Police use of drones and body worn video must be subject to better scrutiny by the Scottish Police Authority (SPA), and early oversight from the incoming Biometrics Commissioner, according to MSPs on the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Sub-Committee on Policing.
In a report published today, MSPs have recommended a number of steps for the police and their oversight bodies to take before the new technology can be introduced, in an effort to ensure concerns around privacy, Human Rights, proportionality and effectiveness are properly addressed.
Recommendations and findings include:
- The SPA should take a much more comprehensive oversight role, probing, reviewing and monitoring any changes to policing practice that have the potential to impact lives and alter the relationship between police and the public – not just those which cost more than the £500,000 threshold, as seems to be happening too often now; the 18 months which passed following the introduction of drones saw scant monitoring of their roll out by the SPA, this was not good enough;
- Use of both drones and body worn video cameras should be subject to regular review, with their use checked against what was initially proposed and approved (e.g. not using facial recognition technology, being used to search for missing people in remote areas). This does not seem to be happening currently;
- The processes used so far in the purchase and rollout of drones have not been nearly transparent enough, and do not seem to have considered all impacts fully. The Sub-Committee was particularly concerned by drones’ expanded use for surveillance in populated areas, beyond searching for missing people in remote areas, without any communications or engagement on this point; the technical issues found meaning drone use is restricted in wet weather due to safety concerns; and very limited consultation;
- Evidence provided throughout this inquiry by Police Scotland has been at times confused, contradictory and incorrect. The Sub-Committee found this troubling, and would ask that Police Scotland assure itself that information provided to the Scottish Parliament is accurate and true.
Speaking as the report was published, Sub-Committee Convener, John Finnie MSP, said:
“Technology undoubtedly has a place in policing. However, we have serious concerns that gadgets have been prioritised and introduced without some fundamental questions being asked or answered – by either Police Scotland or the bodies that exist to scrutinise them. This at a time when police IT systems remain in sore need of improvement to support basic policing functions.
“This is not the first time the Sub-Committee on Policing has uncovered issues similar to these, so lessons must this time be learned. Not only is the current situation far from best practice or what we deem acceptable, there is a serious risk that Police Scotland could find themselves on the wrong side of privacy or human rights legal challenges.
“It is our sincere hope that our successors in the next Parliament do not come across these same issues.”
Mr Finnie added:
“The fact that evidence provided to the Sub-Committee from Police Scotland was found to be incorrect deeply troubled us. The Sub-Committee expects witnesses, especially those from Police Scotland, to be able to provide clear, and correct information.”
Background
A copy of the report is attached.
There were a number of major discrepancies between the oral evidence from Police Scotland at the Sub-Committee on Monday 18 January and subsequent information supplied by Police Scotland to the Committee in writing, and through the Police Scotland’ Data Protection impact assessment.
Contradictions and discrepancies include:
- What drones are used for,
- Possible covert use of drones,
- Where drones were to be used,
- The number of drones Police Scotland has,
- Actual Human Rights impacts and public concern.
Media contact
Eric MacLeod