Protection of Freedoms Bill

Amendment 33 amends the provision dealing with the need for judicial approval in cases of directed surveillance and covert human intelligence sources in the work undertaken by environmental health officers dealing with noise. I moved this amendment in Grand Committee. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to people who suffer from noise disturbance, so I am trying it again, not just for that, but in order to pursue a couple of points. I should declare that I am a vice-president, one of many, of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. In responding to the amendment in Grand Committee, the Minister referred to meetings between the institute and Defra and to work on revising the RIPA code of practice, but if surveillance is unlawful, which is what concerns the institute, the code cannot make it lawful. I am rather cantering through the points covered in that debate. I accept that most of what environmental health officers do in investigating and dealing with noise nuisance does not amount to covert surveillance requiring authorisation. The Minister said that the code would make it clear that, "““authorisation under RIPA is unlikely””—" I stress that word— "““to be necessary””.—[Official Report, 15/12/11; col. GC 357.]" Uncertainty over this is not helpful. The Minister referred to the right to privacy, but I do not believe that this is a matter of privacy—privacy is keeping a matter private after the fact—but is about obtaining information. She said that if noise—for instance, of an argument—is so loud that it can be heard outside a property, there can be no realistic expectation of privacy. However, as I understand it, private information is defined by RIPA according to its content, not its audibility. Indeed, individuals can have a right to privacy in respect of activity even in a public place. If the local authority is to serve an abatement notice warning that monitoring may be carried out, it has been suggested that it cannot be covert, but whether surveillance is covert is a matter of fact in each instance. The Minister said that the code makes clear that authorisation is not required, but in fact the code states that a perpetrator is not normally to be regarded as having forfeited a right to privacy and that authorisation may not be necessary. Coming back to those three words, ““unlikely””, ““normally”” and ““may””, can the Minister give me any further assurances? I beg to move.