About RIPA
RIPA and local authorities
Public authorities, including local authorities, sometimes need to use covert techniques in support of their statutory function. But they have a responsibility to use them appropriately and only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so.
Many have used the powers to good effect to clamp down on rogue traders, benefit fraudsters and other criminal activity. Councils do play an important role in keeping our communities safe, but a balance needs to be struck: that is why there are safeguards in place and why the more intrusive powers can only be used by the intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
Q: Should local authorities be using RIPA-directed surveillance powers to investigate people who put their bins out a day early?
Local authorities have a range of powers available to them to tackle littering and fly tipping. However it shouldn’t be necessary or appropriate to use RIPA directed surveillance powers to observe people putting their rubbish bins out early for collection. RIPA allows certain public authorities to authorise covert surveillance and covert human intelligence sources for the prevention and detection of crime and prevention of disorder – but only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so.
When councils use RIPA we expect them to use these laws proportionately and sensibly in the interest of investigating crimes and protecting their communities.
In June 2008, the Local Government Association wrote to councils stressing the importance of proportionality. Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker explained to the House of Lords Constitutional Committee on 19 November 2008 that the government was clear that the use of RIPA techniques for trivial matters such as dog fouling or putting refuse bins out a day early was not proportionate. Department for Communities and Local Government Minister John Healey wrote to all local authorities on 24 November 2008 emphasising this point. There is also a robust supervisory regime to oversee the use of surveillance powers.
Q: What are you doing to ensure local authorities use communications data appropriately?
We have been supporting the National Anti-Fraud Network (NAFN). This is a committee of local authority representatives which can operate on behalf of local authorities wishing to use communications data. It will ensure that the tests of necessity and proportionality are used in a standard way. The Interception of Communications Commissioner has recommended that local authorities use NAFN. We have sponsored the training of 12 NAFN officers to enable local authorities to have the same training as the police. We have also sponsored a new national training course hosted by the National Police Improvement Agency, which will be available to local authorities. So far 393 of the 474 local authorities have joined NAFN.
Q: What are you doing about the way local authorities use their other powers under RIPA?
RIPA allows certain public authorities to authorise covert surveillance and covert human intelligence sources for the prevention and detection of crime and prevention of disorder – but only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so.
We are working to help local authorities understand how the test should be applied. The key to this process is preparing revised codes of practice on covert surveillance and covert human intelligence sources. We are making good progress with this work, including through liaison with the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). We were hoping to be able to publish these codes for public consultation shortly, but the House of Lords is hearing an appeal which could have an impact on the content of the draft codes. We are therefore planning to publish the revised draft codes when we have received the judgments in this case and had time to reflect them in the drafts. The draft codes will include far greater clarity on when it would be appropriate to use RIPA.
We are also liaising with DCLG and the National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA) on how we can provide additional guidance, training and facilities for local authorities. For example, an NPIA helpdesk is already helping local authorities with particular queries on whether it would be appropriate to use RIPA. NPIA have agreed with us and DCLG to produce guidance specifically geared towards local authorities, as soon as we have circulated the draft code of practice (which will influence the content of the guidance). We are examining whether an equivalent to NAFN may be appropriate.
Q: How many communications data requests have there been?
In the 12 month period ending 31 December 2007 there were a total of 519,260 requests for communications data. In the same period 1,182 errors reported (approximately 2/3 were public authority errors and 1/3 communication service provider errors). Although on first sight this is a large number it is only 0.35% of the total number of requests.
Q: How many of these requests were from local authorities?
A total of 1,707 requests were made by local authorities (0.33%). 154 made use of their powers to acquire communications data.
Q: What are you doing to address inappropriate use of surveillance/CHIS powers?
We are currently revising the code of practice for surveillance under RIPA and we will give far clearer guidance on when it would – and, more importantly, would not – be proportionate to use covert techniques authorised under RIPA. We will consult publicly on the content of the new code. In particular, we will clarify that it would not be appropriate or proportionate to use RIPA to investigate: dog fouling, domestic littering or dustbins.
Q: Why do so many public authorities require RIPA powers and why don’t you list them all?
We are reviewing the public authorities able to use directed surveillance, covert human intelligence sources and communications data under RIPA. This is so we can satisfy ourselves that they need the powers to enable them to carry out their statutory duties and can bring forward Consolidating Orders setting out clear lists of all the public authorities able to use these techniques.
As the Home Secretary announced on 16 December 2008, we will be carrying out a full public consultation exercise on the list of public authorities able to use techniques regulated in RIPA. The consultation will also cover the purposes for which the techniques can be used and the ranks at which they can be authorised.
