Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what threshold applies before police can conduct facial recognition searches against (1) the passport database, (2) the EU Settled Status database, or (3) the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database, in the course of their investigations.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
Police forces can currently request facial recognition searches against the passport database on a limited basis in support of the most serious law enforcement investigations.
No facial recognition searches are currently carried out against the EU Settled Status and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency databases in the course of police investigations to identify people suspected of offences.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether police forces can use facial recognition technology to search against photographs from (1) the passport database, (2) the EU Settled Status database, and (3) the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database, to identify people suspected of offences.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
Police forces can currently request facial recognition searches against the passport database on a limited basis in support of the most serious law enforcement investigations.
No facial recognition searches are currently carried out against the EU Settled Status and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency databases in the course of police investigations to identify people suspected of offences.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what are the legal methods for refugees who are citizens of Somalia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Eritrea, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar or the Democratic Republic of the Congo to apply for asylum in the UK when they are (1) living in the country of their citizenship, (2) living in a safe third country, or (3) living in an unsafe third country.
Answered by Lord Murray of Blidworth
Whilst we sympathise with people in many difficult situations around the world, we are not bound to consider asylum claims from the very large numbers of people overseas who might like to come here. Asylum is for people in danger in their home country. Those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach – that is the fastest route to safety.
Between 2015 and December 2022, just under half a million people were offered safe and legal routes into the UK– including those from Hong Kong, Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine as well as family members of refugees.
This includes over 28,200 refugees resettled through the government’s refugee resettlement schemes. Our family reunion policy has also reunited many refugees with their family members; we have issued over 44,659 visas under our refugee family reunion Rules since 2015. The UK is one of the largest recipients of UNHCR referred refugees globally, second only to Sweden in Europe since 2015.
The UK continues to welcome refugees and people in need through existing resettlement schemes which include the UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS), Community Sponsorship, the Mandate Resettlement Scheme and the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS).
Further information on existing safe and legal routes is available below:
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what are the legal routes to the UK for citizens of Somalia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Eritrea, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar or the Democratic Republic of the Congo who are applying for asylum.
Answered by Lord Murray of Blidworth
The UK does not accept asylum claims from abroad. Whilst we sympathise with people in many difficult situations around the world, we are not bound to consider asylum claims from the very large numbers of people overseas who might like to come here. Those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach which is the fastest route to safety, in line with the 1951 UN Convention.
Our resettlement schemes have provided safe and legal routes for tens of thousands of people including global schemes to start new lives in the UK. The UK welcomes people from all over the world through the UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS), Mandate Resettlement Scheme, Community Sponsorship as well as country specific routes such as Afghan Citizens’ Resettlement Scheme as well as Ukraine and BNO schemes. This commitment, alongside a fair and firm asylum system, will ensure we continue to offer safe and legal routes to the UK for those in need of protection.
There are additional global safe and legal routes for people to come to the UK should they wish to join family members here, work or study. They would need to meet the requirements of the relevant Immigration Rule under which they were applying to qualify for a visa. Details about the criteria and how to apply are available on GOV.UK at: http://www.gov.uk/apply-uk-visa.
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 - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of 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 - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of 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 - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of 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 - 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).
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).
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.