Does Big Brother make a difference

As if to prove that George Orwell got everything right except the date, recent estimates claim that there are more surveillance cameras per capita in the UK than any other country in the world.

There are already more than a million fitted in car parks and town centres, and on office blocks and private homes. The latest trend is to fit them in housing estates as part of the modern war against anti-social behaviour.

Last week Jack Straw doled out the latest tranche of the substantial new money for CCTV (£150m over three years) - 63 of the 180 bids were for residential areas and in particular social housing estates.

Back in November, when he was dishing out praise and certificates to members of Neighbourhood Watch schemes for driving crime out of their communities, the Home Secretary assured them that their work could be bolstered immeasurably by the new technology.

"CCTV has been a crucial element in reducing crime in many high-crime areas," he said. "It has proved itself to be an excellent tool to help the police and give the public the security and peace of mind that is all important.

"We are also keen to extend CCTV schemes into residential areas to help your work in neighbourhoods. This will help to make residents more secure in their area and reduce crime. But it will also help reduce disorder."

But do camera systems reduce crime? Will they work effectively in neighbourhoods? More importantly, given that the cameras work out at around five grand a pop and the average bid for government cash (so excluding alternative fundraising) is just over £300,000, are they value for money?

Clearly Straw and the police seem to think so. The case for CCTV has been bolstered immeasurably by a small number of prominent cases which have captured the public eye. Most notably, surveillance cameras played a central role in the 1993 murder of toddler James Bulger. Viewers of BBC's Crimewatch identified Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, the boys were arrested and later convicted of the murder.

More recently, police have used surveillance images in their efforts to catch the killer of BBC presenter Jill Dando, and a steady response of calls helped identify the man alleged to have carried out a nail bomb attack in Brixton.

The impact of cameras on the housing world has been equally bold. Last November, two teenagers filmed while trying to kill a man by jumping on his head and attacking him with an axe were jailed for 18 years, caught on CCTV cameras installed during the refurbishment of the Holehills estate in Airdrie, Scotland.

It is in fact rather telling that these graphic images came from Airdrie. This small town on the fringe of Glasgow was the first in Scotland to get CCTV. North Lanarkshire council's housing estates now bristle with 101 cameras feeding into nine networks as well as an astonishing 1,000 internal cameras.

It is results like this which prompted Ashton Pioneer Homes to fit 64 cameras covering 919 homes on two 1960s estates of high- and low-rise blocks in Ashton-under-Lyne. The scheme is part of a wide ranging improvement programme aimed at cutting back the high rates of vehicle crime, vandalism and burglary in the area. Part of the bid to the Home Office claimed: "It is thought that the target area might be suffering from crime that has been displaced from the nearby town centre, which is covered by CCTV." Ashton's scheme was awarded £192,000, and £136,000 has been sought from other sources. Not only does Jack Straw approve of the plan, so do all the residents.

Indeed, the UK population appears to be far from camera-shy. Almost 70 per cent of people interviewed for a survey said they did not mind being observed by cameras in the streets. Even more said they believed CCTV schemes would prevent crime and disorder, 81 per cent thought they would be effective in catching perpetrators and 79 per cent thought they would make people feel less likely that they would become victims of crime. This is clearly what Jack Straw is referring to when he praises the eyes in the sky for promoting "peace of mind".

It is a view backed up by Graeme Gerrard, assistant chief constable of Cheshire police and the spokesperson on CCTV issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers.

"The police welcome this additional investment in CCTV and believe it will help to reduce crime and disorder," he says. "It not only deters offenders but also reassures the public and can provide invaluable evidence for the police should an incident occur."

But does this justify a £150m price tag? The jury is still out on the effectiveness of CCTV as a tool for actually reducing crime. The Scottish Centre for Criminology published a survey for the government last summer which questioned the ability of technology to match the anti-crime expectations.

Overall, reductions in crime in the areas surveyed were no more significant than those without CCTV, he concluded. The cameras did not reduce the overall recorded crimes and offences, and had little effect on the clear up rates.

Then the real experts were called in. Coventry police set up a panel of eight men, all career burglars, to face an audience and explain why they burgle and how they go about it. CCTV is regarded by the professionals as a "small threat", and younger members of the panel treated the more basic systems "with contempt", as they fail to identify the suspect beyond a rough estimate of age.

And now we have the latest crime figures, which give an overall rise of 2.2 per cent. A worrying list of rising figures - most of which are surely the intended target of CCTV cameras - included violent offences up five per cent and robberies up 19 per cent.

So while Gerrard makes bold claims that CCTV fitted in residential areas has "repeatedly proved its effectiveness in the fight against crime", there is mixed evidence to support this. Nevertheless, Maidstone borough council, which won £191,000 of government money for their programme involving the Shepway and Mangravet housing partnerships, is predicting a 40 per cent fall in the annual number of crimes in the areas.

The lack of evidence is just one of a number of gripes listed by the civil rights group Liberty. There are no controls over who sets up or operates cameras and people filmed have no rights over the tape, argues John Wadham, the organisation's director.

"Closed circuit television is spreading across the country," he says. "Liberty is also concerned that CCTV will increasingly become to be seen and accepted as a method of controlling public order. The argument that "people who are law-abiding have nothing to fear" does not reassure those who already experience discrimination and harassment and who could be considered as a potential threat to public order, for example homeless people."

The Home Office's Research Development and Statistics Directorate is supposed to be laying the matter to rest once and for all. Officials are understood to be researching CCTV's effectiveness at crime reduction as well as evaluating individual projects and the programme as a whole. Apparently, those aspects which are deemed successful will form the basis of future mainstream crime tackling programmes, while those which are not will be dropped.

It could be argued that Jack Straw should have sorted this out before getting his £150m pocket money from the Chancellor. There would be a great deal of egg on face among police forces, local authorities and housing associations who have spent precious hours slaving over crime reduction strategies involving CCTV and who have forked out large sums (and been given even larger sums) for products which may not actually do the job.

In the meantime, every time Jack Straw insists that CCTV "acts as a deterrent to offenders and can be invaluable in ensuring that criminals are brought to justice", we simply have to trust him.

But then, if everybody trusted everyone else there would be no need for CCTV after all, would there?