Corporate report

STEAC meeting minutes: 14 January 2026

Published 29 September 2026

Notes of the 2nd meeting held on 14th January 2026 online via Microsoft Teams.

1 Welcome, introductions and declarations of interest, update, including STEAC working group updates.

1.1 The Chair welcomed all to the meeting.

1.2 The Chair noted apologies to the attendees. A full list of attendees and apologies can be viewed in annex A.

1.3 Members were invited to share any new or arising declarations of interest. No new declarations of interest were raised.

2 Minutes from previous meeting

2.1 Minutes from the Science and Technology Ethics Advisory Committee (STEAC) meeting held on 07th October 2025 were approved without comment. Previous requests for alterations and corrections had been addressed in the revised minutes presented to the committee.

3 Actions from previous meeting

3.1 Attendees were provided a list of outstanding actions and updates ahead of the meeting. The Chair provided an opportunity for members to raise any questions and discuss.

3.2 A list of actions which were recorded for closure is included as annex B.

3.3 Subject to agreement and confirmation from the AI working Chair, the following action was also to be marked as closed.

2410#01 AI working group to revise and update AI charter before publication.

3.4 All other actions remain open.

3.5 Committee reviewed the engagement log with no comments.

4 Chair’s update

4.1 Chair provided an outline of activities that had taken place since the October Quarterly meeting.

4.2 Chair confirmed he had participated in facial age estimation red-teaming exercise, presented on a panel to an internal Home Office audience on how to engage with science advisory committees and attended the Home Office Science & Innovation Town Hall.

4.3 Chair had presented on STEAC to the Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET) Future Technologies Committee; and indicated there was an interest from the IET in ethical liaison.

ACTION 2601#01: Secretariat to explore engagement between the Institute of Engineering and Technology and STEAC

4.4 The Chair acknowledged and gratefully thanked members for their significant input into the STEAC remit review (with the first phase having now been completed).

4.5 The Chair had met with the sponsor minister in November. The Chair outlined that the meeting was positive and indicated the Minister was focused on STEAC delivery relating to horizon scanning and increasing the level of outputs.

4.6 Regarding engagements for STEAC advice in the last quarter, the Chair confirmed STEAC members attended an embargoed pre-briefing on public attitudes to live facial recognition and listed the engagement requests had been actioned.

4.7 In terms of upcoming activity, the Chair confirmed that STEAC had commenced work on a response to the Home Office consultation on a legal framework for biometric technologies. Members would be involved in a number of meetings to collate their response prior to the deadline.

4.8 Finally, STEAC representatives had also been invited by the Data and Identity policy unit to participate in a Home Office AI “Show & Tell” (April date to be confirmed).

ACTION 2601#02: Secretariat to email members of STEAC regarding a Home Office AI Show and Tell to confirm content, format, and presenters.

5 Introduction to the New Biometrics & Surveillance Camera Commissioner (BSCC)

5.1 The Chair invited the New Biometrics & Surveillance Camera Commissioner to introduce themselves and to provide a verbal update on the current work and priorities of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner (BSCC) (henceforth ‘the Commissioner’).

5.2 The Commissioner advised the committee that he had been in post since 1st November 2025 and provided an overview of their background. The Commissioner confirmed that a detailed introductory meeting had recently taken place with the Chair and deputy Chair of STEAC.

5.3 The Commissioner provided an outline of his five priorities for his office during the two-year appointment. Three of these priorities were provided by the Minister and the other two had been identified as a result of the introductory evaluations in the role.

• Statutory duties relating to this function (reporting and adjudications on biometrics casework).

• Clearing significant biometrics casework backlogs resulting from the previous gap in the resourcing of the post.

• Contributing to the development of the live facial recognition legal framework, with reference to the proposed Home Office consultation, significant input was expected.

• Consideration of how the powers of his office could be utilised to support the Home Office priority of tackling violence against women and girls.

• Updating surveillance camera policy and practice documentation to ensure it is fit for purpose and up to date.

5.5 The Commissioner shared an overview of the key activities of the office since his appointment:

• Holding introductory meetings with stakeholders and site visits

• Setting up stakeholder workshops to gather views on regulatory environment for biometrics and live facial recognition to inform the Commissioner’s response to the Home Office consultation.

• Managing a project to review the powers and functions of the BSCC office to support the effort to tackle violence against women and girls and how overt use of surveillance cameras might be used.

• Tackling the biometrics casework backlog.

• Reignite a programme to visit police forces to oversee their retention and use of biometrics.

5.6 The Commissioner outlined that the stakeholders he would be engaging to inform his consultation response were likely to differ to those engaged by the Home Office, for example local authorities.

5.7 The focus was on developing proposals for regulatory components (not a blueprint, but a framework for consideration). To develop such a framework, the Commissioner would be linking in with the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner as well as liaising with the Forensic Science Regulator, the ICO, and the Human Rights Commission.

5.8 The Commissioner encouraged STEAC to submit an independent response to the consultation.

5.9 Members of STEAC expressed interest in the violence against women and girls project, offering to link the Commissioner with stakeholders.

ACTION 2601#03: The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner to link violence against women and girls (VAWG) project lead with STEAC

5.10 Following a question from a member of STEAC, the Commissioner shared that a no additional budget had been allocated for the violence against women and girls project however, a dedicated short-term resource had been sourced. The Commissioner outlined that an early report was expected around Easter, with publication in summer, and shared that he would be looking to share an early version with STEAC for comment.

5.11 A member of STEAC asked for comment from the commissioner on how they viewed the role of academic work informing the work of his office. The Commissioner responded that while budget has been used for academic research previously, there was no dedicated budget at this time. The commissioner commented that they were interested to engage academics.

5.12 A member of STEAC asked the commissioner whether a systematic approach towards considering the ethical issues raised in this topic was being adopted by the Home Office, for example to what extent there was a requirement to engage with other regulators such as OFCOM. The Commissioner responded that there was an ability to liaise with other regulators but that the landscape was difficult. Some work was underway to integrate the work of the regulators.

5.13 The Commissioner confirmed to STEAC that ethics was an intrinsic element of their work and that he was confident in the standards his office was applying; however, he expressed a keenness to bring work to STEAC to ensure an objective insight could be gained.

5.14 A member of STEAC asked whether particular police forces were being prioritised for the review. The commissioner shared that the conversations were still in early stages and options were being explored. The STEAC member requested updates on progress as this was of relevance to the work and scrutiny of STEAC committee.

ACTION 2601#04: The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner to share updates with STEAC on review of police forces.

5.15 A member of STEAC asked the Commissioner how his role might interact with that of the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, to which he responded that in practice the roles are quite different and for the most part his remit only covered England and Wales. He would however continue to hold a seat on the advisory board for the Scottish Commissioner and contribute to the review of the Office of the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, at the request of the Scottish Government.

5.16 A member of STEAC asked the Commissioner whether he had had any engagement with the European Union (EU) around proposals related to international biometric data exchange. The Commissioner responded that he had spoken with the EU fundamental rights agency and was aware of the developments.

5.17 The Chair thanked the Commissioner for their time and expressed an interest in continued engagement outside of quarterly meetings.

6 Biometrics policy and AI update

6.1 The Committee received an oral update on policy developments relating to identity, biometrics, and emerging technologies, particularly in the context of live facial recognition, AI governance, and forensic reform. The update focused on recent Parliamentary activity, ongoing consultation processes, and anticipated policy directions.

6.2 The Home Office consultation on the future governance and oversight of facial recognition and related biometric technologies was published prior to Christmas and would remain open until February 2026.

6.3 Members were informed that the consultation had already attracted a high level of engagement, and it was expected the consultation would provide a comprehensive reflection of both the public interest, view, and concern in this area. In addition, the Department had been engaging with stakeholders through targeted discussions to inform detailed policy thinking, particularly in relation to legislative options.

6.4 The Home Office Policy representative proposed a dedicated session with interested committee members, outside of the quarterly meeting, to enable a more substantive discussion of the consultation content and potential implications. This was felt to be preferable to a brief discussion within limited agenda time.

ACTION 2601#05: Secretariat to arrange a dedicated meeting between STEAC and the Policy lead to discuss the legal framework for live facial recognition and other biometrics consultation.

6.5 The Committee was informed that the policing minister recently gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. The Evidence addressed the ongoing reform of forensic science provision for policing, following up on the 2019 inquiry. The role of the recently appointed director of forensic services was described.

6.6 A member of STEAC asked if the forensic reform review, which included the potential options for centralisation and procurement changes, would raise issues relevant to STEAC’s advisory role.

6.7 In responding, The Home Office Policy representative explicitly highlighted the risk of unintended consequences from forensic reform. In particular noting the longstanding concern that reforms even if well intentioned could:

• Exacerbate fragmentation and quality issues; and

• Worsen the imbalance between prosecution and defence resources, with implications for access to justice and miscarriages of justice.

6.8 A member of STEAC questioned whether there would be investment in better central or scientific coordination in policing, given longstanding problems with lack of coordination and “suitable docking points,” and whether new funding or structures might support more effective coordination going forward.

6.8..1 Officials advised that Scientific coordination in policing is already intended to be channelled through the Police Chief Scientific Adviser (PCSA) and encouraged engagement with the PCSA.

6.9 Members noted the constitutional and ethical significance of such reform, given longstanding challenges relating to fragmentation, quality assurance and balance between prosecution and defence resources.

ACTION 2601#06: Secretariat to engage with the Police Chief Scientific Advisor regarding any proposed changes to funding for co-ordination of science in policing.

6.10 The Chair asked for reflections on where policy teams might most benefit from STEAC input over the coming year including possible priorities for commissioned work.

6.11 The Policy representative confirmed that following the recent review of STEACs remit, their role as policy sponsor for STEAC was likely to change with a new model for commissioning likely to be adopted. The Policy official additionally provided the following as priority areas in their policy directorate:

• The ongoing and increasing relevance of AI and advanced analytics within identity and biometrics policy.

• The importance of ethical, legal, and human rights considerations where scientific advances intersect with policing and security functions.

• Ethical, legal, and human rights dimensions of emerging technologies.

6.12 Members of STEAC cited a recent report on the use of Co-Pilot by West Midlands Police in the development of a risk assessment as an example of concerns around AI use in high stakes policing contexts. To explain further, members expressed concern around:

• The probabilistic and uncertain nature of some AI tools

• Ricks when deployed in decision making affecting liberty, safety, or justice

6.12..1 Officials confirmed that safe AI adoption in policing is a recognised priority and is being actively considered in future policy development. The need for improved scientific coordination within policing was noted, with acknowledgement that existing structures remain challenging and may evolve as part of wider reform.

6.13 The Home Office Policy representative emphasised that STEAC continues to have value both through formal commissioned advice and self-commissioned work, particularly where emerging technologies intersect with ethics, law, and public trust.

7 Forensic Information Database Service (FINDS) update

7.1 Representatives from the FINDS were present and had provided a written update paper ahead of the meeting.

7.2 Chair asked if there were any questions in relation to the written update.

7.3 No questions were raised

8 Home Office Biometrics (HOB) update

8.1 Representatives from the Home Office Biometrics programme were present and had provided a written update paper ahead of the meeting

8.2 Chair asked if there were any questions in relation to the written update.

8.3 No questions were raised.

9 National Crime Agency (TRACER)

9.1 A NCA Official provided an overview of TRACER (Threat and Risk Assessment, Capability Exploration, and Research), the National Crime Agency’s capability supporting lawful access to communications data and innovation under the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA). The presentation outlined TRACER’s purpose, organisational structure, threat assessment function, and emerging technological challenges, with particular relevance to ethics and governance.

9.2 Members asked for clarification on how TRACER’s work relates to STEAC’s remit, particularly in relation to biometrics and emerging biometric technologies. This included a request to understand what officials would identify as the most significant biometric driven applications from a national security perspective.

9.3 Officials confirmed that biometric and bodily data technologies were on TRACER’s horizon scanning radar and the technologies considered included: Implants and ‑body integrated‑ devices as well as Technologies that enable direct interaction between the brain and digital systems.

9.4 The official highlighted that while some of the technologies may sound speculative, they raise serious future questions around, for example, continuous biometric data generation and the possibility of compromising or interfering with bodily or neural data.

9.5 A member of STEAC asked whether any of the partnerships TRACER had were international and whether any included bodies in the United States of America.

9.6 The official responded that while TRACER was primarily UK‑focused, the threats they dealt with were international by nature and this required active engagement with Europol and the United States. The official shared that TRACER is considered quite unique internationally, with few other countries having a single central body that provides the same kind of coordinated

9.7 Officials acknowledged that ethics is a significant area for TRACER, particularly given the intrusive nature of some Investigatory Powers Act capabilities. It was referenced that the NCA previously had an internal ethics advisory group, but it was considered not to be fully effective. There was presently no direct replacement ethics body within the agency and as such there was interest in STEAC’s capability to understand complex technologies and provide external challenge. The official suggested that there may be interest in engaging STEAC on bespoke ethical and technical questions or using STEAC as an independent forum rather than creating a narrow, agency specific‑ ethics group.

9.8 It was noted that there was mutual interest in strengthening engagement between STEAC and TRACER on ethical and governance issues related to emerging technology.

ACTION 2601#07: Secretariat to establish if the presentation from NCA officials can be shared and circulate if possible

ACTION 2601#08: Secretariat to schedule a further interaction with NCA officials

10 Home Office Science Advice and Ethics Landscape update

10.1 The Deputy Chief Scientific Advisor provided the following updates:

10.2 Professor Brooke Rogers had been appointed as the incoming Chief Scientific Adviser (from February 2026).

• There had been a series of structural changes which had taken place within the Home Office, influencing the positioning of the Secretariat under a new Director General.

10.3 The Head of the Science Advice Function presented an overview of Home Office science advisory bodies to the Committee. This included:

• The ambitious agenda of the new Home Secretary and where STEAC has a role.

• An outline of how the departmental changes have enabled improved integration and co-ordination of science advice.

10.4 Officials provided an update on the development of a Home Office ethics strategy, sharing that a new Home Office ethics Champion had been appointed and that the STEAC Secretariat was working with the central ethics team to support the integration of the ethics functions within the Home Office.

10.5 Members welcomed the clarity provided but raised concerns about:

• Lack of statutory footing for ethics bodies

• The need for clearer definitions of ethics

• Risks of STEAC being perceived as a “catchall” ethics function, given where it sits with the other science advisory committees which could mean STEAC could be under considerable demand.

ACTION 2601#09: Secretariat to provide an organisational structure chart to STEAC following changes implemented in early 2026.

ACTION 2601#10: Secretariat to re-circulate the science advice function presentation slides.

ACTION 2601#11: Head of Science Advice function to liaise with the Cabinet Office to outline the differences between different Science Advisory Committee’s, particularly around statutory vs non statutory footing and associated operations.

11 AOB

11.1 The dates for 2026 meetings of STEAC were agreed. The October meeting would be held in person.

11.2 Members were encouraged to notify the Secretariat of opportunities to raise STEAC’s external profile and conferences.

Annex A: Meeting Attendees

Attendees: STEAC:

Prof Richard Guest (Chair)

Mr Giles Herdale

Dr Matt James

Mr Dave Lewis

Prof Penney Lewis

Ms Elisabeth Mackay

Prof Emeritus Charles Raab

Prof Tom Sorell

Prof Denise Syndercombe-Court

Prof Anne-Maree Farrell,

Dr Nora Ni Loideain,

Prof Niamh Nic Daeid,

Prof Marion Oswald

Officials:

STEAC Secretary and Secretariat

Home Office Deputy Chief Scientific Advisor

Data and Identity Policy Representatives

Representatives from Forensic Information Database Service

Representatives from HOB

Representatives from NCA

Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner

Apologies:

STEAC members: Dr Peter Waggett & Prof Sarah Morris

Annex B: Actions marked as closed.

The following list outlines the actions which were agreed for closure during the January 2026 open meeting.

Actions are recorded with a reference in the format year_month_action number to reflect the meeting at which they were recorded.

2410#10 FINDS representative to share draft Terms of Reference of DBLR software approval panel and potential members list with BFEG.

2410#11 Secretariat/Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group (BFEG)^{[footnote 1]} to confirm parameters and amount of resource available before deciding on self-commissioning outputs.

2504#02 Secretariat to contact HOB Officials to determine what WG the new work may fall in to.

2504#04 HOB official to provide dates for the next HOB WG to meet.

2504#05 FINDs officials to look into the cost and resourcing that has been required to run the investigation into the backlog of DNA profile uploads into the database.

2504#06 FINDS team to follow up with the question from BFEG as to what the procedure is if there is miscarriage of justice relating to the use of YSTR.

2507#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.

2507#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.

2507#04 Deputy Chief Scientific Advisor to share the review of ethics bodies in STAR following sign-off by the CSA.

2507#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 re.

2510#07 Secretariat to schedule an introduction meeting to be arranged with future BSCC, once appointed.

2510#08 Secretariat to schedule a follow up meeting with Forensic Pathology Team.

2510#09 MO to share probable future document in relation to knife crime detection technology.

2510#11 Sec to schedule quarterly meetings for 2026.

1. The Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group (BFEG) was the forerunner to the Science and Technology Ethics Advisory Committee. BFEG was renamed STEAC at the end of 2025. ↩