Written questions by Ribeiro-Addy.

What comparative assessment she has made of the cost effectiveness of facial recognition technology when compared against traditional policing methods.

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

What assessment she has made of the potential impact of police facial recognition cameras on levels of local crime rates.

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

What assessment she has made of the proportionality of the police using live facial recognition technology to identify suspects for low-level offences.

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

Whether police facial recognition technology is being used in conjunction with (a) body-worn video and (b) drones.

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.

Whether an Equality Impact Assessment was conducted prior to the deployment of the ACS and APS tools.

An Equality Impact Assessment and Data Protection Impact Assessment were completed for both Asylum Case Summarisation (ACS) and Asylum Policy Search (APS) before pilots commenced. An updated EIA for both ACS and APS is currently intended to be published after both tools have been operationalised.It has not yet been confirmed whether the Department intends to publish a DPIA for the APS and ACS tools after both have been operationalised. APS is now fully rolled out, while ACS is due to follow in April 2026.

If her Department will publish Data Protection Impact Assessments for the Asylum Casework Support and Asylum Policy Search tools.

An Equality Impact Assessment and Data Protection Impact Assessment were completed for both Asylum Case Summarisation (ACS) and Asylum Policy Search (APS) before pilots commenced. An updated EIA for both ACS and APS is currently intended to be published after both tools have been operationalised.It has not yet been confirmed whether the Department intends to publish a DPIA for the APS and ACS tools after both have been operationalised. APS is now fully rolled out, while ACS is due to follow in April 2026.

What steps she has taken to ensure that the use of automated tools in asylum processes complies with data protection and equality legislation.

An Equality Impact Assessment and Data Protection Impact Assessment were completed for both Asylum Case Summarisation (ACS) and Asylum Policy Search (APS) before pilots commenced. An updated EIA for both ACS and APS is currently intended to be published after both tools have been operationalised.It has not yet been confirmed whether the Department intends to publish a DPIA for the APS and ACS tools after both have been operationalised. APS is now fully rolled out, while ACS is due to follow in April 2026.

Whether her Department has issued (a) standard operating procedures and (b) internal guidance to caseworkers on the use of the ACS and APS tools.

The Asylum Policy Search tool (APS) tool is an artificial intelligence (AI) search assistant. It is a chat-based interface which finds and summarises Country Policy Information Notes (CPIN) directly relevant to the inputted query, to provide the policy basis for decisions.In line with the ‘human in the loop’ principle, APS was designed so that decision-makers cannot use the tool by itself to decide a claim. AI technology does not make decisions on Asylum applications; instead, it will help Asylum Decision Makers analyse data and provide insightful information that further informs outcomes.The Asylum Case Summarisation (ACS) tool uses AI to summarise asylum interview transcripts. The tool uses a Large Language Model to extract and summarise information from existing asylum interview transcript documents to provide decision-makers with a concise summary document. In line with the ‘human in the loop’ principle, ACS has been designed so that decision-makers cannot use the tool by itself to decide a claim. Instead, it acts as an aid in the usual decision-making process.After APS was operationalised, a specific inbox was set up for Decision Makers to feed back any issues found with the tool. Subject Matter Expert (SME) testing continues after operationalisation, in conjunction with the CPIT (Country Policy & Information Team), for APS.Whilst there is no standard operating procedure in place on the use of APS, all members of the Department were required to complete a mandatory ‘AI for all’ learning package in 2025. Furthermore, caseworkers were given comprehensive training on the use of APS before it was operationalised.It has not yet been confirmed whether the Department intends to publish a DPIA for the APS and ACS tools after both have been operationalised. APS is now fully rolled out, while ACS is due to follow in April 2026.

Whether the APS tool is used to (a) generate and (b) inform casework decisions; and what human oversight mechanisms are applied.

The Asylum Policy Search tool (APS) tool is an artificial intelligence (AI) search assistant. It is a chat-based interface which finds and summarises Country Policy Information Notes (CPIN) directly relevant to the inputted query, to provide the policy basis for decisions.In line with the ‘human in the loop’ principle, APS was designed so that decision-makers cannot use the tool by itself to decide a claim. AI technology does not make decisions on Asylum applications; instead, it will help Asylum Decision Makers analyse data and provide insightful information that further informs outcomes.The Asylum Case Summarisation (ACS) tool uses AI to summarise asylum interview transcripts. The tool uses a Large Language Model to extract and summarise information from existing asylum interview transcript documents to provide decision-makers with a concise summary document. In line with the ‘human in the loop’ principle, ACS has been designed so that decision-makers cannot use the tool by itself to decide a claim. Instead, it acts as an aid in the usual decision-making process.After APS was operationalised, a specific inbox was set up for Decision Makers to feed back any issues found with the tool. Subject Matter Expert (SME) testing continues after operationalisation, in conjunction with the CPIT (Country Policy & Information Team), for APS.Whilst there is no standard operating procedure in place on the use of APS, all members of the Department were required to complete a mandatory ‘AI for all’ learning package in 2025. Furthermore, caseworkers were given comprehensive training on the use of APS before it was operationalised.It has not yet been confirmed whether the Department intends to publish a DPIA for the APS and ACS tools after both have been operationalised. APS is now fully rolled out, while ACS is due to follow in April 2026.

What role the ACS and APS tools play in asylum decision-making processes; and what safeguards are in place to ensure equitable decisions.

The Asylum Policy Search tool (APS) tool is an artificial intelligence (AI) search assistant. It is a chat-based interface which finds and summarises Country Policy Information Notes (CPIN) directly relevant to the inputted query, to provide the policy basis for decisions.In line with the ‘human in the loop’ principle, APS was designed so that decision-makers cannot use the tool by itself to decide a claim. AI technology does not make decisions on Asylum applications; instead, it will help Asylum Decision Makers analyse data and provide insightful information that further informs outcomes.The Asylum Case Summarisation (ACS) tool uses AI to summarise asylum interview transcripts. The tool uses a Large Language Model to extract and summarise information from existing asylum interview transcript documents to provide decision-makers with a concise summary document. In line with the ‘human in the loop’ principle, ACS has been designed so that decision-makers cannot use the tool by itself to decide a claim. Instead, it acts as an aid in the usual decision-making process.After APS was operationalised, a specific inbox was set up for Decision Makers to feed back any issues found with the tool. Subject Matter Expert (SME) testing continues after operationalisation, in conjunction with the CPIT (Country Policy & Information Team), for APS.Whilst there is no standard operating procedure in place on the use of APS, all members of the Department were required to complete a mandatory ‘AI for all’ learning package in 2025. Furthermore, caseworkers were given comprehensive training on the use of APS before it was operationalised.It has not yet been confirmed whether the Department intends to publish a DPIA for the APS and ACS tools after both have been operationalised. APS is now fully rolled out, while ACS is due to follow in April 2026.

What oversight mechanisms are in place to monitor the use of ACS and APS tools; and whether any independent audits have been (a) conducted and (b) planned.

All members of the Department were required to complete a mandatory 'AI for all' learning package in 2025. All caseworkers were given comprehensive training on the use of APS before it was operationalised. Both ACS and APS underwent user acceptance testing and evaluation was conducted following pilots of both tools.A specific inbox was set up for Decision Makers to feed back any issues found with the tool. All questions asked of the tool, have and will be logged, and are auditable. Subject Matter Expert (SME) testing continues after operationalisation, in conjunction with the CPIT (Country Policy & Information Team) for APS.ACS has not yet been operationalised, but our Analysis and Insight team plan to conduct further follow up evaluations in due course.

What training has been provided to caseworkers on the use of AI-supported tools during the pilot phase of ACS and APS.

All members of the Department were required to complete a mandatory 'AI for all' learning package in 2025. All caseworkers were given comprehensive training on the use of APS before it was operationalised. Both ACS and APS underwent user acceptance testing and evaluation was conducted following pilots of both tools.A specific inbox was set up for Decision Makers to feed back any issues found with the tool. All questions asked of the tool, have and will be logged, and are auditable. Subject Matter Expert (SME) testing continues after operationalisation, in conjunction with the CPIT (Country Policy & Information Team) for APS.ACS has not yet been operationalised, but our Analysis and Insight team plan to conduct further follow up evaluations in due course.

Whether her Department has undertaken an assessment of how the ‘earned settlement model’ will affect its commitments to ending child poverty and rough sleeping.

Proposals for introducing an earned settlement model, as set out in the Command Paper “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement” (CP1448), were subject to a public consultation, which opened on 20 November 2025 and closed on 12 February 2026. As part of this consultation, we sought views on the potential impact of the proposed changes, including the impact on children and vulnerable groups. We also asked whether vulnerable groups should be exempt from any of the proposed changes. We are now reviewing and analysing all responses received. Implementation of the earned settlement arrangements will be subject to economic and equality impact assessments, which we have committed to publish in due course.

Whether receiving Personal Independence Payment for a temporary period will impact access to the proposed extended settlement period.

Personal Independence Payments constitute public funds for the purposes of the Immigration Rules. It has not yet been determined what will constitute public funds or the purposes of adjustments to the qualifying period for settlement under the earned settlement model, as set out in the Command Paper “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement” (CP1448).No final decisions have been taken. The proposals have been the subject of a public consultation, which opened on 20 November 2025 and closed on 12 February 2026. We are now reviewing and analysing all responses received and will give careful consideration to these assessments in shaping the final model, including its application to vulnerable groups.We have committed to undertaking economic and equality impact assessments in respect of the final model, which we will publish in due course.

How many bicycle thefts were recorded in England and Wales in each of the last five years.

The Home Office publishes official statistics on the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police in England and Wales and their investigative outcomes on a quarterly basis.This includes bicycle thefts, and the requested information can be accessed here: Police recorded crime and outcomes open data tables - GOV.UK

What proportion of bicycle theft cases resulted in (a) a charge, (b) a caution, and (c) no further action in England and Wales in each of the last five years.

The Home Office publishes official statistics on the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police in England and Wales and their investigative outcomes on a quarterly basis.This includes bicycle thefts, and the requested information can be accessed here: Police recorded crime and outcomes open data tables - GOV.UK

Whether she plans to (a) reopen the Places of Worship Protective Security Scheme and (b) introduce a similar scheme for all faiths.

Protecting the right of all faith communities to worship in peace and without fear is fundamental. That is why record funding of up to £5 million is available for physical protective security measures through the Places of Worship Protective Security Scheme in 2026/27.The next application window for this scheme will open later this year. Sites of all faiths, except Jewish and Muslim, are already eligible for this scheme. Mosques, synagogues and their associated faith community centres and schools can receive protective security through the Protective Security for Mosques Scheme and the Jewish Community Protective Security Grant – more information on the Home Office schemes can be found on GOV.uk.Additionally, the Home Office has launched a brand-new scheme, Faith Security Training (FST), to better protect faith communities in England and Wales.FST, developed in partnership with policing and faith representatives, is a free scheme designed to help faith communities strengthen their security awareness and preparedness.I would encourage faith communities looking to improve the security of their places of worship to attend the training.

What assessment her Department made of the potential impact of planned immigration changes, including the extension of qualifying period for settlement, on abuse victims and their ability to leave their abuser.

The consultation for the earned settlement model, as proposed in ‘A Fairer Pathway to Settlement’, was open to the public between 20 November 2025 and 12 February 2026. Contributions will now be analysed, and the findings will support the development of the final model.We specifically consulted on victims of domestic abuse and how an earned settlement system may be tailored for this group considering their vulnerability. We will continue to have pathways to settlement for domestic abuse victims.Economic and equality impact assessments will be conducted on the final model and published in due course.

What steps her Department is taking to ensure victims and survivors of human trafficking and modern slavery criminalised as a result of exploitation are not deported.

We want to ensure that all victims of modern slavery, regardless of nationality or residency status, are quickly identified and can access support through the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), which is the UK’s system for identifying and supporting victims of modern slavery and human trafficking.Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA 2015) provides a statutory defence against prosecution for victims of modern slavery who were compelled to carry out criminal offences as a result of their exploitation (adults); or committed offences as a direct consequence of being a victim of modern slavery (children). Schedule 4 to the MSA 2015 contains a list of serious offences to which the section 45 defence does not apply. The list includes the most serious crimes such as sexual offences, some terrorism offences, modern slavery offences and serious violence offences. In cases where the section 45 defence does not apply, prosecutors can take into account other non-punishment principles, such as duress and the public interest test when determining whether to pursue charges against an individual.Potential victims are entitled to a recovery period in the National Referral Mechanism, unless disqualified on grounds of public order or bad faith. This recovery period protects individuals (who have a Reasonable Grounds decision) from potential removal from the UK for a minimum of 30 days, or until a Conclusive Grounds decision is made on their case, whichever is the longer.The Nationalities and Borders Act 2022 set the threshold for Public Order Disqualification (POD) on grounds including criminality and national security threats. POD decisions require a balancing of public order risk against the individual’s need for modern slavery specific support, taking account of factors such as relevant convictions and potential exploitation linked to those offences. Decision-making on POD is currently paused.Adult and child victims of modern slavery with a Conclusive Grounds decision, and where applicable their dependent children, may be considered for Temporary Permission to Stay (TPS) in the UK if they do not already have status in the UK. Individuals granted TPS may still apply for a more advantageous form of leave if eligible. TPS does not lead to settlement in the UK.

How many (a) mosques and (b) associated Muslim faith community centre have applied for the Protective Security for Mosques Scheme; and how many of them have been (i) accepted and (ii) denied.

This Government is committed to protecting the right of individuals to freely practise their religion at their chosen place of worship, and to ensuring that our streets and communities remain safe.That is why up to £39.4 million is available through the Protective Security for Mosques Scheme in 2025/26. This includes additional funding announced by the Prime Minister of £10 million to further strengthen security at mosques and other Muslim community sites. The scheme provides protective security measures (such as security personnel services, CCTV, intruder alarms and secure perimeter fencing) to mosques, Muslim faith schools and associated Muslim faith community centres.To safeguard the integrity of the scheme and ensure the continued protection of vulnerable sites, the Home Office does not publish the total number of successful applications. Disclosure of this information could inadvertently reveal sensitive details about specific communities and their security needs.