• Reference: 2019/14218
• Question by: Siân Berry
• Meeting date: 18 July 2019

In April 2019, the new police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) policy demanding access to the entire contents of the mobile phones of victims of sexual violence was brought in, telling victims that cases won't continue unless they consent to handing over this data. Following a national outcry, the police and CPS promised to meet with stakeholders to discuss urgent reform, but have now cancelled the meeting at the last minute. Is the Metropolitan Police Service taking any steps to prevent the disproportionate and excessive intrusion into victims' digital lives, and to protect them from these invasive downloads?

• Reference: 2019/14217
• Question by: Siân Berry
• Meeting date: 18 July 2019

Outside of the recent trials of live facial recognition technology, what use is currently made, or has been made in the past three years, of facial recognition software by the Metropolitan Police Service in non-live situations on images captured or obtained by officers? Could you provide details of each source of images that facial recognition software has been used on, including for example, images obtained from CCTV, body-worn video cameras, police photographers at demonstrations, or helicopter images.

• Reference: 2019/14216
• Question by: Siân Berry
• Meeting date: 18 July 2019

On 24 June 2019, The Evening Standard ran an article about a company called Wireless CCTV that is developing facial recognition software for body-worn cameras. Has the Metropolitan Police Service had any meetings or communication with this firm in the context of this new technology?

• Reference: 2019/14215
• Question by: Siân Berry
• Meeting date: 18 July 2019

How was human rights compliance ensured by the Metropolitan Police Service through the live facial recognition trials process, and what consultations or assessments were done in this regard, and by whom?

• Reference: 2019/14214
• Question by: Siân Berry
• Meeting date: 18 July 2019

On 17 June 2019, The Times ran an article titled "Ministers must act over ‘explosion’ of spy technology, says watchdog," in which the Surveillance Camera Commissioner criticised work by Greater Manchester Police that involved the use of facial recognition data captured by the owners of the city’s Trafford shopping centre on 18 million shoppers. Has the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) worked with any retailers or private sector organisations in this way either to monitor or plan to monitor Londoner's facial data outside the MPS's own trials?

• Reference: 2019/14213
• Question by: Siân Berry
• Meeting date: 18 July 2019

Is the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) decision not to exercise its right to reply to the independent evaluation of the live facial recognition trials, which was undertaken by the University of Essex Human Rights Centre and published on 3 July 2019, an endorsement of the report's findings and conclusions?

• Reference: 2019/14212
• Question by: Siân Berry
• Meeting date: 18 July 2019

On 3 July 2019 the independent evaluation of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) live facial recognition trials was published. The authors, from the University of Essex Human Rights Centre, identified significant flaws in MPS procedures, practices and human rights compliance, and the report says that it is “highly possible” that its use to date would be held unlawful if challenged in court. Will the MPS now cease all deployment of live facial recognition technology until both a national legal framework is in place and the five ethical conditions from the London Policing Ethics Panel are met?

• Reference: 2019/14211
• Question by: Caroline Russell
• Meeting date: 18 July 2019

The London electric vehicle infrastructure delivery plan, published in June 2019, acknowledges problems with electric vehicle charging points on the footway, saying: “Bulky chargers and cabinets, when located on the footway, can have a detrimental impact on pedestrians, particularly for larger scales of deployment. As well as locating charge points in the carriageway where safe to do so, creative, low-cost and low street-impact charger options are beginning to come to market with designs encompassing lamppost chargers, pop-up chargers, hidden sockets in the ground and small charging mounds.” Why was no reference included to the provision of ‘pedestrian clear zones’ or...

• Reference: 2019/14210
• Question by: Caroline Russell
• Meeting date: 18 July 2019

The Department of Transport (DfT) Inclusive Mobility best practice guidance recommends a clear width of 2000 mm on footways to allow two wheelchairs to pass one another comfortably. Did Transport for London (TfL) take account of this for the ‘pedestrian clear zone’ requirement in the TfL Streetscape Guidance? If not, why not?

• Reference: 2019/14209
• Question by: Caroline Russell
• Meeting date: 18 July 2019

In answer to my question 2019/4115 you told me that the Transport for London (TfL) Streetscape Guidance has been updated to be more: “explicit around the placement of electric vehicle charge points, recommending that charge points are placed on small sections of footway extended into the carriageway wherever practicable.” However, the ‘pedestrian clear zone’ requirement in the guidance is not defined, nor does it set out a clear minimum width requirement. Does TfL provide guidance on the minimum clear width of pedestrian clear zones, and does this take account of disabled mobility requirements?