This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/8341197.stm

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Public 'must have say over CCTV' Action promised on council spying
(about 16 hours later)
The public must get more powers to scrutinise the use of CCTV and other forms of surveillance, the body representing council leaders says. The government is to clamp down on the use of covert surveillance techniques by local authorities.
There is concern that local authorities are using methods including bugging to deal with relatively minor offences such as littering and dog fouling. Council officers who want to use bugging or undercover detectives will require permission from senior executives, under the plans.
The Local Government Association said councils had to behave in a way "acceptable" to residents. Ministers say it will stop snooping on minor offences such as dog fouling and putting bins out on the wrong day.
The comments come ahead of a Home Office statement on surveillance. But critics say the government has not gone far enough and intrusive spying methods should be banned altogether.
It has carried out a consultation on whether the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which sets the parameters of public bodies' use of surveillance, needs reform. The Home Office wants local authorities who wish to use covert surveillance methods to seek permission from "director level" or above. Currently, authorisation is required from a "service manager" or equivalent.
'Spirit of the law' The Home Office has carried out a consultation on whether Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa), which sets the parameters of public bodies' use of surveillance, needs reform.
Les Lawrence, chairman of the LGA's safer communities board, 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 - no matter how important these issues are to local residents - was not appropriate. It said that, of the 222 organisations and individuals who responded, only 7% were in favour of the proposed changes, while "by far the most common response" was to reject them.
"All public authorities have a responsibility to use surveillance in a way that is acceptable to local residents and is consistent with the spirit of the legislation. 'Rubber-stamp'
"Residents need to be able to scrutinise how their council is using surveillance. It is only by giving the elected representatives of local people more power that we will rebuild trust in the use of techniques that councils need to crack down on serious criminals." The government's chief surveillance commissioner, Sir Christopher Rose, objected, saying seniority was not the key factor in authorisation, but training, experience, expertise and time.
He added: "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." Others who objected said senior executives would simply "rubber-stamp" investigations, causing delays by adding to bureaucracy. Some said they were too remote from operations.
The LGA suggests co-opting members of the public on to a council scrutiny committee that will oversee the use of covert surveillance The government's proposals are weak and clearly show that it hasn't understood the scale of snooping that's going on Chris Grayling, Conservatives
It also suggests making a senior councillor responsible for authorising the use of RIPA, who can then be held to account. The Home Office also revealed that 18.5 % of respondents "actively supported" local authority use of surveillance powers to tackle dog fouling, littering or schools enrolment fraud.
Policing Minister David Hanson said: "We made it clear that we would not tolerate the misuse of Ripa and these new measures show that we are taking the necessary action to stop the small number of cases where this has happened.
"There is no doubt that a wide range of public authorities need to be able to authorise surveillance under Ripa in order to protect us from those who would do us harm.
"But it is equally clear that public authorities must respect our right to privacy and only use techniques under Ripa when it is necessary and proportionate to do so."
But Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights campaign group Liberty, said the government plans did not go far enough.
She said: "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."
'Serious criminals'
For the Conservatives, shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: "The government's proposals are weak and clearly show that it hasn't understood the scale of snooping that's going on.
"Conservatives have been arguing for judicial approval for town hall use of surveillance powers, banning town hall surveillance for all but serious criminal offences and proper democratic responsibility and accountability."
But Les Lawrence, chairman of the Local Government Association's safer communities board, said: "It is good news that the government has recognised that the use of surveillance is necessary for cracking down on serious criminals like fly-tippers, benefit cheats and loan sharks.
"Time and again, these are just the type of crimes that residents say they want to see tackled."
Since 2003 councils have only been able to use undercover methods against those suspected of breaking criminal law.Since 2003 councils have only been able to use undercover methods against those suspected of breaking criminal law.
Surveillance by local authorities is not allowed to be intrusive, such as bugging of phone lines or entering premises.Surveillance by local authorities is not allowed to be intrusive, such as bugging of phone lines or entering premises.
In England it is restricted to suspected breaches of criminal law and cannot be used to investigate suspected tax dodgers, for example, or on economic or public safety grounds.In England it is restricted to suspected breaches of criminal law and cannot be used to investigate suspected tax dodgers, for example, or on economic or public safety grounds.
Such exemptions do not apply in Scotland.Such exemptions do not apply in Scotland.
During 2008, public authorities made 504,073 requests for data from phone and internet service providers - about the same as the previous year.During 2008, public authorities made 504,073 requests for data from phone and internet service providers - about the same as the previous year.