Agenda item

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW

(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information and which are not published elsewhere)

Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

Steve Hems, Director for Communities

01263 516192

steve.hems@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Decision

RESOLVED

That the changes to the revised Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Policy and Procedures, set out at Appendix A, be approved.

That Members note the activity undertaken under RIPA and the update in relation to the recent IPCO inspection.

Reason for the decision:

The Policy has been revised following an audit of the Council’s activities by the Investigatory Powers Commissioners Office (IPCO) conducted in 2021. Members are required to be aware of the RIPA activity undertaken by the Council.

Cllr N Lloyd, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services, introduced this item. He said that Members were required to be aware of the policy and it came before Cabinet regularly. He asked the Director for Communities to outline the key points.

The Director of Communities explained that the Regulation of Regulatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) governed public authorities use of ‘directed covert surveillance’ and ‘covert human intelligence sources’. The legislation ensured that an individual’s human rights were protected whilst also ensuring that law enforcement and security agencies have the powers they need to do their job effectively. He explained that the Policy had been reviewed and revised to ensure that the Council applied its powers lawfully and in line with best practice. Consequently, a separate policy had been drawn up to ensure that RIPA was not impacting on people’s rights when looking at social media and internet research and investigations.

He advised members that in the past 12 months, covert human intelligence sources had been used once.

The Chairman, Cllr T Adams asked whether the revised policy and format was easier for officers to use. The Director of Communities replied that it was and that the Council used an external trainer to train officers in the provision of the regulations. Templates were also provided.

The Chairman asked how often the policy was reviewed. The Director of Communities replied that it was reviewed annually and usually the changes, if any, were minor. This time it was a full review and refresh to reflect best practice and address any errors and inconsistencies that may have occurred during ad hoc changes in previous years.

Cllr E Seward referred to Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV) used by town councils. He said that footage tended to be used by the Police and asked whether RIPA applied in such instances. The Director of Communities replied that it applied to all public bodies including the Police and that there was a section in the policy on joint investigations and another section on CCTV which referred to town centre CCTV and how officers should use any ‘legacy’ systems previously owned by NNDC.

Cllr V Gay referred to section 23, Joint Agency Surveillance, and asked which other agencies were involved and how often. The Director of Communities replied that it was very rare that the Council worked with other agencies but on occasion there may be a need to work with another Local Authority or a Registered Social Landlord. Cllr Gay then asked for clarification on what working with others meant in this context. The Director of Communities replied that it could be use of Council owned equipment such as CCTV or wildlife cameras in a joint operation. It was usually the Police who acted as the lead authority but would also assist in cases such as fly-tipping, when the local authority may lead.

Cllr R Kershaw referred to section 19.1, Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and its relation to RIPA. He asked, if the Council simply used it for traffic flow management, whether it could be installed in the Council’s car parks. The Director of Communities replied if it was used simply for monitoring traffic flow then it was not covered by RIPA. However, if it was being used for any form of surveillance, such as monitoring criminal activity, then it would be directed surveillance and the RIPA provisions would apply.

Cllr E Withington referred to remote public meetings and asked whether they were covered by this policy. The Director of Communities replied that active participants in a public meeting, the recording of it was not ‘directed’. However, if you were a private individual and you wanted to use the recording as evidence then it may meet the requirements of the Internet and Social media policy. He added that the provisions around RIPA and directed surveillance were quite significant and it was therefore a conscious step for authorities to take to use the provisions. Repeated access to people’s social media accounts could be an infringement of human rights and it was possible that the same could apply to public meetings. RIPA provisions only came into effect if it could result in court action and a prison sentence and it was unlikely that public meetings would fall into this category. This was one of the reasons for a separate Internet and Social Media Policy as it provided guidance on specific areas that may not fall within RIPA more widely.

Cllr A Brown asked about training and whether it focussed on officers just involved in surveillance operations or whether it was offered to all staff to ensure that they did not stray inadvertently into areas where RIPA may apply. The Director of Communities replied that it was provided to staff where RIPA was relevant to their role and any activities relating to it, to ensure that they were compliant and aware of the requirements of the Act. He said that general training was not routinely offered to all staff, except for awareness raising via team meetings. If the Internet and Social Media was adopted then there would be a more wide-spread rollout of information to staff as this is where there may be some issues.

Cllr Brown replied that he was concerned that staff may not be aware of the risks and their obligations and training or advice may be beneficial.

The Chief Executive said that there was an outstanding Audit recommendation, following an audit across the Audit Partnership, relating to the management of benefit fraud. The recommendation suggested the appointment of additional staff for this purpose. The Corporate Leadership Team undertook a risk assessment regarding the level of fraud, particularly regarding Council Tax support and given the high rate of council tax collection, it was not felt it was justified to allocate specific officers for this purpose. Revenues officers were mindful of council tax fraud and benefits staff in terms of requesting supporting documents and if there were concerns about fraud, they could undertake a monitoring of social media accounts, if required. It had been agreed with the Governance, Risk & Audit Committee that a review would be undertaken after 12 months, together with any financial support that was required.

It was proposed by Cllr T Adams, seconded by Cllr N Lloyd and

RESOLVED

That the changes to the revised Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Policy and Procedures, set out at Appendix A, be approved.

That Members note the activity undertaken under RIPA and the update in relation to the recent IPCO inspection.

Reason for the decision:

The Policy has been revised following an audit of the Council’s activities by the Investigatory Powers Commissioners Office (IPCO) conducted in 2021. Members are required to be aware of the RIPA activity undertaken by the Council.