From the December 2001 print edition of Professional Security: the way local authorities have had to bid for government CCTV cash came under fire at the CCTV User Group conference in Kenilworth.
The way local authorities have had to bid for government CCTV cash came under fire at the CCTV User Group conference in Kenilworth on October 23. Replying to a speech by Roy Henderson, the outgoing Head of the CCTV Initiative at the Home Office, Mike Smith, Common Services Manager at Woking Borough Council, spoke from the floor of his frustration. Woking put in eight bids for CCTV grants under round two of the initiative, and had one approved (for £270,000 for 12 cameras at Sheerwater, linked by a fibre optic network to a central monitoring room in Woking Police Station). The Government Office for the South East did not tell Woking why its bids did not succeed. Mike Smith said: ‘Being at the sharp end of this process I haven’t enjoyed it at all.’ He criticised the Home Office’s slogan of 3D – ‘delivery, delivery, delivery’, mentioned by Roy Henderson in his speech. Because the government wanted bids quickly, it found itself flooded with bids. That put CCTV users under tremendous pressure, Mike Smith said. ‘A lot of bids are just going to be set aside because the government can’t make up its mind about what to do next. We know CCTV is a great source for good.’ Woking, whose cameras have been digital since 1997, expects to have its successful bid up and running by February. Roy Henderson replied that with bid money it was a case of ‘use it or lose it’. In his speech, he admitted that central government has yet to work out future CCTV bidding procedures. He recalled that when speaking to a CCTV User Group event in February he had hoped to announce that future procedure soon. The June general election, however, and a new set of Home Office ministers meant no decision yet. He confirmed that the government was still committed to CCTV. He told the conference: ‘Major bidding exercises have had their day. We have been on the receiving end and we know how difficult it is to deal consistently with large numbers of similar looking bids.’ Roy Henderson offered pointers to future CCTV funding arrangements in two of this year’s crime reduction programmes: £50m this year (and £170m in the next two years) to tackle drugs in communities, allocated to crime and disorder partnerships on a formula basis rather than bids. Secondly, £15m is available to small retailers in deprived areas to improve the security of their premises. Such measures could include CCTV, locks and grilles. Roy Henderson suggested an end to top-down approval of bids and instead a ‘bottom-up’ approach.
<br><br>
He covered other unresolved public space CCTV issues. As for the complaint that CCTV funding covers capital spending rather than revenue (for day to day running and repairs), he recognised this was a long-standing issue, being looked at closely by government. He raised the question of a local authority competing with private sector CCTV operations. A Green Paper from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions suggested that councils might be allowed to charge for discretionary services. That is, the trading powers of a local authority might be extended. For instance, a council might be allowed to charge to monitor CCTV on a private industrial estate, and use that income to defer charges elsewhere. Future Home Office funding might be a mix of revenue and capital, Roy Henderson suggested, if that was needed to get a scheme off the ground. As for digital recording, he said: ‘We can’t tell you which systems are the best, which to buy, which to avoid. We can’t tell you what the industry standard will be, four or five years down the line. It would be irresponsible of us to give such advice, although we understand your difficulties. We really need to see how the markets shape out.’ The Police Scientific Development Branch and ACPO have reported on digital CCTV, such as audit trails to ensure evidential integrity. The CCTV Initiative is winding up towards the end of the year by bringing to a conclusion the last few of the round two approved bidders. Roy Henderson went through the history of round two: 800 bids worth £250m came in, and caused the Home Office ‘headaches’, because grants were limited. The government gave outline approval to more than 300 bids worth £108m in March. In August, some 285 successful bidders were announced. Nine schemes were withdrawn, and 47 schemes worth £15m have yet to be worked through to a solution. He praised the London borough of Ealing as the first local authority to full implement their round two bid grant. The new Home Office minister in charge of CCTV, John Denham, had asked for proof of round one bids working, Roy Henderson revealed. Examples included Hull city centre and car parks (featured in our December 2000 issue) and Northampton’s automatic number plate recognition (featured in our June issue). The Home Office has awarded a research contract to evaluate the bids – such as their cost-effectiveness, and any displacement of crime or halo effects – to the Scarman Centre, University of Leicester. The academics will look at some 17 schemes, and report fully by the end of 2004. Interim results are expected within months, Roy Henderson added, that can be used to improve CCTV systems. While the anti-CCTV lobby is quoting the same old studies, he said, the challenge remains to show that CCTV succeeds, and why it succeeds.
