This is the CCTV working group report read out in full at Monday's Monmouth Town Council meeting by Councillor Nick Hackett-Pain.

MONMOUTH TOWN COUNCIL REPORT OF THE CCTV WORKING GROUP NOVEMBER 2010

This report acts as a "follow up" to the report and recommendations that were made to the Monmouth Town Council ("MTC") by the CCTV Working Group in 2009. In accepting that report, the MTC undertook to maintain a watching brief over how Monmouthshire County Council's ("MCC") CCTV project might develop and how it might inter-relate with any changing circumstances both within the Town and within the CCTV project itself. Consequently during the latter part of the summer of 2010, MTC's CCTV Working Group ("CCTVWG") again undertook a number of investigations and interviews, and thereafter undertook follow-up work on issues arising from those investigations and interviews. Since then the CCTVWG has met to consider its findings and to format its recommendations. In reaching its findings the CCTVWG worked on two particular bases: 1. MTC is effectively being asked to provide very substantial funding (in terms of the size of its precept) to a project whose control is out of their hands, and 2. Whilst CCTV is, in principle, a good idea, its purpose and potential should be measured by its practical application, its management, its proven success and, during this period of relative austerity, its cost. Hence this report is laid out below in two sections dealing with (i) Partnership Arrangements, and (ii) Operational & Cost Analysis. PART ONE: PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS MCC argues that any CCTV project in Monmouth would be run as a partnership. With the past history of CCTV projects in Monmouth, the CCTVWG believes that the MTC needs to carefully review this area before considering operational and/or cost factors. It is extremely important that the MTC has a clear understanding of any potential level of its involvement, its responsibility and its commitment to this project when determining its future stance. MCC's assertion of partnership was therefore explored closely by the CCTVWG. 1. Responsibilities The obligation upon a town council to provide funding for CCTV is rare; indeed nowhere outside of Monmouthshire within the Gwent Police area has there been such a request. The remit for CCTV in Monmouth, as with other towns, lies squarely with the principal local authority, in this case MCC who are responsible for running the scheme and for organising funding. Accordingly, the CCTVWG felt that it was right and proper, should MTC agree to commit funding to the scheme, to seek a Service Level Agreement ("SLA") between MCC and MTC that covers, amongst other things, contractual arrangements, apportionment of costs, operational decision making and dispute resolution. This is particularly important to the MTC when such a high proportion (around 10%) of its annual precept would be consumed by this one single project. It is noteworthy that this is an even greater amount each year than the MTC has previously committed towards the restoration of the Shire Hall. The CCTVWG took evidence that currently the other participating Town Councils within the County provide funding to MCC under a Memorandum of Understanding ("MoU"). Such a document is usually perceived to be a pre- contract arrangement and not a basis for service provision. A copy of the current MoU was obtained and scrutinized by the CCTVWG who found within it a number of difficulties: a. The MoU places an unfair and disproportionate burden of obligation upon town councils, b. There is no process for dispute resolution within the MoU. This is considered to be a serious omission given the level of dispute over CCTV that has existed between the parties over the past seven years, c. Whilst it suggests that the Monmouthshire CCTV Partnership (which would include the MTC on rejoining) is the principle decision making arena for the project, it is quite apparent that MTC's obligations and budgets therein would be tied to this structure (irrespective of the fact that this arena is dominated by representatives of MCC). Conversely the MoU does not place obligations upon MCC and any of their responsibilities within it would not be tied to this forum, and d. For this to be a true partnership the CCTVWG believes that it should include MCC, MTC, the Control Centre and the Police. However, CCTVWG was told emphatically by the Police that they would never join this partnership. It was therefore requested of MCC to negotiate an arrangement which would be appropriate for the MTC and that could be formalised into a SLA. This request was rejected by MCC by both their legal department and also by a meeting of their CCTV Partnership whose minutes state that should the MTC wish to alter the current agreement, they must first rejoin the scheme and then argue their cause from within. This would be extremely difficult for MTC to achieve because of MTC's natural minority position at CCTV Partnership meetings and due to the apparent built-in MCC majority at such meetings. The CCTVWG were generally disappointed with the attitude by MCC over negotiations and particularly disappointed that they were not prepared to field more senior officers who may have been able to negotiate more effectively. This created the perception that CCTV is not high on MCC's agenda which was only enhanced by MCC's reticence to answer questions made to them. 2. Taxation & Budgets The CCTVWG was given evidence that the total budget for the CCTV project across the county was between £200k and £250k. £150k is provided by MCC; they project for a further £50k from the four participating town councils; and up to a further £50k is raised through various forms of sponsorship. These figures suggest that 75% of the budget for Monmouth is provided by MCC, yet no cameras in Monmouth are supposedly in operation. No explanation was provided to the questions as to why this was the case nor to where those monies that are supposedly budgeted for Monmouth are actually being spent. It is also apparent that Monmouth is the smallest and the quietest of the four supposedly participating Towns. It was queried as to whether it was necessary to have the same level of commitment and budget for Monmouth as the other three towns. The CCTVWG heard evidence that, statistically, town centres are the most prone areas to anti-social behaviour and other crimes. It is understood that this is essentially a consequence of them being amenity areas used by the greater population of the County for shopping, recreation and entertainment purposes. This raises the question as to why the residents of a town should be expected by MCC to pay a disproportionally greater proportion of the cost of CCTV via a Town Council precept for these amenity areas than those residents of the County who live outside the major towns yet, effectively, make the same use of these facilities. When added to the fact that only a small proportion of residents of Monmouth actually living in the area covered by the CCTV cameras, the CCTVWG believe that this is a strong argument for the entire CCTV budget (excepting those parts raised through sponsorship) to be raised via MCC's precept and that the current demands by MCC for Town Council funding equates to double-taxation on the residents of Monmouth. 3. Additional Cameras & Equipment MCC claims that a restored system within Monmouth would be a basis for an enhanced system where additional cameras are bought and deployed in conjunction with Police operations. The CCTVWG understands that the cost of this would be borne by the MTC. Additionally it is understood that it is possible for MCC to use this additional equipment outside of the town of Monmouth. The refusal of MCC to agree a SLA leaves the MTC open to additional costs. 4. Cost of Rejoining Over the past few years the MTC has been unable to establish whether they would be expected to cover the supposed cost of the re-instatement of CCTV cameras in Monmouth. It has now been confirmed that MTC would be expected to pay such costs and that these would unlikely be less than a further £6k to be paid at inception. PART TWO: OPERATIONAL & COST ANALYSIS The CCTVWG found that the general situation had changed little since the last report. All parameters continue to show that the situation in Monmouth is quite different to the other three main towns in the County and any attempts to draw comparison are largely seen as being misleading. Monmouth remains the smallest of the main towns and statistics show that it has less crime. These facts were accepted by both the Police and MCC in discussions. However, MCC were not prepared to discuss the query as to why Monmouth should be expected to have the same level of coverage at the same cost as other towns. As a smaller town it has a smaller precept which would inflict a greater cost per capita upon residents of Monmouth than anywhere else in the County. This appears to be particularly relevant when arguably CCTV is less needed. 1. Police A recurring theme was heard from both current and former members of the Police Force with regard to CCTV. They invariably described it as merely, "one tool in the tool box" when dealing with crime from which the inference was taken that CCTV is not considered by the Police as an essential requirement. There was an obvious desire on the part of the Police to have CCTV re-instated in Monmouth but, as its re-introduction would have no cost effect upon them, it is hardly surprising that they would welcome a gift of an extra tool in their tool box. 2. Cost It has long been considered that the most expensive and arguably the least cost-effective part of the CCTV system was the Control Centre. Information was proffered that the Control Centre, currently with Caerphilly County Borough Council at Tir-y-Berth would be moved to a jointly run control Centre with Torfaen at Blaenavon resulting in cost savings. Further investigations unearthed the fact that whilst this was currently a matter for discussion it was far from becoming reality. Additionally, when its likely costs were calculated, the CCTVWG could not see how this move would reduce costs. 3. External Reports Britain has the largest surveillance network in the world with some 4.2 million CCTV cameras. Over the last 18 months there have been a number of substantive reports into their effectiveness: 1. In January 2009, a House of Lords report advised the (then) Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to look again at whether CCTV actually helps to reduce crime. 2. In May 2009, a Home Office-commissioned report by Cambridge University found that CCTV cameras on Britain's streets had done virtually nothing to cut crime and those cameras in town centres, housing estates and on public transport "did not have a significant effect". David Farrington who led the Home-office funded study said,"Cameras should only be used in specific targeted areas where they are known to be effective rather than the current broad application". 3. In August 2009, a Scotland Yard report stated that barely one crime is solved each year for every 1,000 CCTV cameras in operation. PART THREE: CONCLUSION CCTVWG accepts that should the town council decide not to rejoin the Monmouthshire CCTV Project it is possible that any future event of woe that occurs in the town centre, whether or not in range of a potential CCTV camera, will in the future be blamed upon the MTC. However, the CCTVWG contends that this in itself is not a good argument for rejoining. This is, after all, a MCC project over which the MTC has no control. Therefore any suggestion that its failure is the fault of the MTC would be entirely inaccurate and misleading CCTVWG found that the current CCTV project run by MCC for potential coverage of Monmouth Town Centre is inefficient in its make-up, lacks cost awareness, has no record of success and ultimately does not treat its supposed partners in a true sense of partnership. The refusal of MCC to negotiate any agreement with MTC or provide a SLA and, effectively, the total inability of MTC to control events within the project has led the CCTVWG to the conclusion that on this basis it would be inappropriate for the MTC to rejoin the scheme because it would, especially during this period of austerity, be unable to vouch to the residents of Monmouth how such a large proportion of their precept had been effectively spent on their behalf.