Concern at rise in councils 'hi-tech' snooping

Cooncil snoopers?

Councils in Tayside and Fife are resorting to hi-tech spying techniques to snoop on anti-social neighbours, vandals and counterfeiters.

Controversial powers contained within the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act were invoked more than 120 times in Dundee alone last year.

But there are wide disparities in the use of the surveillance among local councils — and even in how much officials are prepared to tell the public about what they are up to.

Council chiefs argue that the so-called RIPSA investigations have produced major successes, but civil liberties groups have warned they are contributing to a “surveillance society”.

Michael Parker of NO2ID, a civil liberty organisation against ID cards, said, “The powers are being used for mundane reasons by people not properly trained or mandated. We are very concerned.”

The legislation allows a council to observe individuals’ movements if it believes they are breaking the law. They can also employ informants.

Figures obtained under Freedom of Information legislation showed Dundee City Council carried out 121 RIPSA probes in 2009, up every year since 2006 when there were 68.

The council refused to provide details of the investigations, saying it would cost too much to collate the data, but legal manager Roger Mennie revealed, “Dundee City Council does not hold any policy documentation on the use of RIPSA.”

Fife Council carried out surveillance on 28 occasions in 2008/09, in the majority of cases to “obtain corroborative evidence of neighbour complaints of noise disturbance”.

Other cases included allegations of vandalism and anti-social behaviour. Equipment used included sound recorders and a spyhole camera.

Angus Council ordered eight RIPSA investigations last year, involving the housing, environmental and consumer protection and finance departments.

Two of those probes are ongoing, while one — related to an alleged breach of Trading Standards legislation — resulted in evidence being passed to the Procurator Fiscal.

In four cases, the council said, the evidence obtained was of “limited value” and no action was taken.

Perth and Kinross Council is the only authority in the area to have reduced its use of RIPSA — from seven cases in 2006 to two in 2007 and 2008 and just one last year.

The council refused to disclose any details of the surveillance it had conducted, saying disclosure could prejudice the detection of crime.

Last year, a report by members of the House of Lords Constitution Committee said councils should be stopped from using the powers, and compensation paid to anyone who has been the subject of unlawful monitoring.

The use of such powers should also be monitored by judges, they argued.