Over the past few months, I am sure we have all been watching the unfolding events in relation to the Volkswagen (VW) scandal in complete disbelief. First, it was announced in the USA that VW had fitted ‘cheat devices’ to its vehicles to get around tough emissions controls. It later became apparent that 1.2 million UK vehicles are affected and, rather than just issues around the levels of nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide being spewed into the environment, there are now question marks around carbon dioxide, too. This will affect UK car tax bandings and have a detrimental effect on claimed fuel-consumption data. Consumers who have purchased VW products seem, therefore, to have been deceived by one of the world’s major brands. They now have vehicles that are probably worth less money than they thought, and which pollute more than they should. Inevitably, some will be more concerned than others. Consumers will be attracted by an army of ‘no win no fee’ lawyers, unless a rapid compensation plan is drawn up. The environmental impact should not be underestimated; in central London, air pollution is a massive issue, with evidence linking nitrogen emissions to a range of medical conditions and shortened life expectancy. VW haven’t helped the situation. We then have the issue that the car-sales playing field hasn’t been level for a number of years. VW has clearly gained a competitive advantage over its rivals and I wonder if – and worry – that other brands may not be whiter than white. Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin has told parliament that VW ‘have behaved in an appalling way’. That’s one way of putting it. It seems that a range of criminal offences may have been committed and, at the time of writing this letter (7 November), I see nobody pulling this together and coordinating a response from the law enforcement community in the UK. Surely trading standards should be a part of that, shouldn’t we, with our local access to the network of dealers? If there were ever to be a successful criminal prosecution, the potential for using the Proceeds of Crime Act would be simply mindblowing. In light of a world-leading brand such as VW doing what it has done, those who tell us to take a light-touch approach with businesses, cut red tape and reduce enforcement resources really need to re-evaluate and come to their senses, don’t they? Businesses can’t be trusted quite as much as we would like, and the VW scandal – apart from being the biggest consumer story in history – is surely a timely wake-up call. Steve Playle City of London Trading Standards Doggone it! Covert is useful I read Paul Thompson’s article, Sunset over RIPA (TS Today, October 2015), with interest – but also, in places, with a little dismay. I note that Paul is lead officer for e-crime, so this may have coloured his comments about what he sees as inconsequential crime – specifically, dog fouling. Of course, here in Scotland we have so far managed to avoid judicial oversight of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) authorisations, as we have our own Scottish equivalent Act in relation to surveillance and covert human intelligence sources (CHIS). I believe we dodged that particular bullet because the Scottish government took an objective view on whether local authorities were reckless in their use of covert techniques, rather than reacting to the hysteria generated by some daily newspapers – and it concluded we acted responsibly. Apart from a few ill-judged cases where the principles of RIPA were not followed, colleagues in England and Wales also acted responsibly. Nor are we subject to the six-month minimum custodial penalty limit either – free prescriptions and no tuition fees aren’t the only benefits to living here. We retain the three grounds for seeking an authorisation, as public health and safety were not removed at an earlier stage, as was the case in England and Wales. Since RIPA does apply to Scotland directly in relation to communications data, my comments that follow only refer to the application to covert activities covered by RIPA, as applied by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 (RIPSA). RIPA wasn’t ‘designed’ for any type of crime, as the article says. It was (as Paul initially states) to ensure covert techniques were used in accordance with the principles of human rights. It accepted the principle that covert techniques breached certain human rights, but that these interferences could be justified. If they could be justified, then they were allowed. And, before we overlook it again, there is no requirement on a local authority to obtain an authorisation. An authorisation is merely a banker that your subsequent actions are going to be upheld, if challenged as breaching someone’s human rights. RIPA/RIPSA has had some of the worst and most ill-informed press coverage of any legislation, often described as giving local authorities ‘powers to snoop or spy’ when it does nothing of the sort. For a piece of legislation designed to control the state’s ability to poke its nose into the lives of its citizens without oversight (as was the case before its introduction) to be portrayed in this way by the press – and by some others who should know better – is a travesty. So Paul’s focus on ‘Enid and her pooch’ struck a nerve with me for several reasons. Paul implies that trading standards crimes involve a higher level of criminality than other local authority services deal with – and to a large extent that is true. No-one could argue the disparity between the financial and custodial penalties under trademarks legislation, when measured against a fixed penalty notice for failing to pick up dog mess. However, as a manager who also has responsibility for environmental health, I know how much of my time is taken up with public concern, business complaints and involvement by councillors in dog-fouling issues. Consistently, this issue is in the top two in the complaints chart for the council, along with littering. My authority has used covert techniques to catch someone that never cleaned up after his dog – or rather dogs – throughout the town centre. The number of complaints received citing this individual was unprecedented. We used public-space CCTV, video evidence and visual observations to build a case, and reported him for multiple offences (around 30). We wanted to send a message that the council would use such techniques, properly authorised – including CCTV – if circumstances dictated it. Of course, we could not commit these resources to every investigation, but the level of concern this individual had generated justified it in more ways than one. I wish the story had a happy ending, but rather than having his face in every local paper to show that the council meant business, the procurator fiscal imposed a fiscal fine, which means the identity of the offender cannot be publicised. That was last year – and he is now back to his old ways. Sigh! Before this operation – and during a previous inspection by the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner – the issue of using covert techniques for fly-tipping and dog fouling came up. Would our council use surveillance for such matters? ‘In the right circumstances, absolutely,’ I assured him. ‘Good,’ was all he replied – a view I was heartened to see reflected in the Chief Surveillance Commissioner’s annual report that year. So in conclusion, we – as local authority professionals – should view covert techniques as part of the toolkit for tackling public concern in our communities and not get caught up in the ill-conceived notions of the less-informed press. Thanks, Paul, for a thought-provoking piece, but please leave poor Enid in peace. Please note these are my personal reflections and do not necessarily represent the views of South Ayrshire Council. David Thomson FCTSi Trading standards and environmental health manager, South ayrshire Council