“In the current financial climate, sustaining the level of investment in CCTV is impossible to justify. The surveillance British citizens are now subjected to continues to increase, despite being at a level that makes many other democratic countries recoil in horror…”
“…CCTV does not have a significant deterrent effect on crime, and is not a substitute for police, yet it continues to be claimed – without evidence – that more CCTV improves public safety.”
That’s the damning verdict put forward by Big Brother Watch – the pro-civil liberties and privacy campaign organisation – in its latest report on surveillance across the UK.
The 36-page document – entitled ‘The Price of Privacy’ – is calling for “major changes” designed to improve the ways in which CCTV is both regulated and evaluated, “restore public faith in CCTV”, better inform the debate around surveillance and “strengthen the protections afforded to our privacy”.
According to Big Brother Watch:
- the CCTV regulator must be given necessary powers to enforce the Code of Practice suggested by the Protection of Freedoms Billany publicly-funded CCTV installation should have to refer to criminality statistics or demonstrate “a significant risk of harm being commenced”
- public bodies should publish the instances where their CCTV cameras have been used in securing convictions, and outline the offences committed
- those same public bodies should also be required (save for those used in direct protection of sites at risk of terrorism) to publish the locations of all their cameras in a standardised format
- the Government should begin a consultation on regulating private CCTV cameras – both those operated by commercial companies and those administered by private individuals
Basis for the claims
The comments follow on from a survey conducted by Big Brother Watch based on a Freedom of Information request sent to over 400 local authorities throughout the UK (in which the latter were asked to reveal the cost of CCTV installation, operation and maintenance as well as the salary costings for CCTV operators, broken down into fixed and mobile cameras).
The study period actually stretches from 1 April 2007 through to 31 March last year.
Interpreting the results obtained, Big Brother Watch asserts that there are “at least” 51,600 CCTV cameras being controlled by 428 local authorities in Britain.
Apparently, the total cost of installing, operating and maintaining CCTV cameras between 2007 and 2011 ran out at a cool GB pound 515 million. Based on figures given in a Policy Exchange missive entitled ‘The Cost of The Cops‘ (released last year), Big Brother Watch suggests that money could have been redirected to pay for 4,121 sworn police constables or, alternatively, 5,894 Police Community Support Officers.
Referring to areas where CCTV requires “scrutiny”, the Big Brother Watch report states: “CCTV has been viewed by those controlling expenditure as a cheap alternative to conventional policing, with no demonstrable equivalent success in reducing crime.”
Birmingham and Leicester top the league tables
At over GB pound 14 million, Birmingham was found to have the highest total expenditure on CCTV cameras while Leicester holds the record for the biggest number of cameras with a total of 2,083.
Along with Birmingham, London’s Westminster has spent over GB pound 10 million on CCTV, while 18 authorities – among them Leeds, the City of Edinburgh, Barnet, Nottingham and Wakefield – spending more than GB pound 1 million per annum on surveillance projects.
Seven local authorities – Leicester, Fife, Wandsworth, Nottingham and Southampton – now have more CCTV cameras than Liverpool, Leeds and Manchester taken together.
The report – financially supported by the Politics and Economics Research Trust – continues: “The efficiency of CCTV varies hugely across the country, with cameras regularly not working or turned off, footage being deleted before it can be used and pictures of insufficient quality for court purposes.”
In no uncertain terms, Big Brother Watch comments: “CCTV serves as a costly placebo for many local authorities, designed to appease neighbourhoods suffering from anti-social behaviour problems.”
Does CCTV directly reduce crime?
While Big Brother Watch fully accepts that CCTV has a role to play in tackling criminality, the current state of affairs “is based not upon evidence but hearsay and conjecture”. Reasonable concerns for privacy and civic society are “brushed aside with little regard”.
Big Brother Watch is adamant that it’s not unreasonable to ask councils to use crime data such that they can decide where surveillance cameras ought to be positioned while using non-fixed cameras as part of an operation aimed at tackling the root cause of the problem. “However, this will only work if cameras are part of the police’s actions rather than being used instead of them.”
Big Brother Watch believes the public debate about CCTV has been skewed. “There remains little evidence to suggest further investment in CCTV will directly reduce crime, and in particular crimes against people. Equally, retaining the current level of surveillance directs resources away from alternatives that could have a greater impact on both preventing and solving crime.”
The National CCTV Strategy document produced back in 2007 recognised how Britain’s CCTV infrastructure has been developed in a “piecemeal” fashion with “little strategic direction, control or regulation”. Big Brother Watch feels the “huge variation” between local authorities highlighted within its latest report is proof positive that this situation continues to pertain.
“Councils should undertake a review of how their own cameras have been used in recent years and identify those that are not being used either to protect infrastructure or solve crimes. Where cameras have not solved a single crime in the past three years, Big Brother Watch believes those cameras ought to be turned off.
*Do you hold strong views on what’s being said here? Let us know by commenting on this article