Councils warned over surveillance powers

Councils will have been told to stop snooping on members of the public over petty matters.

The Local Government Association on Monday wrote to town halls telling them that investigatory powers meant for serious offences should not be used of probes into dog fouling or breaches of school admissions policies.

LGA chief Sir Simon Milton said his orgnaisation is working with the government, police chiefs and surveillance watchdogs to "clarify" when and how powers should be used. 

"Powers should only be used when 'necessary and proportionate to prevent and detect a criminal offence' and you will all know of the examples where councils have been criticised for using the powers in relation to issues that can be portrayed as trivial or not considered a crime by the public," he said.

"My purpose in writing is to ask that you satisfy yourself that the use of these powers is only being authorised after the most careful consideration.

"Whilst it is a matter for each council to determine for its area, our advice is that, save in the most unusual and extreme of circumstances, it is inappropriate to use these powers for trivial matters."

"By their nature, surveillance powers are never to be used lightly but it is important that councils don't lose the power to use them when appropriate," he added.

The move came amid fears that powers drawn up to tackle terrorism are being used by local authorities to prosecute people for minor offences such as littering.

The Press Association asked 100 councils how they used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) and discovered the legislation was used to investigate dog fouling, littering and the misuse of a disabled parking badge, among other offences.

The research took place to find the extent of the "surveillance Britain" after a family in Poole in Dorset were tracked covertly for nearly three weeks to check they lived in a school catchment area.

The same council has made similar checks on two other families in the last year under Ripa and defended its actions by saying the cases were treated as potential criminal activity, which allowed it to spy under the law.

In the survey the large majority of the surveillance was used to combat rogue traders, benefit fraud, counterfeit goods and anti-social behaviour like noise nuisance and criminal damage.

Under Ripa, councils can conduct surveillance if they suspect criminal activity, they can also ask for subscriber details of internet and telephone bills but they cannot tap phones or intercept emails. But the interpretation of what is criminal activity has led to some debate.