Written questions by Davis.

What steps her Department is taking to implement recommendation two of the First Report of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2024-25 on Support for children and young people with special educational needs, HC 353, published on 15 January 2025.

An update is publicly available through the Treasury Minutes published in April 2025, and can be accessed here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67ed087598b3bac1ec299b5a/Treasury_Minutes_v02_PRINT.pdf.

What steps she is taking to ensure the (a) proxy factors and (b) weightings used in the National Funding Formula for high needs funding accurately reflect the demand for high needs educational provision.

This government’s ambition is that all children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) receive the right support to succeed in their education and as they move into adult life.The department is providing an increase of £1 billion for high needs budgets in England in the 2025/26 financial year. Total high needs funding for children and young people with complex SEND is over £12 billion in 2025/26. Of that total, East Riding of Yorkshire Council is being allocated over £42 million through the high needs funding block of the dedicated schools grant (DSG), an increase of £3.5 million on the 2024/25 DSG high needs block, calculated using the high needs national funding formula (NFF). This NFF allocation is an 9.1% increase per head of their two to 18-year-old population, on their equivalent 2024/25 NFF allocation.​The government has indicated that it will take the time needed to consider changes to the high needs NFF used by the department to allocate funding for children and young people with complex SEND. It is important that there is a fair education funding system that reflects differences in the level of underlying need across the country and directs funding accordingly, to support improved outcomes for these children and young people.The department’s objective is to ensure local authorities, schools and colleges can deliver high-quality services for children and young people with SEND in a financially sustainable way, and we are considering the funding required to achieve that in future years as part of the current spending review that is due to conclude in June.

With reference to her oral contribution of 22 April 2025, Official Report, column 911, what her Department's requisite level of accuracy is for AI transcriptions of court trials.

It is imperative that court transcripts are of a very high standard, and redacted as may be required, to provide an accurate record of official proceedings and in order to safeguard the interests of the parties, witnesses and victims. The production of Crown Court transcripts is currently a manual process delivered by third-party suppliers. Under the contract, suppliers are required to produce transcripts to 99.5% accuracy. We are targeting a similar level of accuracy in AI transcripts. We are actively exploring opportunities to use technology to reduce the cost of transcripts in future, but a high degree of accuracy will be of paramount importance.

Pursuant to the Answer of 2 December 2024 to Question 15729 on Down's Syndrome, when the statutory guidance under the Down Syndrome Act 2022 will be published.

Officials have been working to develop the Down Syndrome Act 2022’s statutory guidance as a priority, engaging with sector partners and relevant Government departments.We expect to issue the draft guidance for public consultation by the summer. The guidance will be published at the earliest opportunity, following the consultation.

Innovation and Technology, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the National Security Online Information Team's policies on the collection of personal data on people's ability to establish what information the Government holds about them.

DSIT’s National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT) does not actively collect personal data. However, it may receive or process some personal data in the course of its work and follows the requirements of UK GDPR and any advice or guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office. NSOIT has published privacy notices on Gov.uk which set out how personal data may be processed. These notices include a section explaining the public’s data protection rights and how to establish if NSOIT does hold any individual data.

Innovation and Technology, if he will take steps to ensure that the National Security Online Information Team's social media monitoring work can be scrutinised by (a) Parliament and (b) the public.

DSIT ministers remain accountable to parliament and routinely answer questions from parliamentarians and select committees, including on the work of the National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT).The department continues to respond to correspondence, Freedom of Information Act requests and Subject Access Requests from parliamentarians and members of the public. NSOIT has also published privacy notices which are accessible to the public on Gov.uk

How many people who are not wanted for arrest have been placed on police facial recognition watchlists.

Watchlists for live facial recognition deployments are compiled by the police and are specific to the operational requirements of each deploymentThe College of Policing have published national guidance which sets out the categories of people that can be included on watchlists. They include people who are wanted either by the police or by the courts, missing persons, vulnerable people and people who could be a danger to themselves or others.In each case there must be appropriate justification and authorisation, always passing the tests of necessity, proportionality and use for a policing purpose.

What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of police forces using facial recognition technology to identify individuals not sought in connection to ongoing criminal investigations.

Watchlists for live facial recognition deployments are compiled by the police and are specific to the operational requirements of each deploymentThe College of Policing have published national guidance which sets out the categories of people that can be included on watchlists. They include people who are wanted either by the police or by the courts, missing persons, vulnerable people and people who could be a danger to themselves or others.In each case there must be appropriate justification and authorisation, always passing the tests of necessity, proportionality and use for a policing purpose.

What data her Department holds on the number of times UK police forces have authorised targeted surveillance of journalists and lawyers.

Powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA) contain additional safeguards and protections, where the intention is for relevant public authorities to acquire sensitive material, such as information relating to confidential journalistic material, journalists' sources and matters subject to legal professional privilege. Further specific detail is set out in the statutory codes of practice pursuant to the powers under these Acts.The Investigatory Powers Commissioner provides oversight of the use of investigatory powers and publishes annual reports which provide statistical information relating to the operation of powers.

What guidance her Department has issued to police forces on the use of surveillance powers to carry out surveillance on journalists and lawyers.

Powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA) contain additional safeguards and protections, where the intention is for relevant public authorities to acquire sensitive material, such as information relating to confidential journalistic material, journalists' sources and matters subject to legal professional privilege. Further specific detail is set out in the statutory codes of practice pursuant to the powers under these Acts.The Investigatory Powers Commissioner provides oversight of the use of investigatory powers and publishes annual reports which provide statistical information relating to the operation of powers.

Pursuant to the Answer of 30 July 2024 to Question 1398 on Down Syndrome Act 2022, what recent progress his Department has made on producing statutory guidance under the Down Syndrome Act 2022; and whether he plans to publish that guidance before the end of the year.

Officials are taking forward, as a priority, development of the Down Syndrome guidance, as required under the Down Syndrome Act 2022. Engagement with relevant stakeholders, including people with Down syndrome and organisations that work in support of people with Down syndrome, people with other genetic conditions, and a learning disability, or both, is taking place to inform the guidance. Most recently, a roundtable on improving life outcomes for people with Down syndrome was held on 26 November 2024.We expect to publish the draft guidance for public consultation as soon as possible in the new year.

Whether her Department plans to publish risk assessments of proposed changes to (a) Agricultural Property Relief and (b) Business Property Relief.

At Autumn Budget 2024, the Government took a number of difficult but necessary decisions on tax, welfare, and spending to restore economic stability, fix the public finances, and support public services. The Government published information about the reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief at www.gov.uk/government/publications/agricultural-property-relief-and-business-property-relief-reforms/summary-of-reforms-to-agricultural-property-relief-and-business-property-relief. Further explanatory information is also set out at www.gov.uk/government/news/what-are-the-changes-to-agricultural-property-relief. In accordance with standard practice, a tax information and impact note will be published alongside the draft legislation before the relevant Finance Bill.

Innovation and Technology, with reference to the Answer of 14 May 2024 to Question 24976 on Artificial Intelligence: Government Departments, what recent estimate he has made of when phase one Departments will publish their first Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) records on the ATRS hub.

Central government departments and arm’s-length bodies (ALBs) have been working to draft Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) records since this became mandatory earlier this year. Publication plans were disrupted by the general election, but multiple records are expected to be published soon. Since the introduction of a mandatory requirement for use of ATRS in cross-government policy, we have seen a significant acceleration in progress towards adopting it, which will be reflected soon in published records. As such, we do not believe that legislation is necessary at this time. We will continue to explore further options for encouraging and enforcing the use of the ATRS, and the need to extend the breadth of the policy beyond central government. In the UK’s data protection framework, Article 22 of the UK GDPR sets out the rules relating to solely automated decisions that have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. Under these circumstances, individuals have the right to specific safeguards, including being notified of the decisions, being provided information about the solely automated decision making that has been carried out, and the right to contest those decisions and to obtain human intervention. These specific safeguards for solely automated decision making complement the wider data protection framework’s existing data subject rights, including the rights to transparency, objection and access. Organisations must also continue to observe the data protection principles to ensure personal data is processed lawfully, fairly and transparently. These rules apply to all organisations, including public bodies.

Innovation and Technology, with reference to the report entitled Securing meaningful transparency of public sector use of AI: Comparative approaches across five jurisdictions, published by the Public Law Project in October 2024, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of introducing a requirement on public bodies, when a decision has been taken about an individual that was (a) made and (b) supported by (i) AI, (ii) an algorithmic and (iii) automated tool, to proactively provide an explanation of (A) how and (B) why the decision was reached.

Central government departments and arm’s-length bodies (ALBs) have been working to draft Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) records since this became mandatory earlier this year. Publication plans were disrupted by the general election, but multiple records are expected to be published soon. Since the introduction of a mandatory requirement for use of ATRS in cross-government policy, we have seen a significant acceleration in progress towards adopting it, which will be reflected soon in published records. As such, we do not believe that legislation is necessary at this time. We will continue to explore further options for encouraging and enforcing the use of the ATRS, and the need to extend the breadth of the policy beyond central government. In the UK’s data protection framework, Article 22 of the UK GDPR sets out the rules relating to solely automated decisions that have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. Under these circumstances, individuals have the right to specific safeguards, including being notified of the decisions, being provided information about the solely automated decision making that has been carried out, and the right to contest those decisions and to obtain human intervention. These specific safeguards for solely automated decision making complement the wider data protection framework’s existing data subject rights, including the rights to transparency, objection and access. Organisations must also continue to observe the data protection principles to ensure personal data is processed lawfully, fairly and transparently. These rules apply to all organisations, including public bodies.

Innovation and Technology, with reference to the report entitled Securing meaningful transparency of public sector use of AI: Comparative approaches across five jurisdictions, published by the Public Law Project in October 2024, whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of introducing a requirement on public bodies to notify individuals when a decision has been taken about them that was (a) made and (b) supported by (i) AI, (ii) an algorithmic and (iii) automated tool.

Central government departments and arm’s-length bodies (ALBs) have been working to draft Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) records since this became mandatory earlier this year. Publication plans were disrupted by the general election, but multiple records are expected to be published soon. Since the introduction of a mandatory requirement for use of ATRS in cross-government policy, we have seen a significant acceleration in progress towards adopting it, which will be reflected soon in published records. As such, we do not believe that legislation is necessary at this time. We will continue to explore further options for encouraging and enforcing the use of the ATRS, and the need to extend the breadth of the policy beyond central government. In the UK’s data protection framework, Article 22 of the UK GDPR sets out the rules relating to solely automated decisions that have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. Under these circumstances, individuals have the right to specific safeguards, including being notified of the decisions, being provided information about the solely automated decision making that has been carried out, and the right to contest those decisions and to obtain human intervention. These specific safeguards for solely automated decision making complement the wider data protection framework’s existing data subject rights, including the rights to transparency, objection and access. Organisations must also continue to observe the data protection principles to ensure personal data is processed lawfully, fairly and transparently. These rules apply to all organisations, including public bodies.

Innovation and Technology, with reference to the report entitled Securing meaningful transparency of public sector use of AI: Comparative approaches across five jurisdictions, published by the Public Law Project in October 2024, whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of putting public sector compliance with the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard on a statutory footing.

Central government departments and arm’s-length bodies (ALBs) have been working to draft Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) records since this became mandatory earlier this year. Publication plans were disrupted by the general election, but multiple records are expected to be published soon. Since the introduction of a mandatory requirement for use of ATRS in cross-government policy, we have seen a significant acceleration in progress towards adopting it, which will be reflected soon in published records. As such, we do not believe that legislation is necessary at this time. We will continue to explore further options for encouraging and enforcing the use of the ATRS, and the need to extend the breadth of the policy beyond central government. In the UK’s data protection framework, Article 22 of the UK GDPR sets out the rules relating to solely automated decisions that have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. Under these circumstances, individuals have the right to specific safeguards, including being notified of the decisions, being provided information about the solely automated decision making that has been carried out, and the right to contest those decisions and to obtain human intervention. These specific safeguards for solely automated decision making complement the wider data protection framework’s existing data subject rights, including the rights to transparency, objection and access. Organisations must also continue to observe the data protection principles to ensure personal data is processed lawfully, fairly and transparently. These rules apply to all organisations, including public bodies.

Pursuant to the Answer of 28 October 2024 to Question 10678 on Deportation and Detainees, what steps she takes to ensure that her Department follows the Office for Statistics Regulation's guidance on data transparency.

The Statement of Compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics sets out how the Home Office and all Government departments should comply with the Code of Practice agreed by the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) and Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR).As referenced in the Ministerial Code, Ministers are mindful of the UK Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice which defines good practice in relation to official statistics, though it is not for the Home Secretary to offer guidance to government on the public disclosure of unpublished data.Our Head of Profession for Statistics meets regularly with the OSR to discuss statistics matters, including the department’s approach to handling requests for operational data that might not be routinely published. OSR have been supportive of the general approach this department has taken. In the note on embedding transparency in government written by the OSR Director General and published on 14th October, the Home Office was cited as having demonstrated good practice in this regard.

Pursuant to the Answer of 28 October 2024 to Question 10678 on Deportation and Detainees, if she will issue cross-Departmental guidance on the public disclosure of unpublished data.

The Statement of Compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics sets out how the Home Office and all Government departments should comply with the Code of Practice agreed by the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) and Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR).As referenced in the Ministerial Code, Ministers are mindful of the UK Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice which defines good practice in relation to official statistics, though it is not for the Home Secretary to offer guidance to government on the public disclosure of unpublished data.Our Head of Profession for Statistics meets regularly with the OSR to discuss statistics matters, including the department’s approach to handling requests for operational data that might not be routinely published. OSR have been supportive of the general approach this department has taken. In the note on embedding transparency in government written by the OSR Director General and published on 14th October, the Home Office was cited as having demonstrated good practice in this regard.

What steps she is taking to ensure that her Department publishes the statistics it collects on detention and returns promptly.

The Home Office publishes quarterly data on detention and returns in the “Immigration system statistics release”. Data up to the end of June 2024 was published on 22nd August 2024 following our usual publication cycle. The Home Office pre-announces these statistical releases in the “Research and statistics calendar”, in accordance with its Statement of compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics.Publishing timescales for returns and detention statistics are in line with other statistical indicators published in the Immigration system statistics release. For information about our statistics, and our quality assurance processes, please see the user guide.Official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review in line with the Code of Practice for Statistics, taking into account a number of factors including user needs, as well as quality and availability of data.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of issuing sanctions on individuals associated with the detention of Alaa Abd El-Fattah in Egypt.

We remain committed to securing Mr Alaa Abd El-Fattah's release. We raise his case at the highest levels. The Prime Minister did so with President Sisi on 8 August, the Foreign Secretary with Foreign Minister Abdelatty on 7 October and myself with Foreign Minister Abdelatty on 15 October. Our approach to the case is under regular review. It is not appropriate to speculate on possible future designations.