Iqbal Mohamed MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 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?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Everyone in my constituency, and indeed in the whole country, knows that the last Tory Government decimated public services after 14 years of austerity, mismanagement, negligence and a sole focus on the rich, at the expense and neglect of the poor working class and the public sector. I sympathise with the new Government, and I will try to provide constructive support. I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s announcements in the Budget of increased investment in education, the NHS, infrastructure projects and other public services, but, like many other people in the House and throughout the country, I do not agree with the approach taken to the funding of those investments. Members on both sides of the Committee have indicated today that failing to protect key sectors and services such as general practices, care homes, pharmacies, childcare providers and third sector providers may have been an oversight or a mistake on the Government’s part, but I am not so sure. On the basis of the Government’s other blanket policies on abolishing the winter fuel allowance, imposing VAT on all private schools including low-fee and charitable schools and removing business rates relief from all private schools and charities without any announcement of safeguarding or compensatory measures to protect these services and sectors, it appears to have been a deliberate, or negligent, decision. It is clear that the Government inherited a dire state of affairs that requires huge investment, which must be paid for in a responsible way. I am sorry to say that the way that has been chosen by this new Labour Government is not the right one. Viable and progressive alternatives are available to the Government to raise finances for the necessary investment rather than inflicting the increase in national insurance contributions on the impacted bodies. Let me suggest a couple of easy measures that would support the Government’s investment. One possible solution is the imposition of a 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, which would raise the amount predicted to be raised by national insurance contributions; another is the closing of corporation tax loopholes that allow corporations to save billions and to offshore profits.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I join my hon. Friends in expressing my condolences to all those who have been killed on both sides since not only 7 October but 1948. I join in the condemnation of all war crimes committed by any state actor or group. As Israel launches a land grab in Syria and continues to bomb Lebanon, there is a danger that its continuing actions in Gaza will get lost in the egregious cycle of death and destruction in the middle east. It is timely, therefore, that we discuss yet again what contribution the UK can make to peace in the region. Unfortunately, the record of this Government to date has been abysmal. As mentioned by my hon. Friends, the UK continues to supply spare parts for F-35 fighter jets, playing a major part in the Israeli military offensive, and it refuses to introduce any meaningful actions. Words and condolences, as well as reports of meetings to press Israeli officials to do more, are not enough, and there is much more that the UK can do. Worse, in their refusal to admit the nature of the military offensive in Gaza, the Government are culpable in the mass murder taking place. Our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary may not understand what constitutes acts of genocide in international law, but thankfully human rights organisations do. We have heard about the recent Amnesty International report, which is unequivocal that Israeli actions against Gaza’s 2.3 million population are genocide. Note is also made of how the Israeli Government are acting with “impunity”. Our Government, the US and other allies to Israel have granted it immunity from war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide for decades. Today is the day that that must stop. The British Government must end their complicity in Israeli war crimes and the genocide that is taking place. Our role must be to challenge the arrogance and complacency of Israel and send the message that Palestine exists. Its people have a right to live free of occupation and to have a state of their own. The Government claim they are committed to a two-state solution, as is everybody in this room, but they have taken no meaningful action to make it a reality. The recognition of a Palestinian state is therefore a prerequisite to peace. The reply normally given to the ask of recognition for Palestine is, “This is not the right time to recognise a Palestinian state.” However, from all the strong, passionate and powerful speeches that we have heard, it is clear that the time is now. We know from our experience of the peace process in Northern Ireland that it is too simple to reduce political violence to irrational hatred or religious bigotry. Where we have a political conflict, we have political reasons to create a pathway to solutions. The Government can help create that pathway by stopping their supply of spare parts for F-35 fighter jets and all other weapons and by joining the vast majority of UN members in formally recognising a Palestinian state.

• 12 Dec 2024 · SEND Provision: Autism and ADHD · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the Minister’s comments. Part of ensuring that we provide the correct support to children is ensuring that the education, health and care plan assessment process is effective. I was told by a charity worker in my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley that 95% of appeals in Kirklees against a conclusion that SEND support is not needed are successful. Does she agree that this is a terrible waste of council resources, and that EHCP assessments must be done properly and got right the first time, so that children can be given support as soon as possible?

• 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?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) states, there are documented health risks with first-cousin marriage, and I agree that there is a need for greater awareness about that issue. Virginity testing and forced marriages must be prevented, and the freedom of women must be protected at all times. However, the way to redress the issue is not to empower the state to ban adults from marrying each other, not least because I do not think such measures would be effective or enforceable. Instead, the matter needs to be approached as a health awareness issue and, where women are being forced against their will to undergo marriage, as a cultural awareness issue. In doing so, it is important to recognise that this is a highly sensitive issue for many people. In discussing it, we should try to step into the shoes of those who perhaps are not from the same culture as ours, to better understand why the practice continues to be so widespread. An estimated 35% to 50% of all sub-Saharan African populations either prefer or accept cousin marriage, and it is extremely common in the middle east and south Asia. The reason the practice is so common is that ordinary people see family intermarriage as something that is very positive overall; as something that helps to build family bonds and puts families on a more secure financial foothold. However, as is well documented, it is not without health risks for the children of those relationships, some of whom will be born out of wedlock. Instead of stigmatising those who are in cousin marriages, or those who are inclined to be, a much more positive approach would be to facilitate advanced genetic test screening for prospective married couples, as is the case in all Arab countries in the Persian gulf, and to run health education programmes targeting those communities where the practice is most common. I therefore urge the House to vote against the motion and to find a more positive approach to addressing the issues that are caused by first-cousin marriage, including the health risks, and the consequences of modern conflicts and displacement of populations around the world. Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to. Ordered, That Mr Richard Holden, Robert Jenrick, Dan Carden, Claire Coutinho, David Smith, Neil O’Brien, Lee Anderson, Mr Andrew Snowden, John Lamont, Nick Timothy, Katie Lam and Laura Trott present the Bill. Mr Richard Holden accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 17 January 2025, and to be printed (Bill 146).

• 9 Dec 2024 · Syria · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement. I welcome his confirmation of the continuation of UK humanitarian aid to the people of Syria. I also welcome his commitment that the future governance of Syria must be decided by the Syrian people and not by foreign actors. Does he agree that a safe, secure, stable and prosperous Syria is in the interests of not only the Syrian people but Britain? Will he commit the UK to taking all possible steps to support the peaceful transition to such a Syria?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Waste and Recycling · Hansard source

  More

  I worked across Europe for more than 15 years, and a DRS scheme has been in place all over Europe during all that time. I have been hearing for so long that it would arrive in the UK, but it has not, so I would be interested to hear the timescales. Also, will the Government consider putting restrictions on the use of fresh plastics for drinks bottles? Instead of them being recyclable, can we make them recycled?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Waste and Recycling · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman. My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the matter of consumers taking responsibility for recycling, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the prevalence of accessible recycling centres, and having them close to where people live, is important in increasing the volume of recycling that we can achieve? One recycling centre that was used by my constituents has been closed down, which means that the nearest centre now is more than 3 miles away. Does he agree that keeping these recycling centres open and making them more effective at recycling would be a step forward?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Waste and Recycling · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 3 Dec 2024 · Home-to-School Transport: Children with SEND · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock for securing this important debate. In my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, more than 300 pupils of sixth-form age with SEND are eligible to have their costs covered by the local authority. Unfortunately, council budget to cover their costs has just been slashed by £1.6 million. The result is that families will have to cover the shortfall themselves. That picture is repeated up and down the country because, as the National Audit Office warns, the current system of funding is unsustainable as a result of the crisis in local government funding. The situation will only get worse when we consider that the number of children in England with an EHCP has more than doubled over the past decade, and we can expect it to continue to rise. I welcome plans to improve existing provision and build a more integrated system that includes the NHS, but we also need the funding streams to ensure that SEND children from all socioeconomic backgrounds can access improved services. If the Government listened to the teaching unions, local authorities and families who are calling for extra SEND funding, and for councils’ high-needs deficits to be written off, that would be a good start.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, start by joining the Deputy Prime Minister in expressing my sincere condolences to the families tragically impacted by this avoidable disaster. I welcome her statement and the positive steps and actions she has outlined to address the findings of the inquiry. I welcome the plans to introduce heavy penalties for those who fail to meet repair deadlines, but I share the concerns of campaigners that the timescales for making properties safe are way too long. The Deputy Prime Minister may say that the Government are taking “decisive action”, but the building safety fund was first opened for registration in 2020. The 2029 target must not be for the first building to be remediated—it must be guaranteed to be when the last one will be. For over seven years, residents and leaseholders have continued to live with the mental anguish that the properties they and their families go to sleep in every night are unsafe, aware that what happened to the residents of Grenfell could well happen to them. As we have heard, residents also face extortionate home insurance bills and rising costs for repairs that should be the sole responsibility of the developers, while leaseholders face ruin, financially trapped in properties that they bought in good faith but were built in bad faith. To widen the argument and the issue at hand, the picture of property developers cutting corners to make a profit and disregarding human life in the process is one that, before Grenfell, we wanted to believe belonged to a bygone era. Unfortunately, it is very much the reality of 21st-century Britain; a culture has become embedded where corporate bosses think they can get away with cutting corners in the pursuit of profit. We have seen the ugly imprint of that culture again and again, whether it is Government lobbyists scamming the public purse during the covid crisis, water companies polluting our rivers, the blatant disregard for truth and basic decency in the Post Office Horizon scandal, or people being burned alive in buildings that are not fit for purpose. The only way to root out that culture is regulation to protect the public from those who seek to exploit them, and I am concerned that the Deputy Prime Minister does not go nearly far enough in that regard. We know that the property industry in general is rife with profiteering, and I am concerned that we will see more of the same as property agents hike up fees, earning hundreds of millions of pounds in the process by charging administration fees on works to make buildings safe. In opposition, the Labour party committed to preventing this by calling for the nationalisation of the process of fixing high-rise flats to eliminate administration fees, and I encourage the Government to pursue that policy. I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to consider applying the risk assessment to buildings of under 11 metres as well. Campaigners are right to say not only that a comprehensive risk assessment must apply to buildings of all heights, but that building safety crises go far beyond external cladding and a holistic approach must give equal consideration to non-cladding defects—

• 2 Dec 2024 · Medical Aid During Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for giving way and pay tribute to him for securing this important debate. As well as providing valuable aid to various areas of conflict and need, does he agree that the UK and organisations such as the UN should do more to enable its delivery and to take action against the looters and oppressors who stop it getting to the people who need it?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Medical Aid During Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister inform the House how much of the aid provided by the UK is actually getting into Gaza, and to the people who need it?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is not just favourable business rates that benefit online businesses; they can use tax loopholes to avoid paying the taxes that small businesses pay as a proportion of their profits. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government have other mechanisms for raising such funding?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise in support of the majority of the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Reducing the high street business rates relief from 75% to 40% will devastate the small businesses on my high streets in Batley and Dewsbury, and many of them will not be able to absorb the costs, resulting in job losses and closures. My primary topic, however, will be the implications of the Bill for private schools that do not draw their students from the richest families in our society. When I spoke out against the introduction of VAT in previous debates, I was accused of not wanting the best for 94% of students in our country. I absolutely love state schools, and I visited Boothroyd primary academy during UK Parliamentary Week last week. The children were so excited to meet me, but I think I was more excited to meet them and their teachers. I also visited a private faith school that charges, I believe, less than £3,000 per pupil and spoke to the pupils there. There are private schools that serve poor working-class families, and there is a reason why these families have chosen to send their children to such schools. Parents would be penalised if we removed that choice. The other challenge that I have in my constituency is that schools are bursting at the seams, with very few, if any, places available to parents. Many children are going to their second or third-choice schools, away from their catchment area. Let me come back to the removal of private schools’ charitable status, which is an extra burden on top of charging VAT at 20%. Students at such schools overwhelmingly come from low-income families, and this reality often gets lost in the debate about private schools. We are all very aware of their elitist nature. With average fees of over £15,000, rising to £50,000, they service only the children of the wealthiest. It is not the children of the wealthy, however, who attend independent schools in constituencies such as Dewsbury and Batley, where faith schools are often the only option for families who cannot get their children into local state schools due to demand, or where state schools cannot meet their religious and spiritual needs. Those families are overwhelmingly from low-income backgrounds, and the removal of business rates charitable rate relief from private schools will result in a further increase in their fees, in addition to the proposed VAT. For wealthy families, that might not be a problem. For the families in my constituency, it is a major problem. In addition, the measures will pose a risk to the future viability of many private schools, which often charge just enough to exist. I ask the Government to consider that class is a reality in the discussion about private schools, but not in the way it is commonly presented. In many communities, faith-based schools are not the preserve of the wealthy; they overwhelmingly educate the children of ordinary working-class families. The Government’s impact assessment of the proposals shows that the average cost, per school, of the removal of charitable status ranges from £27,000 to £179,000 a year for faith schools. This issue is more complicated than measures to raise tax, and it feels to me that some important subtleties have been lost in the debate. For many of my constituents, faith schools not only provide high-quality education; they also provide children of faith with the relative freedom to express their faith and identity without fear of stigma or recrimination. I feel that none of this reality was properly considered when we discussed VAT on private schools, and now, through abolishing business rates charitable rate relief for private schools, that imbalance continues. The Government have an opportunity now to redress that imbalance, and I request that consideration be given to extending the exclusions for special needs schools to include faith-based schools that draw their students from low-income backgrounds. One easy solution would be to exempt from VAT schools that charge below per-pupil state school allowance, and allow them to retain their charitable status.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants · Hansard source

  More

  The ICC arrest warrants are welcome, but in themselves they will not bring an end to Israeli war crimes and ethnic cleansing and the killing of innocent men, women and children. It is an international legal obligation on the UK Government to prevent ethnic cleansing and genocide. Will the Minister explain what specific measures the Government have taken and are taking to stop Israel’s ethnic cleansing in northern Gaza and what concrete steps the UK Government have taken to comply with the genocide convention?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Food Banks · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this important debate forward. Food poverty—and poverty in general—is a growing crisis in the UK that demands urgent action. The increasing reliance on food banks is not only a humanitarian concern but a reflection of deeper systemic challenges that we as a society must address. We have heard the statistics from Members from all parties, and they are sobering. In 2023-24, the Trussell Trust had 1,699 food banks—a number that has only increased—and there are nearly 1,200 independent food banks across the country. I estimate that there are more than 3,000 food banks today, distributing 4 million to 5 million parcels every year. The root causes have been identified, so I will not take up time repeating them, but they include the failure of wages to keep pace with the rising cost of living and inflation, with many workers trapped in low-paid and insecure jobs; benefit cuts; delays in universal credit payments; the two-child benefit cap; and now the compounding factor of the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance. In my constituency, four out of 10 children live in poverty. The reliance on food banks is a symptom of deeper issues. It is about not just food insecurity but income insecurity. The Government must act decisively to address the root causes. I welcome the raising of the minimum wage, but it must reflect the actual cost of living. Benefits must also reflect the cost of living. A single person allowance of £85 is £25 less than is required to cover the cost of a person’s basic essentials, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The increasing use of food banks is not inevitable: it is a consequence of policy choices. The UK is the sixth-wealthiest nation in the world, and no one should go hungry in one of the world’s largest economies.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Ukraine: 1,000 Days · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the statement by the Foreign Secretary. I am sure the House will agree that 1,000 days of a full-scale war are 1,000 days too many. My condolences and thoughts are with all the innocent civilians, on both sides, tragically killed or affected by the conflict. They did not ask for war. Notwithstanding Ukraine’s right to full self-defence, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK military aid provided to date has not been, and will not be, used against civilians or civilian infrastructure? Will he assure the House that any decision to permit the use of Storm Shadow missiles will ensure the safety of civilians and be in compliance with international law?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for securing this crucial debate. As the Member outlined, the humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is beyond dire, and I will not repeat the details of how awful the situation is. Suffice it to say that all we have to do is look at our phones to see Palestinian refugees being bombed, murdered and repeatedly displaced on a daily basis. I want to use my time to concentrate on what this Government are going to do. Their record to date has been abysmal. From the Prime Minister legitimising the right of Israel to impose a siege on the entire population to the Foreign Secretary appearing to be ignorant of the meaning of the word “genocide” and the Government refusing to impose any meaningful sanctions on either arms sales or illegal settlements, this Government’s failure to take action against ethnic cleansing and genocide has made them complicit in those acts. I draw our Government’s attention to the actions of the Irish Government, and suggest they take a leaf out of their book. At the moment, the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill is making its way through the Irish parliamentary system, where it has received Government and cross-party support. The Bill is not new: it was first introduced in 2018, and there were concerns at the time that its measures might be in breach of EU law. However, the Irish Attorney General has updated his legal advice to refer the Bill to the next stage of the Irish parliamentary process, following the ICJ’s ruling in its advisory opinion in July. As discussed previously in Parliament, the ruling found that Israeli settlements in the west bank and East Jerusalem were in breach of international law. It found that occupation of those territories amounts to long-term annexation, which has undermined the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, and that the occupation must be brought to an immediate end. Therefore, countries can no longer lawfully trade with those settlements. When the Bill is passed, Ireland will become the first EU country to ban trade with those illegal settlements, which are the main impediment to Palestinian rights to self-determination. The response of successive UK Governments to the issue of illegal settlements is to say that the UK does not recognise them, and that goods originating from the settlements are not entitled to tariff or trade preferences, while at the same time refusing to actually suspend trade in goods and services between the UK and companies operating in the illegal settlements. While I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s introduction of new sanctions on three illegal settler outposts, and four organisations that have supported and sponsored violence against communities, his actions are ineffective and ambiguous. Why just impose sanctions on a handful of settlements? There are at least 144 settlements sanctioned by the Israeli Government, and another 196 outposts.

• 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.