Agenda item
Covert investigation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
- Meeting of Standards Advisory Committee, Tuesday, 21st October, 2014 7.30 p.m. (Item 32.)
- View the background to item 32.
Consider and comment upon the information provided in the report.
Minutes:
Meic Sullivan-Gould (Interim Monitoring Officer (IMO) drew Members’ attention to the maps referred to at paragraph 3.25 of the report, in respect of RIPA activity relating touting and underage sales predominantly in the Brick Lane area, which had been Tabled, a copy of which would be interleaved with the minutes.
Meic Sullivan-Gould introduced and highlighted key points in the report, which provided the SAC with information on the Authority’s authorisation of covert investigations under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 and enforcement activity arising from these, together with outcomes of independent inspections of the RIPA arrangements operated by the Authority, in accordance with the oversight role for elected Members recommended by the Home Office in relation to Part 2 of RIPA 2000.
A comprehensive discussion followed which focused on the following points:-
· Serious concern expressed regarding the lack in take up of RIPA authorised surveillance by the Authority and the rationale behind this. Comment that there were many serious issues in the borough e.g. Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB), fly tipping, unlawful street vending, underage sales of different product, fraud, touting and breaches of licences, which posed serious problems for residents, and generated many Member Enquiries, which might be mitigated through the use of covert surveillance to provide evidence to deal with the perpetrators of such offences; the lack of such evidence often being cited as a reason why such issues couldn’t be addressed. Although proper scrutiny of such surveillance was appropriate, given a population of approaching 350-500 thousand the reporting of only 3 applications by the Authority for RIPA authorisation of covert surveillance in 2013/14, appeared to show that residents of the borough were being let down by the Authority not exploring the use of powers available to it for their benefit. The lack of evidence cited at Licensing Sub-Committees in relation to alleged breaches of licences and the levels of ASB in communal and public areas known to elected Members which continued unchecked appeared to show a lack of joined up working by the Council to provide surveillance evidence to address the problems. The advice of the IMO was sought and given as to which committee should be examining this and in particular the Officer rationale for not using covert surveillance with RIPA authorisation in relation to the Council’s priorities for RIPA outlined in the SAC report. Meic Sullivan-Gould responded that paras 3.6 – 3.8 of the report set out that the policy and priorities of the Authority for use of RIPA surveillance had been agreed by Cabinet in October 2012 and comprised an appendix to the Authority’s Enforcement Policy, which was due for review by the Executive in 2015. It would be appropriate for the representations made by SAC members and Ward Members to inform the review process, however it was an Executive function to determine what the Council’s Enforcement Policy comprised of. The Chair also commented that the role of SAC was to oversee the appropriate use of RIPA and the points raised were a matter for policy review.
· Noting the Officer response, that although approval of the policy may be a matter for the Executive, the application of the policy was causing concern, and although this could be pursued by a motion at full Council a more deliberative approach was needed. Accordingly Councillor Peck proposed that the matter be referred to Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) for consideration. The IMO considered this to be appropriate and within the purview of the OSC.
· John Pulford (Co-opted SAC member) suggested that it may be helpful, and the Chair subsequently formally proposed, that SAC considered it incongruous that there were only 3 reported applications for RIPA authorisations of covert surveillance/ investigations in 2013/14 given the priority areas set out in para 3.7 of the report, given the awareness of both elected and co-opted SAC members of the level of such activities [set out in para 3.7] in the borough. Also that this inform any future review of the Enforcement Policy by the Executive.
· Meic Sullivan-Gould advised that RIPA authorisation was not required for surveillance on public land and Council land, only for surveillance of someone else’s property due to the respect for private life enshrined in the Human Rights Act of which RIPA was daughter legislation. . Noting the Officer advice, Councillor Peck proposed that surveillance activity which did not required RIPA authorisation be referred to the OSC recommending it to request a brief report providing information/ figures relating to surveillance without RIPA authorisation on public land and Council land.
· Referencing para 3.26 of the report clarification sought as to whether Registered Social Landlords/ Housing Association Officers undertook RIPA training. To be raised with Service Head Legal Services and response provided in writing[Action MSG].
· Concern was expressed regarding the inaction of Council Officers in relation to fly tipping outside Cubitt Town Library. Clarification was sought as to whether a level of complaints about a locality or event would trigger an application for a RIPA authorised investigation, as weekly fly tipping would appear to form a good case..
· With reference to para 3.41 of the report, clarification was sought as to whether a National Anti-Fraud Network inspection of the RIPA arrangements operated by the Authority had taken place and the outcome of such an inspection. Meic Sullivan-Gould in response stated that the Authority was not aware of such an inspection currently.
The Chair Moved the recommendation set out in the report (taking account of the additional recommendation he had proposed following the suggestion from John Pulford) together with the additional recommendations proposed by Councillor Peck, and it was:-
Resolved:
1. That the information contained in the report be noted;
2. That SAC considered that it appeared incongruous that that there were only 3 reported applications for RIPA authorisation of covert surveillance/ investigation in 2013/14 given the priority areas set out in para 3.7 of the report. That, given the awareness of both elected and co-opted SAC members of the level of such activities [set out in para 3.7] in the borough; that this inform any future review of the Enforcement Policy by the Executive;
3. That the serious concern expressed regarding the lack in take up of RIPA authorised surveillance by the Authority to address the priority areas set out in para 3.7 of the report, to the benefit of the borough’s residents, and the Officer rationale behind this be referred to the OSC for consideration; and
4. That the OSC be recommended to request a brief report providing information/ figures relating to surveillance without RIPA authorisation on public land and Council land.
Action by: Angus Taylor (Principal Committee Officer, Democratic Services)
Meic Sullivan-Gould (Interim Monitoring Officer, LPG)
Supporting documents: