Iqbal Mohamed MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Even celebrities such as Emma Raducanu, and others in the public eye who have been affected by stalkers, feel unsafe and unprotected by existing legislation. Does the hon. Member agree that is clear additional evidence that the law needs strengthening?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the inquiry and the investigation into who was responsible for helping this scourge to continue unabated, but does the right hon. Lady agree that the 20 recommendations of the Jay review urgently need to be implemented and that the inquiry should not delay the implementation of those recommendations?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for his personal efforts to achieve some justice, and for the attempts to get aid into Palestine and Gaza in order to save lives. However, as a new Member, I have been coming to the Chamber for 11 months, riding on the coat-tails of many right hon. and hon. Members who have gone before me, and who are here today, who have been fighting for this cause for many years before I arrived. We have heard only words and rhetoric from the Government; there has been no meaningful action to save lives, beyond the aid that was allowed in earlier. What steps are the Government taking to finally get aid into Gaza, so that we can save the babies, the starving children, the mothers and all of humanity? Otherwise, tens of thousands of people will no longer be here in a few days’ time.

• 19 May 2025 · Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her statement. She is absolutely right. I join the Opposition in condemning the criminals who perpetrated this attack. She has already explained what constituents who may be impacted should do, and I will not ask her to repeat that, but can she assure this House that the learnings from this cyber-attack are already being applied across Government and the public sector? If extra steps are required to access legal aid or process payments by legal aid providers, will the providers be compensated accordingly?

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Before I begin, I want to pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members for their extremely informed, personal and moving speeches in support of the positive elements of the Bill, and for making extremely important, constructive suggestions about how to make it even better than it is. I stand today to speak in strong support of the Bill, and the urgent and long overdue reform of our mental health legislation. The Mental Health Act 1983, now 40 years old, was designed for a different era. While it has provided a legal framework for detaining and treating individuals in crisis, it no longer reflects our modern understanding of mental illness, patient rights or best clinical practice. As we have heard, the Act governs both civil patients and those involved in the criminal justice system, and it includes powers such as community treatment orders, but it is clear that the system it underpins is no longer fit for purpose. The need for reform is stark and obvious. Patients detained under the Act often have little say in their treatment or about who is involved in their care. As we have heard, racial disparities are deeply entrenched, with black or black British people 3.5 times more likely to be detained and 11 times more likely to be placed under a community treatment order. The journey towards reform began with the 2018 independent review, led by Sir Simon Wessely, which identified rising detention rates, poor patient experience and systemic disadvantages for people with learning disabilities and autism. A draft Bill followed in 2023, and I commend the Government for taking forward the proposed Bill. Each year, approximately 54,000 individuals are detained under the Mental Health Act. Alarmingly, as I have mentioned, black individuals are nearly four times more likely to be detained and 11 times more likely to be placed under a CTO. Furthermore, nearly 1,000 young people are detained annually, yet over half report that their hospital stay did not aid their recovery. These statistics are not just numbers; they are a call to action. There are serious concerns about the treatment of people with learning disabilities and autism. While the Bill rightly ends inappropriate detentions under section 3 of the Mental Health Act when there is no co-occurring mental illness, the delay in implementation due to the lack of resources raises fears of criminalisation, misdiagnoses, and exclusion from aftercare. We need a fully costed plan, with clear targets and accountability, to support this vulnerable group. Mind, the leading mental health charity, has identified a further three critical areas in which the Bill must go further. The first is tackling racial disparities. The disproportionate detention of black individuals under the current Act is a glaring injustice. The Bill must include measures to reduce this disparity, such as limits on the use of community treatment orders, and the introduction of a “responsible person” to oversee treatment decisions. Additionally, a statutory duty to monitor and report on progress against these inequalities is essential. I therefore support the creation of a dedicated role to monitor and act on racial disparities in detention and treatment. Secondly, the principle of least restriction is central to the Bill, yet it remains aspirational; there are no enforceable rights. Patients should have a statutory right to assessments and treatment, the ability to appeal treatment decisions, and expanded access to advocacy services. These rights are about not just legal protection, but respecting the dignity and autonomy of individuals facing mental health challenges. Thirdly, young people detained under the Mental Health Act often find themselves without adequate support or a voice in decisions about their care. The Bill must include a transparent decision-making test, tailored for children and young people, to ensure that their best interests are at the forefront of all treatment decisions. There should also be safeguards and the standardisation of advance choice documents. The Government say that the implementation timelines could be up to a decade, but I urge them to implement each element of the Bill as soon as is practically possible. This Bill is very welcome, and this is a pivotal moment in the history of mental health care in our country. It is a huge step forward, but it could go further. To truly transform mental health care, we must ensure that the legislation is not only progressive in its intentions, but robust in its protections. We have the opportunity to create a system that upholds the rights, dignity and humanity of every individual. Let us therefore not pass up this chance to make all the necessary changes. Let us amend this Bill to reflect the values of equality, autonomy and respect, and take this once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a fit-for-purpose mental health system that is fairer, more compassionate and more effective. I urge the Government to take this opportunity to address the gaps, take heed of the recommendations and concerns, and make the Bill right and proper.

• 15 May 2025 · Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  The UK rightly has imposed sanctions on Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine and on Putin for war crimes. The UK has imposed sanctions on officials in Syria for breaches of international humanitarian law, for targeting hospitals, schools and aid convoys and for obstructing humanitarian aid, as well as for the use of chemical weapons and the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. How do the Government therefore justify the absence of similar sanctions on senior members of the Israeli Government, when there is clear evidence of Israel perpetrating the same violations? What actions have the UK Government taken to comply with their obligations specified in the International Court of Justice advisory opinion from July 2024 to withdraw all political, economic and diplomatic support that helps perpetuate Israel’s unlawful occupation of Palestine?

• 14 May 2025 · Gaza: UK Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has stated that the legality of the UK’s F-35 exports is currently being tested in the courts. In the High Court, the Government have made submissions that “No evidence has been seen that Israel is deliberately targeting civilian women or children”, and that there is “also evidence of Israel making efforts to limit incidental harm to civilians.” If the Government need to be shown evidence that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, I suggest the Minister and his colleagues review the footage captured by the BBC of yesterday’s bombing of Gaza’s European hospital, the footage emerging from the Nasser hospital, the millions of hours of livestreamed footage available since 7 October, or the thousands of reports and articles published since. The past 18 months have seen a total war on all of Gaza, with acts of ethnic cleansing and extermination, according to the UN. Does the UK deny the existence of that evidence, and if so, have the Government committed perjury?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Victims of Domestic Abuse: Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  Over the weekend, I dealt with a case in which a homeless pregnant woman, who was a victim of domestic abuse, was kicked out of her temporary accommodation by Kirklees council for no real reason and left on the street. Will the Minister explain or share with this House what steps will be taken to prevent councils from turfing out pregnant women who are victims of domestic abuse on to the street?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Jammu and Kashmir: Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate. I have many Kashmiris in my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, and one of the pledges I made to them during my election campaign was that I promised to stand up for peace, justice and human rights anywhere around the world. Kashmir is their homeland and very close to their hearts and my heart. A report issued by Amnesty International last year captures the reality of the repression to which the Kashmiri population are subjected. It describes a clampdown on freedom of expression via the use of restrictive travel bans and arbitrary detentions to intimidate critical dissenting voices into not speaking out. It describes how those subject to detention under stringent anti-terror laws are now being detained for much longer without trial than before: the average was 269 days between 2014 and 2019, and about 330 days from 2019 to 2024. This is, in effect, a form of internment. We know from the experience of internment in Northern Ireland in the 1970s that it did nothing more than act as a recruiting agent for paramilitary organisations. Add to that the extrajudicial killings, the police and army abuses, the Indian Government’s decision to strip Kashmir of its autonomy and statehood, and the draconian crackdown that followed in its wake, and it is not surprising that the region is in constant ferment. What is surprising is how little is known in this country about the state of affairs in Kashmir, especially considering the British Government’s historical role in the creation of Kashmir, the partition of India, and all the chaos that came in its wake. The UK has a historic responsibility for the current situation. It has a responsibility to put rhetoric about upholding human rights into practice and to use governmental pressure on India to that end. I have no illusions about the difficulties in making the British Government act. As the plight of the Palestinians illustrates, the UK’s commitment to human rights exists more in theory than in practice. Nevertheless, thanks to public campaigning, the issue of Palestine will not leave this Government alone—it is like a stone in their shoe. For those of us concerned about the issue of human rights and self-determination for Kashmir, the challenge is to make it the stone in the other shoe. The Government must take responsibility and a leadership role as a peacemaker and enforcer of international law. What will the Government do to remove the impunity they provide the Indian Government for their many breaches of international and humanitarian law? What specific steps will the Government take to enforce the UN resolutions that have already been mentioned? What diplomatic engagement is the UK using to seek a peaceful resolution for the Kashmiri people and the right to self-determination? What action are the UK Government taking to enforce human rights in Kashmir? What humanitarian aid are the UK Government providing to Kashmir, and how will that be impacted by the decision to reduce foreign aid by 40%?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Sexual Exploitation and Trafficking · Hansard source

  More

  What measures is the Minister taking to address the record backlog of court cases in the UK, which, as the chief inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service and Serious Fraud Office has warned, is on target to hit 100,000? In particular, can she comment on the call for changes to be made to the way that court cases are prioritised, which at present is resulting in victims of serious crimes, including sexual trafficking, exploitation and rape, facing years-long waits for trials, while less serious crimes are prioritised ahead in the queue?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I stand in support of the objectives and aims of the Bill. Having worked with data and technology for more than 30 years, I wholeheartedly support the ethical, responsible and equitable use of technology and data to benefit and make easier the lives of the people of the UK, and to increase the efficiency of service delivery in the public sector. I also pay tribute to campaign groups including Big Brother Watch and Justice for their work to protect the vital privacy and data protection rights of people in the UK. I want to share some concerns I have on the Bill, focused on two areas: clause 70 and clause 80. I urge the Government to take note and amend the Bill to ensure that the British public’s privacy rights and rights to equality and non-discrimination are not compromised. Clause 70 will weaken protections around personal data processing, thereby reducing the scope of the data that is protected by safeguards in data protection law. I am particularly concerned about the executive power to determine recognised legitimate interests, which will allow for more data to be processed with fewer safeguards than is currently permitted and reduce existing protections that ensure the lawful use of data. I am also concerned about the increased power of the Secretary of State to amend the definition of “recognised legitimate interest” through secondary legislation without appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Currently, automated decision making is broadly prohibited, with specific exemptions. Clause 80 will permit it in all but a limited set of circumstances. That will strip the public of the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions, which risks exacerbating the likely possibility of unfair, opaque and discriminatory outcomes from ADM systems; limiting individuals’ rights to challenge ADM; permitting ADM use in law enforcement and intelligence, with significant carve-outs in relation to the existing safeguards; and giving the Secretary of State executive control over the ADM regulatory framework through secondary legislation. They may not be direct examples, but Horizon and the many Department for Work and Pensions scandals show the failings and risks of relying solely on automation and AI. The Bill introduces a new regime for digital verification services. It sets out a series of rules governing the future use and oversight of digital identities as part of the Government’s road map towards digital identity verification. The framework currently lacks important safeguards and human rights principles that prevent the broad sharing of the public’s identity data beyond its original purpose. Further, the Bill misses the opportunity to take a positive, inclusive step to codify a right for members of the public to use non-digital ID where reasonably practicable. Such a right is vital to protect privacy and equality in the digital age. The right to use a non-digital ID where practicable would protect accessibility, inclusion and people’s choice in how they choose to verify their identities when accessing public and private services, legally protecting the millions of people who cannot or do not want to hand over personal identity data online where an alternative is reasonably practicable. Returning to automated decision making, it is clearly insufficient to move the burden of safeguards from the data controller, who is currently responsible for preventing harm, to the individual to complain if the ADM is unfair, since people may not complain due to a lack of knowledge or confidence, intimidation and various intersecting vulnerabilities.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the ceasefire and the release of hostages? Let us all pray that the remaining hostages on both sides are released as soon as possible. Since the ceasefire in Gaza came into effect, Israeli forces have placed the whole of the west bank under strict military inspection as part of the Iron Wall operation. The Israel Defence Forces have launched a large-scale offensive operation in the city of Jenin, with numerous drone strikes on the infrastructure and a military raid by IDF troops and special forces in the occupied west bank. At least nine people have been killed by Israeli forces and 40 have been injured, including several healthcare workers. What urgent steps are the Government taking to protect Palestinians—including healthcare workers—and to prevent atrocities in the west bank, and will the Prime Minister outline the UK’s response to the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on Israel’s unlawful occupation?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and I also pay tribute to all those who have helped to bring about this agreement to stop the killing. I pray that Israel accepts and honours the agreement and subsequent stages. The Foreign Secretary spoke about darkness, and 7 October was indeed a dark day for innocent Israelis and Palestinians, and for humanity. However, it would be unjust not to acknowledge that the Palestinians have been suffering dark days every day for over 75 years, with the UK and the international community turning a blind eye—and many aiding and abetting. We all welcome the announcement of this ceasefire to suspend hostilities in Gaza. Although we hope and pray that the temporary pause will free all hostages on both sides, save Palestinian and Israeli lives, and alleviate some of the unspeakable suffering that the Israeli military has inflicted on Gaza, it marks the beginning, not the end, of efforts to restore health, dignity, justice and freedom to the Palestinian people, who have suffered beyond words. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK will oppose any attempt by Israel to annex or settle parts of Gaza or further parts of the west bank? Will he confirm the UK’s commitment to ending the long-standing root causes of violence and humanitarian need in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including Israel’s illegal occupation, blockade and widespread violations of international law?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for the steps the Government are taking to address this serious issue. I appreciate that the timetable for the implementation of the IICSA recommendations cannot be immediately shared, but waiting until Easter means there is a big period when we need to take some action. Will she explain what immediate steps the Government are taking to ensure that all alleged victims who come forward are treated, taken seriously and listened to, and that immediate action is taken to address their allegations, so as to serve justice and protect these children?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the opportunity to take part in this very important debate, and I pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members for their extremely powerful, informed and personal contributions. According to the Office for National Statistics, 851,062 domestic abuse-related crimes were reported in England and Wales in the year ending March 2024. The NSPCC has reported that police in England and Wales made an average of 669 child protection referrals per day to social services in the last year. This week, I have been shocked to hear that an average of 500,000 children a year might be being abused in our country. We in this place must do everything in our power to protect those who have been victims and those who may end up becoming victims through our inaction. I do not want to make this a party political issue. I recognise the potential failings of the last Government to inform the debate, but I acknowledge the positive steps that they took in this space. However, we are here today because those steps were not enough, and I am grateful to those on the Opposition Benches for supporting the motion. The root causes of VAWG are not excuses for perpetrators to commit crimes, but they may lead to higher risks or a more difficult experience for those affected. Austerity and the devastating cuts to public services reduced funding for services that support victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, and the cuts have led to fewer resources and support options for women in need. The weakening of social welfare programmes through policies aimed at reducing social welfare spending can disproportionately affect women, who are more likely to rely on such programmes. That leads to increased economic insecurity and vulnerability to abuse. There are insufficient legal protections and a lack of funding for the courts, and there has been criticism of the enforcement of laws relating to domestic violence and sexual abuse. Inadequate training for law enforcement and judicial personnel can result in poor handling of cases and insufficient protection for victims. There is also a lack of focus on gender equality. Policies that do not actively promote gender equality can perpetuate systemic issues that put women at risk, because they do not address the gender pay gap, the lack of affordable childcare, the insufficient support for women in the workforce, and the failure to implement the recommendations of the Jay review in order to support victims of child sexual abuse and protect children from the same risks. A constituent came to my surgery and recounted her experience. The person she was living with had drugged and raped her repeatedly. She had reported this to the police, who promised to take immediate action and arrest the alleged perpetrator. I will not go into the details here but, unfortunately, the perpetrator is currently living not very far from the victim who alleged abuse against him. I urge the Government to take immediate steps to protect those who have been abused, or who are making allegations of abuse, from the further trauma of living close by and having their alleged abuser walking the same streets, leaving them feeling unsafe every single moment of the day. I welcome and commend the Government’s commitment to cutting violence against all women and girls by 50% over the next 10 years, and I associate myself with the positive policies that have been proposed, but I urge them not to leave any stone unturned and to put in place, once and for all, the maximum practical measures to reduce the harm to women and girls forever. I draw attention to the plight of women and children in BAME communities. They face similar issues, but they also face language barriers, the fear of not being believed or understood, and the fear of discrimination by statutory services such as the police and social services.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Every single person who reports a crime, especially violent or sexual abuse, must be taken seriously from the moment they present their issue to the relevant authority or any responsible person. Any person who turns a blind eye to such reports is directly or indirectly complicit. We need to tighten up the processes. Of course, we want to avoid miscarriages of justice, but it is really important that people are listened to. Women and children in BAME communities fear they may become isolated from their family or community if they seek help or leave a relationship, or, where their immigration status is an issue, they fear they may lose their residency in the UK. It is therefore imperative that support services are culturally aware and sensitive to the needs of BAME women to provide them with specialised—

• 7 Jan 2025 · Workplace Pay Gaps · Hansard source

  More

  The happiest of new years to all. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing this important debate. Over 1,400 years ago, Islam placed a strong emphasis on justice and fairness in all aspects of life, including the workplace. The principle of equal pay for equal work aligns with Islamic teachings that advocate for equity, justice and human dignity. Several hadiths and Koranic verses highlight the importance of fair treatment and appropriate remuneration for employees. Islamic principles also stress that wage disparities based on race, gender, colour or nationality are unjust and contradict the core values of Islam and humanity. In more recent times, it is remarkable that nearly a century after women gained equal rights to vote in this country, and half a century since the introduction of the Equal Pay Act 1970, significant gaps remain in pay for women—especially women from minority ethnic backgrounds—and for those with disabilities. I therefore welcome the measures in the Employment Rights Bill as an important step in the right direction to redress this wrong through proposals to extend reporting requirements on employers and for employers to develop and publish equality action plans, including measures to address the pay gap. However, as hon. Members have stated, action plans on their own are not enough; they must be implemented and enforced. I would like the Government to provide further clarification on two areas. I note the findings in the report by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development for 2022-23 that nearly a fifth of large employers with more than 250 employees said that they had not carried out gender pay gap reporting, despite its being a requirement for all businesses with 250 employees or more in England, Scotland and Wales. Enforcement of the reporting regulations is a responsibility of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that sufficiently robust measures are in place to ensure that employers meet their reporting requirements, as well as ensuring the enforcement of the implementation of action plans? I also note the TUC’s recommendation that the same reporting requirements be extended to businesses with 50 employees or more. Can the Minister explain why the Bill confines itself to businesses with 250 employees or more? Why does it not seek to cast the net wider? Taking comprehensive steps to address the gender, ethnicity and disability pay gaps is a moral and legal imperative that the Government must address in full, once and for all.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on behalf of the independent alliance MPs in relation to our correspondence with Ministers. We have written to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary on numerous occasions without receiving a reply. On 5 August, we wrote to the Home Secretary asking for a meeting following the far-right riots. We have yet to receive a response. On 25 October, we wrote to the Chancellor asking her to abolish the two-child benefit cap and to reverse the cuts in the winter fuel allowance. We received a holding reply which read “we have received your submission to the Autumn Budget process”, but no further reply has been received. On 18 November, we wrote to the Prime Minister asking him what legal advice he had received on the definition of genocide in relation to the situation in Gaza, and what action he was taking to prevent genocide. We have not received a response. On 18 November, we also wrote to the Attorney General asking him what legal advice he had offered the Prime Minister on the definition of genocide in relation to the situation in Gaza. We have not received a response to that either. On 21 November, we wrote to the Prime Minister asking him if the Government would enforce the arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court, and what action he was taking to prevent genocide. Again, we have not received a response. We wrote those letters on behalf of our constituents, and they deserve answers to our questions. Could you please advise us, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the best way to secure a reply to our letters, and to ensure that Ministers reply to letters that we may write in the future?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Nearly 3,000 prisoners are still incarcerated under imprisonment for public protection sentences, which were abolished more than 12 years ago, many for offences not intended to be covered by such sentences. Will the Justice Secretary commit to expediting the Government plans to re-sentence all prisoners still stuck on indefinite IPP sentences to free up limited prison capacity?

• 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this important debate. I have researched this subject and listened to hon. Members’ contributions, and it has been frankly shocking to learn that LFR has been in use since 2017 without any specific legislation in place to control its use and protect our civil liberties. That is seven years too many without legislation. Although I agree that the use of real-time facial recognition in the United Kingdom promises enhanced security and efficiency, it also raises significant legal and moral concerns, and there are severe adverse consequences for our society. As a former software test manager, I am extremely concerned that private companies that profit from their technology are allowed to self-regulate and to confirm the efficacy of the products that they sell, and that the police are guided by those companies in how to use the tools and rely on the companies’ reports of their efficacy to take legal action against innocent civilians. The technology operates by capturing and analysing highly sensitive and personal biometric data. As has been mentioned, the legal framework for its use is complex and at times insufficient. The Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation provide some safeguards, requiring data processing to be fair, necessary and proportionate. However, the lack of specific legislation for facial recognition technology leaves huge room for misuse and overreach. The deployment of this technology without explicit consent undermines several of our fundamental rights, some of which have been mentioned. The first is the right to privacy: constant surveillance and the collection of biometric data without explicit consent infringe an individual’s privacy rights. This is particularly concerning when the technology is used in public spaces without people’s knowledge. The second right is the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression. The use of facial recognition can deter individuals from participating in protests or public gatherings due to the fear of being monitored or identified. This undermines the fundamental right to assemble and express opinions freely. The third right is the right to non-discrimination. As has been mentioned, facial recognition systems have been shown to have higher error rates for people of colour, women and younger individuals. This bias can lead to disproportionate targeting and wrongful arrests, exacerbating existing inequalities and discrimination. The final right is the right to data protection. The collection, storage and processing of biometric data must comply with data protection laws. Inadequate safeguards can lead to unauthorised access and misuse of personal data. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) cited examples of how this technology is used in Russia and China, and we know that it is used extensively in Israel as part of its apartheid regime and occupation of the Palestinian people. Violations highlight the need for strict regulation and oversight to ensure that the deployment of facial recognition technology does not infringe fundamental human rights. The technology subjects individuals to constant surveillance, often without their knowledge, eroding trust in public institutions. The ethical principle of autonomy is compromised when people are unaware that their biometric data is being collected and analysed. Let me cite some examples of the technology’s inefficacy and unreliability. In 2020, the Court of Appeal found that South Wales police’s use of facial recognition technology was unlawful, and that the force had breached privacy rights and failed to adequately assess the risks to individual freedoms. The technology’s accuracy is not infallible: misidentifications can lead to miscarriages of justice, where innocent individuals are wrongly accused or detained. The disproportionate impact of FR technology on black people and people of colour is particularly concerning. Research has consistently shown that these systems are more likely to misidentify individuals from those groups. For example, a National Institute of Standards and Technology study—I do not know how old it is—found that FR algorithms were up to 100 times more likely to misidentify black and Asian faces than white faces. This disparity not only undermines the technology’s reliability, but perpetuates systemic racism. In practice, this means that black people and people of colour are more likely to be subjected to unwanted surveillance and scrutiny, which can lead to a range of negative outcomes. There are other examples of miscarriages of justice and misuse. In one instance, the Metropolitan police used FR technology at the Notting Hill carnival, leading to the wrongful identification and harassment of innocent individuals. These and the other examples cited by hon. Members underscore the potential for significant harm when this technology is deployed without adequate safeguards. In conclusion, although facial recognition technology offers potential benefits, its deployment must be carefully regulated to prevent misuse and protect individual rights. The legal framework needs to be strengthened to ensure that the use of technology is transparent, accountable and subject to rigorous oversight. We must also address the inherent bias in these systems to prevent further entrenchment of racial inequalities. As we navigate the complexities of integrating new technologies into our society, let us prioritise the protection of our fundamental rights and ensure that advancements serve to enhance rather than undermine our collective wellbeing.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about the automatic deletion of data, there are many examples, but the one I can remember is Google incognito browsing mode. That was meant to be very private—only you saw where you went—but Google was found to be storing that data, and it has been legally challenged and prosecuted for breaching the GDPR or other privacy laws. Companies may say that things are immediately deleted, but it is not always true.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Gaza and Humanitarian Aid · Hansard source

  More

  Throughout the past 12 months, the UK Government have failed to highlight or prevent the Israeli Government’s denial of international assistance into Gaza and their clear breaches of international humanitarian law. The UK has also failed to highlight the Israeli Government’s not complying with International Court of Justice orders, which require them to facilitate the unimpeded access to Gaza of United Nations and other officials engaged in the provision of humanitarian aid. The UK is failing to stand up for international law as Israeli forces are forcibly transferring civilians as we speak—