On November 13, 2024, MPs took a serious look at live facial recognition (LFR) used by the police for the first time. They agreed on the necessity for a specific law to regulate this technology, rather than relying on the current mixed bag of legislation and guidelines.
During the debate, various concerns were raised. MPs talked about how LFR affects privacy, the potential for bias and racial discrimination, and the lack of a solid legal framework for police use. Many voiced that rolling out this technology could further erode public trust in law enforcement. While opinions diverged on its effectiveness in fighting crime, there was a shared recognition of the legitimate worries surrounding LFR. Notably, many MPs wondered why this topic hadn’t been seriously discussed in previous years.
Historically, Parliament has examined LFR through limited written inquiries, but this debate marked the first in-depth discussion since the Metropolitan Police first used it at Notting Hill Carnival in August 2016. Since then, numerous calls for new regulations have emerged from various parties, including the House of Lords and former biometrics commissioners. Critics, including the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, even suggested a moratorium on LFR as early as July 2019.
Diana Johnson, the policing minister, summarized the new Labour government’s stance. She acknowledged that while the technology could transform policing, it presents legitimate concerns about misidentification, misuse, human rights impacts, and privacy issues. Johnson pointed out that LFR has led to 460 arrests this year, including over 45 registered sex offenders, but maintained that it operates within existing legal frameworks.
On the accuracy of LFR, shadow home secretary Chris Philp highlighted a recent National Physical Laboratory study showing “no statistically significant” racial bias in specific settings. He recalled earlier reports of racial bias and acknowledged improvements in the algorithms since then. However, other MPs contested this. Labour MP Dawn Butler noted that while the current accuracy might be acceptable, there are no rules to prevent police from lowering the face-match threshold, which could lead to higher misidentification rates.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy from Lambeth warned that even with current accuracy rates, mislabeling images is a significant risk. Any technology perceived as flawed could further increase the already high rates of stops and searches for ethnic minorities, damaging public trust in law enforcement.
Legislative oversight emerged as a critical point of discussion. Conservative MP David Davis insisted on the need for specific laws instead of vague guidelines, advocating for transparent rules regarding police use of LFR. He cautioned against the risk of mission creep, referencing how initial technologies can expand without proper oversight.
Iqbal Mohammed, an independent MP, echoed concerns about civil liberties. He highlighted the potential for LFR to deter individuals from engaging in protests out of fear of being monitored.
While some MPs pointed out the technological advancements since LFR’s introduction, others, like Liberal Democrat Bobby Dean, called for a halt to its use until clearer regulations are established. He summed up the room’s sentiment: there are just too many unanswered questions.