In accordance with the Home Office Code of Practice on covert surveillance, the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management presented a quarterly summary of the use of covert surveillance by the Council under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), between 9 November 2010 and 15 March 2011. He reported that RIPA enabled the Council to use covert surveillance for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or preventing disorder and that, during the monitoring period, one authorisation had been granted to obtain evidence of serious offences of flytipping at a site in the Borough where the offence had become a public nuisance.

The Director reported also that in the light of public and media concern about the use of surveillance for inappropriate purposes by some authorities, a review had been undertaken by the Home Office, which focused upon which security powers, including the use of RIPA by local authorities, could be scaled back in order to restore a balance of civil liberties. The review was published on 26 January 2011, and made the following recommendations concerning local authorities –

·  Magistrate's approval should be required for local authority use of RIPA and should be in addition to the authorisation needed from a senior officer and the more general oversight by elected councillors.

·  Use of RIPA to authorise directed surveillance should be confined to cases where the offence under investigation carries a maximum custodial sentence of six months or more. But because of the importance of directed surveillance in corroborating investigations into underage sales of alcohol and tobacco, the Government should not seek to apply the threshold in these cases

The Director expressed his view that, if the recommendations became law, it would become more difficult to obtain evidence of anti social behaviour and persistent acts of disorder and nuisance would not pass the threshold. Witnesses would be more reluctant to give evidence if the outcome of the case was less certain because the evidence of covert surveillance was no longer available to prove they were telling the truth. They would fear retaliation. The change in the law would protect the right to privacy of suspected perpetrators of anti-social behaviour which would be regarded as a higher priority than the right of their victims to live peacefully and without fear.

Resolved – That the report be noted.