Facial Recognition: Police Use

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

Thank you, Dame Siobhain, for your merciful chairpersonship. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for introducing this crucial debate.

Like many others, I have many concerns about live facial recognition technology, some of which have already been raised, but I will focus my remarks on the room for error and the potential impact that this technology will have on already dwindling public trust in police, particularly among black, Asian and ethnic minority citizens. I will raise points similar to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and Brent East (Dawn Butler).

Live facial recognition technology compares live CCTV images with those already on the police database and other images taken from open source, publicly available image sites. This is a deeply flawed plan that could result in serious mix-ups. A simple mislabelling on an image database could lead to the wrong person being stopped and a potentially traumatic experience with the police.

I can illustrate my point with a short anecdote; this happened to me a mere few months after I was elected to this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) was speaking in the Chamber. BBC Parliament miscaptioned her as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East and, when they spotted this, both Members took to Twitter to point out the mistake. In their haste to cover the story, the Evening Standard incorrectly used a picture of me instead of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea—I hope everybody is following this—and in its apology to all three of us, it suggested that Getty Images, where they had taken the image from, had labelled most of the pictures of me, since I had been elected, with the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. Since then, to avoid embarrassment, it seems that most publications now use pictures of me looking like a constipated walrus, but they have said that their reason for this is that they can be sure it is me and they want to avoid any further embarrassment.

Although problematic, that is a far more trivial example of what can happen when images are mislabelled, but if humans can make these errors, the technologies they create obviously can. If online sources are going to be used as part of the image database, it is almost inevitable that images will be mislabelled and that innocent people will be subject to needless run-ins with the police.

Questions around the numerical similarity score used to determine matches also ought to be raised. We already know that facial recognition data has racial bias: it is deeply flawed when attempting to identify people with darker skin tones, just as Getty Images is, and the Metropolitan police’s own testing of its facial recognition algorithm identified disproportionately higher inaccuracy rates when attempting to identify people of colour and women.

People of colour are already disproportionately stopped and searched at higher rates, and the use of potentially flawed technology will serve only to increase the rate at which ethnic minorities are stopped, searched and possibly even incorrectly detained, further dampening trust in the police among these communities. We know that that needs to be resolved. To any Member who thinks that I am exaggerating the potential for misidentification, I say this: in 2023, Big Brother Watch found that over 89% of UK police facial recognition alerts wrongly identified members of the public as people of interest. In that case, what benefits does this technology bring? It has been used in the borough of Lambeth, including in my own constituency, on a number of occasions, but as far as I am aware it has not produced a substantial number of results. Our constituents are effectively being placed under constant surveillance. The notion of their presumed innocence, which sits at the heart of our justice system, has been undermined, and this “cutting-edge” technology has not produced substantial results.

With some 6 million CCTV cameras in the UK, which all have the potential to be converted into facial recognition cameras, we are veering dangerously close to becoming a police state with levels of surveillance that would be deemed acceptable only in the most authoritarian of dictatorships. I believe that our liberty and our security can co-exist. It is not a matter of “those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear”; it is a matter of the basic principles of freedom and privacy. Those basic principles begin to draw into question what such surveillance is really here for. Is it here to keep us safe or to monitor us 24/7?

Most Members would undoubtedly, I hope, protest at the idea of police randomly stopping members of the public to check their fingerprints or other DNA against databases just for a possible match. Why should we look at this intrusive automated biometric software any differently?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bobby Dean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the evidence is quite clear in this area. Somebody might watch this debate and have doubts, but the research is quite clear.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), just about every time that somebody has stated that there are issues of racial discrimination with this technology, they have cited sources that people can look at. For the benefit of both the public and the hon. Member, it is important to note that these are not just assumptions; they are based on data and evidence. There is further evidence we could give, such as my personal experience and the experiences of others, but those specific points were made with evidence.

[Bobby Dean]

I agree with the hon. Member that some evidence has been cited in the Chamber today, but there is other evidence that we can look at. Let us not forget that the technology exacerbates the known problem—particularly with the Met police in London, where I live—that black communities feel over-policed and underserved. That has built up over time, and the use of this technology could exacerbate that problem further.

The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) made a comment about how polite conversations do not always register as polite conversations. That is because of the persistence of those conversations over time. A repeated polite conversation starts to become an aggressive conversation to the person on the receiving end, if it is that persistent. There was also discussion about the findings of the national physical laboratory, but it is clear that those findings are disputed—[Interruption.] Well, it is clear that they are disputed; they have been disputed in the Chamber today. Until we get to the bottom of that, we need to think carefully about the controls that we have in relation to discrimination.

I want to talk about the general principle of privacy. As a liberal, I feel a general depression about how we have come to devalue privacy in society, and how we trade it away far too readily for other societal aims. We often hear the claim, “If you’re not doing anything wrong then there’s nothing to worry about,” as if the only value of privacy were to hide things that someone might be doing wrong. That is not the case. Privacy delivers so much more than that. It delivers personal wellbeing and gives people control over their own data. It allows us to have freedom of association and dignity. We need to think very carefully before we so readily trade away the principle of privacy in pursuit of other goals in society.

The opportunity for slippage has been discussed at length. One would think that such technology would come with strict controls, but it is clear that at the moment we have the opposite; in fact, Big Brother Watch has described it as a “legal vacuum”. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) talked about the creeping expansion of its use in London. I have seen that myself; what started off being limited to large-scale events, such as football matches, has turned into routine trials on high streets, such as mine in Sutton.

We have also seen expansion in the photos that are used. The technology started off using only photographs of people known to the police, for good reason, but it has been expanded to potentially including everyone who has a passport or driving licence photo. What started being strictly about warrant breakers and sex offenders could expand to be about pretty much anything the Government of the day want. If we think about the clampdown on protest under the previous Government, that potentially has a chilling impact on the right to freedom of association.

With all of those doubts, it is clear that we need proper parliamentary consideration of the issue. The Lib Dems ask the Minister to immediately halt the roll-out of live facial recognition technology until we get it right. It should be down to this place to determine the correct controls and whether there is a legitimate use of the technology at all, given all the concerns about discrimination and privacy. Privacy is a fundamental civil liberty. We have undervalued it far too much in recent times. This is an opportunity to protect it, and we should take it.

Police Accountability

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the hon. Member for the important points she has made. She is right that lack of clarity, uncertainty, and the long and damaging delays that we have had in the system benefit no one, but she is also right to say that part of the sensitivity around this case—part of its long-standing backdrop—is the much lower confidence in policing among black Londoners and the different levels of confidence around race. That was highlighted as part of the Casey review, and it is why the Met police have set out a race action plan, but both the Met commissioner and the Mayor of London have been clear that there is significant additional work to do. If any measures do not have the confidence of all communities that the police serve, that will ultimately undermine the crucial principle of policing by consent.

We continue to work to ensure that some of the measures recommended by the Casey review that have national implications, as well as the Angiolini review, are taken forward as part of this package. Those include issues with vetting and misconduct processes—it is important that we make progress on those measures, as well as on some of the issues that arise from the accountability review. We will also ensure that all communities are involved in the way in which measures are taken forward.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

The fatal shooting of Chris Kaba caused pain to his family and considerable fear and anger, not only in my community but across London. This House must understand that the concerns being raised are not anti-police, but pro-accountability. We must respect our legal processes, and it is extremely rare that police officers ever face such prosecution. The Home Secretary clearly agrees that while police officers work under exceptional pressures, any loss of life following police contact must be properly investigated, so is she concerned by comments from the Metropolitan police commissioner regarding disciplinary processes, including that firearms officers should be exempt from criminal charges over fatal shootings? That would do nothing to rebuild broken trust and confidence, particularly within the black community, who have been disproportionately impacted. Following the Angiolini and Casey reviews, is less accountability the route that the head of the Met should be asking for?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question—as I said, she has worked hard to represent her communities. It is clear that there must be a proper framework for legal accountability for police forces and individual officers. There must always be investigations where there is loss of life following police contact—that is always appropriate. Although we want investigations to take place much more swiftly, all the police chiefs whom I have talked to as part of this work feel strongly that there must be a clear accountability system, which provides confidence to communities and to police officers who make difficult decisions in the line of duty. Police, Parliament and the public will recognise that we need to have the confidence of communities, as well as police officers who are confident that they will be able to do their job.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Police and crime commissioners have a crucial role to play as part of the mission to reduce serious violence, as do local authorities. The hon. Lady is right that local partnerships will best be able to target young people who are at greatest risk, and ensure that proper prevention programmes are in place. As we know, many of those services have been hollowed out over a long period, and it is important that we have partnership working to rebuild them. I hope that we can work cross-party on that—not just with police and crime commissioners but with MPs across the country.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

9. If she will commission an independent review into the adequacy of legislation on the policing of protests.

[The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

Like my hon. Friend, the Government value the role of peaceful protest as part of our proud democratic tradition. The Government regularly review the adequacy of existing legislation.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

The right to protest, and the courage of people taking to the streets to demand change, have given us many of our cherished social advancements—from the suffragettes demanding votes for women to the Race Relations Act 1965—but the sheer number of powers to restrict protest is resulting in peaceful protesters being arrested and sentenced to lengthy periods in prison. The previous Government pushed through a range of such laws despite opposition from senior policing figures and from Members across all parties. When will a comprehensive review of the state of protest take place, with a view to repealing powers that unnecessarily restrict the right to peaceful protest?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. As she knows, there will be post-legislative scrutiny of the legislation passed by the previous Government. As the previous Government agreed, it will be considered in due course.

Immigration and Home Affairs

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

Rail in public ownership, stronger workers’ rights, a publicly owned energy supplier, a ban on no-fault evictions and an end to the non-dom tax status—these are some of the key foundations to recovery that we can celebrate in this King’s Speech, after 14 years of austerity, privatisation and squeezed living standards, but I want to touch on a few things that were not included.

I was pleased to support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson). Removing the two-child benefit cap is the most cost-effective and immediate way for our Government to lift 300,000 children out of poverty. The notion that in the sixth-largest economy in the world we cannot find the money has to be wrong. While the taskforce is good, we must make moves as soon as possible to make this is a reality. If there were a national emergency, we would find the money. If the levels of child poverty at the moment are not a national emergency, I do not know what is.

I was also pleased to support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) to end the supply of arms to Israel and uphold international law. The Government have called for a ceasefire and we need to back that up with action.

I will focus the majority of my remarks on the dreadful legislative legacy on civil liberties left behind by the previous Government. If we take simply the broad heading of our liberties, the previous Government curbed the right to protest, to free assembly, to freedom of speech, to organise in trade unions and to freedom from covert operations by the state. The right to vote has been supressed. Religious freedom was attacked through the demonisation of Muslims and Muslim communities. We cannot possibly pose as champions of freedom and democracy while these stains remain on our statute book.

In addition, we should note that the previous Government did nothing to correct the gross imbalance that now exists between employers and trade unions with regard to workers’ rights. They promised to block the gross abuse that led to the scandal at P&O but did absolutely nothing. They also toyed with the idea of regularising the legislative mess around a woman’s right to choose, and so address issues of women’s sexual and reproductive health, and expanding access to safe and legal abortions throughout the country. We cannot repeat these serial failures to act. This is about what it means to live in a free society.

Furthermore, there is a slew of secondary legislation, rules and guidance that infringe or suppress the rights of citizens. There are too many to mention, but I am thinking about the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021, the Overseas Operations Act 2021, the Elections Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023. A running theme throughout those Acts is, in effect, to place officers of the state above the law—whether they be police officers, members of the armed services, members of the security services or others—as long as they were acting under the direction of a more senior officer.

These laws severely curtail the fundamental rights of citizens. Under these Acts, it is officers of the state who decide what is lawful, not the courts. I remind hon. and right hon. Members that placing agents of the state above the law is almost the very definition of a police state. It is authoritarian and anti-democratic. It is not the legal basis of a free and democratic society. The same is true of any claim that is made that officers of the state determine the law. They do not; their duty is to uphold it. Over time, I would confidently expect each and every one of these pieces of legislation to face legal challenges, including, if necessary, in the European Court, because they are so flawed and draconian.

If our democracy is going to work for everyone, it has to include everyone. Our party has already made important commitments to extend the franchise to young people by bringing in automatic voter registration. Scrapping the exclusory voter ID laws that the Tories introduced is another urgent priority to strengthen engagement in the democratic process. A survey by More in Common estimates that more than 400,000 people were prevented from voting in the general election due to these undemocratic rules. The same research shows that people of colour were 2.5 times more likely to be turned away. Let us be clear about this: any law that disproportionately stops black and brown people from participating in our democracy is racist. The voter ID laws were introduced on the pretence of tackling voter fraud, yet between 2017 and 2022 there were just 18 convictions. Compare that with the 400,000 people blocked from voting at the ballot box.

There are so many things that we want to see. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister on his announcement that there will be an early repeal of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. This, too, is an anti-democratic, authoritarian measure that places members of the armed forces above the law. The Prime Minister’s announcement on this should be a model for the rest of the legislation that I have mentioned.

It is also very important to look at some of the actions that the previous Government took. They rushed legislation through in a very hurried way. In fact, they gave us a model for doing things in the future. I wish to point out that the people of this country voted against that Government, so let us repeal all of their awful legislation both quickly and decisively.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Siobhain McDonagh)]

I call Frank McNally to make his maiden speech.