Points of Order

Debate between Shockat Adam and Judith Cummins

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member has put his point on the record.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the urgent question, the Secretary of State mentioned that she was aware of my social media posts attacking and targeting her. I have never made a post about the Secretary of State. Perhaps she would like to clarify that point. My colleagues may have posted about her; we may all look the same, but we are not.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order or a matter for the Chair.

Bills Presented

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Orders Nos. 50 and 57)

Secretary Peter Kyle, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary David Lammy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Darren Jones, Secretary Ed Miliband, Anna Turley and Josh Simons, presented a Bill to amend section 8(5) of the Industrial Development Act 1982 and section 6 of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 321) with explanatory notes (Bill 321-EN).

Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Liz Kendall, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Darren Jones, Secretary Yvette Cooper, Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Secretary Wes Streeting, Secretary Heidi Alexander, Secretary Peter Kyle, Secretary Ed Miliband, Secretary Emma Reynolds and Kanishka Narayan, presented a Bill to make provision, including provision amending the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018, about the security and resilience of network and information systems used or relied on in connection with the carrying on of essential activities.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 329) with explanatory notes (Bill 329-EN).

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Shockat Adam and Judith Cummins

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Shockat Adam to make the final Back-Bench speech.

[Shockat Adam]

I would like to speak briefly to the issue of live facial recognition and new clauses 21 and 22 in my name. New clause 21 calls for a ban on live facial recognition because it is not safe, lacks legal legitimacy and is an attack on the fundamental democratic rights of the British people. It is the choice of authoritarian states and dictators and should have no place in British policing, which I remind the Minister is still by consent.

The technology is not safe. It was described by the Court of Appeal as “novel and controversial”. Academics have shown that the technology makes mistakes in the recognition of darker-skinned women in 21% to 35% of cases, yet 99% of light-skinned men were identified correctly. Caucasian females are also not safe—just ask Danielle Horan, who was escorted out of not one but two Home Bargains stores due to an apparent facial recognition mix-up. It is no wonder that the Court of Appeal, in striking down the south Wales experiment, ruled it a breach of public sector equalities duties in failing to recognise possible bias in the algorithms.

Facial recognition lacks legal legitimacy by operating under vague common law powers, unlike DNA or fingerprints. It is also an attack on hard-won democratic rights, undermining the principle that people should not be forced to identify themselves to police without suspicion. It has been used to monitor protesters, thus deterring lawful participation and threatening free assembly, which are some of our most important and enshrined civil liberties. Just ask the protesters picked up in Russia’s underground train stations or protesters and Uyghurs in China. The Government must think again.

New clause 22 calls for broader safeguards on automated decision making to ensure that law enforcement does not solely rely on AI algorithms and that there is always human review of its use. The new clause also calls for transparency, for the rights of people both to know what information is held about them and to contest decisions made by any AI, and to stop abuse by putting in the necessary checks. Those checks must meet high global standards, recommended by human rights organisations, and the best practice standards of our neighbours in the EU. Without human safeguards, the Government are ushering in a “Minority Report” world—a potential dystopia where the computer simply says no and there is nothing we as individuals can do about it.

Unamended, the Bill is dangerous and intrusive and breaks the fundamental contract between the British people and the police, along with the fundamental right to be considered innocent until proven otherwise. For those who think that that will never happen here, please take a look across the Atlantic. It certainly can happen here. It is time for the Government to admit that they have got this wrong. It is a sign of a strong, not a weak, Government if they listen to the evidence and change course as a result. Live facial recognition is not the answer and will cause more problems than it claims to solve. It needs to go.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.