The council has accepted both in its RCCTV deployment guidelines, and through its authorisation under RIPA of the counting of beggars that it is possible to use overt CCTV in a covert manner. Paragraph 4.2 of the procedural guide you have just sent me states in a section on what is not covered: “Neither do the provisions of the Act cover the use of overt CCTV surveillance systems.” This is clearly wrong, and not the council’s practice. If the council was to request that its CCTV operators tracked a particular individual’s movements thorough the city this would be covert in that the subject to the surveillance would be unaware that it is or may be taking place.

In the context of the cameras monitoring those using the riverbank - would those being monitored be aware of it is the key question. Even if they were aware of the cameras once the signs were put up, I think a reasonable assumption would be they were to cover the buildings - the pavilion and the kiosk not the riverbank. The council’s replies to questions about the Jesus Green deployment also raises the question of if signage in an area is considered sufficient to allow covert cameras to be used within that area without RIPA authorisation.

 Was a request under RIPA made for the surveillance?

Response: No request was made as this was not covert surveillance. Three cameras were installed on Jesus Green. Two were located on the old Bowling Pavilion and one was located on the top of the Kiosk near the Bridge. The relevant signs indicating the presence of cameras were put up at both locations. Alastair Roberts was told that several people were watching as the cameras were installed. On 31st March, just after they had been installed, an entry appeared on the ‘Save Independent Punting’ website that cameras were there. They were in place until early June. By chance, the cameras also afforded some, but very limited, protection for the punts moored at the La Mimosa Punting Station. Some of the operators felt their punts were very vulnerable to vandalism when unattended. We would have used the City CCTV service but Martin Beaumont informed Alastair that the foliage at that time of year prevented a clear view of the River frontage.

 Who requested the cameras be deployed?

Response: Alastair spoke to the Head of Active Communities about the use of cameras and at put it forward at one of the steering group meetings and subsequently arranged to have them installed. He had been tasked with carrying out the enforcement of the Council’s policy in relation to punting.

  For what purpose were the cameras deployed

Response: At the Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee held on 8th February 2008 the recommendations contained in the report ‘Punt Operation in the City of Cambridge’ were approved. One of the recommendations was that enforcement against commercial punt operation on Jesus Green and other land fronting the River Cam owned by the Council would commence at commencement of the season, on grounds of trespass. The cameras were installed as a method of monitoring activity along the river front to see whether or not operators were complying with Council policy.

The cameras were of fixed focal length covering the length of the river in two directions. Being set up in this way meant that they could only really be used to observe activity levels as the definition was such, given the distance covered, that the images were unlikely to clearly identify any individuals. The cameras were also intended as a deterrent.

The enforcement process itself was largely by arrangement with the constabulary and the street enforcement team through patrols of the area. However, the amount of time devoted to punting by both was limited by resources. The cameras were, therefore, part of the process of observing the land when it was not being patrolled.

 To what extent was the CCTV camera mentioned concealed?

Response: The old Bowling Pavilion is a single storey wooden building. It is redundant and scheduled for demolition at some point in the not too distant future. Holes were cut in the wooden sides and the cameras mounted half inside and half outside. In order to afford them some protection from vandalism they were surrounded by a wire grille. Yellow warning signs indicating the presence of the cameras were placed close to each camera. Their presence was no secret and Alastair understands that almost everyone knew that the cameras were there. The camera on the kiosk was mounted on the roof and was visible. A sign was placed on the kiosk denoting its presence.

 Is there any comment on the statement: “The authority has also been taking photographs of independent punters.” - Is this correct, if so, how does this fit in to the RIPA policies?

Response: a few photos were taken but not to identify individuals. We have received a number of photographs from punt operators which were not requested. These include pictures of the accident/accidents which happened at the centre steps.

I haven’t had a reply to the questions yet, but I reminded Simon Pugh that they were still outstanding at the full Council meeting, and I have just sent another chaser by email

I have therefore made the freedom of information request which I said on September 2nd I would make if his informal request was unsuccessful.

My request has been made in public on the whatdotheyknow.com website and can be followed online.

Cambridge Evening News - Sabotage, spy cameras and ‘draconian powers’

The Daily Telegraph - Anti-terror laws used by council to spy on unauthorised punting

Daily Mail - Council snoops use anti-terror laws to spy on punt operators

There was also a cut-out box in The Telegraph on the 17th of September:

Chris Howell,

I would like to thank you for your effective contributions to Monday’s scrutiny committee.

During the meeting you asked officers if you could personally be sent, outside the meeting, details on the Jesus Green CCTV deployment. Specifically you asked:

* Was a request under RIPA made for the surveillance?
* Who requested the cameras be deployed
* For what purpose were the cameras deployed

If you are sent that information I would also be interested in receiving it.

At Monday’s meeting the Council’s Head of Legal Services informed the committee the council had been inspected by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners (OSC) and noted that they had made recommendations to the Council on the subject of RIPA compliance. However the report presented to councillors did not include any mention of the inspection(s) or the resultant recommendations.

The OSC report, might well assist you and your fellow councillors in your role in exercising oversight of the council’s use of its surveillance powers.

I am planning to make a request to the Council for the disclosure of the the OSC recommendations, and the Council’s response. I am currently weighing up if I can justify making a request for the whole report, as I am mindful that I do not wish to cause unnecessary work for officers. I would be interested in knowing if you think seeing the report would assist you fulfil your role. When I make such a request, I will do so in public, using the website http://www.whatdotheyknow.com

(Albert Street, Cambridge)