By George Lythgoe

Hundreds of surveillance cameras are still in operation across Greater Manchester – despite the government deeming them a security threat for Whitehall.

The CCTV cameras made by the Chinese partly state-owned company Hikvision were banned from 'sensitive sites' within Westminster in 2022. Despite this, the UK government is still allowing the cameras to be used by local authorities.

In Greater Manchester, nine out of the 10 councils currently use the cameras, the Local Democracy Reporting Service understands.

The CCTV cameras are dotted across high streets in the region, and monitor typical things like crime prevention and community safety. A state-owned company is a business entity owned and controlled by a government.

Genetec, a cyber security software company, are pushing the UK government to extend their ban to all local authorities.

There is a fear these cameras could be used as a gateway for intelligence gathering by Beijing – a claim Hikvision have denied. The company said their products 'adhere to strict security requirements and comply fully with English laws and regulations'. They point out they are a manufacturer, and so do not install or maintain devices, or have access to end-user video data.

A spokesperson for Genetec said that CCTV cameras are far more advanced than they used to be, meaning they are essentially computers and can be hacked like any other device.

CCTV has become the common term for surveillance cameras, but the old analog system didn't need a firewall for protection as it was a Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) network.

With some councils not recognising this potential security threat, surveillance cameras could become a target for data gathering, Genetec explains. But Hikvision says they just make the products and cannot access the data from the cameras remotely.

Professor Fraser Sampson, who works as the professor of governance and national security at the Centre of Excellence in Terrorism, Resilience, Intelligence and Organised Crime Research, is disappointed by the government's lack of movement on the issue.

He said: "Having first raised this with the previous government, police and local authorities, I'm disappointed that the message hasn't got through yet.

"Public surveillance is all about trust and confidence, particularly as we grow more reliant on AI.

"Ducking tough issues like data security and ethical practices is unlikely to help in the long run."

The government's decision to remove the Hikvision cameras from sensitive sites in Westminster was a proportionate response to the potential risks they posed, the LDRS has been told. The government has said that applying these measures to the wider public sector would be disproportionate.

The solutions put forward by Genetec include installing a firewall on the CCTV network; removing the cameras altogether; or replacing the cameras when they come to the end of their working life.

Andrew Elvish, one of the chiefs at Genetec, has pushed for all councils in Greater Manchester to either remove Hikvision products altogether or install firewalls. He puts emphasis on this region as there are a number of buildings in the area that operate with sensitive data and information such as GCHQ.

Every council across the city-region has been asked if they use Hikvision cameras and whether they plan to remove them from their system.

From the Greater Manchester councils that responded to information requests, all of them confirmed the use of the cameras, with many having dozens or hundreds currently in operation. Some said that security risks have been taken into consideration and measures have been taken to avoid potential security breaches.

A few of the councils said they plan to take the Hikvision stock out of their operation in the near future.

Whilst there are other Hikvision cameras throughout Greater Manchester, Stockport has relatively few.

It is understood that they have gone through required security checks, following government guidance. Stockport Council does not believe there is a data risk.

What Genetec say

Andrew Elvish, global vice president for marketing at Genetec, said: "By next month, video surveillance devices manufactured by Chinese state-controlled companies will be completely removed from sensitive sites on the Central Government estate. Yet, they continue to be allowed to proliferate within local authorities.

"It does not benefit anyone to use devices manufactured by foreign state-owned companies that have a vested interest in stealing data, intelligence, or intellectual property from our government, businesses, and individuals. Unfortunately, that's not a position that has been universally adopted within Local Government.

"It should be common sense that devices that have been banned on national security grounds have no place across the wider public sector. Especially when you stop thinking of them as cameras and instead see them as sophisticated computers that can be used as an entry point to gather sensitive information on citizens.

"We would encourage the UK Government to urgently use its powers under the Procurement Act to extend the scope of the current restrictions to include local authorities. Meantime, we would remind local authorities that there is nothing preventing them from taking the matter into their own hands.

"Every responsible council in Greater Manchester should be making plans to replace or firewall such cameras. At the very least, they should publicly commit to not buying more."

What Hikvision say

A Hikvision spokesperson said: "Hikvision products adhere to strict security requirements and comply fully with English laws and regulations. As a manufacturer, we do not install or maintain devices, nor do we have access to end-user video data.

"The UK government has made clear that councils are free to use Hikvision cameras which provide safety and security to citizens across Greater Manchester.

"Hikvision's approach to human rights is a matter of public record, and we are committed to upholding the highest standards in our supply chain. In January 2024, Hikvision joined the UN Global Compact, demonstrating our commitment to its Ten Principles on human rights, labour, environment, and anti-corruption.

"These principles are actively integrated into our business strategies. We recognise our responsibility to protect people and property and take our reputation in the UK very seriously."

The government's stance

The Cabinet Office did not provide a statement, but the LDRS understands they continuously assess the risk posed to the UK's national security.

The government's decision to remove the CCTV cameras from sensitive sites was a proportionate response to the potential risks that had been associated with this form of technology, the LDRS has been told.

The government has said from the outset that applying these measures to the wider public sector would be disproportionate, and overly burdensome in terms of cost and time.

Whilst not compulsory, the measures can be mirrored by the wider public sector and others if they wish to do so, the LDRS understands.

The government's stance is that their approach has been guided by advice throughout, and ensures our national security is not compromised, whilst balancing the resources available to wider public sector organisations.