UK Parliament / Open data

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Proceeding contribution from Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 11 October 2011. It occurred during Debate on bills on Protection of Freedoms Bill.
I shall try to find some common ground. I do not necessarily think that the public state sector—the police and local authorities, which is what we are dealing with in the Bill—should be training cameras on people's private homes. However, the code of practice refers to"““appropriate consultation with the public, or any specific group, most directly affected by any planned surveillance””." I shall cite a case in Southampton this week. A local paper reported:"““A thug who punched two men in separate unprovoked attacks during a drug and booze fuelled night out in Southampton has been locked up. One of Jamal Farooq's victims was left needing surgery on a fractured jaw after being ferociously hit in the face in the apparently random attack… The attack…came shortly after CCTV cameras had caught Farooq, of Orchard Lane, Southampton, approaching and punching an unknown victim in another apparently unprovoked attack.””" He was only caught because of CCTV cameras in an area where there were public places as well as private places. He was only convicted because of the CCTV cameras. Following a match between Luton Town and York last year, the police released CCTV footage to the media in an effort to track down offenders, which led to four convictions of individuals for gross activity and violence at a football match, including for"““taking brooms, mops, pans…outside a DIY store in Bury Park and throwing them at police.””" That happened in a public area where, under these proposals, there might need to be appropriate consultation with the public, which might mean further hoops to jump through. I think that the wider public interest, to which the local authority—elected by the public, let us remember—must have regard, and the police, who will shortly be accountable to police commissioners, can provide sufficient control to manage these issues in a way that does not add hoops. I want the Minister to justify the code to ensure that we are not putting in place something that will roll back what is termed ““state intrusion”” by the coalition agreement.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

533 c208 

Session

2010-12

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber
Back to top