Issue - meetings

To advise Members of any RIPA regulatory activity in the last 12 months and any work needed to ensure arrangements across the Partnership remain compliant and provide assurance that our legal obligations are effectively managed (report of the Assistant Director – Regulatory and Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) for RIPA enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Regulatory and Senior Responsible Officer (SIRO) for RIPA which advised members of any RIPA regulatory activity in the last 12 months and any work needed to ensure arrangements across the Partnership remain compliant and provide assurance that our legal obligations are effectively managed.

The report was introduced by the Assistant Director – Regulatory, SIRO for RIPA, and the following main points were highlighted:

• RIPA provided the statutory framework governing the use of directed surveillance by local authorities. This was a highly regulated area intended to ensure compliance with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights;
• RIPA covered directed surveillance activities undertaken without an individual’s knowledge, the potential use of covert human intelligence sources, and access to certain limited communications data;
• Use of such powers must be lawful, necessary, proportionate and non?discriminatory, and that directed surveillance required formal authorisation by a Magistrate;
• The Partnership RIPA Policy approved in 2024 remained current and did not require revision at this time, with the next full review scheduled for 2027.
• The last inspection by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO) had taken place in 2024, resulting in a satisfactory outcome, and that an annual return submitted for the most recent period had been a nil return;
• Policy developments during the year included the approval of a partnership body?worn video policy and plans to bring forward a further policy covering the use of CCTV cameras within Council?owned buildings and assets, as distinct from public realm CCTV already covered elsewhere; and
• Officers continued to receive mandatory training to ensure compliance with RIPA requirements, despite the infrequent use of such powers.

Members considered the report and made the following comments:

• Members asked how the use of body?worn video was monitored to ensure it did not inadvertently move into covert surveillance requiring RIPA authorisation.
  • The Assistant Director explained that this was addressed through mandatory training for authorised enforcement officers, which covered appropriate deployment, interaction with the public, and the avoidance of capturing unrelated data known as ‘collateral intrusion’. In addition, footage was encrypted, stored securely, automatically deleted after 30 days unless required for evidential purposes, and retained only where necessary in accordance with defined procedures.

• Members queried whether individuals, including councillors or members of the public, who installed their own cameras to monitor issues such as fly?tipping would be subject to the same regulatory requirements as the Council.
  • The Assistant Director advised that while individuals were not bound by RIPA in the same way as a public authority, they remained subject to the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. Complaints could be made to the IPCO where individuals believed their civil liberties had been infringed, and such complaints would be investigated accordingly.

AGREED:

That the report be noted.