The police’s use of facial recognition technology is to be significantly expanded in an attempt to catch more offenders, ministers have announced.

Under the plans, 10 live facial recognition (LFR) vans will be used by seven forces across England to help identify “sex offenders or people wanted for the most serious crimes”, according to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.

Politics Hub: Follow latest updates and analysis

The tech, which has been trialled in London and south Wales, will be subject to strict rules, the Home Office said, but human rights groups have warned it is “dangerous and discriminatory”.

Amnesty International UK said the plans should be “immediately scrapped”, with facial recognition proven to be “discriminatory against communities of colour”.

“It has been known to lead to misidentification and the risk of wrongful arrest,” said Alba Kapoor, the charity’s racial justice lead, “and it’s also known to be less accurate in scanning the faces of people of colour.”

The Home Office said the LFR vans will only be deployed when there is “specific intelligence”, and will be operated by trained officers who will check every match made by the cameras.

The vehicles will also only be used against bespoke watch lists, compiled for each use under guidelines set by the College of Policing.

The vans will be operated by police forces in Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Bedfordshire, Surrey and Sussex (jointly), and Thames Valley and Hampshire (jointly).

‘The most serious offenders’

Ms Cooper has said ministers are focused on making sure “there are proper safeguards in place”.

As part of the plans, the home secretary has announced she will be launching a consultation on how and when the cameras should be used, and with what safeguards, which the government will use to draw up a new legal framework for the use of the cameras.

Ms Cooper said the tech had been used in London and South Wales “in a targeted way”, and helped catch “the most serious offenders, including people wanted for violent assaults or for sex offences”.

According to the Metropolitan Police, the tech has led to 580 arrests for offences such as rape, domestic crime and knife crime in the space of 12 months.

The government has pointed to independent testing by the National Physical Laboratory, which it said found the tech was “accurate” and showed “no bias for ethnicity, age, or gender”.

Read more politics news:
Is Keir Starmer falling into booby trap?
What is ex-minister Tulip Siddiq on trial for?

Liberty has welcomed the government’s decision to create a statutory framework for using facial recognition, but said that should be in place before the tech is rolled out.

“There’s no reasonable excuse to be putting even more cameras on our streets before the public have had their say and legislation is brought in to protect all of us,” said a statement.

The civil liberties charity cited how more than 1.6 million people have had their faces scanned in South Wales, mostly on football match days in Cardiff city centre.

But Lindsey Chiswick, from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), has said the expansion “is an excellent opportunity for policing”, and will help officers locate suspects “quickly and accurately”.

Police should consider disclosing the ethnicity and nationality of suspects when they are charged in high-profile and sensitive cases, new national guidance says.

Coming into force today, it says there must be a policing reason to release the information, such as where there are high levels of disinformation, if it will improve public safety, or if it is significantly in the public interest.

Politics Hub: Follow latest updates and analysis

A Home Office spokesperson told Sky News they will support the new guidance by authorising the release of relevant accompanying immigration information if appropriate.

The change comes after two men charged over the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton were reported to be Afghan asylum seekers, sparking protests.

Warwickshire Police did not confirm the immigration status, leading to Reform UK accusing them of a “cover-up”, something the force strongly denied.

Responding to the row, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said last week she wanted police to be more transparent, and that new guidance was being worked up.

Speaking to Sky News after the new instructions were announced, policing minister Dame Diana Johnson said “we welcome the guidance” which the government thinks is “really helpful”.

She added: “We want to be as transparent and as open as possible with the public” – and this includes releasing ethnicity and nationality unless there is “good reason not to”.

How high-profile cases sparked debate

When considering what information to release, police must consider contempt of court laws which aim to give defendants a fair trial, as well as media guidance from the College of Policing.

Until now, the media guidance said once a suspect has been charged, police can give out information such as their name, date of birth and address. It did not mention anything about ethnicity, nationality, or immigration status.

The Southport murders committed by Axel Rudakubana last July led to speculation about his ethnicity and immigration status, fuelling riots in many parts of the country.

While the details were not initially released in that case, when a car ploughed into crowds celebrating Liverpool’s Premier League win earlier this year, Merseyside Police were quick to say the suspect was a white British man.

In the Nuneaton case, Reform leader Nigel Farage said retaining the “basic and sober facts” was “a cover-up that in many ways is reminiscent of what happened after the Southport killings”.

Warwickshire Police said officers “did not and will not cover up such criminality”, and followed national guidance.

Read more politics news:
Council asks High Court to stop asylum hotel
Is Keir Starmer falling into a small boats trap?

How will new guidance work?

The new guidance says it is at the discretion of the police force to decide whether to release ethnicity and nationality details, and that they must consider the ethical and legal implications.

It says it is not the job of police to verify a suspect’s immigration status, which rests with the Home Office.

The advice has been developed by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and the College of Policing, in consultation with the Home Office and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

Deputy chief constable Sam de Reya, the NPCC lead for communications and media, said: “We saw during last summer’s disorder, as well as in several recent high-profile cases, what the major, real-world consequences can be from what information police release into the public domain.

“We have to make sure our processes are fit for purpose in an age of social media speculation and where information can travel incredibly quickly across a wide range of channels.

“Disinformation and incorrect narratives can take hold in a vacuum. It is good police work for us to fill this vacuum with the facts about issues of wider public interest.”

‘A chilling message’

The guidance is interim, and will be considered as part of a wider review of the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice for media relations later this year.

Chief constable Sir Andy Marsh, the college’s CEO, said officers will continue to police “without fear or favour”.

But the guidance is likely to provoke backlash from anti-racism campaigners. Last week, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants warned that revealing ethnicity and migration status would “send a chilling message: that some people are inherently more ‘suspect'”.

‘Public trust requires transparency’

A Home Office spokesperson told Sky News they welcome the new guidance, adding: “Public trust requires transparency and consistency from the authorities that serve them.”

They added: “The public, and police forces themselves, want greater clarity on when, why and how information is released and the legitimate and compelling reasons it may need to be withheld.

“The Home Office will support that effort by authorising the release of relevant accompanying immigration information in future cases, where it is appropriate to do so, and where the police have requested it. All cases will of course take account of consultation with the police and CPS.

“The government also asked the Law Commission at the end of February to speed up the elements of its review around the law of contempt in relation to what can be said publicly ahead of a trial.”