Written questions by McMurdock.

Pursuant to Answer of 8th December 2025 to Question 95555, what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of existing fines in deterring illegal working.

The Home Office continues to assess direct impacts of civil penalties for illegal working across all sectors of the labour market, through assessment of any changes in the composition and characteristics of those businesses receiving civil penalties, and their actions as a result.

Pursuant to Answer of 8th December 2025 to Question 95558, how many of the 153 individuals returned to France under the agreement have subsequently attempted to re-enter the UK illegally.

Anyone who re-enters illegally may face immediate detention and, where appropriate, we will seek to expedite removal. This will not count as a new removal in the reciprocal scheme. The system is working: two individuals who returned to the UK having already been removed were detected, detained, and their cases were expedited for return. We continue close cooperation with France to strengthen border security and disrupt criminal smuggling gangs. Our ongoing partnership with French law enforcement has prevented over 21,000 crossing attempts to the UK this year.

Whether she plans to publish sector-specific data on illegal working enforcement outcomes, including gig-economy sectors.

The Home Office takes the issue of illegal working seriously and continues to take robust enforcement action against those who breach immigration laws.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, the resources required to compile the statistics, as well as quality and availability of data. These reviews allow us to balance the production of our regular statistics whilst developing new statistics for future release.

What assessment she has made of the relationship between enforcement activity and a) arrests, b) convictions and c) sentencing outcomes for immigration offences.

The Government has made a strategic shift in Border Security, focusing on long-term systemic improvements, smarter, intelligence-led interventions and stronger partnerships across agencies.The Border Security Command (BSC), established in July 2024, provides cross system leadership—bringing together the National Crime Agency, police, intelligence agencies, Immigration Enforcement and Border Force—to prioritise intelligence led operations that disrupt organised immigration crime, illegal working and associated harms. In May we launched a new Organised Immigration Crime Domestic taskforce to transform the way in which police respond to the threat of organised immigration crime.There is a clear relationship between enforcement activity and arrests. Published Home Office data shows that, from 1 October 2024 to 30 September 2025, Immigration Enforcement teams carried out over 11,000 illegal working visits (up 51% year on year) which resulted in more than 8,000 arrests (up 63%). Detentions following those visits rose by 75% and returns recorded after a visit rose by 11%. These figures demonstrate that sustained, intelligence led operational activity leads to more arrests and case progression.Convictions and sentencing outcomes are a matter for the independent Crown Prosecution Service and the Courts.

How many civil penalties have been issued for illegal working in each of the last three years.

Information on illegal working civil penalty statistics has been published since 2016 as part of the Home Office Immigration Enforcement Transparency Data. This can be found at immigration-enforcement-data-jul-sep-2025 on tab CP02.This publication covers the period up to 30 September 2025.

What estimate her Department has made of the potential number of refugees who will enter the UK on a work and study visa in the next 5 years.

The Home Office has not made an estimate of the potential number of refugees who may enter the UK on work or study visas over the next five years.Student visa applications are rigorously assessed, and any indication of non-genuine intent, such as using the route for purposes other than study, will lead to refusal.While anyone in the UK has the right to claim asylum, asylum and human rights claims are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with our international obligations.

What steps she is taking to establish the number of illegal migrants whose whereabouts are unknown.

The nature of absconding is complicated because individuals frequently come in and out of contact. Whilst the Home Office has processes for the recording of absconder events, and for seeking to bring such individuals back into contact, the recording of information about absconders is complex and the operational systems involved do not currently support the production of robust statistics on this area.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 requests, the public resources required to compile the statistics, and importantly the quality and availability of data. The Home Office does not publish data on subjects where the information held is known to be of a quality that would be unsuitable for appropriately supporting public debate.

Whether she plans to publish data on the number of migrant absconders in each of the last three years.

The nature of absconding is complicated because individuals frequently come in and out of contact. Whilst the Home Office has processes for the recording of absconder events, and for seeking to bring such individuals back into contact, the recording of information about absconders is complex and the operational systems involved do not currently support the production of robust statistics on this area.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 requests, the public resources required to compile the statistics, and importantly the quality and availability of data. The Home Office does not publish data on subjects where the information held is known to be of a quality that would be unsuitable for appropriately supporting public debate.

Whether she is taking steps to ensure that data on illegal migrants whose whereabouts are unknown can be published in a verified form.

The nature of absconding is complicated because individuals frequently come in and out of contact. Whilst the Home Office has processes for the recording of absconder events, and for seeking to bring such individuals back into contact, the recording of information about absconders is complex and the operational systems involved do not currently support the production of robust statistics on this area.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 requests, the public resources required to compile the statistics, and importantly the quality and availability of data. The Home Office does not publish data on subjects where the information held is known to be of a quality that would be unsuitable for appropriately supporting public debate.

What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade on ensuring consistent security standards across private delivery operators during periods of rapid temporary recruitment.

The Postal Services Act 2011 designates Ofcom as the independent regulator for the postal sector, with the powers to impose and enforce regulatory requirements on postal operators. In its review of postal regulation in 2022, Ofcom committed to ongoing monitoring of operators’ performance and keep under review the need for additional regulation to protect consumers.The Government currently has no plans to seek change to the statutory requirements, and it remains that matters relating to employment checks for delivery employees are for individual companies to consider. This is outside the remit of the Home Office.

If she will make an assessment of the adequacy of the regulatory framework for delivery operators, excluding Royal Mail, relating to a) employee vetting and b) security during peak trading periods.

The Postal Services Act 2011 designates Ofcom as the independent regulator for the postal sector, with the powers to impose and enforce regulatory requirements on postal operators. In its review of postal regulation in 2022, Ofcom committed to ongoing monitoring of operators’ performance and keep under review the need for additional regulation to protect consumers.The Government currently has no plans to seek change to the statutory requirements, and it remains that matters relating to employment checks for delivery employees are for individual companies to consider. This is outside the remit of the Home Office.

What recent assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of live facial recognition on security and passenger flow at UK borders and airports; and what evaluation has been undertaken in relation to the accuracy and reliability of facial recognition in those settings.

Facial comparison technology is currently in operation at the eGates at the UK border. eGates provide a safe, secure and efficient method for millions of passengers to cross our border each year. Technology deployed at the UK border is rigorously tested to ensure it is robust, resilient and effective.The Immigration White Paper, published May 2025, sets out our vision to revolutionise the border by using technology to make visible changes to security and the passenger flow.

What steps her Department has taken to assess how live facial recognition systems are used in other countries and how those approaches may be used in the UK.

The Home Office routinely makes international comparisons in policy development work. As part of designing a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies, international comparisons will be considered.The Government launched a public consultation on this framework on 4 December.

What steps are being taken to help prevent the misidentification of innocent individuals by live facial recognition systems.

Police use of live facial recognition (LFR) is governed by equality, human rights, and data protection laws, and can only be used for a policing purpose where necessary, proportionate, and fair. LFR technology is not automated decision-making; it suggests possible matches not definite ones. Following a possible alert, it is always a specially trained police officer on the ground who decides what action, if any, to take.Facial recognition algorithms provided by or procured with Home Office funding for police use are required to be independently tested for bias. Independent testing is important because it helps determine the setting in which an algorithm can safely and fairly be used.The National Physical Laboratory (NPL) has independently tested the LFR algorithm used by the police. At the settings used by South Wales Police, the Metropolitan Police Service, and in the 10 LFR vans rolled out in August 2025, the NPL found that the algorithm had an 89% chance of correctly identifying someone on the watchlist of people wanted by the police or the courts. At worst, the algorithm had a 1 in 6,000 chance of generating a false alert on a watchlist containing 10,000 images. In practice, police have reported that the false alert rate has been far better than this. Importantly, the NPL also found no statistically significant differences in performance based on gender, age, or ethnicity, at the settings used by the police.The Government is committed to ensuring that facial recognition technology is used proportionately, responsibly, and with strong safeguards in place to protect the public. On 4 December 2025, we therefore launched a public consultation that sets out proposals for a new legal framework and strengthened oversight of facial recognition and other biometric technologies. The Government proposes creating a new oversight body to consolidate and clarify existing regulatory roles, ensuring responsible use of these technologies.

Whether she plans to expand the use of live facial recognition technology for non-criminal matters.

Live facial recognition technology, which involves processing live video footage of people passing a camera, is used in England and Wales to help locate people who are wanted by the police, in public spaces. The College of Policing has produced national guidance in the form of an Authorised Professional Practice (APP), setting out when the police can use live facial recognition and the categories of people they can look for. These include individuals wanted by the police or the courts, suspects, missing or vulnerable people, or those posing a risk of harm to themselves or others. In each case, inclusion on a watchlist must be justified and authorised, and must pass the tests of necessity, proportionality and use for a policing purpose.On 4 December the Government launched a consultation on establishing a new legal framework which focuses on the use of facial recognition and similar technologies by law enforcement organisations, for a law enforcement purpose.The consultation seeks views on whether seriousness of harm should be a factor to decide how and when law enforcement organisations can acquire, retain, and use biometrics, facial recognition, and similar technology. The consultation also asks for views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing ‘seriousness’ of harm and for which purposes should law enforcement organisations be allowed to use these technologies.The consultation also explains that the new legal framework will apply to law enforcement organisations. This would include all police forces in England and Wales, and national and specialist law enforcement agencies like the British Transport Police and National Crime Agency and for law enforcement activity by other public bodies such as the Environment Agency, HMRC or Border Force.We are aware that facial recognition and similar technologies are used more broadly across the public and private sectors. For example, we know that nightclubs use it to help identify barred patrons. Where that is the case they must comply with all relevant existing legislation including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 and guidance, with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as the principal regulator.Through the consultation we will therefore also consider whether public and private sector organisations ought to have due regard to the new legal framework and especially to any best practice established as a result.

What plans she has to allow for Parliamentary scrutiny of proposals to expand the use of live facial recognition technology.

There is an established basis for the police to use live facial recognition technology. When deploying facial recognition technology, police forces must comply with existing legislation including the Human Rights Act 1998, Equality Act 2010, Data Protection Act 2018, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as well as their own published policies. For live facial recognition, police forces must also follow the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Live Facial Recognition. Forces also need to comply with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, which is supplemented by published policing policies.On 4 December the Government launched a consultation on law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies. Although there is a legal basis for police use of facial recognition, the current legal framework is complicated, inflexible and difficult to understand, which in turn limits the extent to which facial recognition and similar technologies can be confidently used.That is why the government is consulting on a new legal framework to inform potential legislation.

What recent discussions she has had with the Information Commissioner’s Office on live facial recognition technology and its utilisation by police forces.

The Home Office meets regularly with the Information Commissioner’s Office to discuss law enforcement use of facial recognition technology.We will continue to work closely with them as we consult on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies.

What recent assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the rates of false positives generated by live facial recognition systems.

Police use of live facial recognition (LFR) is governed by equality, human rights, and data protection laws, and can only be used for a policing purpose where necessary, proportionate, and fair. LFR technology is not automated decision-making; it suggests possible matches not definite ones. Following a possible alert, it is always a specially trained police officer on the ground who decides what action, if any, to take.Facial recognition algorithms provided by or procured with Home Office funding for police use are required to be independently tested for bias. Independent testing is important because it helps determine the setting in which an algorithm can safely and fairly be used.The National Physical Laboratory (NPL) has independently tested the LFR algorithm used by the police. At the settings used by South Wales Police, the Metropolitan Police Service, and in the 10 LFR vans rolled out in August 2025, the NPL found that the algorithm had an 89% chance of correctly identifying someone on the watchlist of people wanted by the police or the courts. At worst, the algorithm had a 1 in 6,000 chance of generating a false alert on a watchlist containing 10,000 images. In practice, police have reported that the false alert rate has been far better than this. Importantly, the NPL also found no statistically significant differences in performance based on gender, age, or ethnicity, at the settings used by the police.The Government is committed to ensuring that facial recognition technology is used proportionately, responsibly, and with strong safeguards in place to protect the public. On 4 December 2025, we therefore launched a public consultation that sets out proposals for a new legal framework and strengthened oversight of facial recognition and other biometric technologies. The Government proposes creating a new oversight body to consolidate and clarify existing regulatory roles, ensuring responsible use of these technologies.

On what statutory basis live facial recognition technology is deployed by police forces in England and Wales; and whether her Department plans to introduce primary legislation before any expansion of its use.

There is an established basis for the police to use live facial recognition technology. When deploying facial recognition technology, police forces must comply with existing legislation including the Human Rights Act 1998, Equality Act 2010, Data Protection Act 2018, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as well as their own published policies. For live facial recognition, police forces must also follow the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Live Facial Recognition. Forces also need to comply with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, which is supplemented by published policing policies.On 4 December the Government launched a consultation on law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies. Although there is a legal basis for police use of facial recognition, the current legal framework is complicated, inflexible and difficult to understand, which in turn limits the extent to which facial recognition and similar technologies can be confidently used.That is why the government is consulting on a new legal framework to inform potential legislation.

Whether she plans to prevent the expansion of live facial recognition technology beyond counter-terrorism and serious crime into routine policing, retail monitoring, or crowd surveillance.

Live facial recognition technology, which involves processing live video footage of people passing a camera, is used in England and Wales to help locate people who are wanted by the police, in public spaces. The College of Policing has produced national guidance in the form of an Authorised Professional Practice (APP), setting out when the police can use live facial recognition and the categories of people they can look for. These include individuals wanted by the police or the courts, suspects, missing or vulnerable people, or those posing a risk of harm to themselves or others. In each case, inclusion on a watchlist must be justified and authorised, and must pass the tests of necessity, proportionality and use for a policing purpose.On 4 December the Government launched a consultation on establishing a new legal framework which focuses on the use of facial recognition and similar technologies by law enforcement organisations, for a law enforcement purpose.The consultation seeks views on whether seriousness of harm should be a factor to decide how and when law enforcement organisations can acquire, retain, and use biometrics, facial recognition, and similar technology. The consultation also asks for views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing ‘seriousness’ of harm and for which purposes should law enforcement organisations be allowed to use these technologies.The consultation also explains that the new legal framework will apply to law enforcement organisations. This would include all police forces in England and Wales, and national and specialist law enforcement agencies like the British Transport Police and National Crime Agency and for law enforcement activity by other public bodies such as the Environment Agency, HMRC or Border Force.We are aware that facial recognition and similar technologies are used more broadly across the public and private sectors. For example, we know that nightclubs use it to help identify barred patrons. Where that is the case they must comply with all relevant existing legislation including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 and guidance, with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as the principal regulator.Through the consultation we will therefore also consider whether public and private sector organisations ought to have due regard to the new legal framework and especially to any best practice established as a result.