UK to create ‘governance framework’ for police facial recognition
Home secretary Yvette Cooper has confirmed UK will regulate police facial recognition, citing police reticence to deploy systems without proper governance, but declined to say if any new framework will be statutory
The UK government will create “a proper, clear governance framework” to regulate the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement, the home secretary has told Lords, marking a shift in policy.
In an appearance before the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee (JHAC) on 8 July, home secretary Yvette Cooper confirmed the government is actively working with police forces and unspecified “stakeholders” to draw up a new governance framework for police facial recognition. However, she did not comment on whether any new framework would be placed on a statutory footing.
While there have been repeated calls from both Parliament and civil society over many years for the police’s use of the technology to be regulated, the Home Office has consistently maintained that there is already a “comprehensive” framework in place.
Such calls include three separate inquiries by the JHAC into shoplifting, police algorithms and police facial recognition; two of the UK’s former biometrics commissioners, Paul Wiles and Fraser Sampson; an independent legal review by Matthew Ryder QC; the UK’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission; and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, which called for a moratorium on live facial recognition (LFR) as far back as July 2019.
More recently, the Ada Lovelace Institute published a report in May that noted the UK’s patchwork approach to regulating biometric surveillance technologies is “inadequate”, placing fundamental rights at risk and ultimately undermining public trust.
Cooper has now said the Home Office wants to give more forces the confidence to deploy the technology, as while some forces have developed “some very effective examples” with LFR, concern among police themselves over the lack of regulation is holding back the technology’s further proliferation.
“There is a concern many officers have about not having a proper governance framework in place to allow them to [deploy the tech],” she said,
Highlighting concerns over the legality of the Met Police’s decision to deploy LFR on street furniture in Croydon, committee chair Lord Foster said the deployment is not covered by common law or “the one case that’s discussed this issue”; referring to the Bridges case from August 2020, in which the use of LFR by South Wales Police was deemed unlawful.
“There’s a real question as to whether there is legality for what’s happening in Croydon,” he said, asking whether a new governance framework would be placed on a statutory footing.
In response, Cooper said: “We do think a new framework is needed … in order to give forces the confidence to use it with the right standards in place,” adding that the Home Office will provide updates and further detail to the committee “as soon as we possibly can”.
Cooper did not offer any comment on whether the governance framework would cover different types of police facial recognition (including live, retrospective and operator-initiated), or whether other biometric data collecting technologies would be covered.
Long-standing legal concerns
Throughout the JHAC’s initial police algorithms inquiry – which described the police use of algorithmic technologies as a “new Wild West” characterised by a lack of strategy, accountability and transparency from the top down – Lords heard from expert witnesses that UK police are introducing new technologies with very little scrutiny or training, continuing to deploy them without clear evidence about their efficacy or impacts, and have conflicting interests with their own tech suppliers.
In a short follow-up inquiry, this time looking exclusively at facial recognition, the JHAC found that police are expanding their use of LFR without proper scrutiny or accountability, despite lacking a clear legal basis for their deployments. The committee also specifically called into question whether LFR is even legal.
“We have previously stated our concern that the deployment of the technology lacks a clear legal foundation, and we have called for a legislative framework for the regulation of the deployment of LFR technology,” committee chair Lord Foster told Computer Weekly.
“Ministers have acknowledged that some police forces are concerned about the lack of a specific framework inhibiting their use of the technology. The home secretary told us that the policing minister now intends to bring forward a clear governance framework for the use of LFR technology. We urge the government to clarify when it will bring forward this framework and what form it will take.”
Highlighting the ways in which police forces are already advancing in their use of the technology – with Croydon being a prime example – he added there is concern among committee members that while facial recognition may be a useful tool for police forces, its “use is being expanded without proper scrutiny and accountability”.
Computer Weekly contacted the Home Office for more detail on the proposals, including what kinds of facial recognition would be covered, and whether any regulation would seek to cover the processing of biometric data by law enforcement more generally.
Computer Weekly also asked the Home Office about the shift in perspective, and why it now thinks a specific framework is needed to govern police use of the tech.
A Home Office spokesperson responded by denying there had been a shift in perspective, citing a Parliamentary debate on facial recognition from November 2024, in which policing minister Diana Johnson discussed reviewing facial recognition.
However, Johnson did not confirm at the time if there would be any new regulation or governance frameworks, and simply committed to “a programme of engagement” with police forces and stakeholders on the issue, in which the government would listen to and “think carefully about the concerns” raised by critics.
The Home Office did not respond to follow-ups from Computer Weekly about its characterisation of the development.
Commenting on the home secretary’s confirmation that the government is actively preparing to create a new governance framework for police facial recognition, Nuala Polo, UK public policy lead at the Ada Lovelace Institute, said she welcomes the acknowledgement that the current patchwork of regulations is inadequate for ensuring the safe, lawful and consistent use of these systems across UK policing.
However, she noted that biometric technologies are increasingly being deployed by a range of actors, and that any new regulation for the technology should not be limited to police alone. “Focusing solely on policing risks creates dangerous regulatory gaps that leave people unprotected,” she said. “Private companies are already deploying biometric technologies like FRT and fingerprint scanning in retail chains, workplaces and schools.
“Meanwhile, a new generation of equally invasive biometrics are being rolled out in public spaces to infer people’s emotions, intentions and attention – despite low levels of scientific validity. Any forthcoming legislation must encompass the full spectrum of biometrics – not just police use of FRT – to ensure these powerful technologies are used safely and proportionately.”
