Siobhain McDonagh
Main Page: Siobhain McDonagh (Labour - Mitcham and Morden)Department Debates - View all Siobhain McDonagh's debates with the Home Office
(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
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Before I call Sir John Whittingdale to move the motion, I would like to inform Members that the parliamentary digital communication team will be conducting secondary filming during this debate.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered police use of live facial recognition technology.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the police’s use of live facial recognition technology. I have to say that this debate is somewhat overdue.
Any fan of Hollywood movies would think that the use of facial recognition technology is widespread, as in “The Bourne Ultimatum” and “Spooks”, and that it is commonplace for MI5 and the CIA to tap into CCTV cameras across London. I do not believe that is correct— I hope it is not—but police forces are using facial recognition technology more and more. It was first used in 2017, and it is now commonly used by the Metropolitan police, South Wales police and now my own police force in Essex, which purchased two vans in August and use it regularly.
On 4 October, I accompanied police officers on a deployment in Chelmsford High Street, who were hugely helpful in explaining to me exactly how they use the technology and, importantly, what controls are in place. They told me that they had a watch list of 639 individuals who had been approved by the superintendent and were wanted for questioning in relation to offences such as violence against the person. They included people with outstanding warrants, suspects linked to county lines, suspected shoplifters in that particular part of the county, and those with a sexual harm prevention order.
In the course of the 30 minutes or so that I spent with those officers, they recorded 1,500 faces of people who passed by. The officers assured me that those images were matched against the watch list to see whether they registered a positive, and if they did not they were deleted in less than half a second. During the time I was there, there were approximately 10 positives, which led to a conversation: a police officer would go and have a polite exchange to find out why the person had registered positive, and they were checked against the Police National Computer or Athena. That morning, that led to two arrests.
The chief constable of Essex has written to me and colleagues to emphasise the effectiveness of the technology and its importance to that force. He told me that they had so far had 25 deployments across Essex, resulting in 26 arrests and 26 other positive disposals. He said:
“This cutting-edge technology has enabled us to keep the public safe, and can save time and effort of our front-line, allowing them to do other work to protect and support the community.”
Sir John Whittingdale
The EU’s AIA lays down very strong controls—it almost goes too far—in that it restricts the categories of individual who can be sought under the watch list to quite a small number. The House of Commons Library points out that
“the AIA 2024 prohibits the use of ‘real-time remote biometric identification systems’ (such as LFR) in publicly accessible spaces for the purposes of law enforcement, unless such use is ‘strictly necessary’ for one of the following objectives”.
The list it provides includes the search for specific victims of abduction or trafficking; missing persons; the prevention of a substantial and imminent threat to life; the prevention of a genuine threat of a terrorist attack; or the localisation of a person suspected of having committed a criminal offence.
In Europe, the controls are strong, but in this country it is left largely to police officers to interpret the law and be reasonably confident. However, legal challenges are under way. Shaun Thompson, whom I met, is seeking judicial review of the police’s actions and the campaign organisations are also looking at legal challenges. There is a real need for clarity. Certainly, the sergeant of Essex police who is in charge of deployment told me that, in his view, it would be really helpful for the police to have clear guidelines. They would then not have to make those difficult decisions and could potentially satisfy a court that the use was proportionate and justified.
As far as I am aware, this matter has not been debated by Parliament before, and it should have been because there is a real need to seek clarity in the law. This may sound like science fiction, but ultimately there is a risk that it becomes possible for every CCTV camera in the country to be linked up, and there could be a watchlist of not 600 but millions of people. Concerns have been expressed by organisations such as Big Brother Watch—in this particular instance, that organisation could be well named—and I do not think any Member would wish to go down that route. I think most people recognise that there is some value in the technology, but there is a need for clarity. I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary and particularly the Minister for Policing for coming to contribute, and I look forward to what they have to say.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate, and it seems that everybody does.
David Davis
I am very much on the hon. Lady’s side of that argument, partly because we are a country where it is not normal to stop people and ask for their identity cards, which is why we have had a few battles over that in the past. Also, the technology is prone to slippage. Way back when—probably when the hon. Lady was still at school—we introduced automatic number plate recognition to monitor IRA terrorists coming from Liverpool to London. That was its exact purpose, but thereafter it got used for a dozen other things, without any legislative change or any approval by Parliament.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. Could I ask Members to keep interventions as interventions?
Dawn Butler
Thank you, Dame Siobhain. Yes, it is really important that we talk about this openly. That is what we are supposed to do in this place, right? Anybody can be put on the watchlist. Seven police forces are currently using LFR. One that I know of—I am not sure about the others—the Metropolitan Police Service, is in special measures. I do not think it should be given any additional powers while it is in special measures.
The thing is that we know very little about the software or what is in the black box that is developed by these systems. What we can look at is the outcome, and we know that the outcome does not identify very well black women’s faces, especially, and black and Asian people. There is a lower identification threshold for those people, so that is a concern.
It is also really interesting that even when LFR is set at 0.6, a police super-spotter is more accurate. We have specialist police officers who spot people very quickly, and they are more accurate than this system, so it becomes the case that a police service will try to prove that the system it has bought is value for money. We can imagine a police officer not getting many hits with LFR at 0.6 and lowering that to 0.5 so that they can get more hits, which in turn means that more people are misidentified, so there should be regulation around this issue.
Taking away somebody’s liberty is one of the most serious things we can do in society, so we need to think very carefully if we are going to introduce something that accelerates that. It is good that for the first time we are having the debate on this issue. As the right hon. Member for Maldon said, the EU permits LFR only where there is prior judicial authorisation and in cases in which the police need to locate a missing person, for instance. That is something we need to consider.
I want to say this: I like technology. I am very much into our civil liberties. We need to protect our digital rights as human beings and individuals. I love technology— I used to be a coder—but we should not rush to do things because people get excited. There are really four people in the debate on this issue. It reminds me of four of my mates when we go out clubbing. Bear with me. We have the person who will stay at home because they are not bothered—they do not care—and we have the people who do not care about this issue: “It is going to happen; let it happen.” We have the person who will come, but they are a bit moany. They do not really like the music, but they will come anyway because they do not want to miss out.
We then have the person who is completely drunk on it all: “Give it to me. I’ll take everything.” There are people who just love anything to do with technology and will say, “Look, let’s just throw it all in the mix and it’ll all be fine.” And there is me. I am the person who likes the music and the food, but I need to keep sober to make sure everyone gets home safely. In this debate about AI, we need to be sober to make sure that everybody gets home safely and that when we roll out AI, we do so in a way that is fair and compassionate and in line with our values as British citizens.
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.
James McMurdock
I want us to be careful that we are not making assumptions that may not be right. I am not taking a firm position, but there have been a number of comments, from several parts of the Chamber, about racial disparity. It would be remiss of me to let those things be said without making the point that I am not 100% sure that they are all accurate. For example—
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. I apologise, but could the hon. Member please explain briefly what his intervention is?
James McMurdock
Of course. The topic of racial disparity is one we should all treat extremely seriously—possibly one of the most serious things we can do to benefit our society is to discuss this and get it right—but can we please not make any leading assumptions? We live in a fair and good society. If someone listened to this debate in isolation, they might get an impression that I do not believe would be strictly fair.
Chris Philp
On the misidentification rate, I think the Bridges court case set a standard of a false positive rate of one in 1,000: out of every 1,000 people stopped, 999 are the people the police think they are, while one is misidentified. The Minister may have more up-to-date figures, but from my recollection the system in practice is running at about one in 6,000. That is an extraordinarily high accuracy rate—much more accurate than a regular stop and search.
About 25% to 30% of regular physical stops and searches, where a police officer stops someone and searches them for drugs or a knife or something, are successful. About 70% are unsuccessful, while the equivalent figure for live facial recognition is 0.02%. That means that this technology is 4,500 times less likely to result in someone being inappropriately stopped than a regular stop and search. It therefore hugely—by three orders of magnitude—reduces the likelihood of someone being improperly stopped and searched.
I turn to the use of the technology on the ground. I asked for it to be trialled in the centre of Croydon, which is the borough I represent in Parliament. Over the past nine months or so, it has been deployed on a relatively regular basis: about once a week. I believe that the Minister was supposed to go down this morning to have a look; I certainly encourage her to go again as soon as she can. By the way, the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) asked whether people know when the technology is being used. The answer is yes: one of the guidelines is that public signage must be displayed telling the public that the technology is in use.
Over that period in Croydon, there have been approximately 200 arrests of people who would not otherwise have been arrested, including for all kinds of offences such as class A drugs supply, grievous bodily harm, fraud and domestic burglary. It has also included a man who had been wanted for two rapes dating back to 2017. That wanted rapist would be free to this day if not for this technology. Just a couple of weeks ago, a man was stopped and subsequently arrested in relation to a rape allegation from June this year. There are people who are alleged to have committed rape who would not have been stopped—who would still be walking free—if not for this technology. It is only the fact that they walked past a camera outside East Croydon station or somewhere that has meant they were stopped by the police. They will now have a normal trial with the normal standards of evidence, but they would not have been caught in the first place if not for this technology.
I have done quite a lot of public meetings on this. I explain, “These are the people who get caught, and the price the public pay is that you might get scanned when you walk down Croydon High Street, but if you are innocent your picture is immediately deleted.” By and large, the overwhelming majority of the people in Croydon think that a reasonable trade-off.
There should be protections, of course. Several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, have rightly said that there should be guidelines, rules and procedures. However, it is not true that there is a complete vacuum as far as rules and regulations are concerned. The Bridges case at the Court of Appeal in 2020 looked at how South Wales police were using the technology between 2017 and 2020. It found that some of the ways they were using the technology were not appropriate because they broke rules on things like data protection privacy. It set out in case law the guidelines that have to be adhered to for the technology to be lawful—things like public signage, the rate of accuracy and having no racial bias.
Secondly—I do hope I am not taking the Minister’s entire speech—there are guidelines for police. The College of Policing has national authorised professional practice guidelines that the police are supposed to stick to. There is a debate to be had about whether, for the sake of clarity and democratic accountability, we in Parliament should set something out more formal; my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon made that point. I think there would be some merit in clarifying at a national level where the guidelines sit, but I would not go as far as Europe. If we had done so, those rapists would not have been arrested. I would also be careful to ensure that any legislation is flexible enough to accommodate changing technology. Primary legislation may not be the right vehicle: a regulation-making power might be a more sensible approach, so that things can be kept up to date from time to time.
While we consider that, I strongly urge the Minister not to halt the use of the technology. As we speak, it is arresting criminals in Croydon and elsewhere who would not otherwise be caught. I urge her to continue supporting the police to roll it out. I think some money was allocated in the Budget for the current financial year, to continue developing the technology. I would welcome an update from the Minister on whether that money is still being spent in the current financial year. I do hope it has not somehow been snaffled by the Treasury in a misguided cost-saving effort—
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. I apologise for interrupting the shadow Secretary of State, but I am looking at the time. I am sure hon. Members would like to hear from the Minister.
Chris Philp
None more so than me. I will conclude by saying that this is an important technology: it takes people off the streets who would otherwise not be caught. The Minister has my support in continuing its roll-out and deployment.