[In our manifesto], we state there that we will invest in crime prevention through improvements to the built environment, supporting better lighting, alley gating and CCTV WHERE APPROPRIATE. It would be impossible to put CCTV on every street for example and we certainly would not want to do that. The wording “where appropriate” is key here. Where it has proven to be a deterrent for crime and most useful is in shopping precincts, car parks and “hotspots” of crime. This does make people feel safer and aids the apprehension of criminals.

While I applaud the idea of investing in environmental and street-lighting improvements, the fact is most CCTV installations are useless at preventing and detecting crime, and ineffective at reducing people’s fear of it.

We should be limiting camera surveillance to the few places – such as car parks – where it has been shown to have an impact. At the same time, the quality of CCTV images needs to be improved, as do the mechanisms for using video evidence in court. Fewer, targeted, high-quality systems complemented by good urban design and frequent visible police patrols would be a wiser way to spend council tax than mass surveillance. I hope this is what the Lib Dems have in mind when they call for more “appropriate” CCTV.

UPDATE 2008/05/14 23:15:

Shortly after this post was published, I received an email from Cardiff Council:

Dear Mr King

I refer to your request submitted on 15th April. I regret that there has been considerable disruption to our FOI service as a result of an accident to our FOI Officer on the weekend of 19 April, as a result of which he is likely to be off work for several months.

(continues)

I assume this message was auto-generated by some kind of script, arriving as it did 37 minutes after the legal deadline for a response, and signed as it was by the “information manager”. I’ve just pinged back a reply to ask when they now expect to be able to send me the information I requested, given the (clearly unfortunate) circumstances.

On a personal note: there have been too many people around here suffering serious injuries lately. Look after yourselves, everyone – I don’t want to hear about any more.

I wanted to say a quick word about the tone of the camapaign this time round, but it seems Simon Barrow has beaten me to it over on Liberal Conspiracy. Things in my district of Cardiff have been much the same as his experience:

Lib Dems (currently in control of Cardiff Council)

Campaigned mainly on scare tactics, “how close it is round here” and the “risk” of Labour regaining control. Picked up on the main local issues of graffiti, stray horses, fly tipping and a derelict retail site. Negative and positive campaigning used in equal measure.

• Good: provided phone numbers, email addresses and snail-mail addresses for each candidate (and responded to emails promptly). Energetic and sincere.
• Bad: massive amount of letterbox spam, including fake hand-written letters, fake community newsletters and leaflets in the Labour livery insulting their opposition’s record.

Labour

A typical opposition campaign, picking things the current council hadn’t achieved yet and holding them up as failures, while promising to do more for less.

• Good: campaigned on local rather than national or regional issues
• Bad: provided no contact details whatsoever. Very distant.

Conservatives

Complete silence. Do they even exist in wales?

Plaid Cmyru

Complete silence. Do they even exist in Cardiff?

Independents

“Hai! I can has councillor pls? KThxBi.”

Over the last three local government elections in Cardiff, the swing of votes from Labour to Lib Dems has been impressive. This year it’s going to be close and I’ll be watching the results with interest.

What’s the situation in your area? Is there a close race? Have you any campaign highlights or dubious tactics to report? Hit the comments link and share your thoughts.

Meanwhile in the real world, following up the story of Poole Borough Council using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to spy on a pre-school child and her family, the BBC reported this week on a survey of local council RIPA use by the Press Association news agency. They have found the law being used by some councils to investigate such important priorities as littering, dog fouling and misuse of a disabled parking badge. (Sightings of unlicensed accordion players with primate business partners remain unconfirmed, but I’m confident that should any be spotted, the Clouseau Councils won’t hesitate to RIPA them into submission).

Sir Simon Milton, Local Government Association chairman, told the BBC,

“It’s wrong to suggest that these are specifically anti-terror powers.”

Then why did the Government sell the laws as being specifically required to combat “serious crime, including terrorism” in the media, in Parliament, and even on the Home Office website?

“There are strict rules to protect people from unnecessary intrusion, and whenever a council applies to use these powers they must prove that it is both necessary and proportionate to the crime being investigated.”

The proportionality test barrier can’t be very high if councils are able to satisfy themselves it’s met in cases of littering.

The article mentions that 19 councils asked for the survey questions to be submitted under the Freedom of Information Act, but it doesn’t list which ones. Fortunately, I have already submitted an FoI request to Cardiff council to find out how my local administration has used the laws since they came into force. I was hoping to discover whether Cardiff was a Clouseau Council in time for the local elections this week, but sadly the mandated one-month turn-around time expires a fortnight after the polls close.

How does your local authority shape up in the cracking-walnuts-with-sledgehammers department? Is this an election issue in your area? Hit the comments link and share your thoughts.