Corporate report

STEAC meeting minutes: 7 October 2025

Published 29 September 2026

Notes of the 1st meeting held on 07 October 2025 online via Microsoft Teams.

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

1 Welcome

1.1 The newly appointed Chair, Professor Richard Guest, welcomed attendees both to his first meeting as Chair of the group, and the first meeting since the recent change in name from the Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group (BFEG) to the Science and Technology Ethics Advisory Committee (STEAC).

1.2 The name change was noted by attendees and pronunciation of the acronym was discussed; no conclusion was drawn.

1.3 Chair shared reflections on priorities for STEAC and emphasised the importance of an upcoming review of the committee’s remit. This would be an opportunity to shape the scope of the committee, rationalising the remit and redefining how expertise is utilised. The remit review, and the name change, were reflective of the increasing significance of ethics and the Committee’s evolving role within the Home Office.

1.4 Chair noted some members would attending the meeting later than the start time. Attendees and apologies are noted as indicated in Appendix A.

2 Declarations of interest

2.1 Members were invited to share any new or arising declarations of interest, none were raised.

2.2 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 any updates as they arise.

3 Minutes and review of actions

3.1 Minutes from committee meeting held in July 2025 (under the name of Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group (BFEG)) had been agreed by attendees offline to ensure publication could be co-ordinated with the name change from BFEG to STEAC. It was confirmed that the Minutes of the committee, under the name BFEG, will remain on the archived Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group gov.uk website: Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group meeting minutes - GOV.UK.

3.2 Attendees were invited to share any objections which had not previously been made, none were raised.

3.3 An updated action log was provided to attendees ahead of the meeting which included a status update against each action and suggested the closure of one action (actions under the previous name BFEG were carried forward). The Chair highlighted updates for each action seeking objections/comment. The following points were discussed (actions are referenced in the format year_month_#action number):

3.4 Outstanding actions owned by the Home Office Biometrics (HOB) Programme (2504#02 and 2504#04) were to be addressed later in the meeting as part of the HOB representative presentation. The Committee noted that staffing changes had impacted on progressing some of the outstanding actions by HOB.

3.5 Regarding action 2404#09, the Chair confirmed that the London Metropolitan Police can now share a draft DPIA for Forensic Genetic Genealogy work. This has been shared with a subgroup of STEAC members. This action remains in progress.

3.6 Regarding action 2507#03, Chair updated that the STEAC comments on the Forensic Information Database Service (FINDS) proposal for storage of SARC elimination profiles. No comments were received. The Chair requested that Secretariat confirm with DSC and NND if they have further comments, before closing this action.

3.7 Regarding action 2507#06, Chair requested Secretariat confirm whether the draft presentation outlining STEAC’s current remit had been distributed to members.

3.8 Additionally, action 2507#01 was noted to be closed, no objection was raised.

Submissions

3.9 The Chair provided members with a verbal summary of the “Engagement” requests for advice (formally referenced as ‘submissions’) received in the last quarter and relevant updates on related activity.

3.10 A STEAC member emphasised the importance of understanding the Home Office’s strategic priorities and guiding principles to ensure that the committee’s expertise aligns appropriately. This insight should inform future recruitment, helping to secure the right specialisms to support the committee’s work. They also expressed that submission work shouldn’t stop, as it builds relationships across the Home Office. The Chair agreed and stated this was to be considered as part of the remit review process.

3.11 A STEAC member commented that STEAC should ideally be informed early of the work undertaken by the Home Office’s central ethics function. In this way, STEAC can align resource to support this work.

Name change update

3.12 It was confirmed that the name change from BFEG to the Science and Technology Ethics Advisory Committee (STEAC) had been officially announced by Ministers ([HCWS929]) in September.

3.13 The Chair reflected the reason for the name change was to make the Committee more accessible to the wider Home Office community as well as an opportunity to raise STEAC’s profile. Members were encouraged to review the new STEAC website and share comment on changes which could be made to improve engagement and transparency.

3.14 Further publicity of the committee’s name change would occur after the conclusion and finalising of STEAC’s remit review.

Action 2510#01: Members to provide comment on the STEAC website and a follow up conversation to be arranged around republication of materials previously published under the BFEG banner to be moved/removed to the STEAC website

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

3.15 The Chair shared with members that they had met with Lord Hanson, STEAC’s Sponsor Minister, as part of their onboarding into post as Chair.

3.16 The Chair summarised the meeting for STEAC members and confirmed that important updates on STEAC’s work programme were raised.

3.17 The following reflections were shared by the Chair:

3.17.1 The Minister had expressed strong support for STEAC’s work and acknowledged its value to the Home Office, emphasising the interest in having direct sight of STEAC’s recommendations.

3.17.2 There was interest in raising the visibility of STEAC with an increased focus on producing more outward-facing materials (e.g., publications, or contribution to consultations) to raise awareness of its work, with a particular interest in horizon scanning. The remit review provides an opportunity for STEAC to ensure its impact is visible.

3.17.3 The Chair outlined that they would work to clarify the scope of horizon scanning as part of the remit review.

3.17.4 Biometrics, Forensic Science, large datasets and AI remain within STEAC’s remit. The remit review will provide a space to assess where more expertise is required on the committee.

3.17.5 Part of the remit review will be establishing how STEAC can work more effectively with other Science Advisory Councils.

3.17.6 This was a positive meeting and STEAC will continue to have meetings with Lord Hanson on a quarterly basis.

Home Office Science Advisory Council (HOSAC) update

3.18 The Chair shared that they had attended a meeting of the Home Office Science Advisory Committee on 15th September.

3.19 The Chair indicated that at this meeting that the discussion focused on strengthening collaboration between STEAC and HOSAC.

3.20 The Chair expressed a mutual interest in joint working and indicated a personal desire to strengthen understanding of the role of STEAC within the Home Office’s wider science advice system.

Ongoing work update

3.21 The Chair spoke briefly about ongoing conversations to provide STEAC with a collaborative working area, such as a SharePoint site.

3.22 The Chair spoke about the Secretariat’s work to gauge STEAC’s impact, through sending feedback surveys to project teams who request STEAC’s advice.

3.23 The Chair thanked STEAC members for their work on updating the STEAC submission form.

4 Publications

4.1 Under the heading BFEG, the Voice Recognition Technology report had now been published. As had the delayed 2022 – 2024 annual report.

5 Departmental updates

Departmental Priorities

5.1 The DCSA welcomed the new Head of Science Advice Delivery. They will oversee all science advisory councils and provide strategic guidance, including support for STEAC. The role includes improving coordination across committees and enhancing advice delivery beyond formal structures. 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. This included Facial age Estimation project, this included an outline of the ‘safer streets mission’, the ‘growth agenda’ and police reform. A quality assurance group is being formed to oversee this work. STEAC Chair is expected to contribute, leveraging his expertise in ethics and biometrics. Potential for red teaming to test operational robustness and ethical safeguards.

Ethics in the Home Office

5.2 The Home Office is finalizing a new Ethics Strategy, currently in consultation. A new ethics board is expected to launch before Christmas 2025.Attendees were advised that the current Ethics Champion, is leaving; the successor is not yet confirmed, which may affect the momentum of the planned ethics board.

5.3 DCSA emphasized the importance of STEAC’s connection to HOSAC (Home Office Science Advisory Committee). The DCSA confirmed the STEAC Chair has already engaged with HOSAC Co-Chair, which DCSA sees as a key relationship.

5.4 DCSA stressed that STEAC’s remit review is the top priority, and it is hoped this remit review will generate greater awareness of the support STEAC can provide more widely within the Home Office. The DCSA encouraged outreach to departments and agencies like the National Crime Agency (NCA), where Director of Data is a key contact.

5.5 The DCSA indicated he perceived STEAC as the broadest ethics advisory body in the Home Office, with potential to influence across multiple domains and encouraged members to help shape how STEAC supports emerging and unexpected policy needs.

5.6 The DCSA also identified work on Facial Age Estimation (FAE) as another priority area of work. This is specifically to help determine the age of unaccompanied minors arriving in the UK. He confirmed that the policy team responsible for this area of work will be establishing a quality assurance board to provide oversight and it is intended the Chair of STEAC will be a member of this board.

5.7 The Head of Science Advice Delivery provided a brief introduction including what his new role and function would be responsible for in terms of co-ordinating and increasing the profile of the Science Advisory Committees which sit under the Chief Scientific Advisor for the Home Office.

5.8 He went on to confirm how the current remit review of STEAC was an important opportunity to promote STEAC’s visibility as well as developing an integrated approach to science advice for the Home Office.

5.9 The Chair reminded the DCSA of an outstanding action relating to sharing the results of a recent ethics review within the Science, Technology, Analysis and Research team.

5.10 In follow up to action #4 from July’s quarterly meeting, the DCSA confirmed agreement to share the outcomes of the review of ethics bodies in STAR, once the Chief Scientific Adviser had signed off the document.

5.11 Chair requested the DCSA to elaborate on any additional issues or areas of work that he may wish the committee to consider, prior to the next quarterly meeting.

5.12 The DCSA confirmed that the main priority was the remit review to ensure there is an awareness and understanding of the range of policy customers are not only made aware of the services STEAC can provide, but also how they are able to engage.

5.13 The DCSA also confirmed he had made contact with the NCA (National Crime Agency) Data Lead to ensure there was engagement as part of the remit review.

5.14 The Chair confirmed that he was keen to utilise other members of the committee in the remit review process to ensure the findings were representative of member perspectives.

6 Policy update

6.1 A representative from the Data and Identity Policy Directorate presented an update to STEAC.

6.2 New Legal Framework:

The Home Secretary and Policing Minister are committed to launching a public consultation on a new legal framework for police use of biometrics, including facial recognition. Timing is linked to broader police reform plans.

6.3 Facial Recognition Rollout:

6.3.1 Government confirmed the rollout of 10 new live facial recognition units across England and Wales. This continues a decision made by the previous administration.

6.3.2 A new Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner has been appointed and will begin on 1 November 2025, succeeding the Interim Biometrics Commissioner.

Action 2510#02 Secretariat to arrange an introduction to Amanda-Jane Balfour, Director of Forensic Services in the Home Office. 

6.4 Forensics Reform

6.4.1 Dr. Marc Bailey has replaced Gary Pugh as the Forensic Science Regulator for England and Wales.

Action 2510#03 Secretariat to arrange an introduction with Dr Marc Bailey as Forensic Science Regulator. 

6.4.2 Version 2 of the Forensic Science Regulator’s Code will come into force this month, having passed parliamentary scrutiny.

6.4.3 The Home Office is exploring a shift from locally managed forensic services to a national model, similar to Scotland or Northern Ireland. This would require legislative change and aims to improve consistency and accountability.

6.4.4 The idea of a National Forensics Archive is under consideration and may align with Law Commission proposals.

6.4.5 A new National Director of Forensics Delivery has been appointed to lead the reform and develop the future operating model.

6.4.6 A member of STEAC asked about the shift from local to national forensic services - would this be a one national body?

6.4.7 Policy team representative responded that The Home Office is exploring a move to a national model for forensic service delivery, similar to Scotland or Northern Ireland. This would require legislative change to shift accountability from local police

6.4.8 Another member of STEAC asked if the review includes the commercial forensics market.

6.4.9 Policy team representative confirmed that the commercial market is within scope. The reform aims to address fragility in the current system, including commercial issues.

6.4.10 A STEAC member enquired if this included the National Archive alongside national service provision.

6.4.11 The Policy team representative confirmed that the National Archive is within scope and National Director of Forensics Delivery is considering it and welcomed further discussion with the Law Commission to align efforts.

6.4.12 A member also asked about Research & Development (R&D) and academic collaboration across the Forensic Science space.

6.4.13 The Policy team representative confirmed that R&D and is within scope, though no conclusions have been reached yet. The Policy representative offered to facilitate contact with National Director of Forensics Delivery. The member of STEAC confirmed that they are already in touch

6.5 AI Policy

6.5.1 Home Office is embedding transparency and ethical considerations into its AI Pathfinder projects.

6.5.2 A member of STEAC asked how transparency is being embedded in AI Pathfinder projects

6.5.3 The Policy representative stated that the Home Office Data and AI Ethics Policy Manager is leading efforts to support teams with guidance and assurance. Work is ongoing to update departmental guidance and assess potential legislative changes to support safe AI adoption. The Data and AI Ethics Policy Manager works directly with Pathfinder projects to ensure ethical considerations are embedded and consistent.

6.6 Digital Identity ID Card Scheme:

6.6.1 A member of STEAC asked about the committee involvement in digital ID card work.

6.6.2 The Policy representative responded that DSIT leads policy on digital identity. However, the Home Office is likely to play a significant delivery role. While not currently under the Policy teams’ remit, it is expected to become a key priority.

Action 2510#04 Secretariat to liaise with Home Office Policy representative regarding the policy lead in the Home Office for ID cards

7 Home Office Biometrics (HOB) update

7.1.1 The representative from the Home Office Biometrics programme provided a verbal update at the meeting.

7.1.2 Delivery of the Strategic Matcher has been the major focus over summer. The new Strategic Matcher platform enables marked print searches using a new fingerprint algorithm. The Live testing with volunteer police bureau’s showed improved performance over the legacy matcher. It is expected that the changeover to new algorithm expected mid-November 2025. Future stages of matcher delivery planned over the next 12–18 months.

7.1.3 Planning is underway for platform refresh to improve tooling for police bureaus. Delivery will be iterative, not a single rollout. Collaboration with policing and DFC (Digital Fingerprint Capability) teams is ongoing.

7.2 PRUM

7.2.1 Continued expansion of international fingerprint exchange. Spain and Greece recently connected. Only Italy and Ireland remain to be linked.

7.2.2 A member of STEAC expressed congratulation the PRUM expansion and asked if there would there be changes to governance or ethical oversight in light of PRÜM expansion.

7.2.3 The HOB Representative stated that HOB is not directly involved in PRÜM policy. However, HOB is supporting technical implementation. Future developments will be led by policy colleagues. Ethical implications may be brought to STEAC or the Ethics Working Group as needed. The HOB representative stated that they would find out the answer to the STEAC member’s question.

Action: 2510#05 The update from HOB on possible expansion of the PRUM arrangements/biometric exchanges following the upcoming EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement revision in 2026 to be added as a future action to the next quarterly meeting

7.3 Facial Recognition

7.3.1 Focus remains on retrospective facial recognition. The portal for this expected to be ready by end of 2025. Business readiness and change activities underway with NPCC and PND teams.

7.4 DNA & FINDS Support

7.4.1 Continued support for FINDS colleagues on DNA-related work.

7.4.2 Collaboration on forensic genetic genealogy and elimination profile storage ongoing.

7.5 Ethics Working Group

7.5.1 Apologies were made to STEAC for delays in scheduling meetings due to personnel changes in HOB.

7.5.2 There is now an interim Programme Director for HOB.

7.5.3 There are plans to reinvigorate the Ethics Working Group and align with the STEAC remit review.

7.5.4 Emphasis was placed on avoiding duplication and ensuring operational projects are ethically supported.

7.5.5 A STEAC member asked for detail on how close HOB is to identifying ethical issues or dilemmas that could be brought to STEAC for input and if this would be within the next 6 months.

7.5.6 The HOB representative responded that ethical issues from projects are already being discussed. HOB aims to bring such topics to the Ethics Working Group. Transitioning to a product-led organisation and a biometrics service, rather than a programme. This means that ethics will be considered more dynamically, not just through annual business cases. Timing is uncertain, but engagement is expected to increase as demand-driven projects emerge.

7.5.7 A member of STEAC added that that a current STEAC submission on facial recognition is a strong example of how ethical advice can have immediate operational impact.

7.5.8 The HOB representative agreed. It’s an operationally led project, but HOB ensured ethical engagement by signposting the team to STEAC.

7.5.9 It was noted by a STEAC member that It would be beneficial to establish regular meetings between HOB and STEAC.

7.5.10 The HOB representative confirmed that HOB is committed to reinvigorating the Ethics Working Group and aligning with STEAC’s remit review.

8 Forensic Information Database Service (FINDS) update

8.1. 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 STEAC.

8.2 The FINDS Representative advised that the National DNA Database – 30th Anniversary event was held with speakers including the Deputy Director & Home Office Director of Forensic Science. This also Included a useful Q&A session.

8.3 Y-STR Project

Phase A - Deadline for sample collection extended to December 2025 as the current sample count is at 6,000 although there are still some incoming, and that there is an expected boost of 3,000 from King’s College London. Phase B - Research phase continues, and an update meeting is planned for later this month; Phase C (implementation) is dependent on completion of Phases A and B.

8.4 DBLR Software Proposal

• Purpose: Use DBLR software to search complex DNA mixtures against the National DNA Database

• Submitted by: Cellmark Forensics as is accredited to ISO 17025.

• Functionality: Acts as an intelligence tool to identify potential contributors to mixtures.

• Strategy Board Decision: Recommended a pilot phase.

• Next Steps:

  • Development of a pilot plan in collaboration with Cellmark.

  • Plan to be reviewed by the FINDS Strategy Board.

  • Matches will be reviewed by scientists before reporting to forces.

8.5 No further questions were raised.

9 Op Tabula update

9.1 Due to time constraints, the representative agreed to provide an update at the next quarterly meeting.

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

9.3 No questions were raised.

Action 2510#06 Secretariat to liaise with Chair to confirm an appropriate time for rescheduling with Op Tabula 

10 Interim Biometrics Commissioner- Biometrics only (not Surveillance Camera Commissioner)

10.1 The Biometrics Commissioner will have served from July 2025 until end of October 2025, on a part-time basis, with a remit focused solely on biometrics and considering biometrics casework (not also as Surveillance Camera Commissioner). The new permanent Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner would take over in November, for a two-year term.

10.2 The Commissioner advised that they had been working on the following in the context of biometrics casework:

• Considering the backlog of biometrics casework that had built up in the period when no commissioner was in post.

• Seeking clarification from NPCC on guidance on appropriate adults in the PACE s63G process around juveniles and vulnerable adults.

• Recognizing evolving conditions like neurodivergence.

• Supporting consultation processes as a vehicle for public trust and ethical oversight, for when the new Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner enters office.

• DBS Checks: Confirmed biometric retention does not appear on enhanced DBS checks.

• Ethical Governance: Emphasized need for human safeguards alongside technological tools.

• AI Use in Casework: Monitoring potential AI-generated representations made by subjects of s63G applications.

10.3 A STEAC member asked for elaboration on the use of AI in Section 63G applications and the concerns related to this.

10.5 The Biometrics Commissioner and team have identified a small number of cases where representations submitted by subjects of such applications may have been drafted with the assistance of AI. There are concerns that there may be an uncritical reliance on AI without legal understanding or support, and the team is monitoring this and will flag any concerns to the next commissioner.

• Misunderstandings (e.g., assuming biometric retention isn’t allowed without conviction).

• Lack of independent thought.

• Need for monitoring to assess impact and fairness.

10.6 The STEAC member followed up with-Is your concern that AI might be used by legally untrained individuals and make basic errors?
The Commissioner’s response was: The worry is uncritical reliance on AI without legal understanding or support, which could lead to flawed representations.

10.7 Another STEAC member asked which ethical governance model the Interim Biometrics Commissioner would suggest for future biometrics and AI use? They also asked if there would be an interim report provided by the Biometrics Commissioner on their time in this office.

10.8 The Commissioner advised that AI use requires immediate monitoring and would return with an update on how this has been actioned. They also confirmed that would submit an interim report summarizing their term and progress made.

Action 2510#07 Secretariat to schedule an introductory meeting with the future Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, once appointed. A particular focus of this meeting could be ‘monitoring AI use in submissions to the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner’.

11 Office of the Police Chief Scientific Adviser (OPCSA) forensic expert panel submission

11.1 OPCSA representatives presented a proposal to establish a forensic bone pathology expert panel.

11.2 The aim is to address challenges in interpreting bone injuries in baby death cases, particularly distinguishing between non-accidental injuries and injuries from resuscitation.

11.3 The proposal stems from controversy in the Hammersmith case, where expert opinions conflicted, leading to judicial criticism and reluctance to use certain experts owing to challenges from other forensic bone pathologists, particularly in relation to cases that involve babies.

Key Issues Identified:

• Shortage of qualified forensic bone pathologists in the UK.

• Conflicting expert opinions in critical cases.

• Operational reluctance from police and CPS due to judicial criticism.

• Need for independent review of four specific cases using digitized histology slides.

11.4 Panel Proposal

In response to these key issues, the OPCSA propose:

• A one-off National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) panel (not standing or recurring) to review four anonymized cases.

• Experts from the UK, US, and Canada have agreed in principle to participate.

• Digital slides will be used to avoid issues with the Human Tissue Act.

• The cases are legally resolved (no ongoing criminal or civil proceedings).

11.5 Questions & Answers

11.5.1 A STEAC member asked would the panel be standing or ad hoc?

11.5.2 The submission team responded that it was intended to be a one-off panel reviewing four specific cases, it would be the same panel for all cases.

11.5.3 A STEAC member asked whether qualified experts would be recruited for this, given the limited number of bone pathologists with expertise.

11.5.4 The submission team responded that experts had already agreed to sit on the panel, in principle. Histology slides will be digitised to comply with legal and ethical standards.

11.5.5 A STEAC member asked what would happen if the panel disagreed.

11.5.6 The submission team explained that divergence of opinion is expected and acceptable. It may indicate that the science is not mature enough for definitive conclusions, prompting further research. It may be the case that the bone pathologist in the Hammersmith case may continue to be used.

11.5.7 STEAC member asked about what happens if the panel finds non-accidental injury in resolved cases?

11.5.8 The submission team explained cases will remain anonymized. If findings suggest non-accidental injury, the decisions made in the case previously would stand. However, they will be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for review and potential further action.

11.5.9 STEAC member asked for detail on the legal statuses of the cases.

11.5.10 The submission team explained that two cases have no further action or were discontinued. No criminal or civil proceedings are ongoing. Two additional cases are pending police permission.

11.5.11 STEAC members suggested:

• A clarified panel structure and recruitment feasibility.
  
  Involving forensic anthropologists via the Royal Anthropological Institute, especially from the University of Dundee. There was a particular suggestion to contact named expert anthropologists. They also advised reaching out to the Forensic Science Regulator despite forensic pathology not falling within the remit of the FSR. They raised concerns about relying heavily on bone pathologist in the Hammersmith case, whose credibility has been challenged. They urged caution around utilising the opinions of the people this professional trained, to avoid perpetuating poor practice.

• Highlighted potential emotional and reputational consequences if findings are inconclusive or critical of the bone pathologist in the Hammersmith case

• Asked about legal implications and next steps if panel findings contradict previous decisions.

Action 2510#08 Secretariat to schedule a follow up meeting with the Office of the Police Chief Scientific Adviser in relation to this bone pathology submission.

Next Steps

11.5.12 Potential outreach to regulators and forensic anthropology bodies for broader expertise.

12 Knife Crime Detection Update

12.1 The Account Manager for Public Safety within the Home Office Science Innovation & Technology Delivery Team provided an update overview of the Knife Detection project. Knife detection technology research began in 2018, with a major funding boost in 2024. The goal is to develop automated systems that can detect concealed knives on individuals, ignoring other objects.

12.2 The programme follows a three-phase development model:

• Phase 1: Early development (completed June 2025). There were five projects from four suppliers. The Account Manager provided an outline of the phase 1 projects.

• Phase 2: Pre-prototype systems (starting imminently)- expected within a week of this meeting. Delivery by August 2026, including realistic environment testing and possibly limited operational trials.

• Phase 3: Operational readiness and deployment

12.3 Technology Themes; two main types of knife detection systems:

• Fixed Systems – Portable but stationary, used in environments like public spaces.

• Wearable/Handheld Systems – Operated by individual officers, suitable for stop-and-search scenarios.

Questions & Concerns Raised

12.4 STEAC members raised concerned that ethical issues haven’t been identified or addressed yet, and STEAC members asked what “readiness” means, referencing the Evolv system (withdrawn from US schools due to poor knife detection) and raised legal concerns around remote scanning, reasonable suspicion, and PACE compliance.

The Account Manager for Public Safety, Home Office Science Innovation & Technology Delivery Team acknowledged the gap and invited input from the committee to shape ethical guidance.

12.4.1 A member of STEAC Offered to share research from their Probable Futures project.

Action 2510#09 STEAC member to share Probable Futures project document in relation to knife detection.

12.5 The Account Manager for Public Safety, Home Office Science Innovation & Technology Delivery Team welcomed this and expressed interest in further collaboration and receiving the document.

12.6 Engage with STEAC follow-up meeting with committee members to explore ethical issues early in the development process.

Action 2510#10 Secretariat to schedule in follow up meeting with the Account Manager for Public Safety, Home Office Science Innovation & Technology Delivery Team in relation to knife detection technology.

13 STEAC Strategic Vision and Operational Priorities

13.1. Outward-Facing Engagement

• Increase visibility and profile of the committee externally.
• Strengthen relationships with external stakeholders and organisations (e.g., MPCC, NCA).
• Formalise liaisons with bodies outside the Home Office to draw on their expertise and ethical decision-making.

13.2. Project Input and Feedback

• Continue providing ethical input into individual projects.
• Establish a feedback mechanism from project teams to understand how advice is used.
• Develop a repository or reference manual of past decisions and cases to inform future work.

13.3. Scope and Collaboration

• Clarify the scope of the committee’s remit, especially in relation to other committees.
• Promote cross-committee collaboration, citing successful examples like the age of summation project involving 22 committees.

13.4. Meeting Structure and Format

• Desire for longer meetings to allow deeper discussion and debate.
• Shift away from purely report-based meetings to more interactive and reflective sessions.
• Learn from other ethics committees and benchmark decisions.

13.5. Internal Organisation and Working Groups

• Consider restructuring working groups due to thematic overlaps.
• Explore a more agile mechanism for assigning work post-triage.

13.6. Membership and Workload Management

• Review and potentially revise committee membership to fill gaps.
• Be realistic about workload expectations, acknowledging members’ other professional commitments.
• Ensure sustainable engagement given that members are unpaid volunteers.

13.7. Meeting Planning and Logistics

• Quarterly meetings scheduled, with the next confirmed for 14 January.
• Spring meeting planning underway, avoiding Easter holidays.
• Summer meeting proposed to move to late June to avoid academic holiday conflicts.
• Preference for a central UK venue (e.g., York, Manchester) rather than London.

Action: 2510#11 Secretariat to schedule quarterly meetings for 2026

Closing remarks and AOB

14.1 No other business was declared.

14.2 The date for the next meeting 14/01/2026

Annex A: Attendees

STEAC

Prof Richard Guest (Chair)

Dr Matt James

Mr Dave Lewis

Prof Penney Lewis

Prof Emeritus Charles Raab

Prof Tom Sorell

Dr Peter Waggett

Prof Anne-Maree Farrell

Prof Marion Oswald

Prof Nora Ni Loideain (attended between 13.45 – 15.00)

Prof Niamh Nic Daied (joined at 14:10)

Officials:

STEAC Secretary and Secretariat

Home Office Deputy Chief Scientific Advisor

Head of Home Office Science Advice Delivery

Data and Identity Policy Representatives

Representatives from Forensic Information Database Service

Representative from Home Office Biometrics program

Representative from the Office of Police Chief Scientific Advisor- Forensic Pathology

Account Manager for Public Safety, Home Office Innovation & Technology Delivery

Interim Biometrics Commissioner

Apologies:

STEAC

Mr Giles Herdale

Prof Sarah Morris

Prof Denise Syndercombe-Court

Ms Elisabeth Mackay