Office Of Surveillance Commissioners
Well - I keep being invited back to speak at this conference despite being the purveyor of some tough messages.
That to me shows a certain determination by the organisers to afford you the delegates an opportunity;
- to achieve best practice
- to be exposed to the ever shifting regulatory environment
- to demonstrate and be accountable for compliance with your statutory and regulatory responsibilities
In the fast paced and exciting world of video surveillance - algorithms attached - on platforms that fly 400m in the air or waltzing around the wards attached to security officers on body cams- it can appear to be a complicated legal and regulatory environment but in reality - not so much.
My question to you today is this; are the delegates here prepared to pick up the mantle of the challenges associated with compliance and accountability before they are told to do so?
OK - Stop -I hear some people saying whats this guy talking about? Fair enough. I imagine quite a few people werent here to hear my excellent ground breaking speeches in 2015 and 2016 - so - with the forbearance of those who were -allow me to repeat myself just a little.
Who am I - for a start?
I am the surveillance Camera Commissioner for England and Wales.
I was appointed by the Home Secretary in 2014 and have recently had my tenure extended by a further 3 years. I am independent from government
You may think from what I am about to say that I am anti - surveillance -I am not. I am anti bad surveillance - surveillance that shouldnt be there, is badly run, its data isnt protected, its presence and operation isnt reviewed frequently, or is otherwise conducted in manner which does not engender confidence in the public.. In my previous occupation I was a Commander in charge of Counter Terrorism at New Scotland yard for the Olympics and prior to that head of North West CTU. I was also the Head of Intelligence at Barclays Bank-so I really get surveillance..I oversee compliance with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice which is issued by the Secretary of State (the code). It contains 12 guiding principles which if followed will mean cameras are only ever used proportionately, transparently and effectively.
My remit applies to England and Wales and my role is three-fold to:
- encourage compliance with the code
- review the operation of the code
- advise on any amendments to how the code should develop
I submit an Annual Report to the Home Secretary which is laid before Parliament.
The code applies to relevant authorities (police, police crime commission-ers, local authorities and non-regular police forces) who, by virtue of section 33(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, must pay due regard to the code.
Also, working within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the code -my role is to encourage Voluntary Adoption of the code -more of that later. This is where you come in. NHS Trusts, NAHS are not at the moment, relevant authorities but are organisations that may voluntarily adopt it, and I would strongly encourage you to do so.
And heres the payload - if organizations follow the code, they will not only be able to reflect that they operate an efficient and effective surveillance camera system that is legitimate and transparent, but importantly it will assist with your efforts in complying with the Data Protection Act ( and our clear intent is that you will comply with the new GDPR rules), where you are at risk of extremely large fines from the Information Commissioners Office, and other regulatory issues such as compliance with SIA guidelines etc
I have called however for government to expand its list of relevant authorities provided within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 so as to capture organisations such as this. Surveillance, in public space, where such sensitivity exists creates, in my view an overwhelming argument for requiring compliance with the code as a statutory requirement. This is a view which was shared by my colleague, the former ICO, during the Bills consultation phase.
The government has been clear in setting out that it wants an incremental approach to the regulation of surveillance cameras in England and Wales. So how does that look since introduction of my role? Here are some headlines:
Local authorities - have improved from a position whereby only 2% demonstrated compliance with any British Standard to 93 % compliance with the code an outstanding achievement, and commitment by them.
Police forces -a relevant authority- slowly gaining traction. The Metropolitan Police Service -22000 Body Worn Cameras - and Greater Manchester Police have achieved compliance via independent certification .
- Drones -Devon and Cornwall Police have just achieved independent certification for compliance with the code, the first organisation in the UK, actually the World to do so!
Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) - National Police Chief s Council has written to all police forces in England and Wales requesting that all systems demonstrate compliance with the code within 18 months.
Transport for London (TfL) -20000 plus Cameras voluntarily adopted the code because they recognised its importance for reputation and integrity of its operations.
Marks and Spencer - a voluntary adopter -have attained full and independent certification across 600 stores, distribution centres and head offices for compliance with the code.
- Universities - they get the imperative -attract students on grounds of safety and security-it sets a standard and we are seeing many Universities adopting the code.
To support all this work in March this year I released a comprehensive Na-tional Surveillance Camera Strategy. Those of you shifting in your seats thinking -I feel uncomfortable- I urge you to access my web site.The Strategy will inform you of developments.
The Passport to Compliance document will guide those of you thinking of buying new systems or significantly adding to existing ones.
The Self Assessment Tool and policy on independent certification will pro-vide a very simple guide for you to demonstrate adoption of the code.
Why is NAHS important
There is an increase in the use of surveillance technology in general across society, such as automatic facial recognition, Body Worn Video, Automatic Number Plate Recognition, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and so on.
All of which are being used across NAHS/Trusts in some form or other
Of course the legitimate use of these systems can provide significant benefits to your organization, and to wider society in general;
- AFR -patient/ carer access to designated area
- ANPR-parking across NHS Estates?
- Body Worn Cameras-for local Security -protection again of carers and public visitors
And since last year the paradigm is shifting even further. We are now seeing all this technology becoming integrated; cameras , linked to sensors, linked to data bases -linked to managerial headaches and a requirement for legal and regulatory compliance.
All such surveillance platforms have potential for privacy invasion - of the highest order
Consider the numbers;
209 clinical commissioning groups
135 acute non-specialist trusts (including 84 foundation trusts)
17 acute specialist trusts (including 16 foundation trusts)
54 mental health trusts (including 42 foundation trusts)
35 community providers (11 NHS trusts, 6 foundation trusts, 17 social enterprises and 1 limited company)
The NHS deals with over 1 million patients every 36 hours
The total annual attendances at Accident & Emergency departments was 23.372m in 2016/17, 23.5 per cent higher than a decade earlier (18.922m)
The total number of outpatient attendances in 2015/16 was 89.436m, an increase of 4.4 per cent on the previous year (85.632m)
Examples of getting surveillance wrong and potential impact
Operation Champion - an operation established by West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit a number of years ago to develop a ring of steel (of ANPR cameras) within a local community. This was considered to have been undertaken without the necessary transparency to the public and despite costing 3m, damaged the trust and confidence of local communities and was never operated.
Edward Snowden and the Investigatory Powers Act. Both comment on surveillance that is the different side, the covert side, to the same coin of public space video surveillance.
Surveillance by State agents should be operated with the highest level of discretion and integrity.
How many people are there here, whose organisations use Body Worn Cameras or ANPR would comfortably testify that these systems are run to the highest levels?
Ok -its rhetorical -but I guess you probably dont have that level of reassur-ance. And youre right not too! So how do we achieve the correct balance?
So - what have I tried to do?
I had spoken with the Chair of the NHS Protect Security Group (now dises-tablished) to seek to weave in voluntary adoption of the code - as we have successfully done