Protection of Freedoms Bill

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but what concerns me is that the coalition's programme for government states that it is committed to implementing"““a full programme of measures to…roll back state intrusion.””" As part of that programme, it undertakes to ““further regulate CCTV””. I am sure he would accept that capturing an individual, who is now serving 15 years, through local authority CCTV on a public highway is not ““state intrusion”” but a valuable use of CCTV. That is what I want to test the Minister on. I know that he has discussed the code at length in Committee, and I am sorry that I was not there to share those moments with him. I shall quote the consultation for the benefit of the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson). It states that the code will include consideration of"““whether the proposed installation is part of a developed and integrated strategy…clarity on the main purpose and perceived advantages of the use of the technology" and an"““assessment of whether…technology will meet that purpose in full…whether there are alternative means of achieving the same outcomes…whether accompanying safeguards (including operating procedures) are already in place or need to be developed””" and"““impact assessments (including environmental, privacy, disproportionality etc)””." The hon. Member for Cambridge hinted at privacy considerations. All I am saying is that I am worried that the code—as I understand it, the guidance has not been published—could lead to more hoops for local authorities and/or the police to jump through before a camera is in place in, for example, Watlington, Oxfordshire, to capture an armed robber and lead to his conviction. I should like some clarity before we reach a settlement that stops such a criminal being brought to justice.