CCTV polarises public opinion

Some believe that these tools improve safety on the streets and help catch criminals. Others maintain, with equal force, that the vast majority of the estimated 1.85 million cameras should be turned off because they are responsible for a “surveillance state”.

In these tough economic times, two questions are relevant. Do CCTV cameras cut crime? And do they provide value for money?

Chief constables maintain that the camera network is invaluable, and has provided critical evidence in several high-profile cases.

Stephen Griffiths, the so-called “Crossbow Cannibal”, was caught and convicted of killing three Bradford prostitutes after CCTV cameras captured one of the murders.

It was also CCTV imagery which helped detectives track the movements of the killers of PC Sharon Beshenivsky so they could be brought to justice.

However, do a handful of high profile cases justify the need for so many cameras?

While some councils, including Leeds, Kirklees, Hull, Ryedale and Hambleton, have advocated the benefits of CCTV, Craven District Council turned off its seven cameras in Skipton because of cost concerns. South Yorkshire Police is warning of a similar financial constraint.

It is because of such conflicting evidence that a full, independent inquiry is required to provide some objective analysis into the effectiveness of cameras.

A key area to be looked at is the funding – currently the responsibility of local councils. However, town hall elections can cause sudden changes of power and policy direction. Long-term planning is invariably sacrificed for short-term political gain.

The police, on the other hand, have consistent leadership and would be better placed to determine which cameras are necessary. CCTV, it must be remembered, also needs to be monitored for this mechanism to be fully effective in solving and deterring crimes – but this has implications for staffing costs.

It is a controversy that will not be settled until there is some national clarity on the merits of CCTV, its usage and its funding. Until then, public opinion will remain divided.