example, the subject’s family members).  

The Borough Secretary and Monitoring Officer explained that the RIPA regime contains strict measures to ensure proper use of the powers and that there is now an additional requirement that local authorities must fulfil if they wish to use RIPA powers, as before any covert surveillance can be carried out, they must seek judicial approval of the use of RIPA, after following the ordinary internal authorisation process.

The Borough Secretary and Monitoring Officer explained that the Council’s RIPA Policy covered two types of covert surveillance that the Council could potentially carry out under the Act.

The Borough Secretary and Monitoring Officer advised that the Office of Surveillance Commissioners oversees local authority use of covert surveillance powers under RIPA and that they inspect local authority policy and processes on a three yearly cycle.  He advised Members that the Council’s use of RIPA powers was very low but that from the perspective of the Office of Surveillance Commissioners, they needed to be satisfied that the Council had all of the correct policies and procedures in place ready to be engaged if the need arises to use the powers. 

The Borough Secretary and Monitoring Officer explained that the Council had recently had an inspection from the Office of Surveillance Commissioner and that the Inspector HH Brian Barker would report formally  in due course.  (The previous report had been good).  He explained that the Inspector had made some preliminary comments that it was appropriate to advise Members of and directed Members to paragraph 3.1.7 of the report.  In particular, the Inspector had advised that the Council should involve elected Members in the formulation of RIPA policy and the monitoring of its use, even if RIPA is only used rarely.  The Monitoring Officer commented that as part of the involvement of all Members, it was likely that in future, a  report would be taken to Full Council.  The Borough Secretary and Monitoring Officer also highlighted the preliminary recommendation regarding the need for the Council to have at least two RIPA Authorising Officers. 

In response to questions from Members, the Borough Secretary and Monitoring Officer confirmed that he was an Authorising Officer, advised that he is also able to designate other Council officers as Authorising Officers and that the Authorising Officers would not necessarily have to be legal officers and would more likely be officers from the service areas that are likely to use RIPA powers.  For example, the Environmental Health Department might seek to use RIPA covert surveillance powers in relation to the enforcement functions that they carry out. 

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.