Written questions by Lewis.

What assessment she has made of the potential merits of introducing a statutory requirement for the deletion of custody images where no (a) charge and (b) conviction follows.

The retention and deletion of custody images is currently governed by the statutory Police and Information Management Code of Practice, and the associated College of Policing’s Management of Police Information (MoPI) guidance and Authorised Professional Practice. These require forces to retain images only where necessary and proportionate and to review and delete them in line with assessed continuing policing need. Individuals are also able to apply to the police to have their custody image deleted, where they believe continued retention is not necessary.Following the recent public consultation on biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies, the government intends to bring forward a new legal framework covering biometric retention rules.

Whether her Department has issued guidance on using experimental methods in conjunction with facial recognition.

The Home Office has not issued specific guidance. Police use of facial recognition and similar technologies is currently governed by a legal framework that includes data protection, equality and human rights laws, national guidance, a code of practice and force level policies. The College of Policing has also published guidance and an Authorised Professional Practice setting out police forces use new technology. However, we intend to bring forward a new legal framework to provide clearer, more specific rules.The Government’s aim is that a new legal framework will ensure all police forces across the country can use facial recognition and similar technologies with greater confidence, and that their uses and limits are clear to the public.Last year, we launched a public consultation on when and how biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies should be used, and what safeguards and oversight are needed.

What assessment she has made of the proportionality of deploying mass surveillance technology to address low level offences.

The Home Office has not made a final assessment of the cost‑effectiveness of police use of live facial recognition (LFR) technology in comparison to 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 costs, operational benefits and wider impacts, alongside legal, ethical and equality considerations.With regards to the integration of facial recognition into existing CCTV, police forces must comply with data protection, human rights, equality and other relevant laws. This means that police can use live facial recognition only for targeted, intelligence led, time-bound deployments to locate specific individuals on a watchlist, such as wanted offenders or people who may pose a risk of serious harm.The Home Office is aware that both the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police have piloted the use of facial recognition cameras mounted on fixed street infrastructure. This involves adding standalone LFR cameras and does not involve changing the use of existing CCTV, which remains separate.

What assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of police use of live facial recognition technology in comparison to traditional policing methods.

The Home Office has not made a final assessment of the cost‑effectiveness of police use of live facial recognition (LFR) technology in comparison to 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 costs, operational benefits and wider impacts, alongside legal, ethical and equality considerations.With regards to the integration of facial recognition into existing CCTV, police forces must comply with data protection, human rights, equality and other relevant laws. This means that police can use live facial recognition only for targeted, intelligence led, time-bound deployments to locate specific individuals on a watchlist, such as wanted offenders or people who may pose a risk of serious harm.The Home Office is aware that both the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police have piloted the use of facial recognition cameras mounted on fixed street infrastructure. This involves adding standalone LFR cameras and does not involve changing the use of existing CCTV, which remains separate.

What guidance her Department has issued on using experimental methods in conjunction with facial recognition; and who is responsible for enforcing that guidance.

The Home Office has not made a final assessment of the cost‑effectiveness of police use of live facial recognition (LFR) technology in comparison to 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 costs, operational benefits and wider impacts, alongside legal, ethical and equality considerations.With regards to the integration of facial recognition into existing CCTV, police forces must comply with data protection, human rights, equality and other relevant laws. This means that police can use live facial recognition only for targeted, intelligence led, time-bound deployments to locate specific individuals on a watchlist, such as wanted offenders or people who may pose a risk of serious harm.The Home Office is aware that both the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police have piloted the use of facial recognition cameras mounted on fixed street infrastructure. This involves adding standalone LFR cameras and does not involve changing the use of existing CCTV, which remains separate.

What assessment she has made of the potential impact of integrating facial recognition into existing CCTV infrastructure on civil liberties.

The Home Office has not made a final assessment of the cost‑effectiveness of police use of live facial recognition (LFR) technology in comparison to 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 costs, operational benefits and wider impacts, alongside legal, ethical and equality considerations.With regards to the integration of facial recognition into existing CCTV, police forces must comply with data protection, human rights, equality and other relevant laws. This means that police can use live facial recognition only for targeted, intelligence led, time-bound deployments to locate specific individuals on a watchlist, such as wanted offenders or people who may pose a risk of serious harm.The Home Office is aware that both the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police have piloted the use of facial recognition cameras mounted on fixed street infrastructure. This involves adding standalone LFR cameras and does not involve changing the use of existing CCTV, which remains separate.

What assessment she has made of the potential merits of introducing a statutory requirement for the deletion of custody images where no charge or conviction follows.

The Home Office has not made a final assessment of the cost‑effectiveness of police use of live facial recognition (LFR) technology in comparison to 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 costs, operational benefits and wider impacts, alongside legal, ethical and equality considerations.With regards to the integration of facial recognition into existing CCTV, police forces must comply with data protection, human rights, equality and other relevant laws. This means that police can use live facial recognition only for targeted, intelligence led, time-bound deployments to locate specific individuals on a watchlist, such as wanted offenders or people who may pose a risk of serious harm.The Home Office is aware that both the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police have piloted the use of facial recognition cameras mounted on fixed street infrastructure. This involves adding standalone LFR cameras and does not involve changing the use of existing CCTV, which remains separate.

Whether an impact assessment into the policy paper on Home Office immigration and nationality fees, due to increase from 8 April 2026, has been conducted.

Where changes to fee legislation are made, Impact Assessments are produced which identify potential impacts resulting from the changes.The published Impact Assessment includes discussion of the impacts of the fees that are due to increase from 8 April 2026: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/2026/44/pdfs/ukia_20260044_en.pdf

When the Idemia facial recognition algorithm for Home Office strategic facial matching will be rolled out across police forces.

The Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMICFRS) to conduct an inspection of police and relevant law enforcement agencies’ use of retrospective facial recognition. The detail of the inspection and publication of the report are a matter for HMICFRS, but they will look at whether there have been or are likely to have been any wrongful arrests as a result of the use of retrospective facial recognition.Additionally, the Home Office is aware of the risk of bias in facial recognition algorithms and supports policing in managing that risk. Manual safeguards, embedded in police training, operational practice, and guidance, require all potential matches returned from the Police National Database (PND) to be visually assessed by a trained user and investigating officer. If the trained PND user or investigator decides a facial search image provides a potential match, this must be treated as intelligence rather than evidence and additional lines of enquiry must be undertaken before any action is taken. These safeguards have always been in place, even before the independent National Physical Laboratory (NPL) testing.The Home Office does not issue guidance on setting algorithm thresholds. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and police forces consider the impact and equitability of facial recognition technology in line with their Public Sector Equality Duty. The threshold is set for all forces by a Chief Constable on behalf of the NPCC to balance the equitability of facial searching, and the operational imperative to find true matches where they are present on PND.The Home Office takes the findings of the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) report very seriously and has already acted. The Police Reform White Paper included a commitment to invest £26m into the development and delivery of a national facial recognition system for policing using a new algorithm. The new facial recognition algorithm has been independently tested by the NPL and this showed that it can be used at settings with no statistically significant bias. The new service will be operationally tested by the police in the coming months and will be subject to evaluation to inform future decisions about rolling out the new system with the new algorithm.

What guidance is in place relating to the thresholds at which retrospective facial recognition searches of the Police National Database may be operated.

The Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMICFRS) to conduct an inspection of police and relevant law enforcement agencies’ use of retrospective facial recognition. The detail of the inspection and publication of the report are a matter for HMICFRS, but they will look at whether there have been or are likely to have been any wrongful arrests as a result of the use of retrospective facial recognition.Additionally, the Home Office is aware of the risk of bias in facial recognition algorithms and supports policing in managing that risk. Manual safeguards, embedded in police training, operational practice, and guidance, require all potential matches returned from the Police National Database (PND) to be visually assessed by a trained user and investigating officer. If the trained PND user or investigator decides a facial search image provides a potential match, this must be treated as intelligence rather than evidence and additional lines of enquiry must be undertaken before any action is taken. These safeguards have always been in place, even before the independent National Physical Laboratory (NPL) testing.The Home Office does not issue guidance on setting algorithm thresholds. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and police forces consider the impact and equitability of facial recognition technology in line with their Public Sector Equality Duty. The threshold is set for all forces by a Chief Constable on behalf of the NPCC to balance the equitability of facial searching, and the operational imperative to find true matches where they are present on PND.The Home Office takes the findings of the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) report very seriously and has already acted. The Police Reform White Paper included a commitment to invest £26m into the development and delivery of a national facial recognition system for policing using a new algorithm. The new facial recognition algorithm has been independently tested by the NPL and this showed that it can be used at settings with no statistically significant bias. The new service will be operationally tested by the police in the coming months and will be subject to evaluation to inform future decisions about rolling out the new system with the new algorithm.

What estimate she has made of the number of people who may have been wrongly arrested or questioned by police as a result of incorrect facial recognition matches produced by the Cognitec FaceVACS-DBScan ID v5.5 software used on the Police National Database.

The Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMICFRS) to conduct an inspection of police and relevant law enforcement agencies’ use of retrospective facial recognition. The detail of the inspection and publication of the report are a matter for HMICFRS, but they will look at whether there have been or are likely to have been any wrongful arrests as a result of the use of retrospective facial recognition.Additionally, the Home Office is aware of the risk of bias in facial recognition algorithms and supports policing in managing that risk. Manual safeguards, embedded in police training, operational practice, and guidance, require all potential matches returned from the Police National Database (PND) to be visually assessed by a trained user and investigating officer. If the trained PND user or investigator decides a facial search image provides a potential match, this must be treated as intelligence rather than evidence and additional lines of enquiry must be undertaken before any action is taken. These safeguards have always been in place, even before the independent National Physical Laboratory (NPL) testing.The Home Office does not issue guidance on setting algorithm thresholds. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and police forces consider the impact and equitability of facial recognition technology in line with their Public Sector Equality Duty. The threshold is set for all forces by a Chief Constable on behalf of the NPCC to balance the equitability of facial searching, and the operational imperative to find true matches where they are present on PND.The Home Office takes the findings of the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) report very seriously and has already acted. The Police Reform White Paper included a commitment to invest £26m into the development and delivery of a national facial recognition system for policing using a new algorithm. The new facial recognition algorithm has been independently tested by the NPL and this showed that it can be used at settings with no statistically significant bias. The new service will be operationally tested by the police in the coming months and will be subject to evaluation to inform future decisions about rolling out the new system with the new algorithm.

What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the safeguards in place to mitigate racial and other bias in the use of retrospective facial recognition technology.

The Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMICFRS) to conduct an inspection of police and relevant law enforcement agencies’ use of retrospective facial recognition. The detail of the inspection and publication of the report are a matter for HMICFRS, but they will look at whether there have been or are likely to have been any wrongful arrests as a result of the use of retrospective facial recognition.Additionally, the Home Office is aware of the risk of bias in facial recognition algorithms and supports policing in managing that risk. Manual safeguards, embedded in police training, operational practice, and guidance, require all potential matches returned from the Police National Database (PND) to be visually assessed by a trained user and investigating officer. If the trained PND user or investigator decides a facial search image provides a potential match, this must be treated as intelligence rather than evidence and additional lines of enquiry must be undertaken before any action is taken. These safeguards have always been in place, even before the independent National Physical Laboratory (NPL) testing.The Home Office does not issue guidance on setting algorithm thresholds. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and police forces consider the impact and equitability of facial recognition technology in line with their Public Sector Equality Duty. The threshold is set for all forces by a Chief Constable on behalf of the NPCC to balance the equitability of facial searching, and the operational imperative to find true matches where they are present on PND.The Home Office takes the findings of the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) report very seriously and has already acted. The Police Reform White Paper included a commitment to invest £26m into the development and delivery of a national facial recognition system for policing using a new algorithm. The new facial recognition algorithm has been independently tested by the NPL and this showed that it can be used at settings with no statistically significant bias. The new service will be operationally tested by the police in the coming months and will be subject to evaluation to inform future decisions about rolling out the new system with the new algorithm.

What steps she has taken to determine the number of people who may have been wrongly arrested or questioned by police as a result of incorrect facial recognition matches produced by the Cognitec FaceVACS-DBScan ID v5.5 software used on the Police National Database.

The Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMICFRS) to conduct an inspection of police and relevant law enforcement agencies’ use of retrospective facial recognition. The detail of the inspection and publication of the report are a matter for HMICFRS, but they will look at whether there have been or are likely to have been any wrongful arrests as a result of the use of retrospective facial recognition.Additionally, the Home Office is aware of the risk of bias in facial recognition algorithms and supports policing in managing that risk. Manual safeguards, embedded in police training, operational practice, and guidance, require all potential matches returned from the Police National Database (PND) to be visually assessed by a trained user and investigating officer. If the trained PND user or investigator decides a facial search image provides a potential match, this must be treated as intelligence rather than evidence and additional lines of enquiry must be undertaken before any action is taken. These safeguards have always been in place, even before the independent National Physical Laboratory (NPL) testing.The Home Office does not issue guidance on setting algorithm thresholds. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and police forces consider the impact and equitability of facial recognition technology in line with their Public Sector Equality Duty. The threshold is set for all forces by a Chief Constable on behalf of the NPCC to balance the equitability of facial searching, and the operational imperative to find true matches where they are present on PND.The Home Office takes the findings of the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) report very seriously and has already acted. The Police Reform White Paper included a commitment to invest £26m into the development and delivery of a national facial recognition system for policing using a new algorithm. The new facial recognition algorithm has been independently tested by the NPL and this showed that it can be used at settings with no statistically significant bias. The new service will be operationally tested by the police in the coming months and will be subject to evaluation to inform future decisions about rolling out the new system with the new algorithm.

Whether (a) she or (b) any members of her Department met or corresponded with Lord Mandelson on Palantir.

No such meetings took place.

Pursuant to UIN 97805 answered on 15 December 2025, whether estimates have been made of the number of potential misidentifications made by police as a result of potential bias in the PND facial search algorithm.

The Home Office is aware of the risk of bias in facial recognition algorithms and supports policing in managing that risk. Initial findings from independent testing carried out by the National Physical Laboratory were shared with the Home Office in March 2024. The draft findings showed a potential bias in the algorithm used by specially trained operators in police forces to search the Police National Database (PND). The findings were explored with the National Physical Laboratory, and risks and mitigations were discussed with policing experts. Home Office Ministers were first made aware of the bias in October 2024. The final report was provided in April 2025 and updated for publication in October 2025.The Government has tasked His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, with support from the Forensic Science Regulator, to look at whether people have been affected by the bias as part of the inspection of police and relevant law enforcement agencies’ use of retrospective facial recognition. HMICFRS have begun scoping and planning for the inspection, which will begin before the end of March 2026. The inspection terms of reference will be published by HMICFRS.A facial recognition match is only ever one piece of intelligence, as part of a wider police investigation. Manual safeguards, embedded in police training, operational practice, and guidance, require all potential matches returned from the PND to be visually assessed by a trained user and investigating officer. These safeguards have always been in place to minimise the risk that the wrong person in the PND is subject to investigation.

Pursuant to the Answer of 15 December 2025 to Question 97805 on Police: Biometrics, what the (a) planned timescales and (b) terms of reference are for the two HMICFRS reviews referred to.

The Home Office is aware of the risk of bias in facial recognition algorithms and supports policing in managing that risk. Initial findings from independent testing carried out by the National Physical Laboratory were shared with the Home Office in March 2024. The draft findings showed a potential bias in the algorithm used by specially trained operators in police forces to search the Police National Database (PND). The findings were explored with the National Physical Laboratory, and risks and mitigations were discussed with policing experts. Home Office Ministers were first made aware of the bias in October 2024. The final report was provided in April 2025 and updated for publication in October 2025.The Government has tasked His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, with support from the Forensic Science Regulator, to look at whether people have been affected by the bias as part of the inspection of police and relevant law enforcement agencies’ use of retrospective facial recognition. HMICFRS have begun scoping and planning for the inspection, which will begin before the end of March 2026. The inspection terms of reference will be published by HMICFRS.A facial recognition match is only ever one piece of intelligence, as part of a wider police investigation. Manual safeguards, embedded in police training, operational practice, and guidance, require all potential matches returned from the PND to be visually assessed by a trained user and investigating officer. These safeguards have always been in place to minimise the risk that the wrong person in the PND is subject to investigation.

Pursuant to UIN 97805 answered on 15 December 2025, when the Home Office first learned of potential bias in the current PND facial search algorithm.

The Home Office is aware of the risk of bias in facial recognition algorithms and supports policing in managing that risk. Initial findings from independent testing carried out by the National Physical Laboratory were shared with the Home Office in March 2024. The draft findings showed a potential bias in the algorithm used by specially trained operators in police forces to search the Police National Database (PND). The findings were explored with the National Physical Laboratory, and risks and mitigations were discussed with policing experts. Home Office Ministers were first made aware of the bias in October 2024. The final report was provided in April 2025 and updated for publication in October 2025.The Government has tasked His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, with support from the Forensic Science Regulator, to look at whether people have been affected by the bias as part of the inspection of police and relevant law enforcement agencies’ use of retrospective facial recognition. HMICFRS have begun scoping and planning for the inspection, which will begin before the end of March 2026. The inspection terms of reference will be published by HMICFRS.A facial recognition match is only ever one piece of intelligence, as part of a wider police investigation. Manual safeguards, embedded in police training, operational practice, and guidance, require all potential matches returned from the PND to be visually assessed by a trained user and investigating officer. These safeguards have always been in place to minimise the risk that the wrong person in the PND is subject to investigation.

If she will make an assessment of the potential implications for her policies of the findings of the report by the National Physical Laboratory, published on 4 December 2025, on the use of facial recognition technologies by the police.

The Government has already taken action to address the findings of the National Physical Laboratory’s report on the algorithm used for retrospective facial recognition within the Police National Database.The Home Office commissioned the report as the provider of the system, to enable police forces as the users of the system to assure themselves that they were meeting their Public Sector Equality Duty, specifically with respect to bias mitigation. The National Police Chiefs Council have led on this for policing by reviewing training and guidance. The Home Office has also commissioned His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) to ensure these mitigations are consistent and robust.Furthermore, a replacement system with a new algorithm has been procured and independently tested. This testing has been published and shows that the system can be used with no statistically significant bias. It is due to be operationally tested early next year and will be subject to further evaluation.On 4 December 2025, we also started a public consultation that asks for views on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of facial recognition and other biometric technologies. The consultation includes questions on oversight arrangements and proposes creating a new regulatory and oversight body. We envisage this body would directly address issues such as potential bias in algorithms, potentially through powers, subject to legislation, to provide assurance that law enforcement use of biometric technologies is legal, responsible, and necessary.Given the importance of this issue, we have also asked the HMICFRS, alongside the Forensic Science Regulator, to review law enforcement’s use of facial recognition. They will assess the effectiveness of the mitigations, which the National Police Chiefs Council supports.

If she will publish an Equalities Impact Assessment for her proposed earned settlement model.

Details of the earned settlement model will be finalised following the conclusion of the ongoing public consultation.An equality impact assessment will then be published in due course.

If the application of the new individual earnings requirement applies to spouses of UK citizens who are retired, carers, or stay-at-home parents.

On 20 November, we launched a public consultation on our proposed earned settlement model.The command paper accompanying that consultation puts forward a general requirement to have earnt at least £12,570 per annum for three years in order to settle in the UK.The consultation directly asks for views on whether certain individuals or cohorts should be exempted from that general requirement.Full details of the earned settlement model will be finalised following the public consultation.