Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what support and funding, if any, they are providing to (1) the Internet Watch Foundation, and (2) other organisations, working to prevent online sexual abuse; and when they plan to make any decisions about the future funding of the Internet Watch Foundation.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
Nothing is more important than the safety of our children. The UK Government is committed to stamping out all forms of child sexual exploitation and abuse and continuing to be a global leader in tackling this threat.
The IWF acts as the UK’s ‘hotline’ for online criminal content, including indecent images of children (IIOC), to which both members of the public and internet industry can report web pages containing such images. The IWF is funded by the UK internet industry, and also receives funding from the European Union. Officials regularly engage with the IWF, including on its funding position following the UK’s exit from the EU. The Home Office supports the IWF’s connection to the Child Abuse Image Database (CAID).
We support a range of organisations such as the Lucy Faithfull Foundation whose Stop It Now! campaign, signposting people concerned about their own behaviour, or the behaviour of others, towards effective and anonymous help provided by the Foundation, including through its confidential helpline and the recently launched webchat service.
We have also recently provided funding to South West Grid for Learning and Internet Matters to develop a new online hub, specifically designed to decrease the risk of online abuse, including child sexual abuse, perpetrated against children with vulnerabilities, including children with SEND, LGBTQ+ children, and looked after children.
Future decisions on Home Office spending are dependent on the outcome of the 2020 Comprehensive Spending Review.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 17 February (HL1336), why their response is inconsistent with the press release from the Metropolitan Police following the facial recognition deployments which (1) stated that the individual arrested on suspicion of discharging a firearm was arrested "as part of the wider operation" and not "as a direct result of the facial recognition technology", (2) did not state that any individual was arrested for two counts of rape, and (3) did not state that anyone was arrested on suspicion of domestic assault.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, what assessment they have made of the finding by the Scottish Parliament that there was "no justification" for Police Scotland to use facial recognition technology; and why police in London and South Wales continue to use live facial recognition surveillance.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the total cost of the Metropolitan Police’s recent trial of automated facial recognition technology, including preparatory work, and encompassing equipment and manpower costs; and how many staff were required for a typical deployment during the trial, broken down by role.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) are operationally independent of government.
They have disclosed the following information:
Costs
The MPS have records of Live Facial Recognition software and associated hardware at a current total cost of £240,000.
The MPS have no record of other costs relating to preparatory work or associated manpower.
Outcomes
During their trials ten individuals on the system’s watchlist were correctly identified, resulting in eight arrests (these figures discount alerts generated by test subjects).
The offences for which they were arrested were: false imprisonment; breach of non-molestation order; two counts of rape; discharge of firearm; breach of restraining order and harassment; domestic assault and theft; robbery and assault on police.
Two of these arrests have resulted in convictions so far (breach of non-molestation order and assault on police).
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, during the recent Metropolitan Police trial of automated facial recognition technology, how many individuals on the system’s watchlist were correctly identified; how many alerts resulted in (1) an arrest, and (2) a subsequent conviction; and for which offences.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) are operationally independent of government.
They have disclosed the following information:
Costs
The MPS have records of Live Facial Recognition software and associated hardware at a current total cost of £240,000.
The MPS have no record of other costs relating to preparatory work or associated manpower.
Outcomes
During their trials ten individuals on the system’s watchlist were correctly identified, resulting in eight arrests (these figures discount alerts generated by test subjects).
The offences for which they were arrested were: false imprisonment; breach of non-molestation order; two counts of rape; discharge of firearm; breach of restraining order and harassment; domestic assault and theft; robbery and assault on police.
Two of these arrests have resulted in convictions so far (breach of non-molestation order and assault on police).
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that any breaking of electoral law by pro-leave campaigns during the referendum is investigated; and in what timeframe they anticipate such investigations taking place.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
Following the conclusion of an investigation into the campaign spending of Vote Leave and other campaigners during the 2016 EU referendum, the Electoral Commission made two referrals to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) regarding potential criminal offences under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The first referral was received by the MPS on 11 May 2018 and the second was received on 17 July 2018. On 7 September 2018 the MPS received over 900 documents from the Electoral Commission in relation to both referrals.
The decision to launch an investigation is entirely an operational matter for the police. It would not be appropriate for Ministers to comment on operational decisions made by the MPS concerning the Electoral Commission’s referrals.