Agenda item

Presented by Usman Mohammed.

RIPA - Regulation of Investigatory powers Act.

Investigations under this act permit the Council to utilise covert surveillance for the purposes of preventing and detecting crime.  There are 2 types of Authorisation generally used by the Council

·        Use of a covert Human intelligence source

·        Directed surveillance

In order to utilise these, the Council must gain authorisation from the court and demonstrate these authorisations are necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the law.

The authorisations themselves are regulated by the regulation of Investigatory powers Act,

The Covert Surveillance and property interference code 2018 along with the corporate policy govern the covert surveillance use, copies of both are included in the papers for this meeting.

In 2018 the RIPA commissioner’s office inspected the Council, they concluded that there is in place a coherent process for the management of surveillance and covert human intelligent sources supported by a comprehensive corporate policy document.

There were some recommendation made following that report hence the reason for bring this  to the Audit Committees attention, not only to highlight the recommendations but also to show how these have been addressed and seek the Committees authorisation and support.

The brief overview of the recommendations are as follows:

·        Amendments to the wording of the Corporate Policy

·        Where a covert Human intelligence source is used there must be both a handler and a controller in place for their welfare as well as a risk assessment which needs to be signed off by an authorised officer.

·        Training for relevant officers.

·        Reporting to the relevant Members to provide transparency.  This will be in the form of an annual detailing the number of authorisations obtained and what kind of intelligence has been gather through these operations. 

Between 1 April 2019 – 31 March 2020 there were no covert human intelligence sources used however 3 applications were made to the court for directed surveillance (covert cameras) all of which were granted. All of these resulted in prosecutions.

Cllr Townsend has no concerns with the content of the report however he questions whether under the terms of reference the Audit committee are able to approve policies.

Cllr Birnie agrees with Cllr Townsend and feels the annual report should be submitted to an OSC meeting.

Cllr Chapman also agrees with the comments.

N.Howcutt clarifies that this is more about the Audit Committee overseeing controls and assurances rather than approving policy. The reason this paper has been submitted to the Audit Committee is ensure they are happy with the proposals which have been put into place around those controls and assurances.  In terms of the performance of RIPA Cllr Birnie is correct, it is often reported to OSC as often as the chair requires.

 Cllr Symington would like clarification regarding the use of directional surveillance and the fact it should be use with a threshed hold of 6 months in prison, she feels this is not proportional for the fly tipping convictions which have been previously mentioned.

Cllr Symington feels the report should be brought to a wider committee or ideally full Council as she feels the Audit Committee is to narrow an audience

The Committee agrees the recommendations:

1.      Note the outcome of the inspection by the RIPA commission.

2.      Agree the recommendation set out in paragraph 3.5 in response to the chief inspectors observations

3.      Agree the suggested amendment to the Councils RIPA procedural guidance to ensure it remains fit for purpose.

The Committee supports the report however they would like it to be circulated to a wider audience for consideration. They would like to be kept informed of the progress.