Official ‘surveillance’ requests for details of telephone and internet records have surged to 1,400 a day, according to figures published yesterday.

The annual number of ‘spying’ requests for private communications data jumped to almost 520,000 last year, compared with an average of less than 350,000 in the two previous years.

Local councils have been criticised for seeking the information to tackle under age drinking, dog fouling, littering and even to find out whether a family lived in a school catchment area.

Although local authorities made up only a small proportion of the overall number of requests in 2007, they were criticised for misunderstanding the concept of proportionality in when ‘spying’ is justified to tackle a problem.

Figures from the intercept commissioner show that there were a total of 519,200 requests for communications data made under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The requests apply to who made a call, when and where it was made but not the content.

Sir Paul Kennedy, the commissioner, said that the vast majority of requests were made by police and the security services with only 1,707 made by 154 local authorities.

Local councils can apply for the information to tackle a range of issues including crime, protecting the environment and public health and dealing with the sale of counterfeit goods.

Sir Paul said local authorities could make much more use of the surveillance powers to help them investigate crimes in their areas.

But in a separate report, Sir Christopher Rose, the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, called for a series of improvements to the way local councils use the powers.

Sir Christopher said that although councils tended to request covert activity as a last resort, the documentation requesting communications data tended to be poor.

He said some councils had a “tendency to expose lack of understanding of the legislation” and displayed a “serious misunderstanding of the concept of proportionality”.

Sir Christopher said it was not enough for a local council to assert that an activity was proportionate because it was the only way to further an investigation into an alleged offence.

Times Recommends

• Games industry sets its lawyers on downloaders
• Great Britain's golden summer is no fluke
• Scientists grow blood in lab