Town halls set to lose surveillance powers

By Jack Doyle, Press Association
Wednesday, 4 November 2009

Town halls could be stripped of their powers to use surveillance to tackle trivial offences such as dog fouling under plans published today.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson is expected to outline concrete proposals for changes to the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa).

A Government consultation launched earlier this year suggested councils should not be able to use the surveillance powers to combat so-called bin crimes and other low level offences.

The Home Office will publish responses to the consultation and indicate how the law will be changed.

Earlier this week Mr Johnson said using Ripa powers for trivial purposes could undermine the case for using them when they are needed.

It was never acceptable to use Ripa powers on people whose dogs foul the streets or who put their bins out early, he said.

"The public willingly accept that in their efforts to bring criminals to justice, the police should be able to locate people by their mobile phone records," he said.

"But they will not accept such powers being used to spy on people who put their rubbish out on the wrong day, or let their dogs foul the streets, because this is clearly not proportionate.

"There is no evidence that such practice is widespread - but I want to make it clear that in no circumstance is it acceptable."

"If agencies use Ripa powers for such trivial reasons, the case for using them to track down serious offenders who put public safety at risk rapidly diminishes in the eyes of the public.

Town hall chiefs have suggested senior councillors should have to approve Ripa authorisations in order to provide greater accountability.

The Local Government Association (LGA), in its submission on the proposed changes, also suggested putting members of the public on scrutiny committees to examine Ripa decisions.

Councillor Les Lawrence said: "There have been concerns that some local councils have not used Ripa proportionately, and the LGA wrote to all authorities last year to argue that the use of surveillance to tackle dog fouling and littering ... was not appropriate.

"The use of surveillance should be reserved for dealing with serious criminals like fly-tippers, benefit cheats, counterfeiters and loan sharks. Time and again, these are just the type of crimes that residents say they want to see tackled."

Alex Deane, director of Big Brother Watch, said: "Ripa abuse is rampant - from spying on dog walkers to people's dustbins, to parents wanting their children to go to schools in a particular catchment area.

"The bottom line is that Ripa needs massive reform. Unelected and unaccountable council officials shouldn't be able to intrude into our lives as they currently do."

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "Liberty has long campaigned against disproportionate snooping. We are representing Jenny Patton in her legal action against Poole Council for using intrusive powers sold in the name of fighting serious crime and terrorism to spy on an innocent family.

"The Government should understand that tinkering at the edges of the Ripa law is not enough. Only a complete overhaul will restore public trust in lawful surveillance and political promises."

Council 'spied on woman 21 times'

A woman was spied on by her council 21 times to find out whether she lived in the catchment area of a school, a tribunal has heard.

Jenny Paton, 40, is taking Poole Borough Council to a tribunal over its use of the Investigatory Powers Act.

The mother-of-three claims a council official documented her movements and those of her partner, Tim Joyce.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal heard the surveillance occurred over three weeks around last February.

It is claimed the council used its investigatory powers to find out whether the family lived at an address in the catchment area for Lilliput First School.

Gordon Nardell, representing the family, told the tribunal the case was about "liberty" and the "extraordinary powers" of local authorities.


This local authority played fast and loose

He said: "The complainants have and were found to have played by the rules but this local authority played fast and loose."

Mr Nardell also told the hearing Ms Paton's family could have been proven to have been living in the right area by other means than spying.

He said it was "quite extraordinary" that the surveillance - over three weeks last February - was authorised.

Investigators were watching "comings and goings" from the family's home address and following a car, he said.

Mr Nardell added: "There is plainly an interference with home life."

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa), which sets the parameters of public bodies' use of surveillance, was introduced in 2000.

The hearing is expected to last two days.

This comment intrigues me... Does anybody know what the oversight is at the moment within local authority RIPA applications? Anybody know who signs off on them now? Or does the person wanting it just write the authority and sign it off themselves?

I ask because within our job as BiB, there is a process that requires authorisation from the brass - an Inspector for the lower level applications and a Superintendent for the more in-depth ones. That is then overseen by the unit which processes RIPA requests where it is for something like account details. The Officer signing it off will ask lots of questions if our original application is not sufficiently detailed as to why we have to go down that route, why it's justified against the Subject's right to privacy, what the risk of collateral intrusion is, etc...

Only for covert CCTV. I believe overt town centre/Police type CCTV does not require a RIPA authority.

No one should have their privacy and home life interfered with without the involvement of an independant arbiter of fact - a court.

No muppet from any council could or should have any of these powers.