The UK government’s top biometrics watchdog has backed proposals that would allow police to directly search vast national databases, including passport and driving licence records, using facial recognition technology to identify suspects, marking a significant potential expansion of law enforcement surveillance powers.
In a detailed response to the Home Office’s consultation on a new legal framework for police use of biometrics, facial recognition, and similar technologies, Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner Professor William Webster endorsed enabling law enforcement agencies to access and search ‘other public records’ with these tools.
“The consultation proposes that the framework will allow law enforcement agencies to search and use other public records with these technologies and that these other public records could include driving licence and passport databases,” Webster wrote.
He added that this approach would be consistent with a whole-system approach and that such databases must comply with the principles and codes of practice on validity, reliability, and proportionality.
Currently, police forces typically must request the Home Office to conduct searches on behalf of passport (held by HM Passport Office) and immigration facial image databases under strict criteria, often limited to serious offences, public safety threats, or national security matters.
Direct access to driving licence records from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), which holds photos from over 50 million licences, has typically been even more restricted, though related provisions appeared in prior legislation like the now-lapsed Criminal Justice Bill and recent Crime and Policing Bill discussions.
Biometrics in policing
Webster’s support comes amid a broader push by the government to create a clearer, principles-based legal structure for biometric technologies in policing.
The consultation, launched in December 2025, sought views on expanding uses of live facial recognition (real-time matching against watchlists), retrospective searches (comparing crime scene images to databases), and operator-initiated checks (mobile app-based identity verification).
The Commissioner advocated for a ‘codified restrictive approach’ similar to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, where certain high-risk activities would be prohibited unless specific lawful requirements are met.
He emphasised limiting use to serious offences to preserve public trust, requiring independent pre-authorisation for high-risk deployments, and establishing a statutory independent regulator with audit and enforcement powers.
However, Webster highlighted significant concerns, warning that these technologies risk compromising privacy, freedom of movement, and the presumption of innocence.
He noted the potential for perceptions of mass surveillance, wrongful interference due to algorithmic errors or bias, and erosion of public confidence if deployment lacks transparency, scientific reliability, or strong safeguards such as mandatory Data Protection Impact Assessments and human oversight.
“Technologies compromise human rights… rapid evolution risks outdated regulation; self-regulation insufficient,” he warned, stressing the need for future-proof, rights-respecting legislation with penalties for disproportionate use.
Widening reach
The proposals build on existing police capabilities. Some forces already use live facial recognition in targeted operations, while retrospective searches against custody image databases occur tens of thousands of times monthly.
Public attitudes surveys cited in related government documents showed a majority comfort (around 67-72%) with police accessing passport, driving licence, or immigration records for facial recognition in certain scenarios.
However, privacy advocates and civil liberties groups have long criticised such expansions, arguing they could create one of the world’s largest biometric databases by repurposing civilian records for routine policing without explicit consent.
The Home Office has not yet published a formal government response to the consultation or confirmed next steps toward legislation.
Leave a Reply