Commissioners in Port St Mary have been told they can’t use concealed cameras to deter dog fouling.

The commissioners announced in October that they had installed covert surveillance cameras around the village to catch those who allow their pets to foul the streets.

But Information Commissioner Iain McDonald told them this had to stop as a matter of urgency as it is not lawful.

The issue was raised at last week’s meeting of the local authority.

Commissioners agreed in May last year to trial the use of a covert camera to capture evidence of offenders. An alternative proposal to recruit a dog warden on a casual contract at a cost of £5,000 was shelved pending a review of the trial.

Chairman Alan Grace unveiled the scheme in October, stating: ’The majority of dog- owners behave responsibly, but the minority who don’t are having an unacceptable impact on the cleanliness of this village.

’When we catch offenders we shall not hold back from prosecuting them.’

But the Information Commissioner emailed the town hall to warn the use of covert cameras would be in breach of the Data Protection Act and the Regulation of Surveillance Act.

He pointed out that local authorities do not have the power to authorise directed surveillance.

’It therefore appears that the processing is not lawful and as such must cease,’ he wrote. ’I would be obliged if you would confirm that the processing of personal data via covert surveillance cameras has ceased as a matter of urgency.’

He pointed out that Port St Mary Commissioners could deploy overt surveillance cameras if there were appropriate signs.

The clerk Alastair Hamilton wrote back insisting the cameras were ’overtly placed’ - and apologised for issuing a press release that inadvertently suggested the village was breaking the Regulation of Surveillance Act.

But Mr McDonald replied: ’For your information, on Saturday a member of my staff was in the car park at the end of Clifton Road and while she observed the sign she was unable to locate a surveillance camera.’

He asked for the authority to provide him with detail of the model and specification of each surveillance camera deployed.

Mr McDonald said the signs stated that ’CCTV may be in operation’ and added: ’CTTV is either in operation in the specified area or it is not. If there is no CCTV in operation then the signs should not be displayed. Therefore the signs need to be changed to remove the word "may" and the signs also require contact details for Port St Mary Commissioners.’

Mr Hamilton wrote back to say that ’the only camera that we own has been returned to my desk pending the outcome of our discussions.’

At last week’s meeting Mr Grace said Mr McDonald’s letter is ’bizarre’ and said references to the camera being ’covert’ were wrong as it is ’overt’ to act as a deterrant.Andy Phair said if they get the signage right, the problem would be resolved.

Michelle Hayward suggested they ask the Information Commission for advice.

Laurence Vaughan-Williams said he feels ’disquiet’ about cameras being ’overt or covert on a mobile basis; it’s a question of proportionality in relation to European law which the Information Commission picked up on. If they are fixed it might be a different issue.’