Closed Circuit Television

HC Deb 30 July 1997 vol 299 cc424-32

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

8.26 pm

Mr. Damian Green (Ashford)

I am glad to have the chance to debate this topic. It has particular significance for my constituency, but it also has national significance for hon. Members in all parties, given the successful spread and use of closed circuit television schemes over the past few years.

The purpose of the debate is to elicit guarantees from the Government on two specific issues that are extremely relevant to the future success of CCTV schemes and, most important, to their spread. First, there are the guidelines for applications. Towns and other localities that wanted CCTV schemes had become used to the competitions that were organised under the last Government, but there is now some doubt about how the Government intend to proceed with those applications.

Secondly, and perhaps even more important, is the question of money—whether the Government will commit enough to allow this extremely successful form of crime prevention and deterrence to continue in the current Parliament as it did in the last. I hope that if, by the end of this short debate, the Government have made those two commitments, we can all—as Madam Speaker put it earlier today—pack our buckets and spades in a much happier frame of mind.

Tenterden, in my constituency, is a small town, which is normally peaceful. There is a good deal of civic pride and community involvement in the town, which, in many respects, is the model of a small English market town, in which worries about crime are not at the forefront of people's minds. Nevertheless, over the past decade or so, fear of crime has increased markedly in Tenterden, and, I dare say, in many towns like it throughout the country. Shops in the high street have been ram-raided, local policemen have been injured in fairly serious attacks, and there is a general feeling, particularly among the elderly, that the place is not as safe as it used to be.

Therefore, the town council, in partnership with local bodies such as the police and the local business community, has decided to apply for CCTV to be installed in the town. The council applied last year, but for various reasons it did not succeed. It is trying again, and there is a new scheme on the table for 12 cameras to cover the most important parts of the town centre. The council thinks, and I agree, that that would have a dramatic effect on crime in Tenterden.

Not only is the town council trying again, but it is trying with a will. Over the past few weeks, while it has been trying to put together the town's contribution towards the cost of the scheme, it has received 400 pledges of money from individual citizens. In less than a month, it has raised £5,000, which is half the target for personal donations. The council has promised another £10,000, and Ashford borough council has promised £35,000. The town centre group, which is organising the scheme, is confident of raising £30,000 from the town's 200 businesses. The total cost of the scheme is about £250,000.

Some unease is being caused by lack of knowledge about the bidding guidelines, and the council would like to have that matter cleared up as soon as possible. As I have said, the council is already in the successful throes of raising money, and it would be easier to do that if it knew the exact form in which the application should be made. I appeal to the Minister to give the people of Tenterden, and no doubt those in many other places, some certainty about that. I hope that the debate can be the means by which we can move forward on that.

The people of Tenterden and I are keen to move positively on the scheme. That is evident from what is happening on the Stanhope estate in Ashford in another part of my constituency. It has had many of the problems associated with inner-city areas. There have been problems with drugs, petty crime and vandalism. In many ways, Stanhope and Tenterden are different, but the people of Tenterden and other villages can see how effective CCTV can be in an area that has had much bigger problems with crime.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael)

I want to answer the debate as fully and as accurately as I can, but I am little puzzled. The hon. Gentleman spoke about applications from Tenterden, which I think he described as a village; perhaps it is a village—I am not sure of the exact description. I apologise for not knowing that, but the hon. Gentleman did not say that he would raise this specific topic. As far as I am aware, there has been no application from Tenterden. Perhaps he could clarify the issue, because it will be difficult to answer questions about applications if there have not been any.

Mr. Green

The town was included in a wider application by Ashford borough council. Tenterden is one of the Cinque ports, but its council is not a borough or district council. It has a town council because Tenterden has a proud history. I am surprised that the Minister knows nothing about the application, because I shall shortly quote from a letter that he sent to me on the subject.

CCTV is only part of a long-term policing initiative, and on the Stanhope estate its effects as part of a wider policing initiative are clear. Since 1993, when CCTV was introduced, recorded crime has gone down by 42 per cent., violent offences have gone down by 30 per cent., burglaries have gone down by 16 per cent., and car theft has fallen by 46 per cent. That is clear, hard evidence of the beneficial effects of that form of policing. It is not a panacea, but it helps, and, significantly, it is extremely cost effective.

There are many fixed CCTV schemes, and I hope that the Minister will agree that the next stage should be mobile schemes. My constituency, and no doubt many others, contain villages in which full-time, fixed CCTV would not be cost effective or worth while. However, specific crime hot spots would be well served by mobile systems, which could be prominently displayed as a deterrent or quietly installed to catch specific criminals.

The Minister spoke about being confused. In a letter to me dated 12 July he stated: We are considering the future of CCTV Challenge Competitions as part of our review of existing expenditure programmes. A decision on whether there will be another round of the Competition—and if there is, what form it would take—will be made later in the summer. It is now later in the summer, and I hope that the Minister can say when that decision will be made. The delay is slightly disheartening, because there is much evidence that many local authorities have succeeded in bids after failing the first time.

To broaden the issue from the problems in my constituency to the national picture, I should tell the House that so far there have been three competitions and that the Government have paid out more than £37 million. As a result, there are now more than 6,000 closed circuit cameras in operation, many of them doing extremely good work. I am aware that there have been some objections. In particular, it is said that CCTV infringes civil liberties and that rather than cutting crime it simply shifts it to areas that are not covered by cameras.

Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge)

Perhaps I could draw my hon. Friend's attention to my constituency, which has two borough councils. Runnymede has a Conservative-controlled authority and Elmbridge is controlled by a coalition of Liberal Democrats and ratepayers.

Runnymede recently switched on a splendid CCTV scheme, which already makes a significant contribution to controlling local crime. Perhaps more importantly, it is making a significant contribution to people's perception of security as they go about their business in our town centres. By contrast, the libertarian argument to which my hon. Friend alludes has been used in Elmbridge to block progress on a scheme, and no bid was submitted to the Home Office.

My Elmbridge constituents look enviously at those in Runnymede, because of the success of the CCTV scheme there. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging authorities that have used this rather spurious libertarian argument as the basis for not applying for funds to overcome their scruples and become part of the vigorous progress towards CCTV being installed everywhere?

Mr. Green

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have said that CCTV is a nationally important issue, and he confirms it. Plainly, some people misguidedly use the libertarian argument in opposing CCTV. In support of my case, I can do no better than quote John Stevens, the former chief constable of Northumbria: The bottom line is that law-abiding residents have nothing to be afraid of, but criminals have plenty to worry about. The fact that criminals have plenty to worry about brings more people on to the streets and increases freedom, especially for old people and women, who might otherwise be afraid on the street.

There is clear public support for the installation of security cameras. The chief constable of Dyfed-Powys, Raymond White, has said: We are now seeing a clear public demand for this technology … the public find CCTV systems very reassuring, second in value only to a patrolling police officer. There are genuine success stories. I have mentioned the one in my constituency, but, throughout the country, the figures show that CCTV is a successful form of crime prevention. In Newcastle, 6,200 fewer crimes were recorded in the first four years after CCTV was installed, and in Brentwood in Essex, police crime statistics for April to October 1994 show an overall reduction in crime of nearly 40 per cent. In Workington, crime was reduced by 50 per cent. from its level the year before, when the town did not have CCTV.

All those figures from different areas and different types of community show that CCTV is a cost-effective weapon in the fight against crime. As a result, the previous Government went into the election promising £75 million over the course of this Parliament for new CCTV schemes. Those schemes would have produced more than 10,000 new cameras, and they would have been funded through public-private partnerships. Central Government, local authorities, the police, businesses and individuals would all contribute, as they want to do in Tenterden.

That seems to me the ideal non-partisan scheme. It is widely agreed on both sides of the House. As this is an Adjournment debate, perhaps we can lower the normal temperature in the Chamber. [Laughter.] That is not difficult at the moment, with so few of us here. There are now many areas, especially those connected with law and order, in which there is some non-partisan consensus. Apart from all being against crime, we are now also all in favour of public-private partnerships, and of making every pound of public expenditure go as far as possible.

CCTV fulfils all those ideals. None the less, the Government have not yet committed themselves to maintaining the spending commitment set by the previous Government.

Mr. Michael

Nonsense.

Mr. Green

I do not understand why the Government have not done that. One does not need a review when a policy is working as well as CCTV. If the Minister is prepared to say this evening that they will now meet the spending commitments of the previous Government, I shall be the first to welcome that, and so will all the people who are looking forward to having it installed in their communities.

CCTV can help to restore the sense of community that used to prevent crime in small towns such as Tenterden. Social change now means that more people are out at work and fewer people are around. The old idea that there is always someone twitching the lace curtains to see whether there are any strangers in the road does not apply any more, and CCTV is the best substitute for that kind of gentle personal policing, which used to work.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said, CCTV not only catches—it deters, too. No one but the most hardened or the dimmest of criminals would commit a crime if he thought he was on camera.

I should like two commitments from the Minister. First, I want him to say that he can move forward with proper guidelines to allow people to apply for the next few years, so that they know where they are, and can proceed with their applications. Secondly, I should like a commitment that the extra £75 million promised by the previous Government will be provided by the present Government.

If that does not happen, the anti-crime rhetoric of the Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues will be seen as no more than hot air. The previous Government put their money where their mouth was, and were tough on crime. I invite the new Government to do the same, and I look forward to the Minister's doing so now.

8.42 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael)

I was prepared to congratulate the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) on succeeding in obtaining the Adjournment debate and on raising the subject of closed circuit television. It is possible to have a constructive and sensible debate on that issue. For one or two sentences, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be asking for such a debate, but his request stood in stark contrast to the rather partisan nature of the rest of his contribution. As I listened to him, I wondered why he had asked for the debate, and the end of his speech I am left still wondering why he bothered. He did not seem to have much to say.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the previous Government's spending commitments on CCTV, had they won the general election. But there were no such commitments—only a last-minute attempt by the Conservative party during the run-up to the election to suggest that a Conservative Government would spend £75 million over the life of this Parliament. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman rightly characterised that promise when he said that it was not their own money that the Conservatives were promising to spend, but that of the other partners that they would draw in. That was a pretty empty promise, given that the previous Government had allowed for one further round for next year and nothing more during the forward planning for Home Office spending during the remainder of this Parliament.

The hon. Member said that he wanted to elicit guarantees from this Government, and he asked for commitments. I suggest to him that he should have used his influence as a prospective parliamentary candidate in a seat likely to remain Conservative—even in the event of a landslide such as we have experienced—to persuade the then Government to pursue the policies for which he is asking. The Conservatives neither planned nor gave the sort of guarantee he is seeking tonight. It is interesting that a Conservative is willing to stand up in opposition to call for something that the Conservatives in government were not prepared to provide.

The development of CCTV depends not just on the Government putting up money, but on commitments from different organisations. During the past few years, I have visited many constituencies—controlled by local authorities of all political persuasions—and I have seen a number of places where CCTV has been installed with great success. Those concerned have not waited for Government money. Many Labour authorities in particular have, in partnership with business and the police, put money into local areas to ensure that CCTV is used to prevent and reduce crime.

Early in my parliamentary career, I spent an evening in the centre of Cardiff with the police and saw the problems that they had in attempting to deal with disorder with a very thin blue line. Local councils readily agreed to allow the police access to the cameras they had installed, primarily for traffic purposes, so that the police could deploy their limited powers in the best places to alert themselves in advance to where things were going wrong. That system was added to over the years and is an example—among many—of a Labour authority recognising the problems of local people and trying to tackle them.

The hon. Member referred to a scheme costing some £250,000, although he amended his remarks to say that it is contained within a more general scheme. That may be why the scheme was not immediately recognisable and why the town to which he referred was not identifiable within the list that I had taken the trouble to brief myself on. If he had written to ask for guidelines and information on what we intended to do, we could have answered his questions. We are examining the situation, given the very limited nature of the financial commitment to CCTV that we inherited from the previous Government within a difficult financial situation.

We intend to target resources as effectively as possible. I wish to underline the fact that many CCTV cameras were installed not just as a result of a bidding process to the Government—important though that was—but because local authorities have taken initiatives. In my town of Penarth, local businesses and I approached local authorities and were succesful in the last bidding round. The initiative can come from the local Member of Parliament, the local authority or business.

The hon. Member referred to Northumbria and to the previous chief constable John Stevens, now a member of the inspectorate. During his leadership, positive partnerships were developed between the police and local authorities to target crime. By that reference, he gives me an opportunity to commend the fact that considerable improvements have occurred in Northumbria's crime figures as a result of the partnership approach. That is something that we intend to build upon during the coming years, both in terms of encouraging the police and local authorities into a partnership approach and within the provisions of the crime and disorder Bill.

The hon. Gentleman referred to civil liberties. I share the concern that sometimes there is all too readily seen the downside of CCTV. The question is not whether CCTV is a magic wand that can suddenly make crime disappear but how it, with other measures to tackle and prevent crime while increasing public confidence, will work effectively in any given area. The use of CCTV must be carefully integrated within the approach of the police, local authorities and general communities, including business communities, if it is to be effective.

I have seen some examples where CCTV has been introduced without adequate thought and planning, with the result that partners have not been brought together. These are instances where the system has been less effective than its full potential. In some instances, an area has been covered by CCTV without consideration being given to displacement and the need to pull things together.

There was an example where in one town centre the privately owned precinct had chosen not to opt into the system. The result was the generality of the town covered by CCTV—a system that the local authority had worked for and designed with the police—with a sort of black hole in the middle. That was the result of one of the partners being missing. That is worrying and we would encourage the strongest possible partnership with local authorities.

We must make every effort to avoid the displacement problems to which the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred. Public-private partnerships are basic. On that I could agree with the hon. Member for Ashford in his content if not his tone. I remind him that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was one of the earliest proponents of effective public-private partnerships.

In my background in local government I saw the redevelopment of the centre of Cardiff, which transformed it into a thriving and effective city centre worthy of the capital of Wales. That ensued because local authorities and the private sector came together effectively. There are other such examples in many places.

The hon. Member for Ashford has raised an important issue albeit in a slightly muddled way. I know that the CCTV systems in his constituency are well regarded and that Ashford was one of the first beneficiaries of the Home Office's CCTV challenge competition. The town was successful in the initial competition and the main town centre system went live in 1995. The initiating partnership is an example of the good practice that we want to see developed in other areas.

The local authority, the police, local business, including retailers, and the South-Kent hospital trust were fully involved. The good work bore fruit immediately. In the first year, there was a 20 per cent. reduction in thefts from motor vehicles, a 28 per cent. reductions in thefts of motor vehicles and a 13 per cent. reduction in assaults. I understand that recently the local police reported a 30 per cent. reduction overall in crime in Ashford town centre and a 42 per cent. reduction within a local housing estate. The police consider that these reductions are at least partly attributable to the introduction of CCTV.

Ashford is not unique in these respects, although it is unique in being represented by the hon. Gentleman, but all towns have to have something to make them unique. Many towns and cities throughout the country have seen reductions in crime, and sometimes large ones, as a result of CCTV systems being properly installed, planned and integrated within a partnership approach. I emphasise that CCTV is not a magic wand or a panacea. However, to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge in an intervention, it is popular.

The advantages of CCTV, properly managed, speak for themselves: crime prevention, the deterrent effect of knowing that there is observation, the alerting of police at an early stage to stop dangerous situations escalating, the operational assistance to the police in sizing up a situation, the safer convictions that can be obtained—the savings in court time can be enormous—and, above all, the fact that people's confidence is renewed, which has led to many town centres being revitalised. Vulnerable groups in particular feel the advantage.

In the minutes before the bomb exploded in Manchester, the police were greatly assisted by traffic cameras which allowed them to see at a glance where the public were, so the evacuation of the city centre could be centrally directed and people could be moved out of the area quickly and efficiently.

I also agree with the hon. Member for Ashford that mobile cameras can be useful, if deployed with care, not as a magic wand but as part of a well-targeted approach. I presented awards to special constables recently. One of them was to special constables in the Weymouth area, where CCTV images had been shown to parents to let them know what their children had been up to, which is again a useful form of evidence and can discourage youngsters from taking part in illegal activities. Often, parents find it difficult to believe what youngsters are up to, so the evidence can help.

CCTV has a great deal going for it. On civil liberties and codes of practice, the previous Government rightly set as a condition for a CCTV grant that there would need to be a code of conduct. There is a need for a code of conduct to underpin all use of CCTV. There have been a few examples of abuse, such as the discredited video, "Caught in the Act", which caused immense public anger. I am happy to reinforce the message expressed by hon. Members of all parties at that time: CCTV images should be used only for crime prevention and reduction and as evidence; they should not be used for entertainment or titillation, as we do not want public confidence to be undermined.

A couple of years ago, I launched the local government information unit's publication, "CCTV—A Watching Brief', which was designed to help the development of suitable codes of practice. Where such codes have been adopted, they have operated well. In the longer term, we are considering a statutory underpinning to ensure that a few cowboys misusing the available film do not undermine public confidence.

I stress that, as I said in the letter to which the hon. Member for Ashford referred, we are reviewing existing expenditure programmes and reassessing priorities to ensure that the best use is made of the available resources. In response to a question from the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), I said: It is only sensible for an incoming Government to undertake a comprehensive review of expenditure and of the way in which resources are used. It is in that context that we are examining how we use the money available for CCTV."—[Official Report, 7 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 605.] I was referring to the money set aside by the previous Government for CCTV in 1998–99.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that the previous Government made provision only for 1998–99. They made none for the years after that, despite the extravagance of their promises and claims during the general election campaign. It is amazing how a general election concentrates the minds of the sort of Governments that we have had for the past 18 years.

Mr. Green

For all that the Minister says that the money was only there for 1998–99, am I right in believing that he is giving no guarantee that that money will still be there in 1998–99?

Mr. Michael

I am saying exactly what I have said to the hon. Gentleman previously—that we are undertaking a comprehensive expenditure review and considering the best use of the resources available. The Conservative Government failed to make provision for the extravagant promises that they made in the build-up to the general election. He is now a Back-Bench Member of a party which lost the election by making extravagant promises when it was too late. Despite the rhetoric of the Conservative party about its commitment to CCTV, it made no provision in government for CCTV after next year.

My aim is to achieve our commitment to tackle crime and its causes comprehensively. We have to do that within the resources that have been left to us. We shall do it in a way that is in the best interests of the country as a whole. I shall not make any further commitments at this stage other than to say, as I have said before to the House, and as the hon. Gentleman quoted me in a letter as saying, that I shall announce my decision on the future of CCTV funding later in the summer.

Even if we had the money that was promised during the general election campaign by the Conservative party, but not by the Conservative Government, it would not meet the demand for CCTV across the country from the public and others. There is a responsibility in local areas for local bodies—that means everyone, certainly the police and the local authority as well as the local community, including the local business community—to consider what can be done to contain, prevent and reduce crime. Where CCTV is needed as part of a comprehensive package to meet the needs of an area, the possibility of government assistance will be dealt with when we make the announcement that I have promised in a parliamentary answer and in my letter to the hon. Gentleman.

There certainly will not be enough money to provide all the schemes that imagination and need could project. That was certainly the case under the previous Government, because many schemes were: lot funded, although many went ahead because the local authority and the community moved things forward. So it would not be sensible for any area to depend on the possibility of Government money.

If there is a further bidding round, we shall consider applications objectively and as carefully as possible. Our announcement will suggest the ground rules and we shall answer the detailed questions on which the hon. Gentleman said that he would like guidance. We shall make the position clear when we make a statement about the way forward, but that should not be the be-all and end-all. It should not be the end of consideration of how to meet the problems of crime in a local area. Nor should the possibility that Government money is available to help. Government money will not meet the whole of the bill in any event.

Questions about whether Government money will be available to help in a particular area should not discourage local authorities from considering how they can use CCTV and other tried and proved methods in a properly integrated way to deal with the specific crime problems of the area.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Nine o ' clock.