The Home Office has not issued specific guidance. Police use of facial recognition and similar technologies is currently governed by a legal framework that includes data protection, equality and human rights laws, national guidance, a code of practice and force level policies. The College of Policing has also published guidance and an Authorised Professional Practice setting out police forces use new technology. However, we intend to bring forward a new legal framework to provide clearer, more specific rules.

The Government’s aim is that a new legal framework will ensure all police forces across the country can use facial recognition and similar technologies with greater confidence, and that their uses and limits are clear to the public.

Last year, we launched a public consultation on when and how biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies should be used, and what safeguards and oversight are needed.

The Government has no current plans to introduce a standalone legislative framework governing the use of facial recognition technology (FRT) by private companies. However, a recent consultation by the Home Office on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics and facial recognition will consider the relevance of any new developments in that area to wider public and private sector use of FRT. The consultation closed on 12 February, and responses are being analysed.

As noted in our previous correspondence, the use of FRT is already governed by a robust legal framework, including the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Under this framework, organisations must process data lawfully, fairly and transparently, and ensure its use is necessary and proportionate. Where used for identification, FRT involves biometric data, which is classified as special category personal data and is subject to stricter legal safeguards. Organisations must also carry out data protection impact assessments where use of such technologies is likely to pose high risks to individuals’ rights and freedoms.

The Government recognises that the use of artificial intelligence, including in FRT, continues to evolve. It therefore keeps the existing legislative framework under review, working closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Guidance for forces using the Police National Database is provided through the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing and reflects established standards relating to the capture, handling, and use of facial images. This includes consideration of image quality and the need to manage the risk of misidentification.

Any potential matches are reviewed by trained officers and must be corroborated before any operational or investigatory action is taken.

Police forces must have regard to the Home Secretary’s Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, which sets out expectations for the use of surveillance camera systems and includes requirements around necessity, proportionality, and appropriate safeguards.

Individual police forces remain responsible for local policies and procedures in line with national guidance and the law.

Police forces using facial recognition must comply with existing legal obligations, including the Human Rights Act 1998, Equality Act 2010 and Data Protection Act 2018.

Facial recognition algorithms provided by or procured with Home Office funding for police use are required to be independently tested for bias. Independent testing is important because it helps determine the setting in which an algorithm can safely and fairly be used.

Where forces procure their own algorithms, forces must ensure that any facial recognition software does not present unacceptable levels of bias. For live facial recognition, this expectation is set out in the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice, which requires algorithms to be independently tested before use, with the results informing how systems are configured for safe and fair deployment.

The government intends to bring forward a new legal framework to create consistent, resilient rules and appropriate safeguards for the use of facial recognition and similar technologies.

The Home Office has not made a final assessment of the cost‑effectiveness of police use of live facial recognition (LFR) technology in comparison to traditional policing methods. However, when the government introduces legislation on a new framework this will be accompanied by an impact assessment. This will include consideration of costs, operational benefits and wider impacts, alongside legal, ethical and equality considerations.

With regards to the integration of facial recognition into existing CCTV, police forces must comply with data protection, human rights, equality and other relevant laws. This means that police can use live facial recognition only for targeted, intelligence led, time-bound deployments to locate specific individuals on a watchlist, such as wanted offenders or people who may pose a risk of serious harm.

The Home Office is aware that both the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police have piloted the use of facial recognition cameras mounted on fixed street infrastructure. This involves adding standalone LFR cameras and does not involve changing the use of existing CCTV, which remains separate.

The Home Office has not made a final assessment of the cost‑effectiveness of police use of live facial recognition (LFR) technology in comparison to traditional policing methods. However, when the government introduces legislation on a new framework this will be accompanied by an impact assessment. This will include consideration of costs, operational benefits and wider impacts, alongside legal, ethical and equality considerations.

With regards to the integration of facial recognition into existing CCTV, police forces must comply with data protection, human rights, equality and other relevant laws. This means that police can use live facial recognition only for targeted, intelligence led, time-bound deployments to locate specific individuals on a watchlist, such as wanted offenders or people who may pose a risk of serious harm.

The Home Office is aware that both the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police have piloted the use of facial recognition cameras mounted on fixed street infrastructure. This involves adding standalone LFR cameras and does not involve changing the use of existing CCTV, which remains separate.

The Home Office has not made a final assessment of the cost‑effectiveness of police use of live facial recognition (LFR) technology in comparison to traditional policing methods. However, when the government introduces legislation on a new framework this will be accompanied by an impact assessment. This will include consideration of costs, operational benefits and wider impacts, alongside legal, ethical and equality considerations.

With regards to the integration of facial recognition into existing CCTV, police forces must comply with data protection, human rights, equality and other relevant laws. This means that police can use live facial recognition only for targeted, intelligence led, time-bound deployments to locate specific individuals on a watchlist, such as wanted offenders or people who may pose a risk of serious harm.

The Home Office is aware that both the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police have piloted the use of facial recognition cameras mounted on fixed street infrastructure. This involves adding standalone LFR cameras and does not involve changing the use of existing CCTV, which remains separate.

The Government supports police innovation, including the responsible use of facial recognition technologies. The Government recognises that facial recognition and similar technologies can support the police to prevent and detect crime and protect the public, when used appropriately and responsibly.

Police forces must comply with the existing legal framework for any use of facial recognition technology. As part of this, any use of facial recognition technology must be necessary and proportionate to a specific policing objective.

The Home Office launched a public consultation which closed on 12 February 2026 on when and how biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies should be used by law enforcement, and what safeguards and oversight are needed. This consultation included questions on when the use of such technologies should be considered necessary and proportionate. We are currently considering the responses, which will inform the scope and content of any legal changes brought before Parliament. However, there are currently no plans for the Government to fund body worn video or drone projects in relation to facial recognition technologies.

The Home Office has not formally assessed the potential impact of police facial recognition cameras on levels of local crime rates or effectiveness against traditional policing methods. However, when the Government introduces legislation on a new framework this will be accompanied by an impact assessment. This will include consideration of operational benefits, costs and wider impacts, alongside legal, ethical and equality considerations.

When using live facial recognition, police forces must comply with existing legal obligations including the requirement that its use is necessary and proportionate to a specific policing objective.

National guidance issued by the College of Policing requires forces to define the purpose of a deployment in advance and ensure watchlists are focused and limited to appropriate categories of people, which may include wanted individuals, suspects, missing or vulnerable people, or those posing risks. Watchlists must be tailored to the policing objective and reviewed before each deployment to ensure the legal tests of necessity and proportionality are met.

Last year, we launched a public consultation on when and how biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies should be used by law enforcement, and what safeguards and oversight are needed. This consultation included questions on when the use of such technologies should be considered necessary and proportionate. We are currently considering the responses, which will inform the scope and content of any legal changes brought before Parliament

The Home Office has not formally assessed the potential impact of police facial recognition cameras on levels of local crime rates or effectiveness against traditional policing methods. However, when the Government introduces legislation on a new framework this will be accompanied by an impact assessment. This will include consideration of operational benefits, costs and wider impacts, alongside legal, ethical and equality considerations.

When using live facial recognition, police forces must comply with existing legal obligations including the requirement that its use is necessary and proportionate to a specific policing objective.

National guidance issued by the College of Policing requires forces to define the purpose of a deployment in advance and ensure watchlists are focused and limited to appropriate categories of people, which may include wanted individuals, suspects, missing or vulnerable people, or those posing risks. Watchlists must be tailored to the policing objective and reviewed before each deployment to ensure the legal tests of necessity and proportionality are met.

Last year, we launched a public consultation on when and how biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies should be used by law enforcement, and what safeguards and oversight are needed. This consultation included questions on when the use of such technologies should be considered necessary and proportionate. We are currently considering the responses, which will inform the scope and content of any legal changes brought before Parliament

The Home Office has not formally assessed the potential impact of police facial recognition cameras on levels of local crime rates or effectiveness against traditional policing methods. However, when the Government introduces legislation on a new framework this will be accompanied by an impact assessment. This will include consideration of operational benefits, costs and wider impacts, alongside legal, ethical and equality considerations.

When using live facial recognition, police forces must comply with existing legal obligations including the requirement that its use is necessary and proportionate to a specific policing objective.

National guidance issued by the College of Policing requires forces to define the purpose of a deployment in advance and ensure watchlists are focused and limited to appropriate categories of people, which may include wanted individuals, suspects, missing or vulnerable people, or those posing risks. Watchlists must be tailored to the policing objective and reviewed before each deployment to ensure the legal tests of necessity and proportionality are met.

Last year, we launched a public consultation on when and how biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies should be used by law enforcement, and what safeguards and oversight are needed. This consultation included questions on when the use of such technologies should be considered necessary and proportionate. We are currently considering the responses, which will inform the scope and content of any legal changes brought before Parliament

The government considered the potential public safety implications of digital identity services, including the use of biometric data, when developing the Digital Verification Services (DVS) trust framework. The trust framework – developed by the Office for Digital Identities and Attributes (OfDIA), a part of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) - sets out requirements governing the provision of digital identity services.

The trust framework sets out rules covering roles, principles, policies, procedures and standards and legislation covering areas such as security, privacy, fraud prevention, governance and reliability. These requirements are intended to support safe and trustworthy provision of digital identity services.

Where a certified service uses biometric technologies, the trust framework includes specific requirements relating to the performance and security of those technologies. Providers are required to test biometric systems against recognised industry standards, to help ensure they are accurate, secure and inclusive.

The trust framework does not replace or supplement existing legal obligations relating to data protection. Service providers are required to comply with the data protection legislation when processing personal data.

Companies who wish to be included in the government’s online register of digital identity and attribute services must have their services independently audited and certified against the trust framework by accredited certification bodies. Yoti has services certified against the trust framework, and recorded on the online register. Certification does not constitute a government endorsement of any particular company or service. However, the trust framework and its certification regime help to provide assurance that certified services meet the government’s standards for security and reliability.

I have made it very clear that I think our national interest lies in close relations with the EU on defence, security, energy and the economy. I was very pleased that at last year’s summit we did negotiate an agreement on e-gates, and we are pushing hard on that. We have another summit this year, where I intend not just to make good on what we have already agreed, but to go closer to the EU in the relations that we have.

President Trump is one of the most unpredictable people we have seen on the world stage, and I hope that he does not embarrass our monarch.

Moving on, last year the Prime Minister claimed that he had done some special deal so that Brits would be able to “sail through” e-gates at EU airports, but that was not the experience of families returning from holiday this week. Long queues at borders and passport controls are the latest symbol of the Brexit disaster, but they are also a symbol of this Government’s failure to repair that damage. Will the Prime Minister apologise for misleading British travellers, and can he tell them when they will be able to “sail through” passport control?

The Home Office works closely with police forces and stakeholders to assess the use of facial recognition by law enforcement. As part of this engagement, we have consulted on a new legal framework on how and when law enforcement should use biometrics and facial recognition, including the safeguards that should apply to the use of these technologies. That consultation closed on 12 February; we are considering responses and will legislate in due course.

When using the technology, the police must operate within the legal framework, including data protection, equality and human rights legislation, national guidance, a code of practice and force‑level policies. The Home Office is aware of the risk of bias in facial recognition algorithms and all police facial recognition systems funded by the Home Office must be independently tested so that they can be operated at settings where there is negligible bias.

The Home Secretary has also tasked His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), with support from the Forensic Science Regulator, to look at whether people have been affected by the bias as part of the inspection of police and relevant law enforcement agencies’ use of retrospective facial recognition. The inspection is in progress and the terms of reference have been published by HMICFRS.

The Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMICFRS) to conduct an inspection of police and relevant law enforcement agencies’ use of retrospective facial recognition. The detail of the inspection and publication of the report are a matter for HMICFRS, but they will look at whether there have been or are likely to have been any wrongful arrests as a result of the use of retrospective facial recognition.

Additionally, the Home Office is aware of the risk of bias in facial recognition algorithms and supports policing in managing that risk. Manual safeguards, embedded in police training, operational practice, and guidance, require all potential matches returned from the Police National Database (PND) to be visually assessed by a trained user and investigating officer. If the trained PND user or investigator decides a facial search image provides a potential match, this must be treated as intelligence rather than evidence and additional lines of enquiry must be undertaken before any action is taken. These safeguards have always been in place, even before the independent National Physical Laboratory (NPL) testing.

The Home Office does not issue guidance on setting algorithm thresholds. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and police forces consider the impact and equitability of facial recognition technology in line with their Public Sector Equality Duty. The threshold is set for all forces by a Chief Constable on behalf of the NPCC to balance the equitability of facial searching, and the operational imperative to find true matches where they are present on PND.

The Home Office takes the findings of the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) report very seriously and has already acted. The Police Reform White Paper included a commitment to invest £26m into the development and delivery of a national facial recognition system for policing using a new algorithm. The new facial recognition algorithm has been independently tested by the NPL and this showed that it can be used at settings with no statistically significant bias. The new service will be operationally tested by the police in the coming months and will be subject to evaluation to inform future decisions about rolling out the new system with the new algorithm.

The Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMICFRS) to conduct an inspection of police and relevant law enforcement agencies’ use of retrospective facial recognition. The detail of the inspection and publication of the report are a matter for HMICFRS, but they will look at whether there have been or are likely to have been any wrongful arrests as a result of the use of retrospective facial recognition.

Additionally, the Home Office is aware of the risk of bias in facial recognition algorithms and supports policing in managing that risk. Manual safeguards, embedded in police training, operational practice, and guidance, require all potential matches returned from the Police National Database (PND) to be visually assessed by a trained user and investigating officer. If the trained PND user or investigator decides a facial search image provides a potential match, this must be treated as intelligence rather than evidence and additional lines of enquiry must be undertaken before any action is taken. These safeguards have always been in place, even before the independent National Physical Laboratory (NPL) testing.

The Home Office does not issue guidance on setting algorithm thresholds. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and police forces consider the impact and equitability of facial recognition technology in line with their Public Sector Equality Duty. The threshold is set for all forces by a Chief Constable on behalf of the NPCC to balance the equitability of facial searching, and the operational imperative to find true matches where they are present on PND.

The Home Office takes the findings of the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) report very seriously and has already acted. The Police Reform White Paper included a commitment to invest £26m into the development and delivery of a national facial recognition system for policing using a new algorithm. The new facial recognition algorithm has been independently tested by the NPL and this showed that it can be used at settings with no statistically significant bias. The new service will be operationally tested by the police in the coming months and will be subject to evaluation to inform future decisions about rolling out the new system with the new algorithm.

The Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMICFRS) to conduct an inspection of police and relevant law enforcement agencies’ use of retrospective facial recognition. The detail of the inspection and publication of the report are a matter for HMICFRS, but they will look at whether there have been or are likely to have been any wrongful arrests as a result of the use of retrospective facial recognition.

Additionally, the Home Office is aware of the risk of bias in facial recognition algorithms and supports policing in managing that risk. Manual safeguards, embedded in police training, operational practice, and guidance, require all potential matches returned from the Police National Database (PND) to be visually assessed by a trained user and investigating officer. If the trained PND user or investigator decides a facial search image provides a potential match, this must be treated as intelligence rather than evidence and additional lines of enquiry must be undertaken before any action is taken. These safeguards have always been in place, even before the independent National Physical Laboratory (NPL) testing.

The Home Office does not issue guidance on setting algorithm thresholds. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and police forces consider the impact and equitability of facial recognition technology in line with their Public Sector Equality Duty. The threshold is set for all forces by a Chief Constable on behalf of the NPCC to balance the equitability of facial searching, and the operational imperative to find true matches where they are present on PND.

The Home Office takes the findings of the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) report very seriously and has already acted. The Police Reform White Paper included a commitment to invest £26m into the development and delivery of a national facial recognition system for policing using a new algorithm. The new facial recognition algorithm has been independently tested by the NPL and this showed that it can be used at settings with no statistically significant bias. The new service will be operationally tested by the police in the coming months and will be subject to evaluation to inform future decisions about rolling out the new system with the new algorithm.