Exclusive: Budget-hit councils may pull plug on spy cameras

Yorkshire’s councils are spending £6m a year on running the cameras, which supporters insist make people feel safer and solve crime but which critics blame for creating a “surveillance state”.

Five councils – Leeds, Kirklees, Hull, Ryedale and Hambleton – claim CCTV has played a part in more than 15,000 arrests over the past three years, although many other authorities are unable to provide any statistics backing up claims over the technology’s effectiveness.

The number of council-owned cameras is only likely to represent a fraction of the CCTV equipment in the region. As well as the 2,240 councils say are operating in public places, hundreds more are monitoring individual schools or other council property and no record is kept of the thousands more cameras in use by private companies and individuals.

A recent police assessment – based on an extensive survey of equipment in Cheshire – estimated there are 1.85 million cameras in operation nationally, lower than the 4.2 million previously estimated but still one for every 32 people in the country, and the Government is now proposing a new code of practice to stop equipment being misused.

Former West Yorkshire detective Andrew Rennison, the Government’s interim CCTV Regulator, warned there is a “large gap in our current knowledge” over how many cameras are operating across the country, and recently told MPs it was “high time” a proper assessment of the numbers in use and the scope of surveillance was carried out.

He also warned that the number of cameras being operated by local authorities could be cut as a result of the spending squeeze and Government plans to tighten regulation.

Craven District Council turned off its seven cameras in Skipton in 2009 because of the costs, and South Yorkshire Police has warned that funding for CCTV is at risk, raising the prospect its monitoring of cameras could be cut.

Asked by MPs whether the code of practice would reduce the numbers, he said: “I think that that is possible, but I think there are other pressures as well that will cause systems to close.

“There are financial pressures on systems that might well have an impact. Part of the development of the codes of practice has to be an impact assessment of the cost of regulation, and whether that might cause systems to close down. That has not been worked through yet.

“Codes of practice could yet come with some quite costly requirements, which might have an effect on the number of cameras or systems.”

North Yorkshire Police’s temporary Deputy Chief Constable, Sue Cross, said: “We recognise that the budgetary pressures on organisations may make them consider whether CCTV is an essential investment at this time. My answer to that is it is a worthwhile investment and we have many instances where CCTV has provided valuable evidence to aid detections and support convictions.”

Leeds councillor Peter Gruen, chairman of the Safer Leeds Partnership, said: “We’ve prioritised community safety within my budget area, so we might not be putting more cameras up but we want to maintain what we’ve got. However we will need to make decisions year on year and review our budgets.”

Growing use of surveillance in recent years by councils for relatively minor offences has led to scepticism among some about the benefits of CCTV. Civil rights campaign group Liberty has suggested that the number of cameras boomed under Labour as it became seen as a “quick fix” to keep people happy.

But supporters of the technology point to cases like triple killer Stephen Griffiths – who dubbed himself the “Crossbow Cannibal” – last year. He was caught and convicted of killing three Bradford prostitutes after CCTV cameras captured him killing one of the women in a block of flats with a crossbow.

Shipley MP Philip Davies said he was a “massive fan” of CCTV to keep people safe. “I’ve never yet had a constituent who has ever come to me to complain about CCTV down their street,” he said. “The more the merrier as far as I’m concerned.”

But Daniel Hamilton, director of Big Brother Watch, said: “We think the debate about CCTV is often quite a disingenuous one.

“People say it’s effective in cutting crime, but there’s been more than 30 independent studies which show CCTV doesn’t make a difference.

“It’s sometimes said that it makes people feel safer, but the thing that actually makes people safer is extra police officers on the street, better street lighting and so on.”

“When councils are looking at making front line services cuts, I would urge them to conduct a genuine fundamental review as to whether their current provision is necessary. If not, then turn those cameras off and focus on the ones which are working.”