{"id":49174,"date":"2014-10-23T12:55:18","date_gmt":"2014-10-23T12:55:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/?guid=282defa42346b4374312ce0a0c869538"},"modified":"2014-10-23T12:55:18","modified_gmt":"2014-10-23T12:55:18","slug":"speech-surveillance-camera-commissioners-speech-to-the-british-parking-association","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/?p=49174","title":{"rendered":"Speech: Surveillance Camera Commissioner&#8217;s speech to the British Parking Association"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"govspeak\">\n<h4 id=\"introduction\">Introduction<\/h4>\n<p>Good morning. I\u2019d like to thank the BPA for inviting me to speak at this event. The majority of events I\u2019ve spoken at since being appointed in March have been to audiences using surveillance cameras to monitor public space. It\u2019s rather refreshing to get speak to an audience with a slightly different set of ideas and another perspective.<\/p>\n<p>Before I get into the use of CCTV in parking and traffic management I thought it would be useful to tell you a bit about my role:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>it was created under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012<\/li>\n<li>I was appointed by the Home Secretary but am independent from government<\/li>\n<li>I\u2019m entrusted to ensure that surveillance camera systems are used to support and protect communities \u2013 not spy on them<\/li>\n<li>the surveillance camera code of practice contains 12 guiding principles which if followed will mean cameras are only ever used proportionately, transparently and effectively<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>My role is 3-fold, to:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>encourage compliance with the code<\/li>\n<li>review the operation of the code<\/li>\n<li>advise on any amendments to how the code should develop<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Relevant authorities (police, police crime commissioners. local authorities and non regular police forces) must pay due regard to the code. It holds relevant authorities to account having a statutory responsibility to do this \u2013 important when we think about this in the context of parking.<\/p>\n<p>I don\u2019t have any powers of enforcement; I can\u2019t sanction a local authority for not complying with the code. In my short time in the role I\u2019ve not seen any evidence of local authorities shying away from the code. However, it\u2019s a real risk for local authorities to ignore the code and doing so would risk reputational damage through appearing unwilling to engage with the public or follow good practice.  <\/p>\n<p>So, maintaining public confidence is an incentive for complying with the code. Most local authorities are probably compliant or very close and we\u2019re developing an easy to use self assessment tool to help them see how compliant they are.<\/p>\n<p>The government wants an incremental approach to CCTV regulation \u2013 how does this square with the legislation currently making its way through Parliament? More of this in a moment.<\/p>\n<p>But the use of cameras is much wider than relevant authorities and it\u2019s estimated that 95 per cent of cameras are outside of this group \u2013 used by retailers, hospitals, private car parks and so on. So, the code also recognises that I will seek to encourage organisations to voluntarily adopt the code. <\/p>\n<p>I\u2019m also required to report back to Parliament on an annual basis and my first report will be laid in the House later this month.<\/p>\n<h4 id=\"pressing-need\">Pressing need<\/h4>\n<p>In general CCTV is welcomed by the public \u2013 they recognise its value in keeping them safe, protecting them. My predecessor used a phrase I like \u2018surveillance by consent\u2019 to mean the public consent to being observed where there is a pressing need and it is in their best interests. But this consent is fragile and there needs to be consultation about how, where and why cameras are deployed.<\/p>\n<p>Take the incident which was probably the main catalyst for the creation of my role \u2013 Project Champion. A \u2018ring of steel\u2019 erected in a predominantly Muslim area of the West-Midlands to monitor a terrorist threat. There was no consultation with the local community who were outraged to discover they were all being monitored as potential terrorists. The system of around 200 cameras was never switched on and it cost around \u00a33m.<\/p>\n<p>So, we cannot underestimate the power of communities. Yes, CCTV is welcomed but only where it is proportionate, where there is transparency regarding its use and where it is not intrusive. <\/p>\n<h4 id=\"parking--legislation\">Parking \u2013 legislation<\/h4>\n<p>The government legislated earlier in the year, by an amendment to the Deregulation Bill, to prohibit the use of CCTV for parking enforcement. The Bill is actually just about to be discussed again in the House of Lords at committee stage.<\/p>\n<p>The government\u2019s rationale behind this legislation is to prevent \u2018over zealous\u2019 councils from raising revenue using CCTV footage of parking contraventions. The argument here is that its use in this area is overly intrusive, picking up offenses without consideration for the circumstances which a traffic enforcement officer is able to do \u2013 penalising law abiding drivers.<\/p>\n<p>I received a letter from a member of the public recently complaining about a fine he\u2019d received after being caught \u2018dipping into\u2019 (his words not mine) a bus lane. The fine came from a camera. The camera in question, it\u2019s claimed, picks up an offence every 6 minutes! My team at the Home Office are looking into this and working with the Local Authority responsible for the camera. Instinctively it seems there could be something inherently wrong with the road layout if offences are taking place so often.<\/p>\n<p>The author of that letter claims that the local authority was gathering \u00a33.4m per year from this single camera and reports I\u2019ve seen say \u00a3300m has been raised through the use of CCTV \u2013 is this over zealous? I\u2019ve spoken to some Local Authorities who say such revenue is the lifeblood of maintaining their town centre CCTV system.<\/p>\n<p>Whilst my understanding is that revenue raised in this way must go back in to the roads could a restriction on the use of CCTV for traffic enforcement have a knock-on affect that reduces the number of cameras that are used to protect communities? How will communities feel if the systems set up to keep them safe are diminished as legislation means they can no longer fund them?<\/p>\n<p>I said earlier that when developing my role government wanted an incremental approach to legislation on CCTV, for it to be light touch. When put in this context government\u2019s intervention may appear heavy handed, are councils that over zealous in their use of CCTV for parking that legislation is required to curb it?<\/p>\n<p>Examples I\u2019ve seen say that in some cases it could be the case, take the example I just mentioned should a camera be picking up an offense every 6 minutes, is it proportionate and could a human manage the same or is there a more fundamental problem with the road design that needs to be looked at?<\/p>\n<p>And do we always know when a town centre camera is being used to monitor a public space or when it\u2019s being used to monitor traffic\/parking? There are cameras that are being used for both and in this instance has the consent of the public been broken? Would the consent of the man in the street, or car, wane if he knew that the camera he thought was covering public space was being used for traffic enforcement 50 per cent of the time?<\/p>\n<h4 id=\"using-cctv-where-proportionate\">Using CCTV where proportionate<\/h4>\n<p>By the same token there is a clear need for CCTV in certain instances and the government have built this into the legislation. Typically CCTV is used to enforce parking restrictions outside of schools, red routes or bus lanes. Places where it is difficult or impractical to use enforcement officers. This might be because people move their cars when they see an officer approach or simply because it\u2019s dangerous for an officer to issue a ticket due to the threat of violence.<\/p>\n<p>I was told a story about one primary school concerned about the safety of their children who sent letters to parents but they still kept parking illegally. Then they had pupils dress up as wardens to approach drivers telling them their parking was endangering them. This didn\u2019t work either so as a last resort the local council used a mobile CCTV which resulted in penalty charge notices and effectively solved the problem.<\/p>\n<p>I think this story really illustrates when CCTV is the only tool that effectively dealt with inconsiderate drivers parking outside this school. CCTV can be used as tool to help Local Authorities with traffic management and safety but it must be used legitimately and proportionately to meet a real need. Here the need was real and legitimate a warden couldn\u2019t possibly keep up with the nature of offences and it may not have been safe to either!?<\/p>\n<h4 id=\"code-of-practice--pressing-need\">Code of practice \u2013 pressing need<\/h4>\n<p>Returning to my code of practice I think it boils down to the first principle which said simply is \u2018why do you need to use CCTV, what\u2019s your pressing need?\u2019 Here it was clearly the safety of these primary school children and CCTV was used where other avenues to keep them safe had failed.<\/p>\n<p>At the same time there needs to be consultation with the public and they must know why they are being observed. This will give motorists and communities the confidence that CCTV cameras are being used to protect and keep the public safe rather than to raise revenue for Local Authorities.<\/p>\n<p>I want to work with government, Local Authorities and other interested parties to help them comply with the code and ensuring the use of CCTV for traffic management and enforcement is proportionate and effective and used for the safe and efficient running of the road network.<\/p>\n<p>Raising revenue goes completely against the spirit of the code but by following the principles within it Local Authorities will be able to demonstrate that CCTV has only been deployed where other means of enforcement are not practical. <\/p>\n<p>Only where it is absolutely necessary and as a last resort. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Tony Porter, addresses the annual conference of the British Parking Association.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49174"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=49174"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49174\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=49174"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=49174"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=49174"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}