Ann McKechin MP

CCTV Regulation 10 Minute Rule Bill

The relevant question is how we regulate [CCTV] use to provide legitimate protection of the public and property whilst at the same time ensuring that our citizen’s rights and freedoms are properly protected.

On 16th JULY 2008, Ann moved a '10 Minute Rule' Bill in Parliament, which outlines her intent that CCTV use should be better regulated and monitored. This issue came to Ann's attention through complaints from the police about the uncoordinated/uncooperative use of and wide and varied types and formats of CCTV evidence which have to be poured over following a crime in an area covered by mutliple public and private CCTV systems.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose a duty on public bodies to co-operate with the police and specified local authorities on the use of closed circuit television; to require certain users of CCTV to provide specified information to the police; to require insurance providers to promote the use of CCTV systems; and for connected purposes.

Mr .. Speaker, there has been much debate over recent times about the level of surveillance in our society – it is a debate which is worth having although a much of this dialogue has been conducted in a fit of hysteria which bears no relation to the reality of our every day lives. Widespread use of photography and film is here to stay – the relevant question is how we regulate its use to provide legitimate protection of the public and property whilst at the same time ensuring that our citizen’s rights and freedoms are properly protected.

Police have to collect [CCTV evidence] from a very wide variety of sources which in turn do not have to follow any compulsory code or minimum requirements.

Time and again, constituents make the request for CCTV coverage in areas where vandalism, thefts, drug dealing or violence have repeatedly occurred. CCTV is not an alternative to proper policing or crime prevention strategies but it is certainly the case that decent quality CCTV evidence can make a material difference in bringing forward a prosecution after a crime has been prevented. Very often it records the type of crime which can be difficult to prove by other means – just a few weeks ago in Glasgow we experienced within one week the tragedy of 2 innocent women being murdered – the first Moira Jones when arriving back at her home in the south side of the city and the second Eleni Pachou. at her place of work in my own constituency. In the same week there were reports also of 5 women being subject to sexual attacks in broad daylight all within the space of less than 2 hours in the centre and west of the City. These thankfully are unusual events in Glasgow but their occurrence over such a relatively short time period understandably caused a great deal of fear and alarm. To the credit of Strathclyde Police, suspects in all three cases have now been apprehended and it is clear that in all of them, CCTV evidence played a critical part in the investigations.

The use of CCTV evidence is now a routine part of police investigations and it is much more common as a means of pursuing a prosecution in the UK than the use of DNA material. Perhaps not surprisingly it results in far more guilty verdicts leading to a consequent reduction in police time tied up giving evidence in trials. In the case of random attacks it can also help to prompt evidence from witnesses who may not have been aware that they were in the vicinity at the time of the offence or that their evidence could be material.

Police and prosecutors staff [are] tied up in time consuming evidence gathering and having to spend long periods of time in preparing evidence in a format acceptable to the Courts.

However in gathering this evidence, police have to collect it from a very wide variety of sources which in turn do not have to follow any compulsory code or minimum requirements. It is estimated that there are currently around 400 town, public/municipal and city centre systems in the UK and perhaps up to 1.5 million privately owned and operated “public space” CCTV cameras. It is important to distinguish between the two groups. The public systems have a primary purpose to provide public safety and accordingly that needs to include the ability to provide evidential recording for police incidents. In the greater Glasgow area this is known as the GCASS system which oversees the use of CCTV coverage in places where the public have unrestricted access and co-ordinates action by the police, local authorities and the major social landlords. The unit has its own staff and a full time Superintendent and as well as co-ordinating the use of fixed cameras is also responsible for so called rapid deployment cameras which are of particular use in areas which are used by the night time economy and have a high foot fall. But even with this level of organisation, Strathclyde Police find it difficult at times to persuade all the local authorities in its force area to contribute to the revenue costs which run at approximately £3-4,000 a year for each fixed camera. The Force also has to interface with 16 separate public systems using different equipment and processes. This leads to both police and prosecutors staff being tied up in time consuming evidence gathering and having to spend long periods of time in preparing evidence in a format acceptable to the Courts. Regretfully it is still a requirement in many Scottish courts that such evidence be shown in analogue rather than digital format despite the fact that the latter is much less costly and is speedier.

Cameras within private property which allow for a public presence such as shops and bars are much more likely to be primarily a property protection scheme rather than for public protection.

On the other hand, cameras within private property which allow for a public presence such as shops and bars are much more likely to be primarily a property protection scheme rather than for public protection. However given the scale of private coverage compared with public systems it is evidence from private cameras that on the whole will provide the majority of film evidence in a crime incident. During last year’s terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport for example I understand that over 70% of the film/photo evidence came from such private sources.

When a serious incident occurs such as those I have described today, police have to contact all public and private owners in the vicinity to firstly check if they hold such equipment and secondly if film has been kept which is of a quality capable of being of use. The major problem police face when collecting this evidence is poor quality and redundant technology from a failure to invest in appropriate equipment. Speed is also vital in this process as some film is routinely destroyed by owners within a couple of days; others within a few weeks but the Police do not necessarily know this nor is there any requirement on equipment owners to provide details. In addition, owners of smaller more basic systems may be unfamiliar with the mechanisms required to download the data in a format which can be examined and used by the police and Prosecutors – it has not been unknown for it to take several weeks to be able to use some film evidence. It is also not uncommon for cameras not to be working at all or wrongly positioned so no relevant evidence can be obtained. All of these problems can have a direct effect on the ability of police to arrest the perpetrator – and in some cases time lost can lead to the suspect committing further offences so this is not just a mere technical problem.

Although the use of CCTV in public areas has widespread public support this is based on the reasonable perception that public authorities have legitimate public safety intentions or that reputable private businesses genuinely have care about public safety.

If we believe that all of us as citizens should take some level of responsibility in relation to the crime on our streets then I do not consider that it is unreasonable to expect that those who operate CCTV systems should have a duty of care to the general public by following best practice and keeping equipment in good working order. Although the use of CCTV in public areas has widespread public support this is based on the reasonable perception that public authorities have legitimate public safety intentions or that reputable private businesses genuinely have care about public safety. This trust could dissolve easily if there is increasing evidence of misuse – that is why we need to guard against poor handling of data by persons with little or no training; the degrading of data to keep costs low by reducing quality for convenience and cheapness of storage; poor respect for security of data and the use of worn out and redundant equipment.

However I also accept that given the scale of use and that many of these cameras are operated by small business sometimes as a requirement of their insurers, it is important to avoid undue bureaucracy and administrative expense. The Bill accordingly proposes a proportionate response building on the recommendations of the Home Office Report issued last year for a National CCTV strategy and the voluntary code promoted by the CCTV User Group which acts as an industry lobby.

[A] statutory duty on public bodies such as local authorities, transport groups and Housing Associations to work together with their local police force

Firstly, it would place a statutory duty on public bodies such as local authorities, transport groups and Housing Associations to work together with their local police force to achieve streamlining of public systems to increase efficiency and reduce administrative costs and to promote best practice in their communities and private businesses on the use of CCTV equipment. One example of how such an obligation could be of use at fairly minimal cost is for all CCTV which is used only for traffic monitoring purposes to be given basic digital recording equipment suitable for police use and an image retention facility. It would also place an obligation on authorities to contribute to the costs of co-ordinating such systems where for example the system is maintained by a large metropolitan authority but covers a number of other smaller council areas too.

The Bill would seek to require private organisations .. to provide the local police force with up to date information on the type of CCTV systems that they use

Secondly, the Bill would seek to require private organisations which control large areas open to the public such as cinemas; hotels; shopping centres or large bars/clubs to provide the local police force with up to date information on the type of CCTV systems that they use, how long they preserve film and how the system is maintained. Given that many of these premises are already licensed by local authorities in some way, I would argue that this additional obligation should not be unduly onerous. It would allow the Police to “map” town and city centre locations where there is the highest footfall and to provide information to private users on the best way to maintain and operate such systems.

Finally, the Bill would require insurance companies to promote an agreed code of practice with their business customers. This could include requirements on the type and scale of equipment that should be used which is appropriate to the site size, use and location; the level of training that should be provided to staff and the adoption of regular maintenance contracts. This would have the benefit of securing an improvement in the overall base quality on the use of CCTV in this country and providing a platform for minimum standards which can be easily reviewed and altered.

• Sponsors: John Robertson; Mark Lazarowicz, Rosemary McKenna , Nia griffith, Helen Jones, Angela E. Smith, Ann McKEchin