Issue - meetings

Public Speaker Mr Taylor

• How often are RIPA surveillance authorised by other bodies and why is this not listed in the report?
• Why does the Council own covert equipment that could be used in private homes?
• Is there a protocol for working with the Police?

 

Councillor Brown stated that the recently reported case of RIPA use, in a case of extreme domestic violence, had happened over a year ago at the request of the householder.

 

Councillor Bick stated that the report covered Cambridge City Council authorised use of RIPA. Authorisation by other bodies happened vary rarely and had not happened on the last twelve months. He supported the idea of reporting such use to this committee and would request that officers do so in future. He confirmed that the council did not own any covert bugging equipment.

 

The Head of Legal Services added that all RIPA requests would be subject to scrutiny and could be refused.

 

Matter for Decision:  

A Code of Practice introduced in April 2010 recommends that councillors should review their authority’s use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and set its general surveillance policy at least once a year. The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health and Community Services Scrutiny Committee last considered these matters on 12 October 2011. 

 

The report set out the Council’s use of RIPA and the present surveillance policy. The report also set out some changes to the RIPA regime being introduced by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

Decision of the Leader:

              i.      Approved the general surveillance policy in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report.

            ii.      Noted the Council’s use of RIPA set out in paragraph 5.1 of the Officer’s report.

          iii.      Noted and endorse the steps described in paragraph 7.1 and in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report to ensure that surveillance is only authorised in accordance with RIPA.

 

Reason for the Decision:

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

The Committee received a report from the Head of Legal Services regarding review of the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable. 

Matter for Decision:

             I.      A Code of Practice was introduced in April 2010 and recommended that councillors should review their authority’s use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and set its general surveillance policy. The report sets out the Council’s use of RIPA and the present surveillance policy.

          II.      The report also sets out some planned changes to the RIPA regime.

       III.      Finally, the report seeks authority to enter into a protocol with Cambridgeshire Police governing co-operation provided by the City Council to the Police when the latter uses RIPA powers.

 

Decision of Exec Cllr for Community Development and Health:

             I.      Noted the review the Council’s use of RIPA as set out in paragraph 5.1 of the report.

          II.      Noted and endorse the steps described in paragraph 5.1 and in Appendix 1 of the report to ensure that surveillance is only authorised in accordance with RIPA.

        III.      Approved the general surveillance policy in Appendix 1 to the report subject to:

 

a)    The deletion of the Head of Legal Services as an approved authorising officer in Appendix One; and

b)    The deletion of the first paragraph 10.1.2 (on page 161 of the agenda), its replacement with

“Before submitting an application for authorisation, you must supply a copy of your request to the Head of Legal Services. You may only submit your application if you obtain the approval of the Head of Legal Services.

 

And renumbering from the second paragraph 10.1.2 (on page 162 of the agenda).

 

      IV.      Authorised the Director of Environment to enter into the protocol in Appendix 2 of the report.

         V.      Agreed that the Council’s Monitoring Officer should act as the Council’s Senior Responsible Officer for RIPA purposes.

      VI.      Welcomed the wider supervisory role for by councillors provided for the Home Office Code of Conduct in respect of the use of RIPA powers and in respect of policy.

 

Reason for the Decision:

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act imposes controls on the circumstances in which public bodies can use covert investigative methods in connection with their statutory functions. Local authorities may only use these methods for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

Not applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

The committee received a report from the Head of Legal regarding the Review of the Use of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

 

The Director of Customer and Community Services confirmed that a conservative approach had been taken and most requests to RIPA powers had been refused.  Permission had been given on one occasion and with hindsight permission for this request required Police approval. Following that incident, the controls had been tightened and there had been no further use of RIPA.

 

Members raised the following issues:

             I.      If the use of RIPA were to increase in future members would like to informed as son as possible.

          II.      Clarity was requested on the involvement of members in individual cases. The guidance is clear that this is not advisable.

       III.      In response to member questions it was confirmed that RIPA is seen as a last resort when all other option had failed.

      IV.      Members questioned how the bar was set and who decided what was reasonable. Officers confirmed that a proportionality test is applied.

         V.      Members raised concerns about the protection of intelligence and information and were assured that there are no circumstances which would allow Cambridge City Council to access an individuals phone or email messages.

 

Members felt that some elements of the policy lacked clarity and suggested the amendments were needed. Councillor Kerr proposed and Councillor Brown seconded the following amendments.

 

1. Amend recommendation 2.3 to read:

 

“To approve the general surveillance policy in Appendix 1 to this report subject to:

c)    The deletion of the Head of Legal Services as an approved authorising officer in Appendix One; and

d)    The deletion of the first paragraph 10.1.2 (on page 161 of the agenda), its replacement with

“Before submitting an application for authorisation, you must supply a copy of your request to the Head of Legal Services. You may only submit your application if you obtain the approval of the Head of Legal Services.

 

And renumbering from the second paragraph 10.1.2 (on page 162 of the agenda).

 

2. Add new recommendation 2.6

 

“To welcome the wider supervisory role for councillors provided for by the Home Office Code of Conduct in respect of the use of RIPA powers and in respect of policy.”

 

Resolved: The amendments were agreed by 6 votes to 0.

 

The relationship between the Police and Cambridge City Council regarding the use of council cameras for Police approved RIPA activities was discussed. The council was not obliged to agree to such use.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the revised recommendations in the report by 6 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

N/A