1-20 of 618 results for subject:Biometrics
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.258 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.007 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Biometrics
- We searched for
- subject_t:Biometrics OR subject_ses:8668
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many convictions were secured as a result of utilising live facial recognition in the last 12 months.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many convictions were secured as a result of utilising live facial recognition in the last 12 months.
The Home Office does not hold data on the number of convictions made following the police’s use of live facial recognition (LFR) technology. Where police forces are using live facial recognition technology, the number of arrests made following each deployment are published on their respective websites.
Facial recognition technology is a powerful and effective tool for policing, helping them locate wanted offenders, including those missing for years, and monitor individuals subject to court-imposed conditions, such as registered sex offenders.
The use of LFR is increasing and delivering excellent results. Between January 2024 and September 2025, the Met Police reported over 1,300 arrests for offences including, rape, domestic abuse, knife crime, GBH and robbery, following live facial recognition deployments. They also arrested more than 100 registered sex offenders found in breach of their conditions.
Police forces have assessed LFR to be cost-effective due to the ability to identify suspects at a speed that wouldn’t be possible by the vast majority of officers working without its assistance. The Met have found LFR to be three times more effective than existing tactics in identifying individuals they needed to speak to and the government believes that this technology is making a real difference in keeping communities safe.
The Home Office is also funding a national evaluation to understand the impact of facial recognition on police and crime outcomes, and its relationship to public trust and confidence.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many people have been (a) arrested, (b) prosecuted and (c) convicted using facial recognition software.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many people have been (a) arrested, (b) prosecuted and (c) convicted using facial recognition software.
Facial recognition is used by police as an identification tool to search an image of an unknown suspect against the images of people taken on arrest (‘custody images’), or to locate people in an intelligence-led way, by scanning live crowds and comparing them with the images of wanted people on a specific watchlist instantaneously, with very high levels of accuracy.
An arrest may result from a match made by facial recognition software, but not without the match being carefully reviewed by a trained officer and consideration being made of the wider context and other available information. Investigating officers will consider all of the evidence available and follow up all reasonable enquiries as in any normal investigation. Moreover, a prosecution and/or conviction would never be based solely on a match made by facial recognition software.
There are no centrally held figures on the number of arrests that result from police forces using facial recognition technology. South Wales Police and the Metropolitan Police Service publish information on their use of facial recognition, including arrests figures and other positive outcomes from deploying live facial recognition. These can be found at the following links:
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/fr/facial-recognition-technology/
Given that a facial match using facial recognition software would be one of many factors under consideration in reaching the decision to prosecute and/or resulting in a person being convicted of an offence it is not possible to attribute exact numbers of prosecutions and convictions. However, we are undertaking evaluation work to enhance our understanding of the impact of facial recognition in this regard.
Letter dated 30/11/2021 from Lord Sharpe of Epsom to Lord Paddick regarding questions discussed during the Committee stage (fourth day) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: the police taking photographs of people with convictions outside the UK, the transfer of foreign conviction information. 2p.
Letter dated 30/11/2021 from Lord Sharpe of Epsom to Lord Paddick regarding questions discussed during the Committee stage (fourth day) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: the police taking photographs of people with convictions outside the UK, the transfer of foreign conviction information. 2p.
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.
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.
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).
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer on 16 October 2019 to Question 999 on Convictions: biometrics, if she will undertake an assessment of the accuracy of different facial composite methods and the subsequent effect on conviction rates.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer on 16 October 2019 to Question 999 on Convictions: biometrics, if she will undertake an assessment of the accuracy of different facial composite methods and the subsequent effect on conviction rates.
The procurement of software to produce composite facial images is an operational matter for the police
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment her Department has made of the accuracy of different facial composite methods and the subsequent effect on conviction rates.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment her Department has made of the accuracy of different facial composite methods and the subsequent effect on conviction rates.
The Home Office has made no assessment of the accuracy of different facial composite methods and any effect it has on conviction rates.
26: Schedule 8, page 171, line 21, at end insert— ““( ) is a person in relation to whom a moratorium period, under a debt relief order made under Part 7A of the Insolvency Act 1986 or Part 7A of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/2405 (N.I.19)), applies,””...
26: Schedule 8, page 171, line 21, at end insert— ““( ) is a person in relation to whom a moratorium period, under a debt relief order made under Part 7A of the Insolvency Act 1986 or Part 7A of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/2405 (N.I.19)), applies,””...
My Lords, I should like to make two brief points. The first arises from something I have noticed in the way that we run our procedures, which has changed a lot over the many years I have been here. In the old days, matters often used to be pushed at...
My Lords, I should like to make two brief points. The first arises from something I have noticed in the way that we run our procedures, which has changed a lot over the many years I have been here. In the old days, matters often used to be pushed at...
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend. He is absolutely right to bring back points that have not been answered by the Home Office. The purpose of Parliament in general and your Lordships' House in particular is to scrutinise legislation and ask questions—and to ask for answers to questions....
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend. He is absolutely right to bring back points that have not been answered by the Home Office. The purpose of Parliament in general and your Lordships' House in particular is to scrutinise legislation and ask questions—and to ask for answers to questions....
My Lords, Amendment 1 is grouped on its own. As I am on my own, I will wait for the House to evacuate before I continue. The amendment follows on from the Private Member's Bill which I introduced into your Lordships' House and which was passed, which said that people...
My Lords, Amendment 1 is grouped on its own. As I am on my own, I will wait for the House to evacuate before I continue. The amendment follows on from the Private Member's Bill which I introduced into your Lordships' House and which was passed, which said that people...
1: Clause 38, page 33, line 41, at end insert— ““32C Evidence gathered by non-public bodies using directed surveillance and covert human intelligence sources Public bodies shall not adopt for the purpose of a prosecution evidence of offences which attract a maximum custodial sentence of six months or less gathered...
1: Clause 38, page 33, line 41, at end insert— ““32C Evidence gathered by non-public bodies using directed surveillance and covert human intelligence sources Public bodies shall not adopt for the purpose of a prosecution evidence of offences which attract a maximum custodial sentence of six months or less gathered...
My Lords, it is of enormous significance that today we are debating amendments that would create a new criminal offence of stalking. At Second Reading, I said that this Bill presented us with an opportunity to address an important loophole in our law that meant that those subject to the...
My Lords, it is of enormous significance that today we are debating amendments that would create a new criminal offence of stalking. At Second Reading, I said that this Bill presented us with an opportunity to address an important loophole in our law that meant that those subject to the...
2: Before Clause 64, insert the following new Clause— ““Protection from stalking (1) The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is amended as follows. (2) In section 2 (offence of harassment), for subsection (2) substitute— ““(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary or indictable...
2: Before Clause 64, insert the following new Clause— ““Protection from stalking (1) The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is amended as follows. (2) In section 2 (offence of harassment), for subsection (2) substitute— ““(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary or indictable...
I am most grateful to my noble friend for that, but, as he knows me well by now, he would obviously have expected me to have consulted the Library before speaking. The Library would like to have a hard copy because, as we know, some of the equipment in the...
I am most grateful to my noble friend for that, but, as he knows me well by now, he would obviously have expected me to have consulted the Library before speaking. The Library would like to have a hard copy because, as we know, some of the equipment in the...
My Lords, I will try to keep my response to the point of the original amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Selsdon, tempted although I am to proceed down routes raised by the noble Earl about procedure of the House and littering, which are matters for another occasion, but...
My Lords, I will try to keep my response to the point of the original amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Selsdon, tempted although I am to proceed down routes raised by the noble Earl about procedure of the House and littering, which are matters for another occasion, but...
32: In the Title, line 11, after first ““and”” insert ““about stalking;”” Amendment 32 agreed. Motion Moved by
32: In the Title, line 11, after first ““and”” insert ““about stalking;”” Amendment 32 agreed. Motion Moved by
30: Schedule 10, page 198, line 40, at end insert— ““( ) the Milk (Cessation of Production) Act 1985,”” 31: Schedule 10, page 201, line 14, at end insert— Amendments 30 and 31 agreed. In the Title Amendment 32 In the Title Amendment 32 Moved by
30: Schedule 10, page 198, line 40, at end insert— ““( ) the Milk (Cessation of Production) Act 1985,”” 31: Schedule 10, page 201, line 14, at end insert— Amendments 30 and 31 agreed. In the Title Amendment 32 In the Title Amendment 32 Moved by