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.
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 - 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.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the recommendation from the Interception of Communications Commissioner that judicial authorisation is obtained in cases where communications data are sought to determine the source of journalistic information, whether they intend to implement the recommendation; and, if so, when.
Answered by Lord Bates
The Government indicated on the day that the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s inquiry report was published that we accepted the recommendations in it in full. We will bring forward the necessary legislation as soon as Parliamentary time allows.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government which Acts of Parliament prohibit the use of international mobile subscriber identity catchers to monitor and jam mobile devices in a locality.
Answered by Lord Bates
The Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 makes it an offence for a person to interfere with wireless telegraphy or to use wireless telegraphy with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of a message of which neither he nor a person on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient. The lawfulness of any particular technology will depend on its nature and the context in which it is used.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how official police use of international mobile subscriber identity catchers is authorised.
Answered by Lord Bates
Investigative activity involving interference with property or wireless telegraphy is regulated by the Police Act 1997 which sets out the high level of authorisation required before the police can undertake such activity. Use of these powers is overseen by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners.