Issue - meetings

To consider a report by the Monitoring Officer/Head of Legal and Democratic Services (copy enclosed) to provide the Corporate Governance Committee with two external Inspection Reports from the Office of Surveillance Commissioners and also the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office.  Also to provide the Committee with information about the Council’s use of its powers under the Regulatory of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

11.40am – 12.00 noon

PART 2

A report by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (H:L&DS) was submitted (previously circulated) to provide the Corporate Governance Committee with two external reports from the Office of Surveillance Commissioners (OSC) and also the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office (ICCO).

The report would also provide information regarding the Council’s use of its powers under the Regulatory and Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).  Under this legislation, an Investigating Officer must make a formal application to an Authorising Officer/ Designated Person, prior to carrying out any kind of covert surveillance.  Members of CET were now Authorising Officers. The application must be made in line with the Council’s Policy and Procedures Guidance.

The council were required under the Home Office Code of Practice to make regular reports to members on the use of such powers under RIPA.  Given the low number of authorisations granted, an annual report was considered sufficient.

Following the introduction of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which took effect from the beginning of November 2012, an authorisation once granted had to be confirmed by a Magistrate before surveillance could commence.

The Government introduced the Protection of Freedom Act from the beginning of November 2012 which modified how surveillance had to be run.  Once authorisation had been granted, no-one could run the surveillance until the authorisation had been heard by a Magistrate.

An inspection by OSC had been carried out in the summer.  Training had taken place on 18^th June and the inspectors had checked through the training documentation.  The training covered legislative basics and the dos and don’ts of issues to be considered.

A RIPA Working Group had been set up which met on a six monthly basis.  There had been criticism of some items within the report.  It had been suggested a unique reference number be allocated.  The IT Department were currently dealing with this issue.

It had been recommended by the ICCO that the council sign up to the National Anti Fraud Network (NAFN).  NAFN would deal with applications on the council’s behalf and NAFN would then be inspected by the ICCO.  The proposal had been taken to SLT and agreed.  The fee for signing up to NAFN was £2000 per annum.  A further report would be brought to Corporate Governance Committee to confirm the council had signed up to NAFN.  H:L&DS would be the senior Responsible Officer for contact with NAFN.

It was suggested that following the Working Group meeting, a brief information sheet could be produced and submitted to Committee.

The issue of surveillance of staff would need to be referred to the H:L&DS.

Cameras on school premises were a separate code of practice.

H:L&DS confirmed if a RIPA had not been in place, it did not legally mean it would be wrong but meant it would be open to challenge and action could be taken against the council for breach of human rights.

RESOLVED that:

Ø      Committee note the contents of both Inspection reports

Ø      Agreed that training would not be of benefit to Corporate Governance Members

The meeting concluded at 12.10 p.m.