Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to
commission an independent review of the (1) scale, (2)
capabilities, (3) ethics, and (4) impact on rights, of CCTV in
the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport ( of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government have no plans to commission an
independent review of the use of closed circuit television. The
Government support the appropriate use of technologies such as
CCTV to tackle crime and give the public greater confidence about
using our public spaces, provided that its use is lawful,
transparent and fair and in accordance with relevant guidelines.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for the reply. The noble
Lord, , has already
highlighted to the House the dangers posed by Chinese state-owned
facial recognition companies Hikvision and Dahua. Is the Minister
aware that this technology is now openly available on a far more
intrusive smartphone level from other Chinese state-owned
companies such as PimEyes? Is he also aware of the very real
threats this will pose—and not just to politically exposed
persons such as your Lordships? Absolutely anybody can be tracked
and traced anywhere at any time. It is not hyperbolic to say
that, if left unchecked, these applications will entirely alter
our concept of privacy and be open sesame to snoopers, stalkers,
blackmailers, cybercriminals and bad actors of every kind.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
All organisations in the UK that possess personal data have to
comply with the requirements of our data protection legislation.
The Information Commissioner’s Office is our independent
regulator for data protection and is responsible for providing
advice and guidance on compliance with the law. The ICO is
currently considering whether PimEyes’ practices may raise data
protection concerns. I hope that my noble friend will understand
that it is not appropriate for me to comment on an ongoing ICO
investigation.
(Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister understand that these mostly Chinese
smart cameras have the triple vices of being incredibly
intrusive, incredibly unreliable and racially discriminatory? In
the light of that, would he perhaps think again about the
question from the noble Lord, , and perhaps give a
rather more urgent and pertinent response?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
It is an urgent matter and it is being looked at currently by the
ICO. It would be wrong for me to comment on that ongoing
investigation, but it is being dealt with swiftly. We are also
taking urgent action across government, and my right honourable
friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out in a
Statement on 24 November the action that we are taking with
relation to Chinese equipment in public sites.
(LD)
My Lords, the Surveillance Camera Commissioner recently reported
on a survey of police forces in England and Wales. Despite the
commissioner’s strong belief that surveillance technology had to
be used in a way that maintains the trust and confidence of our
communities, the commissioner found that there is no universal
approach to due diligence across the police forces of this
country. Does the Minister agree that a universal approach is
necessary and sensible? If so, how will the Government achieve
it?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
All police forces are compelled to follow data protection
legislation, which is regulated by the Information Commissioner’s
Office. They must also comply with human rights and equalities
legislation, which is regulated by the Equality and Human Rights
Commission. So there is a universal application of those across
all forces.
The Lord
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Greater
Manchester Police independent ethics committee. Can the Minister
tell us what the Government’s assessment is of the use of CCTV in
conjunction with live facial recognition technology by police
across the UK, and what legal safeguards are in place to ensure
that fundamental rights are upheld?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
Polls show that there is public support and, indeed, an
expectation on the police to use technology such as this,
particularly from victims and their families, to prevent, detect
and investigate crime. There is a comprehensive legal framework
covering its use. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, mentioned
the potential for bias against people from ethnic minority
backgrounds. When using it, police must comply with the public
sector equality duty, and a human operator is also important in
this regard.
(Lab)
My Lords, can I first confess that I encouraged the spread of
CCTV, because I knew of the demand that comes from potential
victims? However, that was before smart CCTV and facial
recognition. As the right reverend Prelate said, they introduce a
major new dimension of potential intrusion into privacy. I accept
that the ICO is reviewing this, but I remind the Minister that
ultimately this will be a political decision, taken in the
context of the extensive surveillance by the Chinese Government
of their own and other people. Will he give it the utmost
priority when the ICO has reported?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right to point to the importance of CCTV in the
detection and prosecution of crime. Of course, as technology
improves, so does the reliability and its use in criminal
investigations—but so do the risks. That is why the Information
Commissioner’s Office plays its important role in monitoring it.
We will continue to evaluate the continued use of technologies
such as live facial recognition and consider the need for further
guidance, should that be needed.
(Con)
Could my noble friend the Minister expound further on that last
reply and tell the House how many very serious crimes last year,
including murder and GBH, were solved as a result of CCTV?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I do not have those figures to hand, but I imagine that they are
substantial, and I shall find out and write to the noble Lord.
(Lab)
My Lords, there is an opportunity here for the Government to get
something right. The Product Security and Telecommunications
Infrastructure Bill received Royal Assent, as the Minister knows,
in early December. Its security provisions are designed to
improve the security of smart products—a category that includes
CCTV doorbells. Is the Minister able to provide some updates on
commencement of Part 1 of the Act, or on the laying of relevant
regulations and guidance, given that this will be the subject of
some intense debate—and given, too, the potential privacy issues
that will arise if security vulnerabilities in personal CCTV
products can be exploited, as we now know, by bad actors?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I cannot provide an update on dates by which those things will be
commenced, but the noble Lord is right to point to the
legislation that we have taken through, which grapples with this
important topic, the scrutiny given in Parliament and the change
that it will make to the regulation of these sensitive
technologies.
Forest (Lab)
My Lords, is it an appropriate use of CCTV facial recognition
technology to identify children entitled to free school meals in
our schools?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I not aware that that is being done, but that is a matter for the
Department for Education. I will refer the noble Lord’s point to
the department.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, just to clarify the answers to some of the questions, I
think all of us can understand that using CCTV to catch criminals
and help victims is something that has become the norm. But the
Minister has been asked whether the new technology changes
things. Secondly, is there not a danger of a creep towards the
surveillance of innocent people, which would not be something
that the Government would endorse or condone?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
There is a hugely important role for CCTV in providing assurance
for people that our streets are safe, that our public spaces are
being monitored and that, if crimes are committed, the people who
commit them will be captured and brought to justice. That is a
great reassurance to people as they go about their lawful
business.
(CB)
My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said and
what the original questioner said, which is that this is probably
not a bad time to think seriously about the application of facial
recognition with CCTV. Does the Minister agree that it is not
only about crime? It is also an opportunity to find missing
people and sometimes, on places such as the Tube and in other
places, people who have fallen ill. CCTV has many benefits, but I
agree that it needs proper control and accountability.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right and highlights another important
potential use of this technology. It is right that it is
monitored. The ICO has published an opinion on the use of live
facial recognition by law enforcement agencies, as well as
guidance on the processing of biometric data. We will continue to
evaluate that and continue to consider whether further guidance
is needed.
(Lab)
My Lords, could the Minister just confirm that he saying—I think
he is, but it would be helpful if it was clear—that he and the
Government accept the huge value for public protection and public
safety of the ability of law enforcement to use CCTV and facial
recognition techniques? Does he also recognise that the fact that
this technology is now out there and is increasingly used by
non-law enforcement agencies, by the private sector in all sorts
of spaces, is an area that requires at least equivalent, if not
stronger, supervision and monitoring?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. I think people would
find it very disappointing if commercial organisations were able
to use the technology in a way that the police and law
enforcement agencies could not, to bring people to justice. We do
support its use, but only with careful monitoring. The ICO has an
important role to play in that.
