AN official probe into council ‘spy’ powers criticised bosses for providing a ‘dearth of information’ to justify covert surveillance, The Silhillian can disclose.A report by the Government’s information watchdog found failings at Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council with how ‘directed surveillance’ cases were approved.
Councils have been criticised over their use of the powers, which are allowed under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and must be signed off by senior officers.
Solihull council, which is praised in the report for other use of the act, has used the powers to watch people suspected of letting their dogs foul, fly tipping and benefit fraud.
The report, the latest for the council, said: “An examination of applications for directed surveillance showed a generally high standard throughout.
“The information provided by the applicants provided sufficient information for the background and objectives of all the operations to be fully assessed.
“By contrast, the overall standard of authorisations could be substantially improved.
“In most cases, authorisations contain a dearth of information as a result of which authorising officers are failing to provide specific direction for the conduct of surveillance operations.”
And it found one authorising officer, in Children’s Services, ‘had never received any training and was unaware of the special provisions relating to confidential information’.
The inspector, from the Office of Surveillance Commissioners, said they were told this was the only occasion this had occurred, because the officer had not been able to attend training.
The council’s rules were changed as a result of the 2008 inspection – obtained by The Silhillian under the Freedom of Information Act – to state that officers are only accredited after receiving ‘sufficient training’.
Directed surveillance is ‘likely to obtain private information about an individual (whether or not that person is specifically targeted for purposes of an investigation)’ official guidance states.
The council’s communications offices refused to state what had been done to address the issues when contacted by The Silhillian. It said the request must be asked through the Freedom of Information Act process, which can take a maximum 20 days.
The name of the inspector was not disclosed, the council said, on request of the OSC and because doing so would breach the Data Protection Act.
Overall, the inspector said the council has a ‘sound structure for dealing with RIPA in a number of key areas and your authorising officers and investigators have a good general knowledge of the legislation’. The changes were ‘modest’ it said.
Read the full report here.
What do you think? Leave your comments below. No registration required.
Click here to get stories by email.
