I tabled a Topical Oral Question in response to reports last week of built in bias in the FR software resulting in women and individuals from ethnic minorities being much more likely to be misrecognised by it: because the software is much better at recognising white men they are less likely to be misidentified and negatively affected by it. The Financial Times reported on it here

My opening question to the government: what assessment HMG have made of the safeguards necessary for the use of facial recognition technology by the police.

HMG replied: The Government commenced a consultation on 4 December on the use of facial recognition technology. There is an established legal basis for the use of facial recognition technology by the police, but the Government intend to bring forward a new bespoke legal framework to provide clearer, more specific rules. Through the consultation, we want to hear views on when and how facial recognition should be used and what safeguards and oversight are needed.

I then asked: I thank the Minister for his Answer, but does he now accept that the police’s facial recognition algorithm has been flawed? It has been racially biased and biased against women. Actually, it should be stopped until it can be improved.

HMG replied: The Government recognise that the algorithm needs to be examined, and that is why we have asked His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to present an urgent report to the Government on the mechanisms of the algorithm. In the meantime, facial recognition technology is a useful tool. If missing people walk past a facial recognition van, they can be identified. If people are on a wanted list, they can be identified. If people appear on a Ring doorbell, they can be put against a facial recognition database to see whether they have committed an offence and be further questioned. There are good things about that, but the consultation is about how we can better regulate it. HMCIC will look at how we can deal with the issues with the algorithm over the next few months.

Debate on Hansard here