To match an exact phrase, use quotation marks around the search term. eg. "Parliamentary Estate". Use "OR" or "AND" as link words to form more complex queries.


Keep yourself up-to-date with the latest developments by exploring our subscription options to receive notifications direct to your inbox

Written Question
Police: Biometrics
Monday 16th March 2020

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 - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)

  1. The Written Answer (HL1336) is not inconsistent with the press release from the Metropolitan Police. It referred to the results from the trials, which finished last year, and not the recent deployments of live facial recognition technology.
  2. Those are matters for the Scottish Parliament, the Metropolitan Police Service and South Wales Police, which are all independent of the Government. The Government supports the police using new technologies like facial recognition to protect the public in accordance with the law.

Written Question
Police: Biometrics
Monday 16th March 2020

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 - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)

  1. The Written Answer (HL1336) is not inconsistent with the press release from the Metropolitan Police. It referred to the results from the trials, which finished last year, and not the recent deployments of live facial recognition technology.
  2. Those are matters for the Scottish Parliament, the Metropolitan Police Service and South Wales Police, which are all independent of the Government. The Government supports the police using new technologies like facial recognition to protect the public in accordance with the law.

Speech in Lords Chamber - Mon 16 Mar 2020
Metropolitan Police: Live Facial Recognition

Speech Link

View all Lord Strasburger (LD - Life peer) contributions to the debate on: Metropolitan Police: Live Facial Recognition

Written Question
Police: Biometrics
Monday 17th February 2020

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 - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of 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).


Written Question
Police: Biometrics
Monday 17th February 2020

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 - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of 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).


Written Question
UK Membership of EU: Referendums
Monday 5th November 2018

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 - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of 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.


Written Question
UK Membership of EU: Referendums
Monday 5th November 2018

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 time taken between the Metropolitan Police being notified by the Electoral Commission of possible breaches of electoral law by Leave.EU and their collection of relevant evidence from the Electoral Commission.

Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of 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.


Speech in Lords Chamber - Wed 18 Jan 2017
Policing and Crime Bill

Speech Link

View all Lord Strasburger (LD - Life peer) contributions to the debate on: Policing and Crime Bill

Speech in Lords Chamber - Mon 11 Jul 2016
Investigatory Powers Bill

Speech Link

View all Lord Strasburger (LD - Life peer) contributions to the debate on: Investigatory Powers Bill

Speech in Lords Chamber - Mon 11 Jul 2016
Investigatory Powers Bill

Speech Link

View all Lord Strasburger (LD - Life peer) contributions to the debate on: Investigatory Powers Bill