Asked by: David Davis (Conservative - Goole and Pocklington)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which of her Department's officials informed the Metropolitan Police that the US would not be extraditing Omar al-Bayoumi in 2001.
Answered by Dan Jarvis - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The attacks on 9/11 were an appalling assault on freedom. The courage displayed by the American people in the aftermath and in the years since is extraordinary and our thoughts remain with the victims and survivors, as well as all who loved them.
It would be inappropriate to comment on an individual case. It is also long standing government policy, followed by successive governments, to neither confirm nor deny any extradition request in these circumstances.
Asked by: David Davis (Conservative - Goole and Pocklington)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what information her Department holds on the work of the Metropolitan Police in September 2001 on the possible extradition of Omar al Bayoumi.
Answered by Dan Jarvis - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The attacks on 9/11 were an appalling assault on freedom. The courage displayed by the American people in the aftermath and in the years since is extraordinary and our thoughts remain with the victims and survivors, as well as all who loved them.
It would be inappropriate to comment on an individual case. It is also long standing government policy, followed by successive governments, to neither confirm nor deny any extradition request in these circumstances.
Asked by: David Davis (Conservative - Goole and Pocklington)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what discussions her Department had with US counterparts on extraditing Omar al Bayoumi in 2001.
Answered by Dan Jarvis - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The attacks on 9/11 were an appalling assault on freedom. The courage displayed by the American people in the aftermath and in the years since is extraordinary and our thoughts remain with the victims and survivors, as well as all who loved them.
It would be inappropriate to comment on an individual case. It is also long standing government policy, followed by successive governments, to neither confirm nor deny any extradition request in these circumstances.
Asked by: David Davis (Conservative - Goole and Pocklington)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment her Department has made of the potential merits of compensation schemes for people wrongly identified by live facial recognition technology used by the police.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office has not assessed the potential merits of a specific compensation scheme for people wrongly identified by live facial recognition used by police.
The Home Office has not set a threshold for an acceptable proportion of misidentifications arising from police use of live facial recognition. However, police use of live facial recognition is subject to safeguards that are designed to minimise the risk of misidentifications. These are set out in the Authorised Professional Practice guidance by the College of Policing found here: Live facial recognition | College of Policing]. They must also comply with data protection, equality, and human rights laws and are subject to the Information Commissioner’s and Equality and Human Rights Commission’s oversight.
Following a possible live facial recognition alert, it is always a police officer on the ground who will decide what action, if any, to take. Facial recognition technology is not automated decision making – police officers and trained operators will always make the decisions about whether and how to use any suggested matches.
In November we launched a 10 public consultation, ending on 12 February to help shape a new framework on biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies. We want to hear views on when and how the technologies should be used, and what safeguards and oversight are needed. We are aware there have been concerns with the existing laws governing the use of facial recognition, and the consultation has been designed to explore these concerns by asking questions on additional safeguards around transparency, oversight and proportionality
Asked by: David Davis (Conservative - Goole and Pocklington)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether her Department has set a threshold for an acceptable proportion of misidentifications arising from police use of live facial recognition.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office has not assessed the potential merits of a specific compensation scheme for people wrongly identified by live facial recognition used by police.
The Home Office has not set a threshold for an acceptable proportion of misidentifications arising from police use of live facial recognition. However, police use of live facial recognition is subject to safeguards that are designed to minimise the risk of misidentifications. These are set out in the Authorised Professional Practice guidance by the College of Policing found here: Live facial recognition | College of Policing]. They must also comply with data protection, equality, and human rights laws and are subject to the Information Commissioner’s and Equality and Human Rights Commission’s oversight.
Following a possible live facial recognition alert, it is always a police officer on the ground who will decide what action, if any, to take. Facial recognition technology is not automated decision making – police officers and trained operators will always make the decisions about whether and how to use any suggested matches.
In November we launched a 10 public consultation, ending on 12 February to help shape a new framework on biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies. We want to hear views on when and how the technologies should be used, and what safeguards and oversight are needed. We are aware there have been concerns with the existing laws governing the use of facial recognition, and the consultation has been designed to explore these concerns by asking questions on additional safeguards around transparency, oversight and proportionality
Asked by: David Davis (Conservative - Goole and Pocklington)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by how much they plan to reduce their Department's budget to help fund the digital ID scheme.
Answered by Mike Tapp - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
Delivery of the National Digital ID scheme is currently being led by the Cabinet Office, with input from Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Home Office and other government departments.
The Cabinet Office, in collaboration with the Home Office and other government departments, is currently in the process of working through the policy and design decisions that will underpin the Digital ID. Whilst this activity is underway, it is not currently possible to finalise cost estimations and the impact these will have on the Home Office’s budget.
The Cabinet Office will launch a public consultation and has already started engaging key groups. The eventual total cost will also depend on the outcomes of this exercise.
Asked by: David Davis (Conservative - Goole and Pocklington)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what guidance her Department provides to police forces on including children in live facial recognition camera watchlists.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
Guidance on watchlists is provided by the College of Policing in the form of an Authorised Professional Practice. This sets out the categories of people who may be included on a watchlist, which depends on the nature of the deployment. Watchlists must be tailored to a specific policing objective and reviewed before each deployment to ensure they meet the legal tests of necessity and proportionality.
Watchlists may include individuals wanted by the police or the courts, suspects, missing or vulnerable people, or those posing a risk of harm to themselves or others. In some cases, this may include vulnerable individuals such as missing children.
Although there is a legal framework in place, it is complicated, inflexible and difficult for the public and police to understand. That is why we have launched a consultation to support the development of a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies.
Asked by: David Davis (Conservative - Goole and Pocklington)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what guidance her Department provides to police forces on their deployment of live facial recognition cameras.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
Guidance on watchlists is provided by the College of Policing in the form of an Authorised Professional Practice. This sets out the categories of people who may be included on a watchlist, which depends on the nature of the deployment. Watchlists must be tailored to a specific policing objective and reviewed before each deployment to ensure they meet the legal tests of necessity and proportionality.
Watchlists may include individuals wanted by the police or the courts, suspects, missing or vulnerable people, or those posing a risk of harm to themselves or others. In some cases, this may include vulnerable individuals such as missing children.
Although there is a legal framework in place, it is complicated, inflexible and difficult for the public and police to understand. That is why we have launched a consultation to support the development of a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies.
Asked by: David Davis (Conservative - Goole and Pocklington)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if her Department will withdraw outstanding Technical Capability Notices relating to encryption.
Answered by Dan Jarvis - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
For reasons of national security, it has been a long-standing position that the Government does not confirm or deny Technical Capability Notices under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
Asked by: David Davis (Conservative - Goole and Pocklington)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many technical capability notices her Department has issued under s.253 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 in each year, not including the notice rejected by Apple.
Answered by Dan Jarvis - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
For reasons of national security, it has been a long-standing position that the Government does not confirm or deny compliance of operators given a notice under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. We also do not publish the number of technical capability notices issued or release identities of those subject to a technical capability notice. To do so may identify operational capabilities or harm the commercial interests of companies.