Corporate report

BFEG meeting minutes: 15 July 2025

Updated 9 September 2025

Notes of the 31st meeting held on 15 July 2025 in person at The Memoir Club (formerly Ambassadors Bloomsbury) London & MS Teams

1 Chairs’ welcome and update, including BFEG working group updates.

Welcome

1.1 The Chair welcomed all to the meeting and noted apologies. A full list of attendees and apologies is provided as annex A.

Declarations of interest

1.2 Members were invited to share any new or arising declarations of interest. New declarations of interest are noted below.

• Professor Penney Lewis noted her role as the UK representative, sub-committee on AI and the criminal law, Committee on Crime Problems, Council of Europe

1.3 Members were reminded it is their individual duty to determine whether a matter would constitute a conflict of interest and that it is the responsibility of the individual to declare these.

Handling information and/or speaking with the Press

1.4 In response to a recent event, members were reminded of their responsibility to ensure information is handled appropriately, and that any information which is shared with them in order to undertake their function as a member of BFEG, is done so in confidence as outlined in their terms of appointment.

1.5 Members were advised that should they be unsure how to handle a request for information, they should speak to the Chair and Secretariat for guidance.

Minutes and review of actions

1.6 Minutes from BFEG meeting held in April 2025 were approved and would be published subject to a minor spelling amendment to the attendees list.

1.7 An updated action log was provided to attendees ahead of the meeting which included a status update against each action and suggested certain items were closed. The Chair highlighted updates for each action seeking objections/comment. No objections were raised with regard to closure of these actions.

1.8 The following actions were marked as closed (whereby they are referenced in the format year_month_#action number): 2309#03, 2312#01, 2504#03 and 2504#07.

Submissions

1.9 The Chair provided members with a verbal summary of the requests for advice (termed ‘submissions’) received in the last quarter and provided relevant updates on related activity.

1.10 It was noted that BFEG had also received a response from Policy to previous advice which had been given on the internal AI Policy.

Working group updates

1.11 Members were advised that the terms of reference for the newly reformatted Working Groups had been uploaded to BFEG’s gov.uk website.

1.12 The Chair shared that they had met with the Working Group Chairs to discuss the approach to Working Groups and the process for triaging submissions. At this meeting it was discussed how there was a significant degree of overlap between working groups within the existing structures and that the triage process was not working at maximum efficiency. It was put forward that working groups could be structured around mixed groups of expertise rather than topic area however, ultimately Working Group Chairs agreed for structures to remain the same and to build structures around these. As part of the action plan, regular meetings of the Working Group Chairs had been arranged.

1.13 The Chair shared an overview of BFEG’s recent achievements, including thanking Professor Oswald for presenting on responsible use of AI and the BFEG ethical principles to Home Office officials during Policy week.

1.14 Members were updated that since the last quarter a reference group had been established, with members of the Age Estimation Scientific Advisory Committee (AESAC) to provide advice on the development of a facial age estimation programme by the Home Office for use in asylum cases.

1.14..1 Members who attended the meeting with the Home Office Biometrics team and AESAC shared their view of the meeting and expressed some concerns around the validation of the programme.

1.14..2 A member of BFEG reflected on how BFEG had raised concerns at the inception of AESAC that the technology which could be used for purposes of age estimation was not being adequately considered and indicated that they were glad this was being reviewed now with additional expert advisory function.

1.14..3 Members asked whether the meeting note could be shared with the full BFEG committee.

1.14..4 Action 2025_07_15#01 – Secretariat to establish whether minutes from the meeting on facial age estimation could be shared with BFEG members and circulate if appropriate.

Recruitment update

1.15 It was noted that the Current Chair of BFEG would be demitting from his role as BFEG Chair at the end of their second term, in September 2025.

1.16 A recruitment campaign for the new Chair had been advertised and it was hoped a new Chair could be onboarded by the date of the current Chair’s end of term.

Name change update

1.17 The proposed name change from BFEG to the Science and Technology Ethics Advisory Committee (STEAC) had been official approved by Ministers and was planned to be officially launched, by a written ministerial statement, in September.

1.18 The Chair reflected on this as an opportunity to raise BFEG’s profile.

Meeting with Lord Hanson, Home Office Lords Minister and Sponsor Minister

1.19 The Chair shared with members that they had met with Lord Hanson, BFEG’s Sponsor Minister, in a biannual meeting.

1.20 The Chair summarised the meeting for BFEG members and confirmed important updates on BFEG’s work programme were raised, and the Minister had emphasised an interest in having direct sight of BFEG’s recommendations.

Home Office Science Advisory Council (HOSAC) update

1.21 The Chair shared that they had attended a meeting of the Home Office Science Advisory Committee.

1.22 The Chair indicated that at this meeting they had stressed the importance of ethical input and expertise being represented in future rounds of Research, Development and Innovation spending reviews and considerations.

1.23 Action 25_07_15#02 – BFEG Secretariat to engage with the Home Office Science Advisory Committee Secretariat to ensure engagement with BFEG during future Research, Development and Innovation reviews.

2 Policy update

2.1 A representative from the Data and Identity Policy Directorate presented an update to BFEG.

2.2 The key points of the update were:

Biometrics

2.2..1 The Home Secretary has stated that options are being developed to support Policing’s use of live facial recognition.

2.2..2 An information session had been held by the policing minister with parliamentarians in the House of Commons.

2.2..3 Policy was in the process of developing a public consultation, the Policy official thanked members of BFEG their contribution to the development of this document and expected the overall document to be published by September.

2.2..4 Francesca Whitelaw had been appointed as the interim Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner (BSCC) for a six-month period. Appointment for the permanent role was ongoing.

AI Policy

2.2..5 The advanced algorithm adoption policy and the Home Office data ethics framework had been published internally. The Policy representative thanked BFEG for their input.

Forensics

2.2..6 Version 2 of the Forensic Science Code of Practice had been laid in parliament and would come into force in October.

2.2..7 Amanda Jane Balfour had been appointed as the new Director of Forensics Services; this was to support planned forensics reform as part of the future White Paper on Police Reform.

2.2..8 A new Forensic Science Regulator had been appointed but could not yet be named until Parliament had been informed. The name would be released on the 21st of July.

2.3 A member of BFEG asked whether the research which the Home Office had undertaken into public attitudes towards facial recognition would be published. The Policy official shared that it was the intention to publish this by the end of October, with the publication of the consultation.

2.4 A member of BFEG asked whether there was a timeline for the appointment of the new BSCC, the answer was that it was anticipated that appointment would be offered within the following month.

3 Home Office Biometrics (HOB) update

3.1 Representatives from the Home Office Biometrics programme were unable to attend the meeting. However, the HOB team provided a written update for members to review and consider in advance of the meeting.

3.2 The Chair invited members to ask any questions which could be raised back to the officials for answer offline.

3.3 No questions were raised.

4 Forensic Information Database Service (FINDS) update

4.1 A representative from the Forensic Information Database Service (FINDS) thanked attendees for invitation to the meeting. The representative shared that there were limited updates from the last quarter on the priority projects which they had been reporting back to BFEG. The FINDS representative would therefore focus on a request to BFEG to share views on proposals to update guidance to Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs) related to elimination samples moving from one to two databases (the national centralised DNA contamination elimination database [as previously done] and on local staff elimination databases). This was being brought back to BFEG as they had provided early advice on the storage of SARC elimination samples, and this was now being changed.

4.2 The FINDS representative noted that this was not the optimal solution however, based on current limitations it was the best available approach.

4.3 A member of BFEG reflected their views that the proposals and guidance seemed to be the best possible option and other BFEG members agreed.

4.4 A member of BFEG asked whether there were any circumstances where a single database would be important.

4.4..1 The FINDS representative responded that a single database would be easier to control and assure records were being appropriately stored noting that the risk of errors increases when there are an increased number of databased being used.

4.5 No further questions were raised.

4.6 Action 25_07_15#03 – BFEG Secretariat to confirm with BFEG members that there were no further questions or suggestions to raise to FINDS regarding the proposal for storage of SARC elimination profiles.

5 Op Tabula update

5.1 Representatives from Operation Tabula programme were unable to attend the meeting. However, a written update was provided, for members to review and consider in advance of the meeting.

5.2 The Chair invited members to ask any questions which could be raised back to the officials for answer offline.

5.3 No questions were raised.

6 Departmental updates

Departmental Priorities

6.1 The Deputy Chief Scientific Advisor (DCSA) acknowledged that this would be the last quarterly meeting Chaired by Professor Mark Watson-Gandy and thanked him for his Chairmanship and dedication to BFEG. The DCSA noted that recruitment for a new Chair was underway and hoped they would seek to strengthen BFEG’s role.

6.2 The DCSA provided members of BFEG with an overview of the departmental priorities. This included an outline of the ‘safer streets mission’, the ‘growth agenda’ and police reform.

6.3 The DCSA shared examples of work being conducted within the Science, Technology, Analysis and Research’ (STAR) function of the Home Office, under some of these key departmental priorities.

6.4 A member of BFEG asked what the relationship between conceptual/philosophical analysis and ‘pure science’ was. For example, asking whether work was being done to consider what was meant by “safety”, what it means and what the dimensions of this were?

6.4..1 The DCSA responded that Government is pragmatic regarding its approach. For example, with regards to ‘safer streets’, safety would be considered by particular metrics such as reducing knife crime. The DCSA however made it clear that these more philosophical considerations would likely be considered at a working level by those putting forward research proposals.

6.4..2 The BFEG member asked whether the results of these deeper reflections are recorded or made public.

6.4..3 It was suggested by the DCSA and the Policy representative that these are broken down into metrics but are not necessarily recorded as philosophical explanations.

6.4..4 The DCSA suggested that is something the committee could consider.

6.5 Reflecting on one of the examples of work which were raised by the DCSA at point 6.3, a member of BFEG questioned what was meant by establishing what “a violence- fixated individual looks like”?

6.5..1 The DCSA responded that this was a work programme which the Cabinet Office initiated to define possible characteristics of individuals fixated by violence, such as their history (e.g. mental health history), reports of a particular grievance, or similar historical cases. The DCSA noted that as a result of the work, certain themes which are being analysed by Prevent colleagues, and it was expected a public statement may be made in the future.

6.5..2 Following a question from a BFEG member around the rationale for the work, the DCSA shared that the key element which sparked this work related to examples of individuals who commit violent acts without political motivation. In such cases, there was some ambiguity as to whether the crime fits into terrorism legislation under Prevent or a different system.

6.5..3 As a follow-on remark, a member of BFEG asked whether as part of this work around how one might respond to individuals like this in the future (those fixated with violence without political motive), whether there was active consideration of a possible new offence. The DCSA was not able to provide an answer at this time.

6.5..4 A member of BFEG asked whether work was taking place in the academic sphere to ensure a significant distinction of these individuals from the general population. The response was that to create a meaningful response the work would need to be applicable to only a small cohort.

6.5..5 A member of BFEG asked if it has been considered whether these characteristics exist in those who do not go on to conduct criminal activity? The DCSA responded that it was anticipated that this was being considered.

6.6 A member of BFEG questioned what the appetite was for making change under the ‘Growth Agenda’. The question included, for example, whether there was appetite for digital identity schemes which could bring economic savings.

6.6..1 The DCSA responded by sharing that the Growth Agenda was one of the five missions set out by the Prime Minister. This was being taken seriously by the Department.

6.6..2 The Policy representative shared that the Department had not been asked to work on identity cards since they were abolished. It was possible this was being done in other parts of the Home Office, such as in the immigration space, but the signal from Ministers around this area was weak.

6.7 BFEG emphasised the importance of ensuring technology is properly validated, stressing that technology should be considered science and should not be excluded from scientific considerations. The DCSA agreed.

Ethics in the Home Office

6.8 The DCSA outlined to BFEG members that following the Windrush review, the Home Office is exploring how ethics is considered holistically within the organisation. The DCSA confirmed that BFEG is being included in consideration of the design of this.

6.9 The DCSA also confirmed the Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA) had commissioned a review of ethics bodies which existed within the STAR function of the Home Office, at the time of writing. This review included a series of recommendations, including a specific recommendation around improving the use of ethics committee/bodies.

6.10 The DCSA agreed to share the review of ethics bodies in STAR once the CSA had signed off the document and its recommendations.

6.11 Action 25_07_15#04 – Deputy Chief Scientific Advisor to share the review of ethics bodies in STAR following sign-off by the CSA.

The research, development and innovation (RDI) review

6.12 The DCSA shared an outline of a recent research, development and innovation (RDI) review with BFEG, which commenced with an audit of current science and innovation activity being conducted within the Home Office. The DCSA outlined that the activity took place largely between December 2024 and January 2025 and shared an overview of the process which was used to undertake this audit.

6.13 The DCSA advised this audit had enabled the discovery of ‘scientific activity’ that was not previously being considered as science and improved Ministerial confidence.

6.14 It was shared that expertise from industry and academia was being considered within the RDI process as the Home Office Science Advisory Committee (HOSAC) were being engaged and would be approached for input into improving the system/approach for next year.

7 Progress from July 2024 awayday

Working with the Accelerated Capability Environment (ACE)

7.1 The Chair provided a verbal update to attendees in that BFEG had continues to engage with ACE in an ad-hoc way.

7.2 The Chair shared that BFEG members Professor Richard Guest and Mr Giles Herdale had been leading interactions with ACE and had met with representatives from ACE on different occasions, to establish an understanding around ways of working. However, progress had been markedly slow and difficult.

7.3 A member of BFEG shared that it had been established that ACE do have their own internal process, provided by QinetiQ, to consider ethics and that they were of the understanding this committee was being utilised rather than BFEG as an independent committee. The view that ACE would be unlikely to want to engage with BFEG until the end of their contract with QinetiQ was shared.

7.4 Members reflected that engagement from ACE had been slow and limited and that the perception was that BFEG might be too slow or potentially raise difficult issues.

7.5 A member of BFEG asked whether there had been evidence of impact from instances where BFEG had worked on a submission with ACE. Examples, such as work on deepfakes, were shared.

7.6 Members discussed how BFEG’s processes may be too slow for ACE and also that early engagement was essential for high quality advice.

7.7 It was proposed that BFEG could develop a risk triaging process for ACE, so submissions of greatest need are brought to BFEG for ethical consideration.

7.8 A member of the BFEG Secretariat suggested that there would be a review of BFEG’s remit when the new Chair took post and suggested that members reconsider their position regarding engagement with ACE following the outcome of those conversations.

7.9 It was discussed how ACE was currently transitioning to being brought into the Home Office. At present, the Secretariat was unclear on the timelines for this. It was suggested and agreed by members that considering methods to engage with ACE once it had been brought into the Home Office may be the best forward approach.

7.10 Action 25_07_15#05 – Secretariat to collate a summary of engagements with ACE so far, so this can be considered by the incoming BFEG Chair, following the conclusion of anticipated conversations regarding BFEG’s remit.

Engagement and impact

7.11 The Chair confirmed to attendees that the BFEG Secretariat was working collaboratively with the other Home Office Secretariats to establish a consistent approach to tracking recommendations and their impact. This was being done with senior input for Home Office officials around what they would like. It had been suggested that a Working Group was established, across the different Home Office Science Advisory Committees, which included representation from both members and Secretariat.

7.12 The Secretariat had met with an internal communications lead to establish how BFEGs presence and impact could be circulated – this was particularly feeding into dissemination of the name change. The Secretariat had also met with colleagues in the communications team regarding external engagement opportunities however, responses had been limited.

7.13 A member of BFEG asked whether a slide pack could be shared which outlines BFEG’s work, remit and operation which could be presented by members at speaking opportunities. The Secretariat confirmed and asked members to share any conferences which they were attending or presenting information regarding BFEG to the Secretariat.

7.14 Action 25_07_15#06 – Secretariat to share a PowerPoint presentation with members which outlined BFEGs work, remit and operation for external use/audiences.

8 Closing remarks and AOB

8.1 No other business was declared.

8.2 The date for the next meeting (which will be the in-person meeting) to be agreed during the closed session.

Annex A – Attendees

Attendees:

BFEG:

Prof Mark Watson-Gandy (Chair)

Prof Richard Guest

Mr Giles Herdale

Dr Matt James

Mr Dave Lewis

Prof Penney Lewis

Ms Elisabeth Mackay

Prof Sarah Morris

Prof Emeritus Charles Raab

Prof Tom Sorell

Prof Denise Syndercombe-Court

Dr Peter Waggett

Officials:

BFEG Secretary and Secretariat

Home Office Deputy Chief Scientific Advisor

Data and Identity Policy Representatives

Representatives from Forensic Information Database Service

Apologies:

BFEG: Prof Anne-Maree Farrell, Dr Nora Ni Loideain, Prof Niamh Nic Daeid, Prof Marion Oswald

Representatives from the Home Office Biometrics Programme

Representatives from the Operation Tabula Programme