Corporate report

BFEG meeting minutes: 23 July 2024

Updated 17 January 2025

Notes of the 27th meeting held on 23rd July 2024 in-person at Middleton Hotel, York & MS teams

1 Welcome, introductions and declarations of interest.

1.1 The Chair welcomed all to the meeting. No apologies were recorded. A full list of attendees is recorded at the start of the minutes.

1.2 The Chair welcomed and introduced the recently appointed six new members of BFEG to meeting attendees.

1.3 Members were invited to share any new or arising declarations of interest. No new declarations of interest were raised. The Chair advised new members that it was standard practice to raise any recent or arising conflicts at the start of the meeting. This was done to ensure no conflict of interest was raised because of the matters being discussed, and to support BFEG members in fulfilling their duty to inform the Secretariat of any changes to their record of interest.

2 Minutes from previous meeting

2.1 Minutes from BFEG meeting held on 11th April 2024 were approved without comment.

Actions from previous meeting

2.2 Attendees were provided a list of outstanding actions and updates ahead of the meeting. The Committee reviewed the outstanding actions as presented in paper 03 attached to the agenda.

2.3 The Chair provided an opportunity for members to raise any questions and discuss. No comments or amendments were raised. Actions which were discussed, at request of the Chair, are noted below.

2.4 Regarding action 1, from July 2023 (copied below), TE confirmed his team had developed a risk and issues log which outlined strategic and operational issues that could arise. This had been shared with Home Office colleagues, and it was noted that certain risks could be mitigated effectively, while others would require more work. TE confirmed he had been in contact with Home Office colleagues to request for this document to be shared with BFEG. It was agreed that this action could be closed.

Action 4, July 2023: BFEG members to provide policy with a list of their concerns regarding the lack of oversight and ethical governance for facial recognition, following the abolition of the Biometrics Surveillance Camera Commissioner.

2.5 Regarding action 2, from July 2023 (action copied below), members discussed and agreed that a meeting at this stage was not required. It was agreed that should members wish; a meeting could be requested at a later date.

Action 2, July 2023: Members to collate questions for a meeting with Director of Intelligence at the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Actions from April meeting

2.6 It was agreed that Action 1 is a repetition of Action 4 above. Action 1 from April 2024 is closed.

2.7 Action 2 – Policy to update BFEG on how the investment into facial recognition and biometrics was being spent, what the spend would be on governance, and whether there was scope for input from BFEG.

2.8 Policy is still awaiting steer from new administration Action is pending..

2.9 Action 3 – AI adoption policy – To be provided to BFEG members.

2.10 Action is pending.

2.11 Action 4: - Policy provide a detailed breakdown of what the requests within the commissioning brief include and when BFEG can expect to facilitate the project and programme management of delivery.

2.12 Action is pending.

2.13 Action 5: Policy to report back to BFEG with information on the evidence showing shoplifting crimes have become more severe and whether specific governance would be developed to cover the use of biometric technologies in the cases of such crimes.

2.14 Action is pending.

2.15 Action 6: RG to draft a document outlining BFEG’s capabilities to be shared with ACE and inform them on what BFEG can support with.

2.16 Action is incorporated as an agenda item. Action is closed.

2.17 Action 7: Secretariat to develop a plan to establish how BFEG and ACE engagement should be conducted going forward.

2.18 Action is incorporated as an agenda item. Action is closed.

3 Chair’s update

3.1 As a result of the change of Government, in July 2024, it was anticipated there may be a change of priorities for the Home Office and therefore for the Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group (BFEG). Once further details were known BFEG would be making submissions to the sponsor minister both to introduce BFEG and its work and for decision (this would include the updated BFEG terms of reference and the 2024/25 commissioning letter. BFEG would also look to share the voice report. An introductory meeting would be arranged between the Chair and the new Minister when appropriate.

3.2 The Chair summarised to members the items of work which had not been progressed due to the general election and would now be re-explored.

3.3 The Chair had attended the quarterly meeting of the Home Office Science Advisory Committee (HOSAC) which was held on the 11th of July 2024. HOSAC were also reviewing impact or change in priorities for the Home Office resulting from the change in Government.

3.4 The Chair thanked members for their delivery of responses to the Home Office’s draft data ethics framework.

4 Working Group (WG) updates

4.1 Ahead of the meeting written updates regarding the activity of each of the working groups within the last quarter had been shared.

4.2 The working group Chair provided a brief update on the work of the Home Office Biometrics (HOB) ethical working group. The working group Chair advised attendees that a meeting had taken place where ways of working had been confirmed alongside the expected responsibilities of the working group. A series of actions had been agreed at this meeting and would be chased within the working group. The working group Chair confirmed no further progress had been made.

4.3 The working group Chair provide an overview of the Data Ethics Advisory group, which was originally set up to process applications for advice on various policing matters and had morphed into developing an advisory function to policing (which had been termed the Police Ethics Board (PEB). The WG expressed that there may be issues surrounding the research, however this will be explored later. In December 2023, the WG had provided advice to a project in conjunction with the College of Policing. The College of Policing had recently completed an examination of this work, which was testing of what an advisory group might do in relation to a data ethics question posed by Policing. The working group had responded to this evaluation report and was working on how this would be taken this forward.

4.4 A BFEG member, who had been leading on BFEGs engagement with the Accelerated Capability Environment (ACE) advised attendees that the update would be provided in the afternoon session. It was noted that the ACE working group had been engaged in the “Deepfake detection challenge” for the past 2-3 months which was sponsored by the Home Office and led by ACE. The deepfake challenge was a competition for industry, interested parties within academia and government agencies, to address challenges issues in and around deep fakes. It had been a technical challenge on the use of data. On behalf of BFEG RG had been involved in judging and selecting winning applications, providing the ethical lens.

5 Home Office Biometrics (HOB) update

5.1 The HOB representative introduced and gave overview of his role within HOB presented HOB updates as below.

5.2 The latest meeting of the HOB ethical working group had been held in April. The main items of discussion were Strategic Facial Matching, the development and future of the HOB programme and data protection landscaping. The HOB representative provided updates to members of BFEG on each of these with the main points identified below.

• Strategic Matcher, IBM had now come on board to help finalise the development and implementation of a platform which would host the algorithms. The team were close to delivery of stage 1 of the Strategic Matcher, which was focused on Policing rather than the wider Home Office remit, roll out wider would form part of the next delivery stage.

• The team were working IABS Cloud Transformation – (system that holds the fingerprint and facial images for immigration applications and Passport facial images – moving to cloud hosting in October increasing ability to process volumes of data processing.

• Regarding Strategic Facial Matching, HOB had successfully completed the ingestion processing of the initial custody images which were being migrated from the PND to IDENT1. Approval was being sought to proceed with the full data migration. Market engagement was taking place, and discussions were being held with police forces over potential early adoption of strategic facial matching.

• A total of 22 (out of the 27 EU Member States) had been connected to the Prum Fingerprint capability which delivers a fingerprint data exchange between the UK and EU.

5.3 The latest version of the HOB Programme Business Case had been produced and was discussed at the Home Office Investment Committee on 18th July. The aim was for HOB to become a product led biometric service. HOB as also recently independent IPA gate review which resulted in an amber confidence rating. This requires significant tasks that need to be addressed and delivered because of this gate review. HOB has received an amber confidence rating previously so there is confidence with ability to progress.

5.4 A BFEG member questioned whether the HOB representative had any updates regarding what may happen with the Data Protection and Digital Information (DPDI) bill which fell because of the announcement of the General election. The BFEG member noted that there were a number of provisions within the bill which would have had an impact on the governance and regulation of ethics in this biometric space. It was confirmed the Home Office Policy team would be the point of contact for a more detailed update, however, it was noted that a similar bill was mentioned within the King’s speech, opening of parliament, however as of yet specifics were not known.

5.5 A BFEG member requested further detail relating to the facial recognition update provided. The HOB representative confirmed that HOB was providing and developing a portal for police forces. Access to the portal would be granted to search an image from a crime scene against a unified collection of custody images, to look for matches to assist with investigations. The concept was similar to the process provided through the police national database (PND) search capability.

5.6 Members requested clarification on whether and outstanding legal issues regarding custody images on PND had been resolved. The HOB representative confirmed that HOB are working closely with policing and legal teams to resolve this.

6 Forensic Information Database Service (FINDS) updates

6.1 The FINDs representative confirmed in relation to update from HOB they were recruiting and awaiting work to be progressed to the point where they were ready for FINDs contribution. They had excluded any update on Facial Recognition for this reason.

6.2 FINDS presented an update highlighting 3 main priority areas of work. First being Missing Persons Database, the second Facial recognition (as above, no verbal update was be provided as progress had been covered by HOB), and the third priority was YSTR.

6.3 Progress on the DNA database YSTR Project included confirmation by the FINDS representative that since the beginning of July 2024, 3866 samples (it was confirmed that approximately 2408 of these were previous collection exercise). The FINDS representative confirmed the potential to utilise some samples from a university. The project team are awaiting confirmation. Sample collections are continuing.

6.4 The FINDS representative thanked BFEG for the supporting letter, received for the YSTR work. The FINDS representative confirmed that had helped significantly to develop more avenues for sample collection. This had included greater engagement with universities who had their own ethics processes, the letter had helped enable potential developments and progress. This also includes work relating to changes to technology impacting DNA, including the use of different Chemistry Kits being used. At the time of the meeting, different countries used different kits currently which had therefore led to a need to ensure there was adaptability and flexibility in the end solution that addresses the international context.

6.5 The third FINDS priority project was the Y-STR capabilities project. The FINDS representative confirmed this was ongoing piece of work involving BFEG input. It was also confirmed there were two elements to this project. The first is the creation of a UK specific reference database for statistical evaluations. The second is focused on increasing database capabilities.

6.6 This increase in database capabilities would include a cut of YSTR PACE sample of crime statin results on the National DNA Database, which may involve crime stains requiring standard and YSTR dual processing. The FINDS representative confirmed that engagement with HO Policy and Legal teams was taking place regarding the potential increase to YSTR capabilities and intelligence database relating to this dual processing of data. The FINDS representative noted it was indicated that legislative changes may not be required at this preliminary stage. The FINDS representative highlighted that a National Police Chiefs’ Council legal review would still be required. This would be included in the final paper submitted to the FINDS Strategy Board, scheduled for September.

6.7 The FINDS representative confirmed that aside from Facial Recognition this was the most significant project FINDS are currently working on and will continue to provide progress updates to BFEG quarterly meetings.

6.8 The FINDS representative noted that work had begun with the Home Office on Missing Persons DNA Database (MPDD) upgrade. The MPDD seeks to support families of missing persons. MPDD holds a range of data including that held from unidentified bodies and data from individuals who have consented for the DNA profile to be held. Since its establishment in 2010, the MPDD has remained as an Excel spreadsheet – the database therefore needs to be transferred to a more robust & secure platform. This upgrade seeks to align the MPDD with the data management systems of the NDNAD.

6.9 The FINDS representative confirmed DBLR software licence had been purchased for the purpose of developing a centralised familial searching service, which could also identify potential relatives of offenders. Forensic Service Providers (FSPs) were currently able to undertake a search against the National DNA Database to look for potential relatives of an alleged offender. However, the current process requires officers from the FSP physically attending the FINDS site in Solihull. The familial search is undertaken on an extract of the NDNAD on a laptop belonging to the FSP. The laptop is stored securely at FINDS. Each FSP uses a different search algorithm to undertake the search (& therefore has the potential for differing outcomes). Two individuals from the FSP attend site which does incur additional time & travel costs currently. FINDS were reviewing the validation of this process including what potential validation methods would be required to ensure the results are suitable. This will include alignment with the regulators code. This process is likely to conclude early 2025 and BFEG will continue to be updated through quarterly meeting updates.

2024_07_01 Action 1: FINDS to provide update on progress with YSTR to next meeting including Legal update and Database capabilities.

6.10 FINDS would also be reviewing the potential cost and efficiency savings that could be generated by having a centralised familial search service. This would include time and travel obligations for FSP officer, accessibility, and any other potential wider applications for this centralised database.

6.11 BFEG members queried the timelines for this process. It was confirmed validation would take several months to complete but was hoped this could be done as soon as possible.

6.12 Members confirmed concerns had been raised in a written submission to FINDS. Officers confirmed guidance was being sought from gene experts. This guidance would form the recommendations to be submitted to the FINDS Strategy Board shortly.

6.13 Officers also acknowledged that this tool was a commercial product and its use for this purpose would require specific validation which was currently being discussed. However, there was no current regulator code in relation to this database usage so officers need to ensure any validation process would align to codes when they were introduced.

6.14 A BFEG member shared the recent announcement of the merger of a FSP provider with another and noted concerns around monopoly and competition within an already sensitive space. The BFEG member raised these concerns to ensure officers were taking all these considerations into account when considering what aspects of validation may need to be considered. Officers confirmed they would be working closely with the Office of the Forensic Regulator on the code for databases to assist in development of regulation for this area of database usage.

6.15 Members also encouraged officers to be mindful of potential conflict of interests for commercial entities as part of this review and validation process.

24_07_02 Action 2: FINDS to provide update on progress regarding the familial searching capability and address concerns raised by BFEG members.

7 Biometrics policy and AI update

7.1 Due to the recent change in Government, it was anticipated that there would be an updated delivery of the DPID bill. This was being discussed with Ministers.

7.2 As the change in Government had only recently taken place, new ministers were in the process of reviewing their briefs and priorities. It was hoped that more detail on what the ministerial priorities and the government focus would be known and understood soon.

7.3 Work would continue on the evaluation plan for facial recognition, with BFEG requested to participate with this process.

7.4 It was indicated that wherever possible, work required to develop technology would continue until greater clarity was provided by ministers to ensure continuity of programmes.

7.5 Attendees were informed that policy team was preparing advice for Ministers to ensure they were informed on progress at the time to enable future prioritisation.

Members queried whether an indication of timelines for ministerial steer was possible. It was confirmed that certain matters, such as procurement, may require more prioritisation due to financial constraints however, a steer on other matters would be sought in time one once greater clarity on Ministerial priorities was known. Officials also confirmed that whilst Ministerial appointments had been confirmed, full details on their responsibilities and portfolios were still pending. The sponsor minister for BFEG was also not presently known.

7.6 Following a question from BFEG, the Policy sponsor noted that it was also too early for officials to interpret how the new administration perceived the proactive utilisation of scientific advisory committees such as BFEG.

8 Biometrics and Surveillance Camera commissioner (BSCC)

8.1 It was noted that this was the first meeting with BFEG since the fall of the DPID Bill in the wash up of parliament.

8.2 Related to the HOB update, the BSCC indicated a similar concern to BFEG with regards to custody images, particularly in relation to custody images of non-convicted persons or persons who had been bought to custody suites as a place of safety. The BSCC confirmed to attendees that he had highlighted the need for these issues to be taken into consideration with regards to the custody image work currently underway.

8.3 The BSCC confirmed that the fall of the DPIA Bill had impacted the remit of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioners work and whilst there was no clarity about the future of the Commissioner at the time of the meeting, it was confirmed that a potential Bill presented within the Kings Speech appeared to reflect a number of the component parts of the DPID. However, details were still as yet unclear.

8.4 The BSCC outlined that in the run up to the election it was discussed that the government were keen to try and rationalise the various regulatory bodies, to enable the right amount of accountability and scrutiny and ensure that those bodies with regulatory powers or a mandatory role had the right powers and processes in place to undertake these functions.

8.5 The BSCC confirmed the function of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner would continue, for the time being, continue as business as usual.

8.6 The BSCC raised to BFEG that he was also reviewing the recently reported (Wired - UK train stations trialled Amazon emotion detection that could feed you adverts — Big Brother Watch) l use of cameras and storage of images by Network Rail. TE was speaking with the Chief Executive of Network Rail and offered to update BFEG when appropriate.

• Members encouraged the BSCC to ensure ethical impact assessments and Data Protection issues relating to the images were reviewed as part of the review with Network Rail.

• The BSCC confirmed that the matters which had been reported in the media such as emotion recognition, assessment of demographics for advertising and marketing and the issue of public consent would also to be addressed.

8.7 The Chair asked how BFEG can support the scrutiny, accountability that will be required to ensure correct regulation and oversight across the board. The BSCC responded that BFEG should continue with utilising the expertise and competencies in the way they currently do.

24_07_03 Action 3: The BSCC to provide an update to BFEG on progress regarding work undertaken with National Rail in relation to the use of cameras and storage of images.

9 Facial Recognition

9.1 The policy representative introduced themselves and gave overview of her role within facial recognition, biometrics, and overt surveillance policy team.

9.2 It was noted that some members of BFEG had felt there was a requirement for policy to engage more regularly and to provide updates particularly on the area of Facial recognition.

9.3 The policy representative stated that the Policy Team wanted to utilise the skills, expertise, experience of BFEG to help us with policy making in a very informed, evidence-based way, particularly around ethics, but also more generally.

9.4 It was noted that Policy team were waiting for a steer from new ministers, particularly around the use of facial recognition within Policing.

9.5 The policy representative advised that Policy now have dedicated resource to look at evaluating police use of Facial recognition and will be able to understand the evidence of impact of the technology as it becomes policy.

9.6 The policy representative stated that Policy team wanted to gain ideas and views from BFEG around a dedicated working Group for facial recognition so that engagement would be dynamic in direction or particular issues that may arise.

9.7 The technology in policing research team representative introduced themselves and gave an overview of their role within Home Office analyst as Principal researcher to evaluate the impact of Police use of facial recognition technology and the impact on crime and public perceptions. Their primary focus will be on retrospective facial recognition including other elements such as live and operator initiated facial recognition.

9.8 JS drafting a plan look at 3 key areas for the use of this technology.

i. Impact of Police effectiveness.

ii. Efficiency impact- time saving and money savings from the use of technology.

iii. Impact on deterring crime, and public confidence and trust in policing.

9.9 The technology in policing research team representative advised work is being conducted on a rapid literature review on facial recognition technology and are looking to set up an evaluation reference group. This group will provide progress updates to stakeholders on evaluation and review key questions and data to collect and challenge to supports the process. Technology in policing research team representative asked if it would be possible to have a representative form BFEG, and it is proposed that these meeting will take place every two months.

9.10 The technology in policing research team representative advised that the broad data that will be collected over the next 12 months will be extensive, by looking at Police forces across England and Wales including British Transport Police to understand the current use of facial recognition and how that is impacting police effectiveness in their functions this will provide a set of standard metrics and then will be able to see what changes over time, but these are yet to be defined.

9.11 The technology in policing research team representative informed all that there were plans for surveys and focus groups, but this is in the design phase.

9.12 BFEG members asked what is the distinction between efficiency and effectiveness?

9.13 The technology in policing research team representative advised that it would be around operationalising the evaluation and how police day to day functions and the ability to solve crime and safeguard the public with the use of technology to complete those functions and to quantify the effectiveness.

9.14 BFEG members raised several concerns around the disproportionate use of facial recognition, the sophistication, technology and how it would be used in an operational context, and these should be used as in the research on the use of facial recognition and take into consideration different ethnicities that plays into existing concerns.

9.15 The technology in policing research team representative welcomed any input and support in designing the research from BFEG members.

10. Briefing paper on measuring engagement and impact – for information

10.1 Measuring engagement and impact – members discussed how there is potential to measure impact from previous submissions as well as future submissions-, it was felt that it should wait until clear direction is given from new Minister.

10.2 BFEG Improving and measuring impact should be added as a standing item to the agenda.

Annex A – List of attendees and apologies

Present (BFEG Members)

• Professor Mark Watson-Gandy (Chair)

• Mr David Lewis

• Professor Richard Guest
• Professor Niamh Nic Daeid
• Dr Nóra Ni Loideain
• Professor Sarah Morris
• Professor Emeritus Charles Raab
• Professor Thomas Sorell
• Professor Denise Syndercombe Court
• Professor Ann-Maree Farrell
• Dr Peter Waggett
• Giles Herdale
• Dr Matt James
• Professor Penney Lewis
• Ms Elisabeth Mackay
• Dr Malcolm Oswald
• Professor Marion Oswald

Present (Home Office (HO) officials and Stakeholders)

• Forensic Information Database Service, HO
• BFEG Secretariat, HO
• Data and Identity Policy Representatives, HO
• Office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner (OBSCC) representatives
• Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner (BSCC)
• Technology in Policing research team representative
• Home Office Biometrics Programme representatives

Annex B – review of open actions from previous meeting

October 2021

Action 7: Secretariat to develop a template to provide to presenters based on the BFEG ethical principles.

September 2023

Action 3: Secretariat to liaise with ACE and facilitate a BFEG representative attendance at an open-source intelligence event hosted by ACE.

December 2023

Action 1: Secretariat to arrange and organise a lunch and learn session(s) to be delivered to the Home Office.

Action 7: Secretariat to draft a Memorandum of Understanding, to support working relationship between ACE and BFEG, and arrange a meeting with ACE to progress.

Action 10: Secretariat to liaise with the interim Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner for an update on the cohesion of the Facial Recognition fact sheet and the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice.

April 2024

Action 2: Policy to update BFEG on how the investment into facial recognition and biometrics was being spent, what the spend would be on governance, and whether there was scope for input from BFEG.

Action 3: Home Office AI Adoption Policy to be provided to BFEG.

Action 4: Policy to provide a detailed breakdown of what the requests within the commissioning brief would include and when BFEG can expect these requests, to facilitate project and programme management of the yearly commission.

Action 5: Policy to report back to BFEG with information on the evidence regarding whether shoplifting crimes had become more severe and whether specific governance would be developed to cover the use of biometric technologies in the cases of such crimes.

Action 6: BFEG ACE lead to draft a document outlining BFEG’s capabilities to be shared with ACE and inform them on what BFEG can support with.

Action 7: Secretariat to develop a plan to establish how BFEG and ACE engagement should be conducted going forward.

Action 9: FIGG to provide the IGG DPIA to BFEG once completed and update BFEG on exactly what input they are seeking into their DPIA.

July 2024

Action 1: FINDS to provide update on progress with YSTR to next meeting including Legal update and Database capabilities.

Action 2: FINDS to provide update on progress regarding the familial searching capability and address concerns raised by BFEG members

Action 3: The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner to provide an update to BFEG on progress regarding work undertaken with National Rail in relation to the use of cameras and storage of images.