CCTV regulation set to impact councils

The government's full coalition agreement simply states that it plans on "protecting privacy by introducing new legislation to regulate the use of CCTV". The Information Commissioner's Office told GC News that it was unable to comment on the bill and was not yet ready to "go into details" about further regulation of CCTV "until we receive further information". However, the Liberal Democrats have a history of vocal dislike over the number and use of CCTV cameras in Britain. The party's draft of a freedom bill, published in opposition, proposed that a royal commission be set up "to make urgent recommendations on the use and regulation of CCTV in a bid to protect privacy". With deputy prime minister Nick Clegg taking a lead role in the implementation of the freedom bill, this could find its way into the coalition bill of the same name. The party has also presented Cambridgeshire City Council as providing a possible blueprint for other local authorities. The council states in its CCTV scheme code of practice that it gives "primary consideration" to the public in the operation of its camera network. The introduction of greater regulation could also see the strengthening of the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), which in the past has recommended that public bodies "tread carefully" in using CCTV. "While there is little clarity around exactly what regulation the government is planning around CCTV, the previous national CCTV strategy felt more like a 'polite request' to use CCTV only where a better solution could not be found," said Clare Hirst, a senior analyst at Kable. "Future legislation could create a mandated national strategy about where and when CCTV can be used, and will come more in the form of clear legally binding directives, and powers to deactivate or remove cameras that are failing to reduce crime or being used inappropriately," she added. Hirst believes that councils with strong codes of practice already in place will see enforced legislation as a chance to clear up the reputation of CCTV. She also says that the current economic environment is proving to be a greater inhibitor for CCTV, as councils look for ways to share the cost of maintenance with other councils and rationalise the use of cameras by reducing numbers and only monitoring for part of the day. However, councils have continued to announce large CCTV projects this year, with LB Wandsworth publishing a tender notice in April worth £1.4m over five years. The council has spent over £20m installing CCTV cameras and has 1,113, according to Freedom of Information data compiled by campaign group Big Brother Watch in December 2009. The group said that this is more per person than any other London borough, with 4.3 cameras for each 1,000 people. Wandsworth believes the number of cameras in the area is necessary. It told GC News in April that its network "has helped make Wandsworth the safest place to live in inner London," adding: "The cameras make our residents feel safer and more secure and the borough's police force use evidence from our CCTV footage in around half of the cases they bring to court." It is not known how many cameras there are in Britain, because although the government keeps a record of the companies that operate CCTV, they do not count individual cameras. Additionally, not all CCTV cameras have to be registered. Campaigners say that the country has more CCTV per person than anywhere in the world and the Lib Dems estimate that £500m of public money has been spent on cameras and infrastructure in the last decade. Although the new government has not been shy about scrapping Labour projects it deems a waste, like identity cards and next generation passports, it is unlikely that CCTV cameras will just be pulled down to reduce numbers. But authorities that do not adhere to possible new stricter guidelines could still see their cameras "switched off". In 2009, Westminster City Council was told to turn off 100 digital cameras, mostly used for parking enforcement, after the government found that the equipment did not meet technical standards. Last year the Local Government Association voiced its concerns over local authorities using surveillance methods for minor offences such as littering. It also raised the question of whether the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which sets out the appropriate use of surveillance for public bodies, should be reformed. With the coalition keen to "strengthen the accountability of bodies receiving public funding", many local authorities will be interested to see exactly what the new government has in mind.