From Cllr Wainwright to the Leader of Council
Cllr Mrs Cowling, would you agree with me that the almost £800.000 of the Councils scarce resources used to purchase Harrison House and the £300.000 which will be required to refurbish the building and divide the interior into four separate work units will be money well spent?
From Cllr Clark to the Leader of Council
Is the Leader of Council aware that:
“Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 allows legitimate interceptions of communications if the controller has made reasonable efforts to inform potential users that interceptions may be made and thus they have no reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to their communications.”?
Does she believe that RDC complies with this regulation?
Minutes:
1. Councillor Wainwright submitted the following question:
To Councillor Mrs Cowling, Leader of Council:
“Cllr Mrs Cowling, would you agree with me that the almost £800,000 of the Councils scarce resources used to purchase Harrison House and the £300,000 which will be required to refurbish the building and divide the interior into four separate work units will be money well spent?”
The Leader of Council, Councillor Mrs Cowling replied
“Yes, Cllr Wainwright, I certainly would agree with you. The reasons why we bought Harrison House and have refurbished the interior to divide it into 4 separate units are still as valid today as they were then.
The Council has an agreement to sell WSCP with vacant possession – the tenants of Community House are relocating to Harrison House. Harrison House will be a much more accessible venue for the CAB and the RVA – it is next to the Railway Station, very close to the bus station and has car parking near by.
We had hoped that the library would join us at Harrison House but that proved not to be possible.
However there is interest in the remaining two units and it is expected that, once the work is completed, we shall have no problems finding tenants. We are already very close to finalising agreement with a tenant for the upper floor of the new part of the building.”
Councillor Wainwright asked the following supplementary question:
Given the proposal to spend £400k on pools refurbishment and £25k on the Milton Rooms, in addition to what was spent in 2009, why cannot we stop the sale of the Bowling Club and split it into two units to provide a more user friendly facility for the general public?
Councillor Mrs Cowling promised a full written reply but gave a brief initial verbal response:
The decision to sell the Bowling Club with vacant possession could not be changed. Ball park figures suggest that the cost of sub-dividing the building would be almost as much as the Club was worth.
2. Councillor Clark submitted the following question:
To Councillor Mrs Cowling, Leader of Council:
“Is the Leader of Council aware that:
“Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 allows legitimate interceptions of communications if the controller has made reasonable efforts to inform potential users that interceptions may be made and thus they have no reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to their communications.”?
Does she believe that RDC complies with this regulation?”
The Leader of Council, Councillor Mrs Cowling replied
“I have taken Officer advice in replying to this question.
I am not aware of the existence of the quote .
Ryedale District Council does comply with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
Local authorities have no power to intercept communications.
Local authorities can only acquire communications data under Part I Chapter 2 of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and, even then, there are restrictions prescribed by Parliament, on the statutory purposes for which local authorities may acquire data; on the type of data local authorities may acquire; which senior officials within local authorities may exercise the power to obtain data; and which individuals within public authorities may undertake the work to acquire the data.
Local authorities are only permitted to acquire subscriber data or service use data under Sections 21(4) (c) and (b) respectively, but they cannot acquire traffic data under Section 21(4) (a) and they CANNOT intercept the content of any communications.
Local authorities may only use their communications data powers where they have a clear statutory duty and responsibility to conduct a criminal investigation. Generally the trading standards departments are the principal users of communications data within local authorities, although the environmental health departments and housing benefit fraud investigators also occasionally make use of the powers. Local authorities enforce numerous statutes and use communications data to identify criminals who persistently rip off consumers, cheat the taxpayer, deal in counterfeit goods, and prey on the elderly and vulnerable. The environmental health departments principally use communications data to identify fly-tippers. There is no requirement in Part I Chapter 2 of RIPA to inform individuals when their communications data has been acquired, and indeed to do so could prejudice an investigation.
In terms of usage of communications data powers - Ryedale Council has reported a NIL return every year in response to the annual statistics letter. So Ryedale District Council have never even used these powers under Part I Chapter 2 of RIPA.”
Councillor Clark requested a copy of the answer to his question in writing for all Members and asked the following supplementary question:
Why do we tell people that their emails may be monitored and recorded after they have entered into correspondence with us rather than beforehand? Is the Leader confident that this is legal and right?
Councillor Mrs Cowling replied that a written answer would be provided.