Public space CCTV across Scotland is ‘a disjointed and ad-hoc landscape’, according to a study of public space CCTV in Scotland for the Scottish Government. The study suggests a national hub or centre of best practice, which would help standardise policy and practice similar to the Surveillance Camera Commissioner (SCC) in England and Wales. “The tight-knit nature of the CCTV community in Scotland would lend itself well to the smooth set-up of a hub of this kind, with adequate support,” the report said. It found public space CCTV regarded as an ‘essential tool in the prevention of crime and anti-social behaviour’. The study also pointed to how ‘CCTV operators can notify police of things ‘kicking off’ and in turn, police are able to use CCTV operators as an eye in the sky during live incidents’, and that control rooms can help in cases of missing persons.
Funding procurement for public space CCTV systems in Scotland ‘remains ambiguous’ and reliant on a patchwork of funding – from police, local authority, private and external funding sources. “This uneven development has led to divergences in technological equipment, technical capacity, and training standards and, for some of our respondents, perceptions of unfairness. The study has also identified variations in the operation, management and practice standards in different geographical regions of Scotland,” the study stated. These standards vary according to resource, cost, and governance, it added. Hence, as the study found, ‘no clear relationship between the size and density of population and the quality of public space CCTV coverage’. Hence as part of a survey, one police reply complained of a ‘post code lottery in terms of the ability to detect offenders using public space footage’.
Another reason for oversight, according to the study, is the advances in technology that has led to instances of unmonitored ‘function creep’. The SCC only covers England and Wales; the report noted that while an Office of the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner was set up in 2020, its remit does not cover governance over CCTV. The study compared Denmark (as a country similar to Scotland) and noted a once voluntary now mandatory CCTV camera registry, Polcam, that ‘allows for access [by police] to footage and/or livestreams of privately owned cameras enabling access to areas that are not reached by publicly owned CCTV’.
The study included a survey of 18 Scottish councils, and Police Scotland divisions. When asked if the benefits of CCTV are measured in their area, and if so, how?, ‘five out of the 13 local authority respondents identified Police Scotland data as a measure of the benefits of public space CCTV. Two local authorities also identified community safety statistics as a way that they measured the benefits of public space CCTV, with one of these stating that this was their only method used to measure this metric. Six local authority respondents reported that the benefits of public space CCTV were not measured at all’. CCTV is well established in public spaces, the survey confirmed: most, 11 out of 18 local authority respondents and 15 out of 25 Police Scotland respondents indicated that CCTV had been used in their area for more than 20 years. As south of the Border, funding for such schemes is a mix of Police Scotland and councils, and some councils feel that police, as beneficiaries of the camera outputs, ought to contribute more.
More generally, ‘funding, resourcing, and being able to keep pace with changing technology were all identified by local authority respondents as key challenges to the use and implementation of public space CCTV’. Such basics as cleaning, maintenance and faulty cameras were raised by some as hindrances. By contrast, those replying to the survey hoped for ‘technological upgrades, a better integration between legislation and practice, and a focus on and commitment to partnership working’, while Police Scotland respondents made ‘calls for more streamlined operational practice, improved camera and network quality, and access to cameras/footage across the country’. Police admitted to ‘technical and training issues’, that is, not knowing how to view footage given by council control rooms.
The researchers also carried out interviews to go into detail about issues. That brought out ‘a contradictory tension between the desire for system integration and centralisation and the desire for maintaining public space CCTV systems as locally as possible’. For example one Local Government Employee, working in a rural area, ‘explained that because CCTV is often not available/in place, due to funding issues, temporary CCTV signs, including laminated A4 signs, were sometimes displayed instead in an effort to prevent crime and make people feel safer in the absence of cameras. This local government participant remarked that public space CCTV signage can be as effective as mounting actual cameras in response to community issues’.
As in England and Wales, police when interviewed felt that ‘private CCTV systems can make up for gaps in public space CCTV coverage’, and that commercial CCTV operators such as in shopping centres ‘are cooperative and process requests quickly’. The study suggested that the act of gathering of CCTV evidence can help police maintain ‘strong relationships in the community with local businesses and community groups’. Patchy governance arrangements for public space CCTV can make it difficult to gauge where CCTV is headed, was one feeling raised by those interviewed.
You can read the full, 66-page study at https://www.gov.scot/publications/public-space-cctv-scotland/documents/.
Photo by Mark Rowe: street art, Aberdeen.
