UK Lords reject bid to block police facial recognition searches of DVLA database

The UK’s House of Lords has voted down an attempt to prevent the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) database from being used in facial recognition searches.

Amendment 380 to the Crime and Policing Bill sought to ensure that images held in the DVLA database could not be used for biometric searches involving facial recognition technology. In a vote in the upper chamber, peers rejected the amendment by 123 votes to 40.

The amendment, tabled by Baroness Doocey, proposed adding a new subsection to Clause 154 of the bill that would have explicitly prohibited authorized bodies listed in section 71A from using DVLA-held information for facial recognition searches.

With the amendment defeated, the bill proceeds without the proposed restriction.

The Crime and Policing Bill, introduced by then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, is seen as one of the most significant legislative updates to UK policing in decades. The Labour government says the legislation aims to tackle anti-social behavior and street crime, but critics warn that it could expand the use of facial recognition technologies.

A clause in the bill allows police to run facial recognition searches on the national database of around 50 million driving licence photographs. The plan was first proposed by the previous Conservative government as part of a 2023 criminal justice bill.

Cross-party debate over privacy and policing powers

Peers held a lengthy debate on Amendment 380 prior to the vote, with concerns raised across party lines about privacy and civil liberties.

“My Lords, Amendment 380 erects a vital safeguard,” Baroness Doocey said during the debate. “It blocks Clause 154 from handing millions of drivers’ private photos to the police for facial recognition searches without full parliamentary scrutiny and explicit consent.”

“It stops a road traffic database being quietly repurposed for mass biometric surveillance, while still allowing proportionate, tightly regulated data sharing for genuine policing needs.”

Civil liberties organizations including Liberty, Big Brother Watch and Privacy International have also raised concerns that the proposals could allow photographs of more than 50 million drivers to be incorporated into large-scale facial recognition systems.

Doocey argued that while ministers described the measure as administrative, previous government statements, freedom of information disclosures and evidence of a joint Home Office–police “facial match-up” project suggested a broader intention to expand biometric searches across civil databases.

She warned that using DVLA images — which in some cases may be up to a decade old — could increase the risk of false matches. She also raised concerns about the mass retention of biometric data and potential security risks associated with a centralized facial recognition platform.

Opponents say amendment would hinder policing

Lord Davies of Gower, speaking for the Conservative Party, said the amendment raised legitimate questions about the use of DVLA data for facial recognition searches but argued it would unnecessarily restrict police investigations.

Davies said that while transparency and strong safeguards are essential to maintaining public trust, imposing a blanket ban on a single database could create gaps in policing capability by blocking access to potentially valuable images.

He also argued that governance of biometric technologies should be addressed through a broader regulatory framework rather than a narrowly targeted restriction.

Lord Strasburger of the Liberal Democrats supported the amendment, warning that allowing facial recognition searches of the DVLA database would fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and the state.

Turning a compulsory licensing database into what he described as a de facto national facial recognition gallery would be incompatible with a free society, he said, adding that Amendment 380 attempted to draw a necessary line.

Baroness Fox of Buckley also cited a recent submission to the Home Affairs Committee in which the National Police Chiefs’ Council said police leaders were seeking access to DVLA data for facial recognition searches.

“That would be a huge expansion of police surveillance powers, granting them access to the biometric data of tens of millions of citizens,” she said.

“We cannot overestimate how important it is that we do not just nod this through but take seriously the risk to civil liberties. It is why the noble Baroness’s Amendment 380, which creates a safeguard, is so important: to protect the civil liberties and privacy of innocent driving licence holders.”

Article Topics

biometric matching  |  biometrics  |  DVLA  |  facial recognition  |  identity document  |  law enforcement  |  legislation  |  UK