Facial Recognition: Police Use
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this important debate. It is difficult to follow the comprehensive presentation of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), but I would like to come at this debate from a different perspective—as a criminal barrister by profession. In trials that I have conducted, we have had difficulty with experts when identifying suspects charged in very serious cases. Two experts in relevant IT facial recognition software find it difficult to come to the same conclusion. One expert in a trial will say, “This is highly likely fitting of this particular defendant—confidence level maybe 50% or 60%.” Another expert in the same trial will counterargue and say, “Well, there are dissimilarities between the face and the image that we have been able to capture.” Ultimately, it is a matter for the jury as to whether they accept one expert’s opinion over another. As a result, at present, we have counterarguments between experts over facial recognition technology.
What concerns me is the idea of allowing the state, in essence, to deploy this kind of technology in high streets, for example. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) has already raised the issue of the disproportionate rate of stop and search—by multiple times; I think the rate was nine times higher for black males. What impact will facial recognition live transmission data have in the city of Birmingham? It is going to have an enormous impact. Members have raised the difficulties with the percentage error of recognitions, and the distrust that we have in Birmingham is a challenge already, particularly with young men and the police. What will this technology achieve? Will young men start wearing more face coverings in city centres? How will this technology be used, even if it is legislated for properly? For example, will the police have to notify the public, “We are using this facial recognition technology in the Bullring today between the hours of 10 am and 10 pm?” It does not seem to serve any real purpose.
We have a very effective police force in the west midlands, and it uses CCTV, which we have all over. If hon. Members go to any street in Birmingham, they will find tens or hundreds of houses with CCTV, and the police have used that to great effect; after a crime is committed, they track back and they prosecute. We have had so many successful prosecutions in very serious crimes, such as murder and violent crime, but the deployment of this technology will create enormous problems and divisions. As I said, there are already problems with how minority communities feel when they are stopped and searched. I think the right hon. Member for Maldon said that in the trial about 10 people were stopped, with one to two—as little as 10%—being identified. As the technology develops further, that percentage may increase, but at present I do not see how it will assist at all. Criminals know very well how to avoid detection, and face coverings will become the norm. Other than surveillance, this technology achieves very little. I do not see how it will assist in detection.
The hon. Member for Brent East drew some simple parallels. What would the public think about being stopped on a busy high street and asked to come to a police van to give their fingerprints and DNA? They would be outraged, and rightly so. It would almost legitimise police officers approaching people, in particular young men. We know that not just black people, but people of colour, women and children will be subject to the technology, and we know that there are errors. The right to privacy and the freedoms that we have are far greater than this technology, and I do not see how it will assist in deterrence, because people will simply use face coverings and all sorts of other things.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I see no other Back Benchers who wish to contribute, so I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Immigration and Home Affairs
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I tabled an amendment to the Humble Address that read:
“At end add ‘and submits that the Government should immediately recognise the state of Palestine.’”
The wording was confirmed by me to the Table Office at 4.40 pm yesterday. It was co-signed by the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr Hussain), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
Order. Is it the hon. Gentleman’s intention to challenge the ruling of Mr Speaker when he selected the amendments to be voted on tonight? What is his point of order?
Ayoub Khan
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is the fact that the amendment was not tabled despite being submitted to the Table Office on time.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not think that would have made any difference to Mr Speaker’s decision about which amendments the House will be voting on later. However, his point is noted.
I call Nigel Farage to make his maiden speech.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
Yesterday and today, I have witnessed a number of maiden speeches from both sides of the House. there have been some excellent contributions which I must say were absolutely wonderful to listen to. I would like to thank the residents of the newly drawn constituency of Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley who have put their trust in me. It is a privilege and a great honour to speak in the King’s Speech debate today. Like most of my constituents, I am excited by the legislative agenda it sets out. Labour has hit the ground running with a bold plan for the transformation of our country that I believe will get us back on track after 14 years of chaos. It is because of that promise that I want to speak to several areas covered in the King’s Speech.
First, I am proud of Labour’s commitment to the most ambitious house building programme in a generation, particularly in terms of social housing. This programme must be designed and implemented in a way that addresses the significant regional disparities in housing provision.
My constituents will be thankful for Labour’s approach to youth provision. From tougher measures to tackle antisocial behaviour and knife crime to educational reform through Skills England, I believe over the course of this Parliament our young people will receive the support and training they need to take advantage of every opportunity afforded to them.
The newly outlined children’s wellbeing Bill will undoubtedly make a huge impact on families in my constituency, where child poverty is at unprecedented levels. The provision of free breakfast clubs as well as the development of a new child poverty strategy are both welcome and necessary after 14 years of deprivation. This Bill will also provide extra support to children with special educational needs, who need the greatest support and have previously been denied it.
While there are arguments in favour of retaining the two-child benefit cap, it is also clear that we can go much further and lift hundreds and thousands of children out of poverty. The significance of lifting this cap for the most vulnerable in our society cannot be overstated and I hope there is movement on this in coming months.
I am particularly glad at the direction taken by this Government towards regional and local government. As we all know, Birmingham is facing an unprecedented financial crisis, putting at risk valued services such as libraries and support to children and families as well as infrastructure and investment. In the limited time available today, I will not be expanding on what can be done to save those services, but debates and discussions will take place through other means.
That brings me to amendment (c). I put my name forward to be added, but for whatever technical reasons, it was not added.
I want briefly to address some of the newly elected independents in this House. Throughout the election they denounced the Labour party with divisive and harmful rhetoric. Luckily, we are now able to measure their words against their actions, and unsurprisingly they are found lacking in signing a Labour amendment. “Labour, the party of genocide”; “Labour, the party of nastiness”—that was the rhetoric played out in the election campaign when many candidates, especially women, were harassed and intimidated. Today, those independents sit on the Opposition Benches, but they are willing to sign a Labour amendment. Please go back and explain to your constituents the rhetoric that was played out. Why have you now joined forces with Labour Members by signing amendment (c)? Are you now saying that Labour is the right party?