Corporate report

BFEG meeting minutes: 21 January 2025

Updated 30 June 2025

1. Welcome, introductions and declarations of interest

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.

1.2 The Chair welcomed the newly appointed Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser to the meeting and invited them to introduce themselves.

Introduction to the Deputy Chief Scientific Advisor

1.3 The Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser stated their intention to support the BFEG alongside the other Scientific Advisory Committees at the Home Office as required, and to promote the work that they do both within the Home Office and across Government.

Declarations of interest

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

• Professor Niamh Nic Daeid shared that one of their staff members had been contracted by the Home Office to undertake consultancy work related to the Forensic Information Database Service (FINDS) YSTR project.
• Professor Sarah Morris noted they were undertaking some digital forensic consultancy for another government department.

1.5 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.

2. Chair’s update, including review of BFEG submissions

Minutes and review of actions

2.1 Minutes from BFEG meeting held in October 2024 were approved subject to one correction to the attendance list.

2.2. An updated action log was provided to attendees ahead of the meeting which included a status update against each action. It was suggested that certain action items were closed. No objections were raised with regard to closure of these actions (listed below for records).

• The following actions were agreed as closed, actions, as identified in the following format [year_month_action number]: 2404#02, 2404#03, 2404#04, 2404#06, 2404#07, 2407#01, 2407#02, 2407#03, 2410#03, 2410#04, 2410#05, 2410#06, 2410#07, 2410#08, 2410#09, 2410#12 and 2410#13.

2.3 In the interest of time, the Chair stated that outstanding actions would be reviewed at the next meeting.

2.4 The Chair noted that update papers had been circulated with regard to Operation Tabula, which had been discussed at the last meeting. No further comments were received, and it was agreed these actions could also be closed.

2.5 The Chair notified members that a log had been developed by the Secretariat to monitor progress against submissions and to keep BFEG members informed. This would complement the development of the Engagement and Impact strategy.

2.6 The Chair informed members that since the last quarterly meeting they had had the following meetings:

• A meeting with the Chair of the Scottish Policing Authority to discuss the use of live facial recognition technology in Scotland.
• Attended a Home Office meeting on Ethics.
• Had an introductory meeting with BFEG’s Sponsor Minister, Lord Hanson.
• Members met with the new Accelerated Capability Environment (ACE) CEO.

2.7 The Chair made note of varied submissions, which BFEG had completed since the last quarterly meeting, which included providing advice on a survey on public attitudes to the use of live facial recognition, providing advice to His Majesty’s Passport Office, providing advice on a project which considered the use of open-source intelligence and attending feasibility trials for new border technologies.

2.8 The Chair thanked members for their time and contributions.

Meeting with Lord Hanson

2.9 The Chair summarised his meeting with Lord Hanson for the group, reflecting on actions to be taken forward and highlighting that the Minister was interested in the soon to be published Voice Recognition Technology Report.

2.10 The Chair noted that a commissioning letter for 2025/26 commissioning period was expected to be produced before the next quarterly meeting.

Action 2501#01: Chair to share a readout of the meeting with Lord Hanson with BFEG members once agreed.

Future priorities

2.11 The Chair noted to members that his tenure was due to end after two terms, and 6 years, in September 2025. It was noted to members that recruitment would commence in due course.

2.12 A submission had been made to the Minister with regard to the possibility of a BFEG name change.

3. Policy update

3.1 A paper had been shared with members ahead of the meeting. This paper outlined written updates since the group last met.

3.2 In addition, a representative from the Home Office Policy Sponsor unit provided a short verbal update. The update focused on a series of recent roundtables which the Crime and Policing Minister had been hosting with stakeholders in industry, law enforcement and civil society. The purpose of these roundtables was to discuss the legal framework and oversight systems that exist to govern the use of facial recognition by law enforcement.

3.3 The Policy Sponsor representative noted the conversations had focused on live facial recognition and covered all current and possible policy developments.

3.4 It was pointed out that one session with parliamentarians was still outstanding and that consultation with the relevant stakeholder community would take place afterwards.

3.5 It was raised by the Policy official that BFEG and its wider networks would be included in further in-depth stakeholder engagement. It was intimated that this could be as early as Spring 2025.

3.6 It was mentioned that the evaluation of facial recognition, which would inform policy analysis, was still underway but was too early to comment on. BFEG’s engagement in design of this evaluation process was noted.

3.7 A member asked whether the Home Office was in conversation with Police in Scotland. The Policy official responded that the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner had been included in engagement via the roundtables.

3.8 On a separate matter, a member highlighted recent reports on mobile driving licences and questioned whether the Home Office had the intention to deliver this into Passports.

3.9 The representative stated that they were not aware of plans to roll this out to Passports. The member further questioned whether this work was engaged with international work conducted by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) on mobile driving licences. The Policy official shared that this was not within their remit, and the BFEG member offered to investigate further.

Action 2501#02: BFEG (PW) to investigate the development of mobile driving licenses and report back.

4. Home Office Biometrics update

4.1 An official from the Home Office Biometrics (HOB) programme provided a verbal update to members of BFEG.

4.2 Members were informed that the materials provided in advance of the meeting provided an overview of the three modalities which HOB covered, namely: fingerprints, facial imaging, and DNA.

4.3 The official noted that the HOB Ethics Working Group (HOB E WG) (a sub-group of BFEG) had met on the 17th of January and discussed each area in detail.

4.4 It was outlined that the key areas of interest for the year ahead would be:

• For fingerprints, improvements to the Bureau Platform, including consideration of a feasibility report which was in development and would be brought back to the HOB E WG. In addition, areas of research and development were of interest.
• For facial imaging, the full work-programme would be considered, including an age estimation as part of a research and development programme.
• For DNA, matters would be raised as they arose.

4.5 The official said that they would be open to further discussions around scientific age estimation and the evaluation programme for facial recognition.

4.6 It was noted by the official that the HOB programme would close in December 2026 and would move towards being a biometric service. Following a question from a member, it was clarified that this would reduce the burden on HOB staff to develop a business case for funding each year. It would instead be a customer-led organisation working on real-time capabilities and developments, and product managers were already in place to support the transition.

4.7 Finally, the representative noted they would draw BFEG’s attention to any data protection matters of relevance.

4.8 It was noted that there was intention to have more regular meetings with HOB E WG.

4.9 The Chair of the HOB E WG reflected that the HOB E WG meeting which had recently taken place was a positive one with a productive dialogue, and that multiple ethical matters were discussed.

4.10 On the topic of development of an Operator Initiated Facial Recognition app (included in the written update) a member questioned how many police forces were being included as early adopters. The official replied that this was ongoing conversation, but likely no more than six.

4.11 A member said that BFEG was available for discussions with police forces around early testing, prior to national deployment.

Action 2501#03: HOB to keep a watching brief on possible engagement of BFEG with the early adopters of OIFR technologies and the testing programme.

5. Forensic Information Database Service (FINDS) update

5.1 An official from FINDS provided members with a verbal update to accompany the slides which were circulated ahead of the meeting.

5.2 The first update focused on the YSTR Reference DNA Database project. The representative highlighted that a submission had been made to members of BFEG around a proposal to provide a monetary incentive for sample collections.

5.3 A member questioned: why it was decided to include a monetary incentive, how the value was determined, and whether it represented fair value. The FINDS official replied that the ambition for the incentive was to increase uptake and that the value had been based on a similar programme run by the NHS.

5.4 In response, the member asked whether the NHS programme showed that this was a good sum to offer. The official responded that as this scheme was new it was unclear.

5.5 The FINDS official confirmed that no ethical objections were raised with regard to the incentive programme, and no further comment was noted from BFEG.

5.6 The FINDS official also provided a status update on the YSTR National DNA Database expansion. It was noted there were no specific questions to BFEG from FINDS on this. However, it was anticipated in future BFEG would be consulted for guidance on matching criteria and the output of results to the criminal justice system.

6. Self-commissioning update

6.1 A short update was provided, noting that work around BFEG’s self-commissioned work was progressing. A project initiation document and a reference group had been established with a first meeting to be scheduled in the coming weeks.

7. BFEG name change

7.1 BFEG were informed that a submission had been sent to Ministers, accompanied by a letter from the BFEG Chair, outlining the rationale behind BFEG’s request for a name change. The submission was with the Minister’s private office waiting for a response and decision.

7.2 Following consultation with BFEG members, Home Office officials and the Minister (during their introductory meeting with the BFEG Chair), it had been put to the Minister that BFEG change its name from ‘Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group’ to ‘Science and Technology Ethics Advisory Committee.’

7.3 The Secretariat were simultaneously establishing a list of documents, such as the framework and terms of reference, which would need to be updated, and also were developing a communication plan to communicate the name change both internally and externally.

7.4 The development of a communication plan was in early stages. However, it was requested that, should members have suggestions on where to market this change these should be communicated to the Secretariat.

8. BFEG Working Group membership

8.1 An update to the BFEG Working Groups and membership list had been conducted over email and completed. A full list of Working Group Chairs, Deputy Chairs and membership had been agreed and circulated in a paper for this meeting.

8.2 The Secretariat will be using these Working Groups moving forward to triage work, in conjunction with Working Group Chairs, to manage resources and allocate submissions, based on member expertise and interest.

8.3 Updates regarding each Working Group would be provided at quarterly meetings.

8.4 A member requested a change to their membership allocation, this was noted and actioned by the Secretariat.

8.5 A member suggested that, within the subject heading, email communications should be tagged to indicate what Working Group the communication related to. This was agreed.

9. ACE update

9.1 Members were updated that since the meeting with ACE’s CEO in early November. it is clear that ACE are keen to establish a working protocol with BFEG via a memorandum of understanding. This would acknowledge that while ACE’s timelines are typically quite tight and that because BFEG being a voluntary group it would require additional time for review.

9.2 It was noted that ACE’s CEO was also keen to understand further BFEG’s relationship with the wider Home Office.

9.3 Further engagements were taking place between the BFEG secretariat and ACE officials, to establish this working practice. A number of BFEG members were engaged with the progression of this work.

10. Update from the Forensic Science Regulator  

10.1 The Forensic Science Regulator provided an overview of current status of their role and their office.

10.2 The Regulator told the group that over the last 3 years, the focus has been on establishing statutory regulation of forensic science through the production of the Code of Practice, which was approved by the Secretary of State and Parliament and came into force in October 2023.

10.3 The Regulator said that the second version of the Forensic Science Regulator Code of Practice was due to be published by mid-2025.

10.4 The Regulator explained that the provisions of the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 changed the status of the role of the Forensic Science Regulator. The Regulator focused on provisions that made the Code admissible in criminal proceedings and that introduced investigation and enforcement powers.

10.5 The Regulator noted that as part of the function of their office they received referrals and emphasised that there is a joint interest in ensuring ethics are considered within the referral process.

10.6 The Regulator reflected on the governance of biometrics and forensics, referring to the roundtables mentioned by the Policy official earlier in the update, and said that they sensed a willingness from Government to ensure the correct methods of governance are in place.

10.7 It was highlighted that emerging technologies were being used as Forensic Science activities such as the use of gait analysis or behavioural insights. It was reflected that emergent technologies are expected to have a broad range of applications within the criminal justice system in the future.

10.8 A member commented on the challenges of fact-finding when considering these technologies and questioned whether the Regulator could indicate any procedures which BFEG could contribute into in the future. The Regulator responded that they utilise an infrastructure of specialist groups for advice and that there may be mutual benefit in exploring emerging technologies together.

10.9 A member furthered the point at 10.8 by observing that it is often difficult to establish what is happening in practice. Any collaboration or resources with could be jointly drawn upon would be beneficial.

10.10 A member reflected on the point raised by the Regulator on emerging technologies and their use, noting that during a recent BFEG review of gait and voice technologies, there appeared to be a lack of supporting evidence. The member highlighted that those findings indicated that instead of this dissuading use of these technologies, it appeared they were still being used and potentially being combined with or biasing other evidence. The member raised concerns regarding this and sought the Regulator’s views.

10.11 The Regulator responded that they were working to establish a proactive approach to tracking compliance with the Code of Practice for Forensic Science. The Regulator noted that they were starting to see semi-regular admissibility challenges. As such, there was a need for these matters to be considered prior to reaching the courts.

10.12 After highlighting that the Code of Practice for Forensic Anthropology had been withdrawn in late 2024, a member questioned how that would be regulated and whether it would fall under the Forensic Science Regulator’s Code of Practice.

10.13 The Regulator responded that Forensic Anthropology would not come under their Code because, based on some limitations set by the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021, it had been determined not to include Forensic Anthropology as a Forensic Science Activity within the Code.

11. Introduction to Minister Hanson’s Private Office   

11.1 A member of the Private Office of Lord Hanson, BFEG’s Sponsor Minister, attended the meeting to provide some insight to the Minister’s background, their current portfolio, and priorities as the Home Office’s Lords Minister.

12. Closing remarks and AOB

12.1 The date of the next quarterly meeting was agreed as 1 April 2025.

Annex A: attendees

BFEG:

• Mark Watson-Gandy (Chair)
• Anne-Maree Farrell
• Richard Guest
• Giles Herdale
• Matt James
• Penney Lewis
• Dave Lewis
• Sarah Morris (joined at 14.00)
• Nora Ni Loideain
• Niamh Nic Daeid
• Malcolm Oswald
• Marion Oswald
• Charles Raab
• Tom Sorell
• Denise Syndercombe-Court
• Peter Waggett

Officials:

• BFEG Secretary and Secretariat
• Home Office Deputy Chief Scientific Advisor (attended until 14.00)
• Data and Identity Policy Representatives
• Forensic Science Information Database Service Representatives
• Forensic Science Regulator
• Representatives from the Office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner
• Representatives from the Home Office Biometrics Programme

Apologies

• BFEG: Elisabeth Mackay, Denise Syndercombe-Court