Draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mr David Amess 

† Bottomley, Sir Peter (Worthing West) (Con) 

† Brokenshire, James (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)  

† Cryer, John (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) 

Dobson, Frank (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) 

† Evans, Graham (Weaver Vale) (Con) 

† Hemming, John (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD) 

† Johnson, Diana (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) 

† Kelly, Chris (Dudley South) (Con) 

† Leadsom, Andrea (South Northamptonshire) (Con) 

† Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma (South Shields) (Lab) 

Loughton, Tim (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) 

† McFadden, Mr Pat (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) 

† Redwood, Mr John (Wokingham) (Con) 

† Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow Central) (Lab) 

† Shannon, Jim (Strangford) (DUP) 

† Syms, Mr Robert (Poole) (Con) 

† Thornton, Mike (Eastleigh) (LD) 

† Wilson, Phil (Sedgefield) (Lab) 

John-Paul Flaherty, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee 

Wednesday 10 July 2013  

[Mr David Amess in the Chair] 

Draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013 

2.30 pm 

The Chair:  As it is very close in the room, it is quite in order for people to take off clothing, within reason. 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire):  I beg to move, 

That the Committee has considered the draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013. 

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I welcome other Members to the Committee. 

The order was laid before Parliament on 4 June, with a copy of the surveillance camera code of practice. It will bring the code into force and enable the Home Secretary to issue the code, as is required by section 30(2) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It also exercises the power in section 33(5)(k) of the 2012 Act that enables the Home Secretary to specify any person as a “relevant authority” for the purposes of the duty in section 33(1) to 

“have regard to the…code when exercising any functions to which the code relates.” 

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):  Will the Minister explain why, in what I thought was meant to be a deregulatory Government, this regulatory proposal is not governed by the general one in, two out rule? 

James Brokenshire:  I will happily come back to my right hon. Friend on the specifics, but the code puts into effect the part of the coalition agreement on the better regulation of closed circuit television systems. As he will hear from my speech, such regulation will ensure that the important CCTV systems in our communities, which provide safety and security and guard against crime, retain the trust and confidence of the public. The regulation will also raise standards by ensuring that CCTV systems capture better evidence for the investigation and prosecution of crime. 

Significant investment has been made in CCTV systems. Indeed, the last Government were criticised for spending about £500 million on them, without having a focus on whether the systems would make a difference and without ensuring that those assets were being effectively leveraged in the fight against crime. The order will ensure that the police and local authorities have proper regard to CCTV systems and focus on making sure that such investment is used effectively. 

Mr Redwood:  My point was rather different. I thought that we had a very good rule that if we put one regulation in, we took two out. If this one is necessary, it would be nice to know that two are coming out. This one has an extra cost of £14 million, but there is no stated benefit. Is that because nobody has worked it out, or will there genuinely be no benefit from the regulation as measured by money? 

James Brokenshire:  I recognise my right hon. Friend’s broad point. When regulatory impact assessments are published, it is sometimes difficult to capture the benefits that may accrue. As I have said, it is difficult to monetise—to put into a monetary value—the important issues of trust and confidence and of the effective and appropriate use of systems in a regulatory impact assessment. We therefore strongly believe that there are benefits from, and merit in, the legislation that is passed by this House to give effect to such regulation. 

I hope that my right hon. Friend recognises that the Government’s approach is one of self-regulation. It is an incremental approach that is about ensuring that there is trust and confidence in the systems that operate in our communities. Although there is important value and benefit in such an approach, I recognise the difficulty of monetising that within a regulatory impact assessment. I will happily come back to him further in that regard during the course of the debate. 

The order exercises powers under section 33(5)(k) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It specifies that the chief constable of the British Transport police, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the chief constable of the civil nuclear constabulary and the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police are relevant authorities within the context of the provisions. 

Our reasons for introducing the order flow from a coalition agreement commitment to the further regulation of CCTV. The Government support the use of CCTV, automatic number plate recognition systems and other surveillance camera systems to cut crime and protect the public. In general terms, the public also support their use. That support is, however, dependent on those camera systems being used proportionately and effectively to meet a legitimate aim. 

Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab):  The Minister has said that the order arises from a commitment in the coalition agreement. The explanatory memorandum is explicit about that. It says: 

“This specific action follows a belief that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties”. 

Is that what the Government believe? It is not what any of my constituents have said to me when they have asked for new CCTV cameras. 

James Brokenshire:  I say directly to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have taken a stance in rebalancing the rights of the state against the rights of the individual. We have acted against significant draconian powers that the previous Government put in place, such as 90 days’ detention. A number of different aspects were changed in the Protection of Freedoms Act. The CCTV regulations were but one relatively small part of the overall package. 

The order is about ensuring that our law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies are able, with the trust and confidence of their communities, to fight crime. I hope that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East will reflect carefully on the code of practice, which I hope he has read, and recognise that the 12 guiding principles are sensible and underpin some practical ways to raise standards and ensure that the public continue to have confidence in the utility and use of the CCTV systems in this country. 

We have seen the use of CCTV grow and develop without a specific regulatory framework to reassure the public that it is used to support and protect them, rather than to spy on them. I am sure that hon. Members will recognise and reflect on the comments of the previous Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, who talked about waking up in a surveillance society. The technology that is available continues to develop rapidly, enabling ever greater potential for surveillance to be carried out effectively, and the corollary of ever greater potential to interfere with a subject’s rights and freedoms. 

The issue of state surveillance, including its legitimacy, its proportionality and the need for greater transparency over its use, is topical. It would not be appropriate for me to range widely across the entirety of state surveillance. Indeed, I know that you would pick me up on that, Mr Amess. Instead, I remind hon. Members of the importance of maintaining public confidence in this Government’s commitment to being strong in the defence of freedoms. That means that we must strike an appropriate balance between protecting the public and protecting the rights of the individual. It also means that the public must be well informed and can hold the state to account for its actions. 

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 includes provision for the preparation of a code of practice containing guidance about surveillance camera systems. It also provides for the appointment of a surveillance camera commissioner to encourage compliance with the code, review its operation and provide advice about it. I should say that the geographical extent of the code is England and Wales. 

We consulted extensively over the preparation of the code before it was laid before Parliament. The code takes account of the views expressed through consultation and the views of our partners, including the national policing leads, the Information Commissioner, the chief surveillance commissioner, the surveillance camera commissioner and the Local Government Association. As a consequence, the code is based upon 12 guiding principles, which are applicable to any overt operation of CCTV in public places. Those guiding principles complement the existing relevant regulation, including the Data Protection Act 1998, and underpin “surveillance by consent”. 

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP):  I understand that the legislation is for England and Wales. In Northern Ireland, we have had the largest number of CCTV cameras introduced. I am quite supportive of that, but I wonder whether any discussions have taken place with the regional Governments. I am mindful that they are not responsible for this issue, but I would just like to get a steer on how they have dealt with it to ensure that there is not something draconian here and something less draconian elsewhere, but unanimity across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. 

James Brokenshire:  Clearly, the legislation is framed in the context of England and Wales, but what we are seeking to do is to set out good practice, good standards and a framework. Indeed, the incremental approach that has been taken to regulation means that this order has effect only on public authorities—in other words, local authorities and the police—in England and Wales. We want people to abide by it not through mandation, but through a recognition of the standards that are being put in place and the additional input that the surveillance camera commissioner will provide on standards for CCTV equipment and its use, so that we ensure that we are getting the most out of our CCTV systems. We want to provide reassurance in that way. 

To my knowledge, there have been no direct discussions with the devolved Administrations, but we would be very pleased to have such discussions if they would be of assistance and to explain the approach that we are taking in the code, so that if others wish to abide by its terms they can. I should also say that the code is overlaid by law and relates to the work of the Information Commissioner, because some of the information that would be retained by CCTV systems would fall within the ambit of the Data Protection Act 1998. The code builds on that existing framework of law, and seeks to put in place good standards in addition to that framework. I am quite sure that the code will have broader utility than that which it will have for the organisations and agencies to which it applies through the legislation. 

Jim Shannon:  I will not labour the matter because I am conscious that people are busy. However, may I just ask the Minister a question about ports and harbours? Will this measure apply right across the ports and harbours in England and Wales? I just want to clarify that, because that is an important issue when it comes to legislating across the whole of the United Kingdom. 

James Brokenshire:  As I have said, the code has application across England and Wales, and it might assist the hon. Gentleman if I say that the code outlines—in its definitions at the front—the sort of areas that it covers, which are defined as being “a public place”. “A public place” has a specific definition in the Public Order Act 1986. I hope that that assists him in getting clarity on the scope, ambit and application of the code. 

We have always been clear that our approach to further regulation in this area is incremental, starting with state surveillance and getting the basics right, then taking further steps as necessary, informed by advice from the surveillance camera commissioner. The order also seeks to add the three non-territorial police forces and the Serious Organised Crime Agency to the list of relevant authorities that will have a duty to have regard to the code from the outset. Each has been consulted over the proposal and has consented to it. That point addresses a technical drafting issue that made the 43 territorial police forces relevant authorities under section 33 of the 2012 Act, but did not include those four bodies. Our intention is to provide further assurance that state surveillance is being regulated; hence the addition of those bodies. 

Others may want the duty to be applied more widely and more quickly. The Government are committed to reviewing any need to do so in 2015. That is the right approach; it is right to see how the code is applied and

to see the feedback from the surveillance camera commissioner. In the light of our assessments of the regulation and advice from the commissioner, we will consider what further steps may be appropriate. 

I also say to the hon. Member for Strangford that the devolved Administrations have been given the opportunity to contribute to the development of the code and were consulted in the process. I hope that gives him the sense of engagement. They have certainly expressed no concerns and have been generally supportive of the approach being taken by England and Wales. 

I hope that those initial comments reassure the Committee that the approach the Government are taking is an appropriate course of action to provide reassurance to the public. 

Finally, I return to the one in, two out rule, which used to be the one in, one out rule when it was introduced with the Protection of Freedoms Act. This measure is out of scope of that rule because it has no mandatory impact on business, since the private sector will not be under the duty to have regard to the code when exercising its functions. That is how the rule has been defined. I am happy to reflect further if my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has any further comment to make on that matter. I am also happy to write to him to spell out any further detail he may require in that regard. 

2.46 pm 

Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab):  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I thank the Minister for explaining the effects of the order. That took me back to the lengthy debates we had when the Minister and I served on the Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee several months ago. 

I want to be clear about the effect of the order: it is actually about increasing the cost and the bureaucracy to local authorities and the police of installing CCTV cameras. I say to the Minister that the experience of most Members of Parliament is that constituents demand more CCTV. I have never had a constituent come to me demanding that CCTV be taken out, or clamouring for a code of practice such as the document before us. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East, I do not recognise the statement about reversing the substantial erosion of civil liberties and the increased state intrusion over the past 10 years. I do not see this going in any way to that statement. 

In the explanatory memorandum, the Government claim that this is a policy decision and the Minister talked about the coalition agreement, but the explanatory memorandum actually states that the policy decision is motivated by a desire to halt 

“the extent to which private lives are exposed to ever greater scrutiny by other individuals, organisations or the State, leading in some instances to a potential exposure to criminality, or more generally, to an erosion of personal privacy.” 

I think that statement is misleading, because the order will do nothing to restrict the use of CCTV by individuals, private organisations or companies, and to reduce the potential exposure to criminality that the Government have identified. Only public bodies, namely the police and local authorities, will be bound by the code of

practice. That places a huge financial and administrative burden on the local authorities and the police—as we have already heard, the estimated annual cost is around £15 million. 

Mr Redwood:  The hon. Lady may also like to note that under paragraph 1.8 of the code of practice, the new commissioner can recommend, and the Government may accept, that private sector providers also be brought under the code. We need to take that into account as well. 

Diana Johnson:  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. I will come on to that issue, because there are questions to be asked about the fact that, at the moment, the code applies only to public sector bodies. For what reason would any business or organisation want to get itself involved in such an administrative and bureaucratic nightmare? 

The Chancellor was boasting recently about the “lean government” epitomised by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The Secretary of State himself said: 

“The Government is reducing the burden of bureaucracy and removing red tape from councils, local firms and the voluntary sector… I’m tearing up the unreasonable Whitehall red tape that costs them money and wastes their time.” 

At the same time as the Communities and Local Government Secretary is reducing bureaucracy, or least telling everyone that that is what he is doing, the Home Office is creating a 25-page code of practice for local authorities to go through. 

It is not just the Communities and Local Government Secretary who has been boasting about cutting red tape; the Home Secretary has been doing so as well. She claims: 

“After years of bureaucratic control from Whitehall…the message to the police is clear—this government trusts you to fight crime.” 

Apparently, however, it is not that clear, because the Government do not trust the police to fight crime by installing CCTV. The Government’s own consultation document identified five major ways in which installing CCTV can help the police: crime prevention and detection; counter-terrorism; producing evidence for prosecutions; traffic management; and hazard management and personal safety. The position appears to be that although the code of practice will not necessarily prohibit the installation of CCTV, it will increase the paperwork and bureaucracy involved, making it far more expensive to do so. 

That is significant. The police budget is being cut by 20%, and we are losing 15,000 front-line police officers. Those officers will often have been the ones out on the beat and involved in the community, doing community safety work. If a police force wants to replace them with CCTV, it will now have to employ staff in the back room to ensure that it has complied with all the bureaucratic requirements. The common-sense elements of the code of practice are already being done; that common sense will now be replaced by a monstrous paper trail, laying out reviews, consultations, technical assessments—it goes on and on. The cost of that bureaucracy, as has already been identified, is about £14.1 million a year, but that is only a best guess. The Government accept that the figure could go as high as £29 million, and when we look at how onerous the requirements in the code of practice are, £29 million seems nearer the mark. 

First, there needs to be an annual review of every CCTV camera and its possible effect on privacy. Given that the cameras will all be in public places, that will presumably involve an assessment of who goes through each public space. Will the Minister explain how that assessment will take place? Will it not in itself be an invasion of people’s privacy? Secondly, police forces and local authorities will have to create teams to provide information about CCTV, at an expected cost of up to £114,000 for each team. Thirdly, there has to be an assessment of all the information that is being stored. Finally, consideration has to be given to any operational, technical and competency standards, with a general principle that all technology should comply. 

Will the Minister confirm that his intention, through the regulations, is that local authorities and the police might have to replace equipment, at huge potential cost, not because they do not think it is working or because replacement would be cost-effective, but because the equipment does not match the technical standards required by the surveillance camera commissioner? The commissioner does not seem to have very much else to do, so that will presumably be a requirement he makes quite often, especially as technology advances. 

The right hon. Member for Wokingham raised the fact that the impact assessment states that this extra flood of bureaucracy is not subject to the one in, two out principle for regulation. The Minister’s response seemed to be that because the code of practice will not apply to businesses at the moment, it is not covered by the Government’s own rule, but of course what is actually happening is the creation of range of new bureaucratic and administrative provisions that local authorities and the police will have to go through. I did not realise that the regulation rule applied only to private businesses; I thought it applied to all parts of government and the public sector as well. 

There are reasons to think that the costs may be even higher than the Government’s estimate in the impact assessment. The Minister referred to the guiding principles that are set out in the code of practice, each one of which seems to place bureaucratic obligations on the police and local authorities, and, I think, opens up the potential for judicial review under each one of the headings, at a potentially significant cost to the public purse. As we know, the Ministry of Justice has been claiming that it wants to reduce the number of opportunities for judicial review, but with this document, it seems that the Home Office is giving 11 or even 12 grounds on which any CCTV application can be challenged by judicial review if the police or the local authority have not gone through each step in the code of practice. 

The impact assessment claims that the costs of complying with the scheme will be found from existing budgets. To which budgets does that refer? Will the Minister lay out which services he expects police forces and local authorities to cut in order to comply with this extra bureaucracy? 

Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con):  If the reviews that the guiding principles will cover lead to worthless surveillance being taken out and more useful surveillance being put in, it is not necessarily clear that the budgets will need either to increase or to decrease to get greater effectiveness from the use of surveillance. 

Diana Johnson:  I am not sure that this is the most effective way of achieving that end. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it seems a cumbersome, burdensome approach to dealing with what may be a very small number of CCTV cameras in inappropriate places. In addition, the use of CCTV by individuals, private organisations or businesses is not covered, which is a glaring loophole. 

Sir Peter Bottomley:  We know that we are dealing with public authorities, not private businesses, but is the hon. Lady suggesting by her last comment that we should be thinking about extending the provision to private businesses? 

Diana Johnson:  As I said, the Government’s statement on how the order will impact on their objective is misleading, because they are implying that it will deal with CCTV cameras all around the country in both the public and the private sector, but it will not; it covers police and local authorities. The Government need to be clearer about that. I understand what the Minister said about the approach being incremental and that they will review it in 2015, but they are setting out an objective that this policy does not fit at the moment. 

James Brokenshire:  The hon. Lady will no doubt remember our discussions in the Public Bill Committee. We clearly set out the incremental approach that the Government intended to take and said that it was right and proper to look at public organisations first, before considering the business or private space environments. Do I take it from her comments that she would now would like to see the regulation applied in such circumstances? 

Diana Johnson:  No. For the third time, I am saying that I am concerned that the Government are setting out an objective in their impact assessment that, through this policy and today’s order, does not meet the statement that has been made. The order applies only to public sector bodies that use CCTV cameras; that is my point. The Government are not being very clear about what they are doing. The approach is not only very limited, but cumbersome and far too burdensome for local authorities and the police. 

Local authorities face extra spending commitments as a result of having to comply with the code of practice. I remind the Minister that local authorities are already facing huge cuts to their budgets, and this is another administrative task that they will have to undertake. We know that services are being lost from dealing with community safety and antisocial behaviour problems, and we think that the proposals will compound the problems for local authorities. A number of freedom of information requests have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), and of the 209 local authorities that responded, out of a total of 326, 46 reported a reduction in the number of CCTV cameras since 2010, or their complete removal. 

Those figures relate only to public-facing CCTV cameras, not to those inside individual properties such as banks, shops or pubs. For example, Tory-run Craven district council in North Yorkshire has cut all of its CCTV cameras since 2010; in Trafford, there was a 53% cut

from 245 cameras in 2010 to 115 in 2013; and the number in Blackpool has been reduced from 151 to 79. I am raising this is because the Government are putting additional bureaucratic procedures on local authorities, but they are also cutting budgets and not supporting local authorities that want to have CCTV, maintain the CCTV that they have, or install new cameras. 

The Home Secretary is creating new bureaucracy in the form of the surveillance camera commissioner, at an annual cost of £250,000, as I understand the impact assessment. How much is the commissioner to be paid? How many days a week will they be working? How many staff will they have? Will the Minister explain the enforcement measures that the commissioner will have available to him? 

James Brokenshire:  I am happy to respond on that point. The commissioner is also the forensics regulator, because we felt it was important to ensure that costs were controlled in that way. His combined salary for both roles is £98,000. He has his team, as the hon. Lady highlighted, but he will be keeping that support team down in that way. May I ask the hon. Lady a question? She has criticised the establishment of this post; why then did her Government have a CCTV regulator, to which this is the successor? 

Diana Johnson:  Perhaps the Minister can tell me exactly how many staff the commissioner will have on his team; that might be helpful. I am grateful to him for setting out the salary of the commissioner. Will he be working two and a half days a week in the new role? That is my understanding, but perhaps the Minister will clarify that point. Will he say what the commissioner will actually be doing? It is not clear from the documentation exactly what his enforcement powers are, so if the Minister could spell that out, it would be helpful. 

Although, as I said, the order will apply only to local authorities and the police, the papers state that the Government hope that the code will be adopted by others voluntarily. What is the Minister’s view on why any private business would want to get involved in this code of practice, which is 25 pages long and has all these different sections that have to be complied with? Why would a business want to do that? It seems that it is just adding to the bureaucracy of any business, charity or organisation in asking them even to consider this. 

At a time of cuts to local authority and police budgets, and from a Government who are claiming to reduce red tape, the order increases unnecessary bureaucracy without giving additional resources to the police or local authorities to enable them to carry out the plans. The Opposition will not support it. 

3.2 pm 

Mr Redwood:  I hope that the Minister will consider some of the detailed points, but I am not quite sure that the code is as we would wish. It seems to me that if the Government wish to make a case, as they do, for this kind of code, they need to establish that either or both of the following principles will be advanced. The first is that the code should be helpful to the police and other enforcement authorities, who have a difficult job to do.

We wish them well and want them to be able to draw support and more efficient practice from the code. We would not want them to feel that it was hostile in the way that I think the hon. Lady fears it might be. I want it to work with them. Secondly, the balancing act is that the code has to offer something for all us law-abiding people who wish to ensure that our civil liberties and privacy are properly protected to the extent that is possible and compatible with the detection of criminal activities and the subsequent proper prosecution of offenders. 

I have a little worry that we have a 25-page document. There are actually only 20 pages of substance, but 20 pages of substance can lead to laxity, looseness and conflict within a document. It always seems to me that simpler and shorter is better, but it takes longer to write a good short document. I am particularly worried because it clearly says in paragraph 1.2 that although currently the code is to apply only to the public sector—that is very important—the Government recommend that all users, including private sector users, adopt it voluntarily. They go on to say that they will consider applying it to the whole private sector. 

In connection with my opening question about why the one in, two out rule does not apply, I understand the technical reason that the Minister has given, but if this set of regulations is going to creep into the private sector, even under the Government’s own rules, it would be nice to know that two are coming out. Would it not be a good excuse to get two out anyway? If we support deregulatory government and this is necessary regulation, it would be good to see a couple coming out. 

James Brokenshire:  I assure my right hon. Friend that if the code were to be applied to other organisations or to the private sector, that would require a further debate in this place. No doubt the relevant regulatory impact assessment would be drawn up at that point and the one in, two out rule would apply. He will be well aware of the ongoing work in relation to the red tape challenge, which I fully support. It is important that across Government more broadly we continue to push forward with that work. 

Mr Redwood:  Coming on to the substance of the code, it seems that the second guiding principle is a good one: 

“The use of a surveillance camera system must take into account its effect on individuals and their privacy”. 

However, if we read on, we see that the guidance is not terribly helpful on how that might work. Indeed, in some ways it implies that the threshold for what privacy we are entitled to is very low: for example, it states that surveillance of toilets and changing rooms is perfectly reasonable if there is a serious purpose. It therefore does not seem that there is a very high threshold for the protection of our individual privacy. One hopes that that is correctly phrased and that people understand what it means, but it may not be as reassuring as people want. 

On the question of how long information is stored, it might be helpful if the code gave some guidance, because that is a difficult question for those bodies that put in surveillance cameras. The public would like to be reassured that it was all dumped after a few months, because there is no need to keep it, whereas for certain difficult crimes,

people might only get a lead three or four years later and need the information rather late in the day. Again, there seems to be no real guidance or help from the code about something that is very important. 

It would be useful to know what the Minister’s thinking was on all that, and whether tighter drafting would be possible. There seems to be a love of long and complex sentences, and inadequate proofreading. In paragraph 3.1.2, for example, there is a missing verb. The reader has to supply the verb “be” to make the thing make any real sense. It would be helpful if the code could be tweaked so that it was in comprehensible English. If one is interested in the complexity of the drafting, paragraph 3.2.4 states: 

“This principle points to the need for a privacy impact assessment process to be undertaken whenever the development or review of a surveillance camera system is being considered to ensure that the purpose of the system is and remains justifiable, there is consultation with those most likely to be affected, and the impact on their privacy is assessed and any appropriate safeguards can be put in place. Where such an assessment follows a formal and documented process”— 

so apparently it does not always— 

“such processes help to ensure that sound decisions are reached on implementation and on any necessary measures to safeguard against disproportionate interference with privacy. In the case of a public authority, this also demonstrates that both the necessity and extent of any interference with Article 8 rights has been considered.” 

I would hope that that could be improved. It does not give a lot of guidance and is very loose—it implies that one does not even need to follow a formal and documented process in order to comply with the code, which I find a little surprising. I thought that one of the things that the code was for was to create that kind of discipline in the review. 

Paragraph 4.6.2 refers to the time for keeping images. A rather long paragraph concludes that we do not know; the response must be proportionate. It would be helpful to have guidance on what proportionate might mean. Paragraph 4.7.3 on the passing on of data—another important matter—there is not the full clarity that might help the police and other users of this type of information. I have found the paragraph relating to privacy, 3.2.1, which says, 

“Deploying surveillance camera systems in public places where there is a particularly high expectation of privacy, such as toilets or changing rooms, should only be done to address a particularly serious problem.” 

Again, it would be nice to hear a little more on the consideration behind where and to what extent people have privacy. If one of the aims of the measure is to reassure people and to shift the balance a bit on civil liberties and privacy, some might think that was not a very high threshold. 

3.11 pm 

Mr McFadden:  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I want to make a couple of points, beginning with the question I put to the Minister during his opening remarks. The policy justification for the code is 

“a belief that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties”. 

That is the position of the Government. If one believes that, one might think this is a good thing. If one does not agree, one will not. I believe that is a fundamentally wrong analysis of the balance of freedoms in the UK. Fundamentally wrong analysis leads to wrong policy and that is the place we have ended up. 

Perhaps our constituency experiences are very different. I acknowledge they may be different in some parts of the country, and I can reflect only on mine. One of the great strengths of our system is that we learn from our constituents on a daily and weekly basis. What they tell us informs our thinking. I can tell the Committee what my constituents tell me about CCTV. Those who are subject to crime and antisocial behaviour regularly ask for more CCTV. They believe it is an effective and important weapon in battling crime. I have never in eight years in Parliament had a constituent say anything like the words in paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum in their response to CCTV. Nor have I ever had a request to have a camera removed on those grounds. 

I have looked through the 12 principles in the code. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North said, in reality these are already being seen on the ground as a series of bureaucratic hoops and obstacles that make it more difficult for cameras to be installed. At a time when the various agencies involved—local authorities and the police—are under financial pressure, the Minister is tilting the balance away from the installation of the cameras in the first place. When looking at the 12 principles, local agencies will ask themselves, “Can we be sure we are complying with all of this? Can we really tick all of these boxes? Can we carry out all these reviews according to these principles? Or is it simpler to turn down the request for the camera?” 

What will be the consequence of that? We are supposedly talking about freedom. The freedom of those subject to nightly antisocial behaviour will be severely curtailed by the measure. The freedom of the victims of crime will be severely curtailed by the measure. The Minister will have tilted the balance away from the use of a weapon that they believe is effective in combating those crimes. That is why the wrong analysis matters, because the wrong analysis leads to the wrong conclusion, and that is what has happened here. 

Let us have a word about costs. In the impact assessment published by the Government, they have given a cost breakdown, principle by principle, according to the 12 principles set out in the code of practice. I will not read it all out, just some of them. The cost of principle 2, per review for the police, will range between £440 and £2,200 per time. The cost for principle 8 for the local authority will be between £1,100 and £3,300 per time. The cost of complying with principle 10 will be £1,700 per review for the police. The overall cost to hard-pressed authorities of complying with this legislation reaches £14 million. This adds bureaucracy and costs to an effective weapon to combat crime and antisocial behaviour. The losers in this will be the victims of these things. 

I really cannot stress enough the frustration, the fear and the desperation of constituents who are subject to persistent intimidation by gangs of people causing havoc in their neighbourhoods, by persistent antisocial behaviour which undermines people’s quality of life. Today, because of a fundamentally misplaced analysis of the balance of

freedom in this country, the Minister is siding with those who want a weapon taken away from those people. The truth is that this is a very free country and we enjoy very valuable freedoms. We enjoy freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of movement which are the envy of the world. I think it is really sad that our elected Government have taken such a depressing and wrong-headed view of the balance of freedom in the country. 

3.16 pm 

John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD):  I am pleased to serve on the Committee. Obviously everyone has different experiences. I will give you two examples where I am supportive of the Government’s position. One concerns an American journalist who was banned from this country. She cannot get a copy of the CCTV that was recorded when she was banned in late 2011. I got her ban reduced to a year, and she now has a visa. However, the authorities will not give her a copy of the CCTV. It is appalling that they said it had been lost, although they have since admitted that it has been found. The lady is Leah McGrath Goodman, and Members can look her up her on the internet. 

My second example concerns a CCTV system in Birmingham, Hall Green, where I live, and in Birmingham, Hodge Hill, which was taken out as a result of a public outcry about two or three years ago. It never started operating, and £3 million of public money was wasted on installing a CCTV scheme that was never going to be any good to anybody. 

Yes, it is true that different people have different experiences, and it is undoubtedly true that CCTV can be a very good scheme to make places safer, reduce crime and protect people. However, at the same time there can also be a public outcry over it if it is gone about in the wrong way. If we go about things in a more effective way and get the balance right in the first instance, that will save money in the long term and prevent disorder. 

3.17 pm 

Sir Peter Bottomley:  I do not want to intervene in this debate for too long. I believe that we ought to know from the Labour party whether what we have heard is their official policy and they are against these principles, or whether they are in favour of them. We have heard speeches that could be interpreted as being against them, but I doubt that that is actually the formal position. 

Following what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, it is important that those people who may be filmed by CCTV should have proper access to the films when they can show a reason for this. I can think of other examples affecting my constituents, where it took them a long time to get hold of video information, which in some cases the police ought to have made available to them and the police should have used themselves. It is not only the principles themselves; it is not just public but even private CCTV. If there is an application to review information that may show that someone is innocent or somebody else may be guilty, that video film should either be made

available or—if notice is given—preserved, so that if it is needed in future applications a properly authorised body or court could make it available to people. 

The Government’s approach appears rational. Government Members would in general want to support the Government in fulfilling their obligation to bring forward these principles, which would be of value both to the police and to the public authorities that use cameras. 

3.19 pm 

James Brokenshire:  I am very grateful for the debate and the wide-ranging contributions. Perhaps in response I could remind members of the Committee of what the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee said back in 2008. Page 104 of their report, paragraph 30, states that: 

“The continued value and popularity of CCTV depends on continued public confidence that camera operators are acting responsibly and that the Government, in regulating CCTV schemes, is mindful of concerns about privacy.” 

That is precisely what we are seeking to adhere to in the context of the code. Until our debate this afternoon, I understood that was also the Labour party’s policy on CCTV. It is interesting that Labour Members have rejected that statement from the report in the last Parliament when that need for balance was set out. There have been some very short memories here about some of the proposals and laws that the last Government brought in which got the balance in the wrong place. Indeed, that is something that the Leader of the Opposition himself accepted. But today we appear to be getting the contrary statement and that old approach is still very much alive and well on the Opposition Benches. 

Returning to some of the specifics, I note the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and other members of the Committee about the costs associated with the code of practice. The hon. Lady said that the best estimate was that it would cost of £14 million per year. But it is £14 million over 10 years. It is not per year. I appreciate that there is a cost attached to this, and I do not seek to deny that that analysis has been undertaken, but it is a 10-year period that we are talking about in the context of the figures in the regulatory impact assessment. Our estimate of the additional costs for a local authority, for example, would be less than £2,000 a year. It is important to understand the figures in the regulatory impact assessment. 

I also want to explain the Government’s stance on CCTV systems. I am very supportive of CCTV as a means of fighting crime. I have seen some good practice in my time as a Minister and when I was in opposition looking at these relevant policy issues. One can point to the experience of the Metropolitan police and its visual images identification and detection office, which is very much about raising standards. I take on board the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham made about ensuring that we have high standards to assist those charged with keeping our communities safe. We need to learn from that practice to ensure that more criminals are brought to book. 

We can look back on the application of CCTV in response to the riots in 2011; around 3,000 of the cases that were brought following on from those disturbances were reliant on CCTV. I am supportive of its use in the courts to bring those responsible for criminality to

justice. I want to see higher standards being applied. Among the functions of the surveillance camera commissioner will be to set out standards on specification, on how CCTV can be used to learn from that experience, to report to Parliament and, I am sure, to inform good practice in the way CCTV systems are applied. 

I would also counter the charge that in some way this may mean that CCTV systems would be ripped out. I do not accept that at all. It would be open to public authorities to have regard to the code of practice and, where appropriate, to make improvements on where cameras are sited, what lighting may be around them to maximise their utility, what systems may be appropriate and how best to capture evidence from that. But to suggest that this will mean the ripping out of CCTV systems is entirely absurd. While I recognise the need to challenge, I do not see that in any way as being the consequence of the code of itself. 

Of course if new systems are being put in, it is right that they should meet the best standards and, where systems are in place, that modifications can be made, but the phrase is “have regard”. The measure is not saying, “Thou shalt therefore rip out all your systems and not use anything else.” It is not framed in that way at all, but I will give way to the hon. Lady, as I can see that she is exercised about this. 

Diana Johnson:  I am very grateful to the Minister for setting out his view about how this will work in terms of new technology and cameras not being ripped out, but can we be clear? We have the 25 pages or 20 pages of the code of practice and we have the new commissioner. He will not have any powers to enforce anything that is in the code of practice, so he can say what he wants, but local authorities and the police can just do what they want. Is that what the Minister is saying? 

James Brokenshire:  The hon. Lady will know from the debates and discussions that we had in the course of proceedings on the Bill that the powers of the commissioner are set out there and that he provides reports to Parliament. We have deliberately not gone for a heavy regulatory mechanism, but I am increasingly getting the sense, from her comments this afternoon, that she would like us to do so. This mechanism is intended to be more self-regulatory for local authorities and the police. The aim is for them to raise their standards and be able to apply the code in this way. It is interesting that the hon. Lady is now seemingly taking a very contrary approach to that. 

A very relevant point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley. I am referring to the experience in Birmingham in the aftermath of what was known as Project Champion, which was debated in the House at the time. CCTV systems did not have the support of that community and had to be removed. I say to members of the Committee that that is why I think it is important to have a regulatory framework, to have transparency, to have information and to have basic standards that public authorities can be cognisant of. It is so that our communities can have trust and confidence in these systems and can ensure that they are being used in the right way. It is so that they can be used in those communities to fight crime and deliver the level of safety for our communities that I think members of the Committee would like to see. 

John Hemming:  Obviously, I endorse the point that my hon. Friend makes about balance. Does he agree with me that it is crucial that when someone asks for a copy of CCTV footage involving themselves where the authorities may be embarrassed, it is not deliberately lost? 

James Brokenshire:  The point that my hon. Friend made and, I think, alludes to in his comments now is that maintaining public confidence in CCTV systems is important. As a Minister who in his duties seeks to ensure public safety, I want to know that these systems command the confidence of our communities, so that the police and other agencies can continue to use them. This is not just about today; it is about the future, as technology continues to change, and having the framework in place. Yes, this measure builds on provisions in the Data Protection Act 1998. If the Opposition do decide to vote against the code this afternoon, they will in effect be turning their face against a number of provisions in the Data Protection Act that this code is designed to embody. It is very interesting if they now believe, as they seemingly do, that public authorities should not be complying with the Data Protection Act and the provisions reflected in the code of practice. It is a very interesting approach that they are seeking to take. 

The surveillance camera commissioner’s role is set out in section 34 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. His role is to encourage compliance with the code, to review the operation of the code and to provide advice and information about the code—in many ways, to take on board some of the fair points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham made about the detail and being able to give further assurance about the meaning and application of the code. That will be precisely the role of the surveillance camera commissioner, although I certainly take on board my right hon. Friend’s more general point about Government being better about how they frame their publications and their use of language—the use of shorter sentences. He makes a broader point about Government and the documents that they produce. At times, we should do more to achieve that simple language in expression that my right hon. Friend calls for. 

There is an important role for the surveillance camera commissioner in giving further assistance. Albeit that the code sets some important standards, it is intended to be flexible and to have some scope to apply to local circumstances. To take my right hon. Friend’s specific point on surveillance in changing rooms and so on, I would see that as absolutely exceptional. It would have to be for the specific purpose of, say, cutting crime. The code embodies that, but if further assistance or guidance is necessary or appropriate, it is precisely the role of the surveillance camera commissioner to provide that. 

In conclusion, the order is important because it safeguards our ability to ensure that technology is harnessed for the benefit of our protection and can command continued trust and confidence. The order provides a means to raise standards for those charged with protecting our communities, so that they can use good practice and have an advice and guidance buttress to help them with that job. I want to see CCTV systems applied with confidence in our communities, with good advice and

support to our police and other agencies, so that our communities are that much safer. That is what is at the heart of the code and our debate this afternoon. 

Question put.  

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 7. 

Division No. 1 ]  

AYES

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.  

Resolved,  

That the Committee has considered the draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013. 

3.32 pm 

Committee rose.