Corporate report

A national advisory body for ethics in policing

Published 31 January 2024

Background

The Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group (BFEG) is an independent advisory non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Home Office. The BFEG provides independent ethical advice to the Home Office, its ministers and organisations within the Home Office remit on matters related to the collection, use and retention of biometric and forensic material, and on the use of large and complex datasets. A list of Frequently Asked Questions about BFEG is provided in Annex A.

In 2016, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) published the “Policing Vision 2025”, which reflected on the rapid technological advancements and the accessibility of technology by the public. The report noted the ambition to use new technologies, develop their capabilities and encourage the uptake of existing and emerging technologies in policing^{[footnote 1]}. While this need is widely acknowledged and understood, it is important to do so in an ethical, proportionate and robust manner.

Prior to publication of the Policing Vision in March 2022, the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee (JHAC) published a report that detailed their findings from an inquiry into the justice system’s use of advanced analytics and new technologies. The report was critical of the current landscape in policing for the use of data analytics and AI technologies. The Committee expressed support for the development and adoption of guidance for the use of new technologies, and for strengthening their governance in the application of the law. Recommendation 23 encouraged the Government to “continue work on the national data ethics governance body”^{[footnote 2]}.

BFEG discussed this report at their December 2022 quarterly committee meeting^{[footnote 3]}. BFEG were broadly supportive of the report and its recommendations. In discussion around recommendation 23, BFEG noted the desire to prevent duplication of work, highlighting the fact that BFEG already provided ethical advice to the Home Office on policing matters with regard to new technologies and the use of data. BFEG reflected that it could potentially provide a national ethical advisory function for policing.

Representatives of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) and the NPCC attended the quarterly meeting of BFEG in September 2023. The representatives jointly presented a proposal for BFEG to act as a national ethics body and provide independent advice, on ethical matters pertaining to the use of new and existing technologies as requested by policing. BFEG supported this, and following the quarterly meeting, hosted a forum session at which stakeholders from across policing and other public bodies shared their reflections on both the need for an ethical advisory body for matters relating to technological and data projects within policing and on how BFEG may be able to move forward as such a body. This report summarises the discussion and findings from this forum.

The need for a national advisory body for ethics

The BFEG forum session considered that the primary function and need for ethical oversight in digital and data projects in policing should be to ensure the technologies are reliable and accountable in order to prevent adverse and unforeseen consequences and harm to the public.

The forum reflected that, at present, law-enforcement policy and practice ineffectively addresses the ethics of using new technologies and presents a risk owing to the patchwork and inconsistent nature and organisation of ethical advice. A recognised national body could ensure the consistency of recommendations across England and Wales as well as facilitating the identification and dissemination of lessons learnt. Additionally, it could be assumed that the existence of a national ethical advisory body would support the reinforcement of public trust in policing services.

Current landscape for ethical bodies in policing

The majority of the 43 police forces in England and Wales have their own ethics committees tasked with addressing ethical dilemmas faced by the force.  Through online surveys, a study carried out in 2022 confirmed that 22 police forces (out of 23 respondents) had a policing ethics committee^{[footnote 4]}. The study identified that the composition of these committees was inconsistent, with just less than half being chaired by an individual within the police force, and even fewer adopting an open application process for the position of Chair. The presentation and formality of recommendations across ethics committees was also identified as inconsistent.   

At the September 2023 BFEG forum, a representative of the NPCC observed that in addition to local ethics committees, there were four regional ethics committees as well as the NPCC’s Police National Ethics Committee. The representative explained that these committees typically considered ethical dilemmas but noted that the provision of advice on matters pertaining to new and existing technology or complex datasets required technical expertise not found in the committees’ membership. It was considered desirable to have the independent and objective expert advice that a group such as BFEG is able to provide.

Requirements for a national ethical advisory body

At the forum, the following were identified as the core requirements for a national advisory body:

1. Independence

Both the attendees at the forum and the report by the JHAC^{[footnote 2]} stressed the importance of the committee’s being independent. It was reflected that as an independent body of unpaid experts, appointed on merit through the public appointments process, the independence of BFEG was sufficient, and was perceived to be more robust than alternative options.

2. Transparency

Both the working protocol of the advisory body and its outputs should be transparent and, as far as possible, publicly available. There should be an expectation of transparency by default, with committee minutes and decisions published (as per the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees and the Police science and technology strategy).

3. Broad membership

There is a need for a broad membership of the advisory body, to ensure the availability of sufficient expertise and for operational purposes, e.g., sufficient membership to deliver advice in a timely fashion. It was reflected that an advisory body should not represent overly academic expertise and experience. Membership should include both individuals who understand operational policing in order to ensure that advice is practicable, and also individuals who may offer critical perspectives on policing and its systems, in order to challenge potential institutional bias and conflicts of interest.

4. Centrally located and strategically focused

The desire to prevent the duplication of work was acknowledged by all attendees. The benefits of a national body would not only be the economical use of human resources and the consistency of advice, but also the facilitation of shared learning and development of national guidance. The body should have an understanding of the law-enforcement system and practices, and strong working relationships across government departments and bodies. The body should have sufficient authority to act centrally and with longevity.

Proposal

Following this initial outreach, BFEG is proposing their availability and capacity to run a pilot scheme for acting as the national advisory body for ethics in digital and data matters as they relate to use by law enforcement. The desired aim would be to co-design the pilot with the APCC and NPCC and commence the pilot in April 2024.

Any such pilot would focus on the provision of specific advice on the ethical dimensions and considerations involved in the use of new technologies and matters that are within the remit of BFEG. Matters that fall outside the remit of BFEG would be reviewed by other existing ethics committees. In April 2025, following the completion of the pilot, an evaluation would be conducted to review the suitability of installing BFEG as the national policing ethics advisory body.

At the forum, the following were identified as matters for consideration before the commencement of any such pilot:

• a method to identify and disseminate lessons throughout the law-enforcement network
• a process for commissioning documents with expected timelines, a triaging system and expectations placed on the referring organisation
• the level of detail that can be publicly shared and a documented outline of transparency expectations
• an agreed process for the system to document when and why advice or a recommendation is rejected
• the required level of resourcing and the expected demand on the advisory body
• the remit of the advisory body and agreed terminology

BFEG will work to address these areas in the planning stages and continues to engage with stakeholders across the network.

BFEG encourages stakeholders to contact the secretariat at BFEG@homeoffice.gov.uk to discuss.

Annex A: the Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group, frequently asked questions

What is the relationship/affiliation between the BFEG and the Home Office?

The BFEG is an advisory non-departmental public body which is sponsored by the Home Office. This means the BFEG advises the Home Office ministers (and when requested wider organisations in the criminal justice system) on ethical considerations in the operation of Home Office projects. The Home Office provides the secretariat who support the BFEG to deliver their advice. The BFEG members are recruited through the public appointments process. They are not remunerated, and they publicly declare any conflicts of interest.

How independent is the BFEG?

While the sponsoring department of the BFEG is the Home Office, both the group and its members are regarded as independent givers of ethical advice within the Home Office. BFEG members are recruited through the public appointments process and are not paid. 

As demonstration of the BFEGs independence:

• each year roughly 30% of the BFEGs work is determined by its members, and 70% is undertaken by agreement between the BFEG and the Home Office
• the BFEG does not need to seek approval from the Home Office to publish its work
• where the Group has concerns that its advice is not being considered, the BFEG is able to make recommendations to the relevant Minister and can publish specific recommendations in its annual report and on its website
• the BFEG critically reviews any documentation (e.g., implementation plans for policies, updates, progress reports, analytical and technical project reports) presented to them by the Home Office (and other agencies), regularly acting as a scrutiny group and interacting regularly with Home Office policy teams
• the BFEG can respond to government policy consultations as an independent expert group separately from the Home Office, and can be critical of any departmental response. The views expressed are those of the BFEG, not the Home Office

How can I read the advice the BFEG shares?

Transparency is important to the BFEG. Any reports and recommendations produced by the BFEG to ministers are published on the BFEG website. Yearly activity is recorded in an annual report and regular updates are recorded in the published minutes of committee meetings. 

While the BFEG aims to be as transparent as is possible, members are security cleared and often advise on projects where it is in the public interest that the specific details are withheld. In these instances, specific advice cannot be shared but high-level activity is recorded in the annual report.

How expensive is the BFEG and its services?

Members of the BFEG are not paid. The members do receive reasonable expenses required to conduct BFEG activity (such expenses are reported within the published annual reports). Between May 2021 and June 2022, the BFEG’s expenditure was £4,351.15.  There is no fee for advice which is provided by the BFEG. 

How can I contact the BFEG?

The BFEG welcomes engagement with groups and members of the public, and often hears presentations from external speakers to inform its work. An individual or organisation who would like to learn more or engage with the BFEG should contact the secretariat at BFEG@homeoffice.gov.uk. Persons working at the Home Office and seeking independent ethical advice for a project should contact the secretariat at BFEG@homeoffice.gov.uk to discuss. The BFEG recommends getting in contact from the outset of your project, so that ethical issues and possible solutions can be explored at an early stage of project planning.

How to get involved

We welcome you to contact the secretariat at BFEG@homeoffice.gov.uk if you would like to speak to the BFEG or if you have any questions. 

Recruitment to the BFEG is by public appointment and adverts are posted as vacancies arise. The BFEG is seeking to improve the diversity of its membership to ensure a fair and balanced representation. Additionally, the BFEG Chair can choose to co-opt individuals who have the necessary expertise to support a specific project. The secretariat would welcome contact from individuals who would like to be involved with BFEG’s work.

1. APPC & NPCC, “Policing Vision 2025,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.npcc.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/publications/policing-vision/policing-vision-2025.pdf. [Accessed 06 11 2023]. ↩

2. House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee, “Technology rules? The advent of new technologies in the justice system,” 1st Report of Session 2021-22, HL Paper 180. ↩ ↩²

3. Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group, “BFEG meeting minutes: 7 December 2022,” [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/biometrics-and-forensics-ethics-group-meeting-minutes/bfeg-meeting-minutes-7-december-2022#discussion-of-the-house-of-lords-debate-on-the-justice-and-home-affairs-committee-report-technology-rules-the-advent-of-n. [Accessed 04 01 2024]. ↩

4. P. Snelling, A. MacVean and R. Lewis, “Police ethics committees in England and Wales: Exploratory online and web surveys,” Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, vol. 17, 2022. ↩