House of Commons
Science and Technology
Committee

The work of the
Biometrics Commissioner
and the Forensic
Science Regulator
Nineteenth Report of Session 2017–19
Report, together with formal minutes
relating to the report
Ordered by the House of Commons
to be printed 17 July 2019

HC 1970

Published on 18 July 2019
by authority of the House of Commons

 Science and Technology Committee
The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to
examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for
Science and associated public bodies.
Current membership

Norman Lamb MP (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk) (Chair)
Vicky Ford MP (Conservative, Chelmsford)
Bill Grant MP (Conservative, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)
Mr Sam Gyimah MP (Conservative, East Surrey)
Darren Jones MP (Labour, Bristol North West)
Liz Kendall MP (Labour, Leicester West)
Stephen Metcalfe MP (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Carol Monaghan MP (Scottish National Party, Glasgow North West)
Damien Moore MP (Conservative, Southport)
Graham Stringer MP (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Martin Whitfield MP (Labour, East Lothian)
Powers

The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which
are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO. No. 152. These
are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.
Publication

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2019. This publication may be
reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at
www.parliament.uk/copyright.
Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at
www.parliament.uk/science and in print by Order of the House.
Evidence relating to this report is published on the inquiry publications page of the
Committee’s website.
Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are: Danielle Nash (Clerk), Zoë Grünewald
(Second Clerk), Dr Harry Beeson (Committee Specialist), Jocelyn Hickey (Committee
Specialist), Sonia Draper (Senior Committee Assistant), Julie Storey (Committee
Assistant), and Joe Williams (Media Officer).
Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Science and
Technology Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone
number for general inquiries is: 020 7219 2793; the Committee’s e-mail address is:
scitechcom@parliament.uk.
You can follow the Committee on Twitter using @CommonsSTC.

   The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

1

Contents
Summary

3

1 Introduction 

5

2 Forensics 

7

3 

Market Stability 

7

Forensic Science Regulator: statutory powers 

9

Biometrics Strategy 

12

Biometrics Strategy 

12

Automatic/live facial recognition 

14

Retention of custody images 

17

Conclusions and recommendations 

20

Formal minutes 

23

Witnesses

24

Published written evidence 

24

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 

25

   The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

Summary
It is over a year since we published our last Report on biometrics and forensics. We are
deeply disappointed by how little has been achieved by the Government since then.
Not only has there been no improvement in the situation of the forensics market—the
Forensic Science Regulator has highlighted that the situation has got worse in many
respects. This is wholly unacceptable. We remain seriously concerned about the longterm viability of the market for forensic science services and the significant risk that
this poses to the effective functioning of a criminal justice system. The Government
should work with the Forensic Science Regulator to develop her proposals for a National
Forensic Science Capability. This should focus on those forensic disciplines where skills
were threatened and/or already insufficient. The National Forensic Science Capability
should also ensure that cyber security standards and protection are strictly applied and
secure data back-up of information is routinely and securely stored.
In the face of an unstable forensics market which has been on the brink of collapse,
and the clear need to uphold quality standards across forensic services, the Regulator—
now more than ever—needs statutory powers. The Government professes to “strongly
support” the Forensic Science Regulator Bill yet it has not taken any active steps to
facilitate its passage through Parliament. Nor are we reassured that it has contingency
plans in place to ensure a similar Bill is afforded a legislative slot in the next Parliamentary
session. This is unacceptable. The Government has failed to show leadership and pass
what is ultimately an uncontroversial piece of legislation but which is vital for the
effective administration of justice. The Home Office should apply for a legislative slot
for a Forensic Science Regulator Bill in the next Parliamentary Session.
Although the Biometrics Strategy has been published—five years after it was first
promised—the Biometrics Commissioner has called it a ‘missed opportunity’. We would
argue it is not really a strategy at all, lacking a coherent, forward looking vision and
failing to address the legislative vacuum around new biometrics. The UK Government
should learn from the Scottish Government’s approach to biometrics and commission
an independent review of options for the use and retention of biometric data that is not
currently covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The results of the review
should be published along with a Government Response, and a public consultation on
the Government’s proposed way forward should follow. This process should culminate
in legislation being brought forward that seeks to govern current and future biometric
technologies.
It is now seven years since the 2012 High Court ruled that the indefinite retention of
innocent people’s custody images was unlawful and yet the practice is continuing. A
system was meant to have been put in place where any custody images were kept for
six years and then reviewed. Custody images of unconvicted individuals at that point
should be weeded and deleted. It is unclear whether police forces are unaware of the
requirement to review custody images every six years, or if they are simply ‘struggling
to comply’. What is clear, however, is that they have not been afforded any earmarked
resources to assist with the manual review and weeding process. Police forces should
give higher priority in the allocation of their resources to ensure a comprehensive

3

 4

  The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

manual deletion process of custody images in compliance with national guidance. In
turn, the Government should strengthen the requirement for such a manual system to
delete custody images and introduce clearer and stronger guidance on the process.
The reason it is so important that the images of unconvicted people are not kept on the
police database is because these images can form the basis of ‘watchlists’ for automatic
facial recognition technology when used by police forces in public spaces. We reiterate
our recommendation from our 2018 Report that automatic facial recognition should
not be deployed until concerns over the technology’s effectiveness and potential bias
have been fully resolved. We call on the Government to issue a moratorium on the
current use of facial recognition technology and no further trials should take place until
a legislative framework has been introduced and guidance on trial protocols, and an
oversight and evaluation system, has been established.

   The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

5

1  Introduction
1. Forensic science and biometrics have been reoccurring issues of concern for successive
Science and Technology Committees. The Committee has published Reports on forensic
science in 2011,1 2013,2 20163 and 2018,4 and covered biometrics in 20155 and 2018.6
2. We held a one-off evidence session on biometrics and forensics in March 2019. This
session was intended as an opportunity to follow-up on the Committee’s recommendations,
made in its 2018 Report.7
3. No terms of reference were issued for the inquiry but interested stakeholders were
invited to send written submissions on:
a)

what progress had been made towards addressing the recommendations made
in the Committee’s Report;

b)

the Government’s ‘Biometrics Strategy’ and;

c)

the Forensic Science Regulator Bill.

4. A total of 13 written submissions were received. A single evidence session was held
on Tuesday 19 March, with the Biometrics Commissioner, the Forensic Science Regulator,
the Minister for Countering Extremism (Baroness Williams), and Home Office officials.8
5.

The evidence session highlighted how:
a)

very limited progress had been made in addressing the Committee’s
recommendations;

b)

the situation had, in many respects, worsened in the intervening 10 months
most notably, the Forensic Science Regulator told the Committee how “we have
come perilously close—within weeks—of a market collapse, with potentially
more than one organisation in […] severe financial difficulties”;9 and

c)

addressing the problems raised by the Committee did not appear to be a Home
Office/Government priority.

6. We recognise that the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee published
a report in May 2019 on Forensic Science and the criminal justice system.10 This was based
on a detailed examination of the sector over the course of nearly a year (beginning in July
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Science and Technology Committee, The Forensic Science Service, Seventh Report, Session 2010–12, HC 855
Science and Technology Committee, Forensic science, Second Report, Session 2013–14, HC 610
Science and Technology Committee, Forensic Science Strategy, Fourth Report of Session 2016–17, HC 501
Science and Technology Committee, Biometrics strategy and forensic services, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19,
HC 800
Science and Technology Committee, Current and future uses of biometric data and technologies, Sixth Report of
Session 2014–15, HC 734
Science and Technology Committee, Biometrics strategy and forensic services, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19,
HC 800
Science and Technology Committee, Biometrics strategy and forensic services, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19,
HC 800
Oral evidence: Work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator, HC 1970
Q34
House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, 3rd Report of Session 2017–19: Forensic science and the
criminal justice system: a blueprint for Change HL Paper 333 May 2019

 6

  The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

2018). Our Report is not attempting to replicate the breadth and depth of work undertaken
by our colleagues in the Lords. Instead it is focused on deficiencies in the governance of
forensics and biometrics as this is where several problems appear to have their roots.
7.  Arguably we are seeing serious governance failings that are stemming from the
absence of a comprehensive legislative framework covering forensics and biometrics.
Therefore in this Report:
• 

In Chapter 2 we look at the stability of the forensics market and the need for the
Regulator to be given statutory powers; and

• 

In Chapter 3 we consider the Biometrics strategy, the use of live facial recognition
and the retention of custody images.

   The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

7

2  Forensics
Market Stability
8.  In our 2018 Report, we concluded that “concerns about the sustainability of the
forensics market—a problem identified many years ago—have continued”.11 We therefore
called on the Government to undertake a “review [of] the sustainability of the forensics
market as part of a wider review of its Forensics Strategy”. The Forensic Science Regulator’s
(FSR) evidence to us in March 2019 indicated that matters had not improved and that the
situation was “worse” than nine years ago when we first looked into the Forensic Science
Service:
The stability is worse […] There is an issue with loss of skills. There is
an issue with it being very difficult to give the new recruits coming into
forensic science sufficient breadth of training that they will make the really
skilled forensic leaders of the future. All of that is worse. The prices have
gone down. As I said, I think that that went too far. That is how we ended up
in a situation of instability. I would say that the research and development
landscape is less good than it was before.12
9.  A Home Office review into forensics provision was carried out last year13 and an
implementation plan was published in April 2019, after we took evidence for this inquiry.14
Dr Tully emphasised that the “recommendations” (as set out in the draft document she
had seen at the time of giving evidence) were not “sufficient to deal with the problems that
have been identified”. More specifically she noted that:
the review has identified all sorts of problems with stability of the provision
of forensic science, but it has not changed the mechanism by which funding
is assigned to forensic science or the mechanism by which decisions are
made about where and how funding goes. Again, it is a local decision,
down to chief constables and police and crime commissioners. None of
that has been changed. In the last few months, we have come perilously
close—within weeks—of a market collapse, with potentially more than one
organisation in such severe financial difficulties.15
The implementation plan highlighted four recommendations that had arisen from the
review and set out 13 actions, many of which did not appear to address some of the stability
challenges facing the forensics sector:

11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

• 

“ Ensure police forces and their contracted providers adhere to the quality
standards set by the Regulator”;

• 

“Ensure funding and commercial models are sustainable and encourage
investment”;

Science and Technology Committee, Biometrics strategy and forensic services, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19,
HC 800
Q40
Home Office, Forensics Review: Review of the provision of forensic science to the criminal justice system in
England and Wales July 2018
Home Office, Implementation Plan For the joint review of forensics provision (2018), April 2019
Q34

 8

  The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

• 

“Ensure policing and the [criminal justice system] benefits from advances in
science and technology by developing and implementing new forensic techniques
more coherently”; and

• 

“Ensure practitioners and policy makers have stronger evidence and data to
support decision making and facilitate more effective working with partners”.16

10.  Dr Tully explained that police forces were having to reduce their spending on forensics
and gave the example of how one Chief Constable had:
with a heavy heart, [said] he had reduced his forensic spending by 50% in
recent years. He said that was much more than he had cut any other area
of spending […] if we have forensic science spending as one of x number of
other priorities it is inevitable that funding will decrease.17
Dr Tully was also clear that unless the financial situation was stabilised, forensic science
services could be back in the same place as they were a few months ago, namely approaching
market collapse:
we could have ended up with one or more companies going into
administration and all that capacity being lost […]it could have been one
company or two companies, or it could have been two companies, plus a
whole discipline from another; it could have been in that range.18
11.  The Minister seemed less concerned than Dr Tully on the stability of the forensics
market, noting that a mix of providers was a positive feature of the forensic market:
within market provision there are forensic service providers other than
some of the ones that have struggled. I think it enhances my view that we
need a mix of different providers,19
There is no harm but every benefit in having a mix of different providers
available to the market.20
12.  Dr Tully suggested that a way forward was to develop a national forensic science
capability for certain forensic services.21 Dr Tully’s evidence to the Lords Science and
Technology Committee stated the following:
For all disciplines where skills are threatened and/or already insufficient,
concentration of the expertise in a single national provider may be the
optimal or indeed the only way to safeguard future provision and attract
highly experienced scientists who have moved away from front-line
provision of scientific services back to the profession.22

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

Home Office, Implementation Plan For the joint review of forensics provision (2018), April 2019
Q44
Qq47–48
Q124
Q131
Qq37–39
Dr Gillian Tully – Supplementary written evidence (FRS0107)

   The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

9

13.  The fragility of the current forensics market were starkly reinforced this June with the
cyber attack on Eurofins Forensics Services (EFS). Although the National Police Chiefs’
Council (NPCC) suspended use of EFS immediately and isolated police networks with
urgent and priority submissions diverted to alternative suppliers, capacity was affected
with a backlog of cases building (Eurofins deals with over 70,000 criminal cases in the
UK each year). EFS handled circa 90% of England and Wales complex forensics toxicology
work and while it was prohibited from providing such services there is not enough capacity
amongst other private providers to carry out the work. Some police forces only used EFS
for all of their forensic testing. To ensure an equitable distribution of capacity the NPCC
placed caps on what individual police forces could submit for testing but there was a risk
that delays to forensics could lead to cases being dropped as there are, for some types of
samples and cases, a chemical shelf life and a legal shelf life.23 It has now been established
that EFS paid a ransom to unlock the frozen accounts.24
14.  It is wholly unacceptable that the forensics market has—once again—come
perilously close to collapse in the year since we published our Report. We remain
seriously concerned about the long-term viability of the market for forensic science
services and the significant risk that this poses to the effective functioning of a
criminal justice system. It is encouraging that the Home Office did, eventually, accept
our recommendation to review the sustainability of the forensics market. However, the
implementation plan for the joint review of forensics provision (2018), published in
April 2019, does not appear to propose measures that would adequately address many
of the market stability challenges in the forensic services market.
15.  The Government should work with the Forensic Science Regulator to develop her
proposals for a National Forensic Science Capability. This should focus on those forensic
disciplines where skills were threatened and/or already insufficient. The National
Forensic Science Capability should also ensure that cyber security standards and
protection are strictly applied and secure data back-up of information is routinely and
securely stored.

Forensic Science Regulator: statutory powers
16.  Since 2011, successive Science and Technology Committees have called for the
Forensic Science Regulator to have statutory powers. The Government finally agreed, in
2016, to provide a “clearer statutory role for the Forensic Science Regulator” by the end
of what was then the 2016–17 Session of Parliament.25 Such powers are still not in place.
17.  We again heard powerful arguments from Dr Tully, the Forensic Science Regulator
for why statutory powers were needed:
Essentially, there are disciplines across policing—and in some smaller
forensic science providers—where people are not gaining the standards that
they need to gain, because they know that there is no sanction if they do
not do it.26
23 
24 
25 
26 

Forensic Service Provider Cyber Incident: Written statement - HLWS1618
BBC News: Eurofins Scientific: Forensic services firm paid ransom after cyber-attack, 5 July
Home Office, Forensic Science Strategy A national approach to forensic science delivery in the criminal justice
system CM9217 March 2016
Q12

 10

  The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

18.  She also informed us about the implications of an absence of statutory powers for
whistleblowing. Without being a statutory regulator, the Forensic Science Regulator is
not on the list of prescribed persons. Therefore, whistle-blowers in the forensics sector
are not as protected by Whistleblowing27 Legislation as in other industries with statutory
regulators.28
19.  The lack of statutory powers has also meant that the Regulator’s remit has not been
extended to cover the civil and family courts. Dr Tully explained that the Ministry of
Justice:
does not want to do anything, as I understand it, that is on a non-statutory
basis. Therefore, until the role of the regulator is put on to a statutory basis, it
is my understanding that it does not plan to make any moves on regulation29
One consequence of this is that at present there are “no quality requirements on toxicology
provided to the family court system”.30 In our 2018 Report, we called on “the Ministry of
Justice [to] work with the Home Office and the Forensics Regulator to examine the scope
for the Regulator’s remit to be extended to the civil courts forensics system”.31 Despite this,
work between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to tackle this challenge does
not appear to be taking place. Baroness Williams of Trafford, the Home Office Minister
with responsibility for forensics, told us: “I have not personally had conversations with the
Ministry of Justice. I do not know whether others have”.32
20.  Despite these important reasons for statutory powers, disappointingly the regulator
still does not have them. This is all the more frustrating given that:
a)  a Forensic Science Regulator Bill was introduced to the House of Commons but
it was a Private Member’s Bill which has yet to have its Second Reading nor has
it been afforded any Government time. Dr Tully noted that “in the same period
other private Members’ Bills that have been objected to, such as the upskirting
Bill and the FGM Bill, have found their way into Government legislation, but
this one has not. I do not think that it is high enough on […] the Government’s
priority list”;33
b)  The Committee recommended in its 2018 Report that “the Government should
now give [the Private Member’s Bill] time in its legislative programme in order
for it to make progress”. Despite repeated letters from us to the then Leader of
27 

Protection for whistleblowers in the UK is provided under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).
Disclosures are only protected if they are made to an appropriate party. The PIDA protects whistleblowers who
make disclosures in good faith to:
- Their employer, either directly or through an internal company procedure.
- Another person whom they reasonably believe to be solely or mainly responsible for the relevant failure

28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 

- Those persons who make disclosures to a “prescribed person” (that is, a party outside the company prescribed
by the Secretary of State, such as a regulatory body) must satisfy more conditions to obtain protection. In turn,
whistleblowers who make disclosures to external persons or bodies not specified in the PIDA must fulfil a larger
number of conditions before qualifying for protection.
Qq6–8
Q111
Q108
Science and Technology Committee, Biometrics strategy and forensic services, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19,
HC 800
Q149
Q3

   The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

11

the House of Commons and the Home Office, asking why the Bill could not be
afforded Government time, the Government has not taken any clear steps to
assist the Bill though Parliament. In oral evidence the Minister herself expressed
“disappointment” and frustration that the Bill had not progressed;34 and
c)  The Minister could not confirm whether the Home Office had applied for a
legislative ‘slot’ in the next Parliamentary session.35
21.  In the face of an unstable forensics market which has been on the brink of
collapse, and the clear need to uphold quality standards across forensic services, the
Regulator—now more than ever—needs statutory powers. The Government professes
to “strongly support” the Forensic Science Regulator Bill yet it has not taken any
active steps to facilitate its passage through Parliament. Nor are we reassured that it
has contingency plans in place to ensure a similar Bill is afforded a legislative slot in
the next Parliamentary session. This is unacceptable. The Government has failed to
show leadership and pass what is ultimately an uncontroversial piece of legislation but
which is vital for the effective administration of justice.
22.  The Home Office should apply for a legislative slot for a Forensic Science Regulator
Bill in the next Parliamentary Session and not rely on backbench Members to get the
Bill through Parliament. Legislation is needed not only to put the Forensic Science
Regulator on a statutory footing but also on the use of forensics in the civil and family
courts. The Bill should include:
i) 

Prohibition on the police using non-accredited laboratories; and

ii)  All in-house police laboratories should be accredited within a year.

34 
35 

Qq113–116
Q117

 12

  The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

3  Biometrics Strategy
Biometrics Strategy
23.  Since the Committee’s 2018 Report the Biometrics Strategy has finally been published
(in June 2018), five years after it was first promised. Both our Chair and the Biometrics
Commissioner have questioned whether the document is a Strategy. The Biometrics
Commissioner, Professor Paul Wiles told us:
I thought that it was a slightly confusing and disappointing document
[…] It starts off with what I might describe as a very good prologue for a
strategy. It then simply becomes a list of some of, but by no means all, the
things that the Home Office is doing on the use of biometrics—and then
stops. I thought that that was disappointing. It was a missed opportunity to
lay out a strategy.36
In addition, the Commissioner made a public statement in 2018 shortly after the Strategy
was published saying:
It is disappointing that the Home Office document is not forward looking
as one would expect from a strategy. In particular it does not propose
legislation to provide rules for the use and oversight of new biometrics,
including facial images. This is in contrast to Scotland where such legislation
has been proposed. Given that new biometrics are being rapidly deployed
or trialled this failure to set out more definitively what the future landscape
will look like in terms of the use and governance of biometrics appears
short sighted at best.37
24.  By comparison, in Scotland the Scottish Government held a consultation on
its proposals for second generation biometrics legislation.38 As a result the Scottish
Government is pursuing a principles-based approach.39 The Scottish Biometrics
Commissioner Bill: business and regulatory impact assessment (BRIA) was published
on 31 May 2019.40 The Biometrics Commissioner said, “It is an interesting example
of attempting to legislate in a way that will cope with future technical change in this
area”.41 No similar public consultation has taken place in England and Wales, despite
the Biometrics Strategy stating that there would be a consultation on the governance of
biometrics. Whether the Home Office has privately consulted with relevant organisations
remains unclear. The Government’s position on discussions with Scottish counterparts
appeared confused with the Minister asking her officials whether they had been talking
to their Scottish counterparts about legislation.42

36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Q20
Press release: Biometrics Commissioner’s response to the Home Office Biometrics Strategy, 28 June 2018
Consultation on enhanced oversight of biometric data for justice and community safety purposes
Q23
Scottish Biometrics Commissioner Bill: business and regulatory impact assessment (BRIA, May 2019
Addendum to the 2018 Annual Report of the Biometrics Commissioner, 27 June 2019
Q165

   The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

13

25.  The Surveillance Camera Commissioner (SCC), Microsoft and the Information
Commissioner’s Office highlighted the need for legislation regarding second generation
biometrics, such as automatic facial recognition.43 SCC said:
A clearer legal framework outlining how Automatic Facial Recognition
(AFR) can be deployed would support law enforcement practitioners […]
AFR is arguably more invasive than some covert surveillance techniques”.44
The Biometrics Commissioner also made this point:
I think, most of the police service would like to see a proper legal framework
for the new biometrics; otherwise, as each of these different biometrics is
trialled, they will be challenged and will find it very difficult, but it is also
more difficult to develop and evaluate new technology of this kind if you
do not know what the rules are that will apply once you have done it. If
they have to be bolted on afterwards, that makes life more complicated, so
I think the police service would like to see a framework within which to
operate.45
26.  A Home Office review of the governance of biometrics is currently underway. The
Biometrics Commissioner said that he had been minimally involved with the review and
had merely questioned the scope of the review.46 Dr Prince, a Home Office official, told the
Committee that the review would be
advising on a variety of options. Clearly, one of those might be legislation,
but there are other mechanisms by which we could improve the clarity and
simplicity of the way in which biometrics are governed going forward.47
The Minister informed us that there was already a legal framework in place including a data
protection component, and that it was largely principles-based.48 However, although there
is a legal framework for two biometrics—DNA and fingerprints—under the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012, it does not cover ‘new’ biometrics, such as facial or voice recognition.
27.  The Government’s 27-page biometrics strategy was not worth the five-year wait.
Arguably it is not a ‘strategy’ at all: it lacks a coherent, forward looking vision and
fails to address the legislative vacuum that the Home Office has allowed to emerge
around new biometrics. Ultimately, it represents a missed opportunity for the
Government to set out a principles-based approach for the use and oversight of second
generation biometrics. Simply establishing an oversight board, with no legal powers,
is not good enough given the highly intrusive nature of the technologies. Further,
the development and use of biometric technologies must be transparent and involve
as much public awareness and engagement as possible, to ensure that there is public
trust in the technologies. Unfortunately, public engagement has been sorely missing

43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 

Surveillance Camera Commissioner (WBC0002), Microsoft (WBC0006), Information Commissioner’s Office
(WBC0008)
Surveillance Camera Commissioner (WBC0002)
Q60
Q28
Q167
Home Office (WBC0009)

 14

  The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

from the Home Office’s approach to date. Its ongoing ‘consultation’ on the governance
of biometrics has no published terms of reference and there is no obvious way for
interested parties to participate. This is not good enough.
28.  The UK Government should learn from the Scottish Government’s approach to
biometrics and commission an independent review of options for the use and retention
of biometric data that is not currently covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The results of the review should be published along with a Government Response, and
a public consultation on the Government’s proposed way forward should follow. This
process should culminate in legislation being brought forward that seeks to govern
current and future biometric technologies.

Automatic/live facial recognition
29.  The development and application of automatic (or ‘live’) facial recognition (AFR),
notably by some police forces, encapsulates a number of the problems that have arisen due
to the lack of a clear legislative framework for the technology.
30.  AFR, is the automated one-to-many ‘matching’ of near real-time video images of
individuals with a curated ‘watchlist’ of facial images.49 Since 2016 it has been trialled by
the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police. The Metropolitan Police told us that it
had:
now concluded its trial of Live Facial Recognition Technology (LFR). The
last formal trial was on 14th February 2019. The MPS is pleased that the
technology–even though in a trial phase helped to show how it can keep
people safe. In all, with very limited deployments, eight arrests were made
directly from the technology with many relating to serious violence.50
The London Policing Ethics Panel51 conducted a review of the trial by the Metropolitan
Police and explained that:
Live facial recognition enables the police to conduct identity checks assisted
by an automated recognition system, in real time and in public places.
Facial features are scanned as people pass by cameras utilising specialised
software. These are automatically checked against facial images on a ‘watch
list’. These are images drawn from custody photographs and other police
sources.52
The Metropolitan Police told us that:
LFR is only an intelligence tool to potentially identify those who are
wanted/of interest to police. Once anyone is subject to ‘a match/alert’ then
police still need to verify identification by traditional means e.g. personal
documents, Police National Computer (PNC) or other mobile technology

49 
50 
51 
52 

Ethical issues arising from the police use of live facial recognition technology, February 2019
Metropolitan Police Service (WBC0013)
An independent panel established by the Mayor of London.
LONDON POLICING ETHICS PANEL FINAL REPORT ON LIVE FACIAL RECOGNITION May 2019

   The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

15

such as fingerprints. LFR sits separately to any investigation–however, it
may well be mentioned in individual witness statements but only to describe
the events up until the person of interest was stopped.53
The London Policing Ethic’s Panel final report on Live Facial Recognition proposed
that LFR should only be deployed where specific conditions were met and under certain
provisions. It also recommended:
i) 

when conducting future trials its ethical framework be incorporated;

ii)  if LFR is adopted, 12 months later there should be a public attitudes survey;
and
iii)  the need for the Home Office to simplify and strengthen regulation.54
31.  The evaluation of the trials in both London and Wales by the Biometrics and Forensics
Ethics Group55 in its interim report56 identified a number of questions which arose from
the AFR trials, including:
• 

the accuracy of live facial recognition technology;

• 

its potential for biased outputs and biased decision-making on the part of system
operators; and

• 

an ambiguity about the nature of current deployments.

The Group concluded that there had been a “lack of independent oversight and governance
of the use of [Live Facial Recognition]” in these trials and recommended that, pending the
development of a legislative framework, the police trials should comply with the “usual
standards of experimental trials, including rigorous and ethical scientific design”. It
proposed in its report “a number of ethical principles that can be used to inform these
deployments and frame policy-making”.57
32.  The Biometrics Commissioner has since called for the trials to be conducted in a more
consistent, standardised and robust way therefore allowing proper academic evaluation
but avoiding the risk of function ‘creep’ from trial to extended deployment.58 He suggested
this had not always been apparent throughout the whole of the trials to date.59
33.  The Information Commissioner is so concerned about the use of AFR by police
forces in public spaces that she had opened a priority investigation “to understand and
investigate the use of AFR by law enforcement bodies in public spaces. This will include
considering the legal basis, the necessity, proportionality and justification for this intrusive
processing.”60 The Commissioner is also concerned about:
i) 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 

the ambiguity of the trials;

Metropolitan Police Service (WBC0013)
LONDON POLICING ETHICS PANEL FINAL REPORT ON LIVE FACIAL RECOGNITION May 2019
Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group is an advisory non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Home
Office.
Ethical issues arising from the police use of live facial recognition technology, February 2019
Ethical issues arising from the police use of live facial recognition technology, February 2019
Q53, Q62
Q54
Information Commissioner’s Office (WBC0008)

 16

  The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

ii)  the more general roll out of AFR; and
iii)  whether the trials demonstrate full compliance with the Data Protection
Act 2018.61
The investigation will therefore be looking at the trials as well as other deployments. It will
be completed later in 2019.
34.  The Minister did not share concerns about the lack of regulation of AFR, and stated
that the:
very positive purpose of trials was to see where you have got it right and
where improvements could be made. It has to be said that the police are
operating within their powers when they do these trials […] I am not
personally concerned about whether it is lawful, given the parameters
within which the police have operated. I am quite comforted by the fact
that the Information Commissioner is using her remit to scrutinise the
basis on which they are operating.62
35.  Since we took evidence, a three day trial was heard at Cardiff High Court in May
2019 regarding South Wales Police’s Home Office funded trials of live facial recognition.
Liberty, on behalf of their client, a Cardiff resident, challenged the South Wales Police’s
use of live facial recognition on the grounds that the use breached the right to privacy,
equality laws and data protection laws.63 An expected date for the judgment has not been
set. As the Biometrics Commissioner said in his 2018 Annual Report:
This judgment will be significant not just for South Wales Police and their
ongoing trials and/or deployment of this technology but for all police forces,
the wider use of the technology and its future governance.64
In addition Big Brother Watch is currently bringing a legal challenge against the
Metropolitan Police and the Home Secretary regarding the use of live facial recognition
in public spaces.65
36.  There is growing evidence from respected, independent bodies that the ‘regulatory
lacuna’ surrounding the use of automatic facial recognition has called the legal basis of
the trials into question. The Government, however, seems to not realise or to concede
that there is a problem.
37.  We reiterate our recommendation from our 2018 Report that automatic facial
recognition should not be deployed until concerns over the technology’s effectiveness
and potential bias have been fully resolved. We call on the Government to issue a
moratorium on the current use of facial recognition technology and no further trials
should take place until a legislative framework has been introduced and guidance on
trial protocols, and an oversight and evaluation system, has been established.

61 
Information Commissioner’s Office (WBC0008)
62 
Qq172–173
63 Independent Facial recognition technology ‘violates human rights and must end’, landmark court case hears 21
May 2019
64 
Addendum to the 2018 Annual Report of the Biometrics Commissioner, Paul Wiles, 27 June 2019
65 
Big Brother Watch (WBC0012)

   The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

17

38.  We recommend that the Home Office should issue guidance on Automatic Facial
Recognition Trials when it introduces a legislative framework for these trials and that
trials must be of a scientific standard.

Retention of custody images
39.  The retention of custody images is of concern as these images can form the basis
of ‘watchlists’ for automatic facial recognition technology when used by police forces
in public spaces. This issue was raised in our predecessor Committee’s 2015 Biometrics
Report. First and foremost, the then Committee criticised the lack of a “robust governance
regime” and a statutory basis for holding images of innocent people in order to detect
crime. This follows a case in the High Court in 2012—R (RMC and FJ) v MPS (Metropolitan
Police Service)—in which the High Court ruled that the indefinite retention of innocent
people’s custody images was “unlawful”.66 Big Brother Watch argued that:
the number of custody images currently held on the Police National
Database [is] 23 million. This is an increase of 4 million since the previous
figures were updated just one year ago. According to the Biometrics
Commissioner, a staggering 10 million of these images have now been
made biometrically searchable by facial recognition technology, following
an upgrade to the system in 2014 which occurred without parliamentary
or public scrutiny. With sub-sets of this database being used at police
deployments of live facial recognition, innocent people are increasingly
at risk of being wrongfully stopped or even arrested. This also completely
blurs the line between the innocent and the guilty, and makes a mockery of
the presumption of innocence.67
40.  The Government responded to the 2017 Custody Image Review, which was its response
to the 2012 High Court ruling in the case of RMC and FJ v Commissioner of Police for the
Metropolis and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 1681(Admin)
(‘RMC’),68 by saying that individuals could request to have their images deleted but there
was no ‘automatic weeding’ of unconvicted individuals.69 The Biometrics Commissioner
noted that:
a system was put in place where any custody images were kept for six years
and then should be reviewed. During those six years anybody, but especially
those who had been unconvicted, could apply to have their images removed,
and the guidance was that there should be a presumption that the police
would do that unless there were good reasons why not.70

66 
67 
68 

69 
70 

RMC and FJ v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012]
EWHC 1681 (Admin)
Big Brother Watch (WBC0012)
This ruling found that “that the retention of images from unconvicted individuals under the Metropolitan Police
Service’s policy for the retention of custody images, which followed the Code of Practice on the Management of
Police Information and accompanying guidance (‘MoPI’), was unlawful”.
Home Office, ‘Review of the Use and Retention of Custody Images’, February 2017
Q80

 18

  The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

He went on to explain that “the fact is that the six-year review has somehow not been
taken into routine police practice”71 and that there was a:
very poor understanding of that six-year review period and little evidence
that it was being carried out. Very few applications were being made to chief
officers […] [there is a need] to bolster and remind police forces that they
should be carrying out reviews at the end of six years and deciding whether
they need to keep those images and, if not, to delete them. Secondly, there
needs to be much greater public visibility of people’s right, if they want to,
to apply to a chief officer to have their images removed.72
The ICO had similar concerns:
It is unclear how those individuals would know that they could make a
request and we are aware that there have not been a significant number of
requests, indicating a lack of awareness. So, the position remains, that there
are potentially thousands of custody images being held with no clear basis
in law or justification for the ongoing retention.73
As we highlighted in our previous Report a Press Association investigation in 2018
revealed that only 67 applications for deletion had been made between February 2017
(when the Home Office review concluded that unconvicted individuals should have the
right to apply for the deletion of their custody image from all police systems) and October
2017, and only 34 applications had been successful.74
41.  Minutes from the September 2018 Biometrics Advisory Board said that “most forces”
were struggling to comply with the management of police information policy (MOPI)
when weeding the custody images that they held.75 It was also clear that no earmarked
additional resources had been provided by the Home Office to assist police forces with
compliance.76
42.  In 2018, the Home Office told the Committee that it expected the “new platform being
delivered by the National Law Enforcement Data Programme to […] enable a considerably
more flexible approach to automatic deletion than is possible at present”.77 The Committee
heard, however, in 2019, that there had been delays to implementing this new technology.
The Minister said that it had “not been procured”78 and the Home Office “cannot commit
to a date” for an automatic deletion system to be in place In a further letter to us Baroness
Williams said that:
There are a number of challenges to overcome but we are working up a
detailed technology and business change plan, which will entail substantial
investment.79
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 

Q82
Q80
Information Commissioner’s Office (WBC0008)
Big Brother Watch (WBC0012)
Law Enforcement Facial Images and New Biometrics Oversight and Advisory Board 24 September 2018
Qq188–191
Science and Technology Committee, Biometrics strategy and forensic services, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19,
HC 800
Q184
Letter from Baroness Williams of Trafford to Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, 30 April 2019

   The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

19

However she confirmed that she had asked her officials “to work with the police to
determine how manual deletion might be enhanced without placing an unmanageable
burden on policing”.80
43.  Concerns were also raised by the Biometrics Commissioner and the ICO about the
lawfulness of the current situation: the Biometrics Commissioner told us “at the time the
custody image review was published I was not at all sure this would meet further court
challenges. I still think that”.81 The ICO, meanwhile, stated that delays to implementing
the new National Law Enforcement Data Service would mean “that many images are
potentially being held longer than necessary and this will therefore not comply with the
DPA18”.82 Another custody image review was promised by the Minister in 2020.83
44.  Since the Committee published its Report in 2018, progress has stalled on
ensuring that the custody images of unconvicted individuals are weeded and deleted.
It is unclear whether police forces are unaware of the requirement to review custody
images every six years, or if they are simply ‘struggling to comply’. What is clear,
however, is that they have not been afforded any earmarked resources to assist with the
manual review and weeding process. The Minister previously promised improvements
to IT systems that would have facilitated automatic deletion. Such improvements now
appear to have been delayed indefinitely. As such, the burden remains on individuals
to know that they have the right to request deletion of their image. As we stated in
2018, this approach is unacceptable and we agree with the Biometrics Commissioner
that its lawfulness requires further assessment.
45.  Police forces should give higher priority in the allocation of their resources to
ensure a comprehensive manual deletion process of custody images in compliance with
national guidance. In turn, the Government should strengthen the requirement for such
a manual process to delete custody images and introduce clearer and stronger guidance
on the process. In the long-term the Government should invest in automatic deletion
software as previously promised.

80 
81 
82 
83 

Ibid.
Q90
Information Commissioner’s Office (WBC0008)
Q177

 20

  The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

Conclusions and recommendations
Forensics
1. 

It is wholly unacceptable that the forensics market has—once again—come perilously
close to collapse in the year since we published our Report. We remain seriously
concerned about the long-term viability of the market for forensic science services
and the significant risk that this poses to the effective functioning of a criminal
justice system. It is encouraging that the Home Office did, eventually, accept our
recommendation to review the sustainability of the forensics market. However, the
implementation plan for the joint review of forensics provision (2018), published in
April 2019, does not appear to propose measures that would adequately address many
of the market stability challenges in the forensic services market. (Paragraph 14)

2. 

The Government should work with the Forensic Science Regulator to develop her
proposals for a National Forensic Science Capability. This should focus on those
forensic disciplines where skills were threatened and/or already insufficient. The
National Forensic Science Capability should also ensure that cyber security standards
and protection are strictly applied and secure data back-up of information is routinely
and securely stored. (Paragraph 15)

3. 

In the face of an unstable forensics market which has been on the brink of collapse, and
the clear need to uphold quality standards across forensic services, the Regulator—
now more than ever—needs statutory powers. The Government professes to
“strongly support” the Forensic Science Regulator Bill yet it has not taken any active
steps to facilitate its passage through Parliament. Nor are we reassured that it has
contingency plans in place to ensure a similar Bill is afforded a legislative slot in
the next Parliamentary session. This is unacceptable. The Government has failed to
show leadership and pass what is ultimately an uncontroversial piece of legislation
but which is vital for the effective administration of justice. (Paragraph 21)

4. 

The Home Office should apply for a legislative slot for a Forensic Science Regulator
Bill in the next Parliamentary Session and not rely on backbench Members to get the
Bill through Parliament. Legislation is needed not only to put the Forensic Science
Regulator on a statutory footing but also on the use of forensics in the civil and family
courts. The Bill should include:
i) 

Prohibition on the police using non-accredited laboratories; and

ii)  All in-house police laboratories should be accredited within a year.
(Paragraph 22)
Biometrics Strategy
5. 

The Government’s 27-page biometrics strategy was not worth the five-year wait.
Arguably it is not a ‘strategy’ at all: it lacks a coherent, forward looking vision
and fails to address the legislative vacuum that the Home Office has allowed to
emerge around new biometrics. Ultimately, it represents a missed opportunity for
the Government to set out a principles-based approach for the use and oversight of

   The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

21

second generation biometrics. Simply establishing an oversight board, with no legal
powers, is not good enough given the highly intrusive nature of the technologies.
Further, the development and use of biometric technologies must be transparent
and involve as much public awareness and engagement as possible, to ensure that
there is public trust in the technologies. Unfortunately, public engagement has been
sorely missing from the Home Office’s approach to date. Its ongoing ‘consultation’
on the governance of biometrics has no published terms of reference and there
is no obvious way for interested parties to participate. This is not good enough.
(Paragraph 27)
6. 

The UK Government should learn from the Scottish Government’s approach to
biometrics and commission an independent review of options for the use and retention
of biometric data that is not currently covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The results of the review should be published along with a Government Response, and
a public consultation on the Government’s proposed way forward should follow. This
process should culminate in legislation being brought forward that seeks to govern
current and future biometric technologies. (Paragraph 28)

7. 

There is growing evidence from respected, independent bodies that the ‘regulatory
lacuna’ surrounding the use of automatic facial recognition has called the legal basis
of the trials into question. The Government, however, seems to not realise or to
concede that there is a problem. (Paragraph 36)

8. 

We reiterate our recommendation from our 2018 Report that automatic facial
recognition should not be deployed until concerns over the technology’s effectiveness
and potential bias have been fully resolved. We call on the Government to issue a
moratorium on the current use of facial recognition technology and no further trials
should take place until a legislative framework has been introduced and guidance
on trial protocols, and an oversight and evaluation system, has been established.
(Paragraph 37)

9. 

We recommend that the Home Office should issue guidance on Automatic Facial
Recognition Trials when it introduces a legislative framework for these trials and that
trials must be of a scientific standard. (Paragraph 38)

10.  Since the Committee published its Report in 2018, progress has stalled on ensuring
that the custody images of unconvicted individuals are weeded and deleted. It is
unclear whether police forces are unaware of the requirement to review custody
images every six years, or if they are simply ‘struggling to comply’. What is clear,
however, is that they have not been afforded any earmarked resources to assist
with the manual review and weeding process. The Minister previously promised
improvements to IT systems that would have facilitated automatic deletion. Such
improvements now appear to have been delayed indefinitely. As such, the burden
remains on individuals to know that they have the right to request deletion of
their image. As we stated in 2018, this approach is unacceptable and we agree
with the Biometrics Commissioner that its lawfulness requires further assessment
(Paragraph 44)
11.  Police forces should give higher priority in the allocation of their resources to ensure
a comprehensive manual deletion process of custody images in compliance with

 22

  The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

national guidance. In turn, the Government should strengthen the requirement for
such a manual process to delete custody images and introduce clearer and stronger
guidance on the process. In the long-term the Government should invest in automatic
deletion software as previously promised. (Paragraph 45)

   The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

23

Formal minutes
Wednesday 17 July 2019
Members present:
Norman Lamb in the Chair
Vicky Ford

Stephen Metcalfe

Bill Grant

Carol Monaghan

Mr Sam Gyimah

Graham Stringer

Darren Jones

Martin Whitfield

Draft Report (The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator),
proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 45 read and agreed to.
Summary agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Nineteenth Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
[Adjourned till Wednesday 17 July at 2.30pm.

 24

  The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

Witnesses
The following witnesses gave evidence. Transcripts can be viewed on the inquiry publications
page of the Committee’s website.

Tuesday 19 March 2019
Dr Gillian Tully, Forensic Science Regulator; and Paul Wiles, Commissioner
for the Retention and Use of Biometric Material

Q1–112

Baroness Williams of Trafford, Minister of State for Countering Extremism,
Home Office; Dr Christophe Prince, Director for Data and Identity, Home
Office; and Professor John Aston, Chief Scientific Adviser, Home Office

Q113–204

Published written evidence
The following written evidence was received and can be viewed on the inquiry publications
page of the Committee’s website.
1 

Big Brother Watch (WBC0012)

2 

Dr Julie Maxton (WBC0007)

3 

Home Office (WBC0009)

4 

Information Commissioner’s Office (WBC0008)

5 

Leverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science, University of Dundee (WBC0003)

6 

Metropolitan Police Service (WBC0005), (WBC0013)

7 

Microsoft (WBC0006)

8 

Office of the Biometrics Commissioner (WBC0010)

9 

Science and Justice RIG, Northumbria University (WBC0004)

10 

South Wales Police (WBC0011)

11 

Surveillance Camera Commissioner (WBC0002)

12 

University of East Anglia Joe Purshouse (WBC0001)

   The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

25

List of Reports from the Committee
during the current Parliament
All publications from the Committee are available on the publications page of the
Committee’s website. The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report
is printed in brackets after the HC printing number

Session 2017–19
First Report

Pre-appointment hearing: chair of UK Research &
Innovation and executive chair of the Medical Research
Council

HC 747

Second Report

Brexit, science and innovation

HC 705

Third Report

Genomics and genome editing in the NHS

HC 349

Fourth Report

Algorithms in decision-making

HC 351

Fifth Report

Biometrics strategy and forensic services

HC 800

Sixth Report

Research integrity

HC 350

Seventh Report

E-cigarettes

HC 505

Eighth Report

An immigration system that works for science and
innovation

Ninth Report

Flu vaccination programme in England

Tenth Report

Research integrity: clinical trials transparency

Eleventh Report

Evidence-based early years intervention

HC 506

Twelfth Report

Quantum technologies

HC 820

Thirteenth Report

Energy drinks and children

HC 821

Fourteenth Report

Impact of social media and screen-use on young
people’s health

HC 822

Fifteenth Report

Evidence-based early years intervention: Government’s
Response to the Committee’s Eleventh Report of
Session 2017–19

HC 1898

Sixteenth Report

‘My Science Inquiry’

HC 1716

Seventeenth Special
Report

Japanese knotweed and the built environment

HC 1702

Eighteenth Report

Digital Government

HC 1455

First Special Report

Science communication and engagement: Government
Response to the Committee’s Eleventh Report of
Session 2016–17

HC 319

Second Special Report

Managing intellectual property and technology
transfer: Government Response to the Committee’s
Tenth Report of Session 2016–17

HC 318

Third Special Report

Industrial Strategy: science and STEM skills:
Government Response to the Committee’s Thirteenth
Report of Session 2016–17

HC 335

HC 1061
HC 853
HC 1480

 26

  The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator 

Fourth Special Report

Science in emergencies: chemical, biological,
radiological or nuclear incidents: Government
Response to the Committee’s Twelfth Report of
Session 2016–17

HC 561

Fifth Special Report

Brexit, science and innovation: Government Response
to the Committee’s Second Report

HC 1008

Sixth Special Report

Algorithms in decision-making: Government Response
to the Committee’s Fourth Report

HC 1544

Seventh Special Report

Research integrity: Government and UK Research and
Innovation Responses to the Committee’s Sixth Report

HC 1562

Eighth Special Report

Biometrics strategy and forensic services:
Government’s Response to the Committee’s Fifth
Report

HC 1613

Ninth Special Report

An immigration system that works for science
and innovation: Government’s Response to the
Committee’s Eighth Report

HC 1661

Tenth Special Report

Research integrity: clinical trials transparency: Health
Research Authority Response to the Committee’s Tenth
Report

HC 1961

Eleventh Special Report Quantum technologies: Government Response to the
Committee’s Twelfth Report

HC 2030

Twelfth Special Report

HC 2120

Impact of social media and screen-use on young
people’s health: Government Response to the
Committee’s Fourteenth Report