In her letter, the Immigration Minister sets out that the EU Settlement Scheme is currently going through a voluntary test phase and that she is pleased with the progress that has been made so far. She also addresses some of the misconceptions about the scheme.
News story
Dr Martin James introduces the UK’s radioactive waste inventories in his blog
RWM’s Senior Inventory Manager Dr Martin James, answering questions from a member of the public at New Scientist Live
Martin is RWM’s Senior Inventory Manager and has led the production of RWM’s inventory for geological disposal since 2013. During this time Martin spent 15 months seconded into the NDA as National Waste Inventory Manager. Prior to RWM, Martin worked as a consultant, modelling the long-term safety of radioactive waste management facilities, both in the UK and abroad.
Martin has a scientific background, having completed a PhD based at Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, and an MSci in Physics with Astrophysics.
In RWM’s latest blog, Dr Martin James introduces the UK Radioactive Waste Inventory (UKRWI), one of the world’s most transparent and comprehensive, and explains how it informs our Inventory for Geological Disposal (IGD).
Dr Martin James says:
The UK’s radioactive waste inventories are among the most transparent in the world. We have a practical use for the IGD, to help us plan ahead for a safe and effective Geological Disposal Facility, but the IGD and UKRWI are also useful for anyone who wants to know how much radioactive waste there is in the UK, where it is, and how we plan to deal with it.
You can read the blog in full here.
Published 11 August 2020
Jim is a biologist who worked throughout his career in conservation, the public service and heritage. As a graduate, he held numerous research, survey and short contract posts before being appointed Agriculture Policy Officer for the RSPB, working in London, Brussels and widely across Europe. He then went on to join the civil service , working in the MAFF policy unit where he played a role in helping create the new department Defra. He then moved to become Chief Executive of the Peak District National Park Authority, a role he held for 11 years. In the last 4 years of his time in the Peak District, he led the UK family of national parks. He now has a portfolio career and has held non-executive roles with Defra (the Independent Agricultural Appeals Panel), Northumbrian Water, The National Heritage Memorial Fund and the NHS. He is also the Director of a small, specialist tourism business, a books and antiques business and he writes a monthly column on nature for The Times. He was recently a member of the Glover Review of National Parks and AONB and has been the independent person on public body appointment panels.
Perdita Hunt is an Arts, Heritage and Leadership consultant. She tutors on the Recess College Senior Leaders sabbatical programme. She is a consultant for Leadership Insight, a Deputy Lieutenant for Surrey, volunteer specialist Advisor for the National Trust, Board member of the National Lottery Heritage Fund, Trustee of the Foundling Museum and Baynards Zambia Trust and was, until recently, the Director of Watts Gallery Trust. As consultant and trained facilitator, Perdita has led a number of strategy and governance workshop with charities. Perdita is a trained arts administrator. She worked in senior positions at the Arts Council England, NHMF and WWF-UK. Prior to this she worked as theatre projects co-ordinator at Chapter Arts Centre in Cardiff, marketing and development director at the Aldeburgh Foundation in Suffolk.
As Director of the Watts Gallery–Artists’ Village, Perdita led the Restoration Project to save the future of the Gallery and its collection, the acquisition and restoration of the Watts house and studio and re-established the Artists’ Village in Compton.
She was awarded an OBE in 2015, in 2018 Perdita was awarded an Honorary Doctorate by the University of Surrey for her contribution to arts and philanthropy.
These roles are remunerated at £6560. These reappointments have been made in accordance with the Cabinet Office’s Governance Code on Public Appointments, the process is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Government’s Governance Code requires that any significant political activity undertaken by an appointee in the last five years is declared. This is defined as holding office, public speaking, making a recordable donation or candidature for election. Mr Dixon and Ms Hunt have not declared any activity.
Professor Roger Bland retired in 2015 as Keeper of the Department of Britain, Europe and Prehistory at the British Museum, which he joined as a curator in 1979. For eight years he was seconded to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to advise on the reform of the law of treasure, resulting in the Treasure Act 1996, and he was responsible for drawing up the Code of Practice on the Act. In 1997 he established the Portable Antiquities Scheme which he led until retirement.
Bland is a visiting Professor at the University of Leicester, a Fellow of the MacDonald Institute of Archaeological Research, Cambridge and President of the Royal Numismatic Society. He is an expert on hoarding, the law of treasure and Roman coinage and has published many books and articles on these subjects including Iron Age and Roman Coin Hoards in Britain (with 6 other authors, Oxbow, 2020), The Cunetio and Normanby Hoards (with Edward Besly and Andrew Burnett, Spink 2019), and Coin Hoards and Hoarding in Roman Britain (British Numismatic Society, 2018). He is a licensed as Lay Minister in the Diocese of Norwich.
Dr Megan Gooch is the Head of the Centre for Digital Scholarship and Digital Humanities Support, at the Bodleian Libraries and Humanities Division at the University of Oxford.
Megan has been involved in coins since her undergraduate study at the University of Cambridge, followed by an MA and PhD at Durham University focusing on early medieval numismatics. She spent time as a British coin specialist at Spink & Son (2006-2008), and the Money Gallery Curator at the British Museum (2008-2010). She then moved to Historic Royal Palaces to curate the permanent exhibition The Tower’s Mint at the Tower of London, in partnership with the Royal Mint Museum. She then moved to project management and production roles within HRP in Learning and Public Engagement as well as being a Research Fellow on the AHRC-funded project Lest We Forget.
Megan has served and continues to serve on many numismatic bodies and charities, including as a council member for the British Numismatic Society (2007-2013), autumn conference organiser for the British Association of Numismatic Societies (2008-2011), Money and Medals Subject Specialist Network Steering Committee member (2010 – present) and Honorary Secretary of the Royal Numismatic Society (2016 – present).
These roles are not remunerated. These appointments have been made in accordance with the Cabinet Office’s Governance Code on Public Appointments, the process is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Government’s Governance Code requires that any significant political activity undertaken by an appointee in the last five years is declared. This is defined as holding office, public speaking, making a recordable donation or candidature for election. Professor Bland and Dr Gooch have not declared any activity.
I very much welcome the findings of the Court of Appeal.
I have repeatedly called for open debate from all sides on this very important issue. If there is to be an ethical and evolutionary process for the legitimate use of automated facial recognition (AFR) technology by the state then it is essential that the public have trust in the technology, its legal and regulatory controls and the honesty of endeavour by the police themselves.
The Court of Appeal case, it’s submissions and findings, are a key element of that evolutionary process. The spirit in which all parties contributed to these important appeal proceedings is to their credit and the court rightly acknowledged this.
I was particularly encouraged by the approach to these proceedings by South Wales Police who have worked so hard to be transparent and ethical in their approach to use AFR technology in this pilot phase. Doubtless the learning from this appeal process will be valuable to them as well as other parties.
I am glad that, like the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal have recognised my statutory role in the regulation of surveillance cameras and their use in conjunction with AFR technology, the Home Secretary’s Surveillance Camera Code of Practice (The Code) and the guidance I issued to police forces in October 2018 as key parts of the legal framework.
I note the issues in the judgment regarding bias that can be inherent in facial recognition algorithms. Use of this technology will not and should not get out of the gate if the police cannot demonstrate its use is fair and non-discriminatory. I will consider how I can amend my guidance to ensure police forces are aware for the potential bias in systems and also consider what more can be done with manufacturers of the technology to eliminate it.
In so far as the legal deficiencies identified by the court are concerned I am sure that others will share my frustration with the Home Office. The police worked hard to apply themselves in adhering to The Code, a statutory based document which for more than five years I have fruitlessly and repeatedly been calling upon the Home Office to update. The court opined that these deficiencies could be addressed through updating The Code and through national police guidance being issued.
My considered view is that Home Office and the Secretary of State have been asleep on watch and should reflect upon the comments of the court and now act in the public interest. I urge ministers and officials to listen to the independent regulatory voices which they have appointed to consider and advise on these matters not ignore them. I hope they step away from their self-generated plan to dilute both my role and that of the Biometric Commissioner in to a single commission and I hope that they review and update The Code and commission an independent review of the legal framework which governs overt state surveillance. Hope but not hopeful.
I very much welcome the findings of the court in these circumstances. I do not believe the judgment is fatal to the use of this technology, indeed, I believe adoption of new and advancing technologies is an important element of keeping citizens safe. It does however set clear parameters as to use, regulation and legal oversight.
Maybe the regulators at the sharp end of this subject matter really do understand things a little more than those advising ministers sometimes purport to.
Ends
The Surveillance Camera Commissioner (SCC) is an independent appointee. Appointed by the Home Secretary via the Protections of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 (s34). The Commissioner regulates the operation of overt surveillance camera systems such as CCTV and anything connected to those system such as automatic facial recognition algorithms.
The Code was issued by the Home Secretary in 2013 by virtue of s30 of PoFA and police forces must pay due regard to the Code when deploying surveillance cameras overtly in public places. The Code sets out 12 guiding principles which if followed will ensure surveillance cameras are deployed proportionately and effectively to support communities not spy on them. The SCC has a role in encouraging compliance with the Code. Failure to comply is admissible in court.
The Commissioner issued guidance to all police forces on the deployment of automated facial recognition technology in October 2018 (published in March 2019) which supplements the Code.
This case was bought by Ed Bridges (supported by Liberty) on two deployments of automated facial recognition by South Wales Police. The first hearing took place in May 2019 and was appealed in June 2020.