Policing Bill Will Increase Surveillance and Clampdown on Protests: Privacy Groups

Under government proposals, law enforcement could access the personal data of over 52 million UK drivers.

Facial recognition technology in use in Leicester Square, London, in an undated file photo. Kirsty O’Connor/PA

The Crime and Policing Bill will expand police surveillance by linking driving licenses to a large facial recognition database, and will ban facial coverings at protests, privacy advocates have warned.

The bill, which passed its second reading in Parliament unopposed on Monday, is intended to give police greater powers to tackle antisocial behaviour and crime. It prohibits the deliberate use of face coverings to hide identity during protests and grants law enforcement access to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) records.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper defended the bill in Parliament, stating it would “rebuild confidence in policing and the criminal justice system.” However, privacy groups including Privacy International, Big Brother Watch, and Liberty argued these measures threaten the public’s right to privacy and protest.

Privacy International told The Epoch Times that police access to DVLA records could create a “vast database” that may be used for facial recognition technology. The DVLA holds data on over 52 million drivers, including names, addresses, and photographs.

The Conservatives first proposed expanding police access in 2023 as part of the Criminal Justice Bill. The new Labour government scrapped the legislation but incorporated some provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill in February this year.

According to Privacy International’s Senior Policy Officer Sarah Simms, clause 95 of the new bill does not explicitly mention facial recognition, but it mirrors a previous provision in the Criminal Justice Bill.

“When the bill was debated in Parliament the then-policing minister Chris Philp stated that this was an intended purpose of this clause. We believe this would be disproportionate insofar as it has the potential to treat the whole population as if they are part of a virtual line-up, suspected of having committed a crime,” Simms said.

She also raised concerns that no specific laws regulate facial recognition technology, leaving no safeguards or restrictions on its use.

Senior Advocacy Manager at Big Brother Watch Madeleine Stone called the new bill a “draconian” measure, which will convert driving licences into a giant police database.

“It’s disturbing to see the government reheating the Conservatives’ plans to turn our driving licence photos into mugshots, opening the door to creation of a massive facial recognition database. Granting the police extraordinary new powers to ban facial coverings at protests is a massive expansion of surveillance state,” she said.

Speaking at the House of Commons on Monday, now shadow home secretary Philp reiterated his support for the use of retrospective and live facial recognition to combat crime. He said it enables the police to catch criminals who would otherwise not be caught and asked policing minister Dame Diana Johnson for an update on the planned use of facial recognition.

Liberal Democrat MP Lisa Smart has called for a government framework for facial recognition use, saying it was long overdue.

“The police should focus on evidence-based crime prevention, not rolling out flawed and biased surveillance technology. Any use of it by the police must be transparent, unbiased, and regulated. We can see police forces coming up with their own rules within which to operate. It is long past time for the government to set the framework,” she said.

Johnson said facial recognition helps police identify offenders faster and improves efficiency. However, she stressed the need for clear rules to balance public safety with individual rights and said the government would explore this further in a White Paper later in the spring.

The Home Office has not responded to The Epoch Times’ request to confirm whether facial images from DVLA records can be used for facial recognition searches.

War Memorials

MPs have also debated the bill’s provisions to ban protesters from deliberately covering their faces and to criminalise climbing on specified war memorials.

Protesters and members of the public who climb any of 25 designated war memorials could face up to three months in prison and fines. These include the Cenotaph in Whitehall, the Royal Artillery Memorial at Hyde Park Corner, the Rochdale Cenotaph, the Plymouth Naval War Memorial, and The Response in Newcastle upon Tyne.

Officers from the Metropolitan Police on duty beside the Cenotaph in Whitehall, central London, during pro-Palestinian protest march which is taking place from Hyde Park to the U.S. Embassy in Vauxhall, on Nov. 11, 2023. Jeff Moore/PA

The proposal follows several high-profile incidents of protests and vandalism near war memorials in recent years.

In November 2023, two teenagers were charged with public nuisance after climbing the Rochdale Cenotaph. That same month, hundreds of thousands participated in a pro-Palestinian demonstration in central London, during which more than 100 people were arrested in both protests and counter-protests on Armistice Day, with clashes near the Cenotaph.

Last year, two women were arrested after staging a protest against the government’s Gaza policy at the Cenotaph in central London.

Labour MP Damien Egan supported the bill’s provisions, arguing that fines for climbing war memorials and a ban on face coverings “will help maintain public order.”

Traditional Unionist Voice leader Jim Allister criticised the bill for excluding Northern Ireland from certain protections against the desecration of war memorials, despite recent incidents there.

Calls to Roll Back Police Powers

Other MPs raised concerns about suppression of peaceful demonstrations.

Labour MP Kim Johnson called on the government to “roll back” some police powers, introduced under the previous government, such as the Public Order Act 2023.

“Those include allowing the police to impose ‘conditions’ on any protest that is deemed to be disruptive or to cause ‘serious annoyance’ to the local community, and sentences of up to 10 years in prison for damaging memorials such as statues,” she said.

Johnson urged against “heavy-handed policing of peaceful protests,” saying it violates basic rights and freedoms.

Smart also opposed the bill’s focus on criminalising those who climb on war memorials, stating that a Lib Dem proposal would instead protect the right to protest, rather than making it harder to exercise.

People in Parliament Square during a Campaign Against Antisemitism march and rally in central London, on Dec. 8, 2024. Jonathan Brady/PA Wire

Big Brother Watch has warned that the bill could lead to expanded facial recognition surveillance at protests.

“People often demonstrate on sensitive issues on the condition of anonymity in relation to international issues or those close to home. It also opens the door to more facial recognition surveillance at protests,” said Stone.

An ongoing petition by the human rights group Liberty calls on Cooper to scrap anti-protest laws.

“The only people who benefit from silencing dissent are those in positions of power, who don’t want to be challenged or held to account. Everyone has the right to protest. These authoritarian anti-protest laws must be scrapped,” the group said.

Despite the backlash, Johnson told MPs that while the government acknowledges the right to peaceful protest, it believes there must be a balance between protest rights and the rights of the wider community.

Ministers plan to evaluate the impact of the Public Order Act 2023 since its implementation before making any further decisions.