Home Secretary Yvette Cooper confirmed UK will regulate facial recognition police, citing police reluctance to deploy systems without proper oversight, but declined to state if any new framework would be statutory.
According to the UK home secretary, the government will create a “clear governance framework” for the use of facial-recognition technology by law enforcement. This marks a significant shift in policy.
In a speech before the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee on 8th July, home secretary Yvette cooper made a significant shift in policy.
confirmed that the government is actively working on a new governance structure for police facial recognition. This includes a collaboration with police forces as well as unspecified “stakeholders”. She did not say whether the new framework would have a legal basis.
Although Parliament and civil society have repeatedly called for regulation of the police’s usage of the technology over the years, the Home Office maintains that there is a “comprehensive framework” in place.
These calls include three separate inquiries from the JHAC on shoplifting and police algorithms, as well as two former UK biometrics commissioners Paul Wiles and Fraser Sampson, an independent legal review conducted by Matthew Ryder, the UK Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee which called for a ban on live facial detection (LFR) in July 2019. Ada Lovelace Institute released a report last May stating that the UK’s patchwork regulatory approach to biometric surveillance technologies was “inadequate”. This put fundamental rights at risk, and ultimately undermined public trust. Cooper has said that the Home Office wants more forces to be confident in deploying the technology. While some forces have created “some very successful examples” of LFR, police are concerned about the lack regulation. She said that many officers are concerned about the lack of a governance framework to allow them to [deploy the tech]
Lord Foster, the chair of the committee, said that the deployment was not covered by the common law, or “the only case” in which this issue had been discussed. He was referring to the Bridges Case from August 2020 in which South Wales Police used LFR and it was deemed illegal.
He said that there was a real doubt as to the legality of what is happening in Croydon, and asked whether a new governance structure would be put on a statutory basis. Cooper responded: “We think a new governance framework is necessary… to give forces confidence to use it, with the right standards in position.” He added that the Home Office would provide updates and more detail to the Committee “as quickly as we can”.
Cooper didn’t comment on whether or not the governance framework would include different types of facial recognition by police (including live, retroactive and operator-initiated), as well as other biometric data collection technologies.
Legal concerns that have been around for a long time
In the initial police algorithms inquiry, the JHAC described the use of algorithmic technology by the police as a new Wild West, characterised by the lack of strategy, accountability, and transparency at the top. Lords heard expert witnesses say the UK police introduces new technologies without much scrutiny or training. They continue to deploy them with no clear evidence of their efficacy, or impact, and they have conflicting interest with their own tech providers.
The JHAC conducted a brief follow-up investigation, this time focusing exclusively on facial recognition. They found that police were expanding their use of LFR, without proper scrutiny or accountability. The committee also specifically questioned whether LFR was even legal.
We have expressed our concern about the lack of a legal basis for the deployment of this technology, and have called for a regulatory framework for the deployment of LFR technologies,” said Lord Foster, chair of the committee.
Ministers have acknowledged that certain police forces are concerned by the lack of a framework that inhibits their use of this technology. The home secretary informed us that the policing ministry will now present a clear governance structure for the use LFR technology. We ask the government to specify when and in what form they will present this framework.
He highlighted the ways that police forces have already advanced in their use of facial recognition technology, with Croydon as a prime example. He added that committee members are concerned about the fact that although facial recognition is a useful tool for the police forces, it is “expanded without proper scrutiny and accountable”. Computer Weekly contacted Home Office to get more information on the proposals. They wanted to know what types of facial recognition were covered and if any regulations would cover the processing biometric data in law enforcement. Computer Weekly asked the Home Office to explain the shift in perspective and why they now believe a specific framework should govern police use of this tech.
The spokesperson for the Home Office denied that there had been any change in perspective. She cited a debate in Parliament on facial recognition in November 2024 in which Diana Johnson, the policing Minister, discussed reviewing facial identification.
Johnson did not confirm if there would any new regulations or governance frameworks at the time, but simply committed to “a program of engagement” with the police forces and stakeholders, where the government would “think carefully” about the concerns raised by critics. Computer Weekly contacted the Home Office about its interpretation of this development, but it did not respond. Nuala Polo of the Ada Lovelace Institute’s UK public policy team commented on the confirmation by the home secretary that the government was actively preparing a new governance structure for police facial recognition. She said that she welcomed the acknowledgment that the patchwork of current regulations is insufficient to ensure the safe, legal and consistent use of this system across UK policing.
She noted, however, that biometric technologies were increasingly being used by a variety of actors and that any new regulations for the technology shouldn’t be limited to just police. “Focusing on the risks of policing creates dangerous regulatory gaps which leave people unprotected,” said she. Private companies have already deployed biometric technologies such as fingerprint scanning and FRT in retail chains, offices and schools.
A new generation of equally intrusive biometrics is being rolled out to infer people’s emotions, intentions, and attention in public spaces – despite their low levels of scientific validity. To ensure that these powerful technologies are used in a safe and proportionate manner, any future legislation must include the full spectrum of biometrics.
By Sebastian Klovig Skelton.
Driving license data could be used to police facial recognition.
By: Sebastian Klovig Skelton.
MPs hold the first ever debate on real-
