Dear Sirs,

I would like to know about Fife Council's use of the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000.

In particular:

1) The number of times directed surveillance has been authorised by
a council official for council investigations.

2) The number of times intrusive surveillance has been used,
perhaps in conjunction with Fife Constabulary, for council
investigations.

3) The number of times covert human intelligence has been used,
perhaps in conjunction with Fife Constabulary, for council
investigations.

4) The number of each type of request where the investigation or
operation was deemed likely to result in obtaining confidential
information.

5) The number of each type of request in which it was determined
that a risk of collateral intrusion existed.

6) The number of requests for each type of surveillance that have
been rejected on the grounds that necessity had not been proven.

7) The number of requests for each type of surveillance that have
been rejected on the grounds that proportionality had not been
proven.

8) A statement of the type of investigation for which each request
for surveillance was made (or an indication of the evidence which
was being sought by means of the surveillance). For example,
"council tax benefit fraud investigation", "under-age alcohol sales
investigation". If it would be easier, this information could be
provided in aggregate (for example, "5 of the requests were made in
support of under-age alcohol sales investigations").

Please note that any reply should be in the same format that this
request was made in, plain text e-mail. Non-standard proprietary
formats, such as Microshit Word, are not acceptable as they do not
promote the open exchange of information.

Yours faithfully,

David Hansen

Thank you for your email. We will either respond directly or forward your email to the most appropriate person to give you a response.

If you have any further queries, or if you haven't received a response within 2 weeks, please call us on the following -

Housing Repairs 08451 55 00 11
Environment Team 08451 55 00 22
Housing Information
and Advice 08451 55 00 33
Rent Arrears 08451 55 00 44
General Enquries 08451 55 00 00

Best regards,

Fife Direct Team
Fife Council

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Hansen,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 2002 – REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

I refer to your email dated 5th May 2008 and received 6th May 2008
(please note Monday was a public holiday in terms of the Act); our ref
is Q6.1/2008114. I am pleased to attach the information you requested
and trust that it meets your requirements. If you are unable to open
the attachment which is in MS Word format, please advise and I can
convert to PDF or supply a paper copy. I trust this meets your
requirements. If you are not satisfied with the way we have handled your
request, you have the right to request a review of the decision. Please
write to: Chief Legal Officer, Legal Services, Performance &
Organisational Support, Fife House, North Street, Glenrothes, KY7 5LT;
within 3 calendar months of receipt of our decision. If this fails to
resolve the matter to your complete satisfaction, you have the right to
apply to the Scottish Information Commissioner for a decision.

Yours sincerely,

Elaine Moffat
Information Co-ordinator,
Performance & Organisational Support
Fife Council,
Fife House,
North Street,
Glenrothes.
KY7 5LT

FifeDirect Team

show quoted sections

Dear FifeDirect,

This "reply" does not meet my requirements.

Making the effort to read my original e-mail would explain why it
does not meet my requirements, which I went to the trouble of
spelling out. To repeat myself, "Please note that any reply should
be in the same format that this request was made in, plain text
e-mail."

Asking for information in a usable and standard format is hardly
unusual or difficult to respond to.

Dear Mr Hansen

We regret you were not satisfied with the response. The information is held in MS Word and MS Excel formats and it was an oversight. Your views on the use of this software are noted.

Kind regards

FifeDirect Team

show quoted sections

Dear FifeDirect,

I note that you did not send your reply as an e-mail, but instead
sent it as an attachment again. I have repeated the whole of your
reply below, just in case you are unaware of the difference between
an attachment and the body of an e-mail.

It is a darned sight easier to read and reply to something in the
body of an e-mail compared to an attachment. I hope making things
difficult for people to read and reply to is not a deliberate
policy of Fife Council but rather another "oversight", perhaps you
could confirm this?

As regards the content of your communication, thank you for the
comprehensive reply which is a model others could follow. It
contains all the information I was after and lays it out well.

In relation to my questions 6) and 7) I would be rather more
reassured that you are doing things responsibly if some of the
operations had not been approved, on the grounds of necessity or
proportionality not being proven. As it is it looks like rubber
stamping.

I also note your use of the term "applying". One of the fatal
defects in this thing is that there is no external scrutiny, the
council authorises itself. The fact that the council has never
refused to authorise itself stinks. I am aware of the ineffectual
old men who, along with a few staff, are supposed to provide
external scrutiny. Their smug reports demonstrate conclusively that
they do not provide scrutiny but are instead part of the problem.
Some of their reports consist mostly of boilerplated text from the
report for the previous year, which is not the action of an
effective regulator.

In relation to my question 8) is it possible to give a short
explanation of why, "a decision was taken to stop using CHIS"?

======================================================

FIFE COUNCIL - FOI Q6.1/2008114 from David Hansen,
www.whatdotheyknow.com

KEY/ABBREVIATIONS USED CS Covert Surveillance CHIS Covert Human
Intelligence Surveillance CS/CHIS Combined Covert with Human
Intelligence Surveillance DS Directed

1) The number of times directed surveillance has been authorised by
a council official for council investigations.

There were 0 in the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

There were 22 DS in 2005 (all were Housing Investigations into
noise complaints or anti-social behaviour.) There were 30 DS in
2006 (29 were Housing Investigations into noise complaints or
anti-social behaviour and 1 was a trading standards investigation)

In 2007 there were 28 DS (2 were Trading Standards investigations,
the rest were Housing Investigations) and there have been 13 DS to
date in 2008 (all were Housing Investigations)

2) The number of times intrusive surveillance has been used,
perhaps in conjunction with Fife Constabulary, for council
investigations.

Please note there are no records of joint operations. Fife
Constabulary is a separate data controller in terms of the Act so
if you require information relating to Fife Constabulary you need
to request your information from them. Details of their FOI officer
can be found on their website at www.fife.police.uk then use the
�Information Centre� link to get to details under the sub-heading
�Freedom of Information�.

There was no CS in 2000. In 2001 there were 2 CS (both were Trading
Standards investigations into counterfeit goods) and 17 CS were
recorded for 2002 (All related to Housing Investigations (noise or
anti-social behaviour)

There were 21 CS in 2003 (19 were Housing Investigations, 2 were
Trading Standards) and 10 CS in 2004 (All were Housing
Investigations)

In 2005 there were 9 CS. There was no CS in each of 2006, 2007 and
2008.

3) The number of times covert human intelligence has been used,
perhaps in conjunction with Fife Constabulary, for council
investigations.

1 CHIS was used in 2000. No CHIS were used in each of 2001, 2002 an
2003. 3 CHIS were used in 2004 and also there were 2 operations
combining a CHIS with a CS. No CHIS have been used in the years
2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

4) The number of each type of request where the investigation or
operation was deemed likely to result in obtaining confidential
information.

None. Only the police and the security services can use intrusive
surveillance e.g. bugging. This means that Fife Council has never
been in a position to discover confidential information as defined
in RIPSA.

5) The number of each type of request in which it was determined
that a risk of collateral intrusion existed.

Collateral intrusion is always considered a risk in any type of
surveillance due to the nature of the task although steps are taken
to ensure the level of risk is minimised. It has never been
considered a risk that outweighed the necessity. The RIPSA
procedure requires, amongst other things, assessment of
proportionality before an authorisation is granted.

6) The number of requests for each type of surveillance that have
been rejected on the grounds that necessity had not been proven.

None. This is assessed carefully prior to applying.

7) The number of requests for each type of surveillance that have
been rejected on the grounds that proportionality had not been
proven.

None. This is assessed carefully prior to applying.

8) A statement of the type of investigation for which each request
for surveillance was made (or an indication of the evidence which
was being sought by means of the surveillance). For example,
"council tax benefit fraud investigation", "under-age alcohol sales
investigation". If it would be easier, this information could be
provided in aggregate (for example, "5 of the requests were made in
support of under-age alcohol sales investigations").

Only trading standards used CHIS in the past but a decision was
taken to stop using CHIS.

Typically, a CHIS could be used to buy a CD at a market where
suspicious trading practices were being investigated. Fife
Constabulary is responsible for under-age alcohol sales
investigations and any RIPSA records for these would be held by
Fife Constabulary.

Most DS are now undertaken by the Housing Investigations Team;
usually this means that audio equipment is installed in connection
with noise complaints or anti-social behaviour
(swearing/banging/fighting/vandalism)

CS Covert Surveillance CHIS Covert Human Intelligence Surveillance
CS/CHIS Combined Covert with Human Intelligence Surveillance DS
Directed

In 2000 The CHIS was a Housing Investigation In 2001 Both CS were
Trading Standards investigations re counterfeit software/goods In
2002 The CS+CHIS related to an offer to turn the clock back on a
car. In 2003 19 CS were Housing Investigations, 2 were Trading
Standards In 2004 All DS & CS were Housing Investigations; the rest
were Trading Standards - of the 3 CHIS, one related to a clocked
car the other two to counterfeit DVDs or CDs In 2005 All were
Housing Investigations In 2006 1 DS was undertaken by Trading
Standards, rest were housing investigations In 2007 2 DS were
Trading standards, rest were Housing Investigations In 2008 All DS
were Housing Investigations. (Figures completed up to date of
request.)

====================================================

Yours sincerely,

David Hansen

Dear Mr Hansen

Your concerns about attachments are noted. Your other comments are also noted. We reviewed our practices and procedures some time ago and decided that the following question needed to be asked before using CHIS - does an undercover relationship require to be created? The answer to this question determines whether it is necessary to use a CHIS. It is still possible that consideration would be given to using a CHIS in the future, but this would depend on the specific circumstances of the case.
Kind Regards

FifeDirect Team

show quoted sections