Campaign group attacks use by councils of private investigators

Campaign group Big Brother Watch has attacked the use of private investigators by local authorities and other public bodies.

In a report BBW claimed that its research for the 2010/11 and 2011/12 financial years found that:

• The total amount spent on commissioning external organisations to undertake surveillance was £3.9m;
• 29 organisations (27 councils, 1 public authority, 1 government department) commissioned external organisations to undertake surveillance under the provision of RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000);
• 14 organisations (10 councils, 4 public authorities, but no government departments) commissioned external organisations to undertake surveillance not under the provision of RIPA;
• 4 organisations (2 councils, 2 public authorities) commissioned other public bodies to undertake surveillance at a cost of £7,600.

The most frequent reasons given by local authorities for using private investigators were: tackling anti-social behaviour and/or crime; investigating false insurance claims; issues relating to care or safeguarding proceedings; suspected fraud by staff; and blue badge fraud.

Big Brother Watch said: “While the surveillance doesn’t come cheap, with some organisation spending thousands of pounds on a single operation, the primary finding of the report is the potential loophole in surveillance regulation that is being exploited following the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

“Accordingly, we are seriously concerned there is a gap in UK law emerging around surveillance and the ability of third parties to conduct surveillance operations without proper regulation. Some of these operations were conducted at the request of insurers, raising concerns about conflicts of interest.”

It added: “The government has acted to control surveillance by local councils but this research shows more than ever before public bodies are using private detectives to do their snooping. The law is at breaking point and public bodies shouldn’t be able to dodge the legal checks on them by using private investigators.”

In its report, which can be viewed here, Big Brother Watch called for:

• Reform of RIPA to protect against unauthorised surveillance;
• Strengthening of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to deter unauthorised surveillance “by raising the bar about what evidence can be used in legal proceedings”;
• Strengthened provision for private investigator licensing;
• The introduction of a duty to regulate contracted investigators.

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said about the report’s findings: “Such powers can only be used for serious crimes, and require a magistrates’ warrant. It is totally unacceptable if councils are trying to sidestep these important new checks and they should be held to account for acting outside the law.”

However, the Local Government Association defended councils’ use of surveillance powers.

Cllr Mehboob Khan, chairman of its Safer and Stronger Communities Board, said: "People quite rightly expect councils to tackle rogue traders, loan sharks and benefit fraudsters operating in their area.

“Benefit fraud alone can cost the taxpayer billions of pounds a year and the use of evidence from private surveillance firms can mean these criminals are rightly caught and prosecuted. Without these powers it would be much harder, and in some cases impossible, to bring offenders to justice.”

Cllr Khan added: "Councils know how important it is that people can feel safe in the knowledge that these powers are used sparingly and responsibly. Local authorities are also the only public body that obtains approval from a magistrate each time they use surveillance powers.

"National statistics show that council requests for communications data make up only 0.3% of all requests received."