terror laws to catch dog-foulers

[Dunc]

Town Halls will be told to stop using anti-terror laws to spy on the public for trivial offences such as dog-fouling and 'bin crimes', it was announced.

Home Office minister Vernon Coaker admitted the scale of council snooping on people was undermining public support for the anti-terror law, and promised action "in the near future".

Authorities will be told to stop using hi-tech surveillance methods designed to crack down on terrorism and serious crime for petty offences.

They have been accused of abusing the power to catch residents out such as those putting their rubbish out on the wrong day, dog fouling or claiming to live in a different school catchment area.

The Local Government Association backed the move and said it was entirely inappropriate for councils to use the powers "save in the most unusual and extreme circumstances".

But the Conservatives said the move was another example of the Government having to change its own laws because they do not work properly.

In a separate move, however, Mr Coaker defended the controversial scale of the national DNA database, which contains more samples of it population than any other country in the world - including up to a million innocent people.

Mr Coaker told peers: "We don't want to see legislation available for local authorities to use with respect to serious crime being used... for example, in respect of dog-fouling.

"That's something we need to address. We have to stop some of these things happening that do undermine support."

The minister was appearing before the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which is investigating the surveillance society.

The Committee heard a number of peers express concern about intrusion into daily life by the authorities, following a string of cases in which councils have used powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to tackle relatively trivial misdemeanours.

Figures earlier this month showed three-quarters of local authorities had used the act - which was introduced to help the police fight terrorism and crime in 2000 - to tackle the likes of dog fouling, the unauthorised sale of pizzas and even the abuse of the blue badge scheme for disabled drivers.

Labour peer Lord Peston asked Mr Coaker: "If these powers are being used for local authorities to search my dustbins, isn't the danger that you lose public support... in the area for which you most need public support, namely the anti-terrorism and anti-crime thing?"

Mr Coaker said he agreed "absolutely" with peers' concerns and was in discussions on the issue with Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) minister John Healey to act.

The former head of the Local Government Association, Sir Simon Milton, wrote to councils in July to urge them to be more sparing in their use of the Act, which permits them to seek permission to carry out covert surveillance and intercept of personal communications.

And chair of the LGA's Safer Communities Board, Hazel Harding, said "Whilst it is a matter for each council to determine for its area, the LGA's advice is that, save in the most unusual and extreme circumstances, it is inappropriate to use these powers for less serious 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 it's appropriate. The LGA will continue to work with councils to make sure that they are completely confident in using these powers properly."

Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said: "For too long councils have been allowed to use powers designed for terrorism and organised crime to spy on people's kids, pets and bins.

"This must be corrected now, not in the near future."

Shadow home secretary, Dominic Grieve, said: "It is outrageous that while on the one hand a police officer has to fill in a seven page form to use a pair of binoculars, on the other a lower ranking council official can use intrusive surveillance powers on suspicion of dog fouling.

"This is typical of Labour's approach which erodes our fundamental freedoms, without making us more secure."