Written questions by McMurdock.

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.

Pursuant to the Answer of 3 December 2025 to Question 94577 on Special Educational Needs: Admissions, whether she has provided guidance on the number of additional SEND places required to meet forecast demand in Thurrock.

The statutory duty to provide sufficient school places, including for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), sits with local authorities. To support local authorities with this duty, in December, the department announced at least £3 billion for high needs capital between 2026/27 and 2029/30, to support children and young people with SEND or who require alternative provision. This builds on the £740 million invested in 2025/26, which is on track to create around 10,000 new specialist places. Of this funding, Thurrock council has been allocated just under £2 million, and Essex has been allocated just under £21 million.This funding is intended to create specialist facilities within mainstream schools that can deliver more intensive support adapted to suit the pupils’ needs. It can also be used to adapt mainstream schools to be more accessible and to create special school places for pupils with the most complex needs.It is ultimately up to local authorities to determine how to best prioritise their high needs capital funding to address local priorities.

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 recent assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of variations in the amount and quality of breaktime provision between schools.

I refer the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock to the answers of 25 November 2025 and 5 December 2025 to Questions 91834 and 95249.

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 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.

Pursuant to the Answer of 3 December 2025 to Question 94814, what his timetable is for deciding whether the NHS Health Accelerator model will be expanded beyond the three currently funded Integrated Care Boards.

The 2025 Spending Review was published on 11 June 2025 by HM Treasury and sets out departmental budgets for day‑to‑day spending until 2028/29, and until 2029/30 for capital investment. The 2025 Spending Review is available at the following link:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spending-review-2025-documentThe Department has a financial planning exercise to allocate budgets within those financial years underway. Spending plans will be set out in the Main Supply Estimates when published in due course by HM Treasury.

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.

How much income was (a) invoiced, (b) collected, and( c) written off under the NHS cost-recovery regime in each of the last three financial years.

The Department and NHS England publish data annually on the income identified, recovered, and written off from chargeable overseas visitors in England in the Department’s Annual Report and Accounts and in NHS England’s Consolidated NHS provider accounts. The information for the last three years is available at the following links:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/692dc4e8345e31ab14ecf846/consolidated-nhs-provider-accounts-ara-2024-to-2025.pdfhttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/693a97ef6a12691d48491de0/dhsc-annual-report-and-accounts-2024-2025-print-ready.pdfhttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6745b836e7cf64050b8098c4/consolidated-nhs-provider-accounts_annual-report-and-accounts-2023-to-2024_print-ready.pdfhttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/676150ef26a2d1ff18253415/dhsc-annual-report-and-accounts-2023-2024-web-accessible.pdfhttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65b2a4fc5f8ce2000d3ae544/consolidated-provider-accounts-2022-to-2023-print.pdfhttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65b236c81702b10013cb1289/DHSC-Annual-report-and-accounts-2022-2023-web-accessible.pdfNational Health Service charges can be recovered up to six years from the date of invoice, and therefore the amount recovered in a year does not necessarily mean it was identified in the same financial year.No formal review of the system of cost recovery has taken place. However, we continue to work with NHS England to ensure that the system works as effectively and fairly as possible.

Pursuant to Answer of 3 December 2025 to Question 94075 on Health Services: Foreign Nationals, when he last reviewed the operation of the NHS cost-recovery regime with NHS England: and what milestones have been set to measure improvements in the effectiveness of that regime.

The Department and NHS England publish data annually on the income identified, recovered, and written off from chargeable overseas visitors in England in the Department’s Annual Report and Accounts and in NHS England’s Consolidated NHS provider accounts. The information for the last three years is available at the following links:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/692dc4e8345e31ab14ecf846/consolidated-nhs-provider-accounts-ara-2024-to-2025.pdfhttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/693a97ef6a12691d48491de0/dhsc-annual-report-and-accounts-2024-2025-print-ready.pdfhttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6745b836e7cf64050b8098c4/consolidated-nhs-provider-accounts_annual-report-and-accounts-2023-to-2024_print-ready.pdfhttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/676150ef26a2d1ff18253415/dhsc-annual-report-and-accounts-2023-2024-web-accessible.pdfhttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65b2a4fc5f8ce2000d3ae544/consolidated-provider-accounts-2022-to-2023-print.pdfhttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65b236c81702b10013cb1289/DHSC-Annual-report-and-accounts-2022-2023-web-accessible.pdfNational Health Service charges can be recovered up to six years from the date of invoice, and therefore the amount recovered in a year does not necessarily mean it was identified in the same financial year.No formal review of the system of cost recovery has taken place. However, we continue to work with NHS England to ensure that the system works as effectively and fairly as possible.

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.

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.

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.

What recent assessment her Department has made of the potential implications for her policies of reported levels of misidentification of (a) women, (b) ethnic minorities, and (c) young people 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 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.

Whether her Department has issued guidance to police forces on issuing contracts for live facial recognition technology.

The Home Office has not issued guidance to police forces on issuing contracts for live facial recognition technology. However, the Live Facial Recognition Commercial Framework produced by BlueLight Commercial is available to support police forces making procurement decisions before they issue contracts.Decisions on the contracting of live facial recognition technology are for individual police forces and other relevant authorities. Procurement decisions by police forces must comply with UK procurement law, including the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, Procurement Act 2023, and relevant Cabinet Office guidance on supply chain risk. They are also expected to follow the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

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.