Agenda item
Use of Directed Surveillance
The purpose of this report is to advise members on the use of covert surveillance across the council.
Minutes:
Simon Lane introduced the report and advised that the Home Office was in the process of revising its code of practice on the use of surveillance and it was likely that as a result of this that the level of authorisation required by local authorities to use surveillance would be raised to the departmental director. He then drew Members’ attention to the number of surveillance operations by service units for 2007/08, 2008/09 and from April 2009 to September 2009. Members noted that the Audit and Investigations Team had conducted 45 surveillance operations since April 2003 where cases had been closed, of which 16 resulted in no further action, six in criminal convictions, 12 in the recovery of Council properties, five in staff dismissal and six in some other form of sanction. Simon Lane advised that use of surveillance was a last resort measure and that there were a number of safeguards in place to ensure appropriate use. Members noted that at the request of Councillor Matthews (Lead Member for Crime Prevention and Public Safety), an update on directed surveillance would be provided to the Audit Committee every six months.
During discussion, Councillor Butt enquired about the length of period needed to implement a decision to undertake surveillance and were there instances of applications for permission to undertake this being refused. He also enquired what action could be taken against persistent anti-social behaviour offenders.
The Chair sought details of what had triggered inspections of the Council’s use of surveillance by the Office of Surveillance Commissioner. He commented that some local authorities had received criticism for using surveillance to identify those responsible for anti-social activities such as dog fouling, and in view that there was support from residents to take action against such behaviour, he asked what other methods could be used to take action against the culprits.
In reply, Simon Lane advised that the Office of Surveillance Commissioner inspected local authorities every two years and in the four inspections of the Council undertaken, no fundamental weaknesses in the Council’s approach or any specific concerns with operations had been identified. With regard to surveillance use concerning dog fouling, he advised that the Local Government Association would not regard this offence as serious enough and it would need to be tackled by a different method. However, CCTV could be justified in areas where there was persistent nuisance which could include a number of anti-social activities and an article in The Guardian newspaper had supported this view. In addition, intelligence from other service areas may also be available. Simon Lane advised that surveillance was used only when all other methods were exhausted and required the authority of the director of the service area. Members noted that there had been instances where requests to use surveillance had been refused. In urgent situations, the authorisation process could be expedited, but the request would require a high level of detail.
Duncan McLeod added that the Office of Surveillance Commissioner carried out very thorough inspections undertaken by senior officials and that comprehensive feedback was received. Members noted that use of surveillance was well-regulated and that the director of a service area needed to provide detailed justification of using surveillance.
RESOLVED:-
that the report on Use of Directed Surveillance be noted.
Supporting documents: