Home Office

The Government has no plans to take forward the recommendation made by the Law Commission in 2015 to codify existing firearms legislation.

We recognise that missing episodes, especially repeat missing episodes, however brief, can often be a red flag for a number of harms including child sexual exploitation and criminal exploitation.

Each missing child case represents a vulnerable young person at risk, often with complex underlying causes that need to be understood and addressed. We are working to support the NPCC and its rollout of its ‘Children who go Missing from Care’ Framework as another vital tool when tackling head-on the underlying vulnerabilities in children that often lead to missing episodes and further strengthening frontline response.

In addition, the new National Centre for VAWG and Public Protection (NCVPP) launched in April 2025 to improve the response to violence against women and girls and child sexual abuse. The Home Office has already invested £13.1 million into the Centre in 2025-25 and will provide a further £13.9m funding this financial year. The NCVPP will improve the response to missing children by driving up standards; developing best practices and delivering training to officers across a range of vulnerabilities.

We will continue to work closely across Government Departments, with the police and other safeguarding partners, to improve the whole system response to missing children.

We recognise that missing episodes, especially repeat missing episodes, however brief, can often be a red flag for a number of harms including child sexual exploitation and criminal exploitation.

Each missing child case represents a vulnerable young person at risk, often with complex underlying causes that need to be understood and addressed. We are working to support the NPCC and its rollout of its ‘Children who go Missing from Care’ Framework as another vital tool when tackling head-on the underlying vulnerabilities in children that often lead to missing episodes and further strengthening frontline response.

In addition, the new National Centre for VAWG and Public Protection (NCVPP) launched in April 2025 to improve the response to violence against women and girls and child sexual abuse. The Home Office has already invested £13.1 million into the Centre in 2025-25 and will provide a further £13.9m funding this financial year. The NCVPP will improve the response to missing children by driving up standards; developing best practices and delivering training to officers across a range of vulnerabilities.

We will continue to work closely across Government Departments, with the police and other safeguarding partners, to improve the whole system response to missing children.

Every victim of violence against women and girls (VAWG), whether in a city or a rural village, should be able to access the help they need. In the 'Freedom from Violence and Abuse’ Strategy, we committed to developing a new cross-government statement on the commissioning of VAWG services. This statement aims to strengthen the quality of commissioning from local commissioners, and it will support local areas to tailor their provision to their local communities, including rural victims.

Last year (2025/26), the Home Office invested over £6m into specialist helplines to support victims of VAWG and we are expanding our investment into the VAWG helplines this financial year. The helplines are accessible across England and Wales and provide advice and support to victims and assist in signposting and referrals to appropriate local services.

Last year, the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra) commenced a call for evidence across a network of rural stakeholders to inform our understanding of the availability of support services and effective practice to provide support in rural areas. This research will help to confront the disparities in the provision and inform our future work to address the disparities of provision.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right and a defining value of our open and diverse society. The Government is absolutely committed to upholding lawful free expression, including robust debate on matters of public interest, and all relevant legislation and policing powers are applied in line with the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

However, freedom of expression is a qualified right and can be restricted in certain situations. The legislative framework in the UK ensures that people are protected against criminal activity including threatening, harassing, or abusive behaviour. Freedom of speech must not be used as an excuse to cause harm or spread hatred.

The Government has launched an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation, led by Lord Ken Macdonald of River Glaven KC. The review will examine whether current legislation is fit for purpose in light of evolving protest tactics, community impacts, and the need to safeguard democracy.

The review will address three critical questions: whether existing legislation effective and proportionate; whether it adequately protects communities from intimidation and hate; and whether it strikes a fair and sustainable balance between the right to freedom of expression and peaceful protest, and the need to prevent disorder and keep communities safe.

The review is underway and will report to the Home Secretary in May 2026.

Tackling violence against women and girls (VAWG) is a top priority for this Government, and we are treating it as the national emergency it is. The recently published ‘Freedom from violence and abuse: a cross-government strategy’ sets out the steps we are taking to drive system-wide change, so that no life is lost to violence and abuse that could have been prevented. All victims, including Black and other minoritised ethnic groups, are integrated into our response, and every commitment set out in the Strategy will consider Black and other minoritised ethnic groups.

The report illustrates the stark picture of the risk of fatal violence faced by Black and ethnic minority women. The Government is absolutely committed to improving the response to all forms of violence, and femicide as part of that. I wholeheartedly thank the Killed Women network for their work to raise awareness of these appalling crimes and have written to them in response to this report.

The Home Office continues to build the evidence base on all domestic abuse related deaths through funding the Domestic Homicide Project, to capture information on these deaths from all 43 police forces in England and Wales and identify how the response can be improved. We are also exploring the possibility of expanding the project’s scope in future years to encompass all deaths that occur in the context of VAWG. This will enable a more comprehensive understanding of every death resulting from VAWG to improve our response and prevent further loss of life.

The Written Ministerial Statement entitled 'Commencement of the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs, was issued on 13 April 2026.

This sets out that the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs has been formally established. The final Terms of Reference for the Inquiry were published on 31 March 2026.

The “Modern Slavery: Statutory Guidance for England and Wales (under s49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015) and Non-Statutory Guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland” is regularly reviewed and updated to ensure that it remains current and effective for decision-makers and first responders.

Following the conclusion of the Call for Evidence on the Identification of Victims of Modern Slavery, we are considering the evidence received and how identification and referrals can be improved.

Overseas Domestic Workers who find themselves a victim of modern slavery can be referred into the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) by a designated First Responder.

Although The Home Office does not comment on specific groups or individual cases, I would like to reassure The Rt Hon gentleman that we are committed to continually building our understanding of the extremist threat and monitor groups that pose a threat to national security.

Where the actions of individuals or groups cross a legal threshold, we will act to prevent harm and to safeguard susceptible individuals.

As set out in the recent ‘Protecting What Matters’ publication, the Home Office is increasing resource to counter extremism and prevent groups and individuals from sharing their harmful rhetoric.

Although The Home Office does not comment on specific groups or individual cases, I would like to reassure The Rt Hon gentleman that we are committed to continually building our understanding of the extremist threat and monitor groups that pose a threat to national security.

Where the actions of individuals or groups cross a legal threshold, we will act to prevent harm and to safeguard susceptible individuals.

As set out in the recent ‘Protecting What Matters’ publication, the Home Office is increasing resource to counter extremism and prevent groups and individuals from sharing their harmful rhetoric.

The Home Office does not routinely comment on individual cases.

The Home Secretary has the power to exclude a person who is not a British Citizen if their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. Exclusion is reserved for cases involving national security, extremism, serious crime, war crimes, corruption and unacceptable behaviour. An exclusion decision must be reasonable, consistent with decisions taken in similar circumstances, and proportionate to the threat the person poses to the UK. There must be a rational connection between exclusion of the individual and the legitimate aim being pursued, for example safeguarding public security or tackling serious crime.

The Immigration Rules also provide for the refusal of entry clearance or permission where a person’s character, conduct or associations means it is undesirable to grant them entry or permission to stay the UK. The decision to refuse entry on the ground it is conducive to the public good must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the conduct and circumstances of the person concerned. All decisions must be reasonable, proportionate and evidence based. A person’s presence may be deemed to be non-conducive to the public good for a range of reasons, for example, because of criminality, reprehensible behaviour falling short of a conviction, or because their identity, travel history or other circumstances means that their presence in the UK poses a threat to UK society. A person does not need to have a criminal conviction to be refused admission on non-conducive grounds.

Where a person has already been admitted to the UK, deportation action may be taken where their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. This may include those who have publicly expressed support for proscribed organisations.

The Home Office does not routinely comment on individual cases.

The Home Secretary has the power to exclude a person who is not a British Citizen if their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. Exclusion is reserved for cases involving national security, extremism, serious crime, war crimes, corruption and unacceptable behaviour. An exclusion decision must be reasonable, consistent with decisions taken in similar circumstances, and proportionate to the threat the person poses to the UK. There must be a rational connection between exclusion of the individual and the legitimate aim being pursued, for example safeguarding public security or tackling serious crime.

The Immigration Rules also provide for the refusal of entry clearance or permission where a person’s character, conduct or associations means it is undesirable to grant them entry or permission to stay the UK. The decision to refuse entry on the ground it is conducive to the public good must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the conduct and circumstances of the person concerned. All decisions must be reasonable, proportionate and evidence based. A person’s presence may be deemed to be non-conducive to the public good for a range of reasons, for example, because of criminality, reprehensible behaviour falling short of a conviction, or because their identity, travel history or other circumstances means that their presence in the UK poses a threat to UK society. A person does not need to have a criminal conviction to be refused admission on non-conducive grounds.

Where a person has already been admitted to the UK, deportation action may be taken where their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. This may include those who have publicly expressed support for proscribed organisations.

The Home Office does not routinely comment on individual cases.

The Home Secretary has the power to exclude a person who is not a British Citizen if their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. Exclusion is reserved for cases involving national security, extremism, serious crime, war crimes, corruption and unacceptable behaviour. An exclusion decision must be reasonable, consistent with decisions taken in similar circumstances, and proportionate to the threat the person poses to the UK. There must be a rational connection between exclusion of the individual and the legitimate aim being pursued, for example safeguarding public security or tackling serious crime.

The Immigration Rules also provide for the refusal of entry clearance or permission where a person’s character, conduct or associations means it is undesirable to grant them entry or permission to stay the UK. The decision to refuse entry on the ground it is conducive to the public good must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the conduct and circumstances of the person concerned. All decisions must be reasonable, proportionate and evidence based. A person’s presence may be deemed to be non-conducive to the public good for a range of reasons, for example, because of criminality, reprehensible behaviour falling short of a conviction, or because their identity, travel history or other circumstances means that their presence in the UK poses a threat to UK society. A person does not need to have a criminal conviction to be refused admission on non-conducive grounds.

Where a person has already been admitted to the UK, deportation action may be taken where their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. This may include those who have publicly expressed support for proscribed organisations.

CWT provides travel services to Immigration Enforcement via a contract procured under the Public Contract Regulations 2015, awarded in 2017. This contract covers the payments that have been made to CWT UK Group Ltd for UK Immigration Enforcement services since 1 October 2024, and currently expires on 30th April 2027. This is the sole contract held with CWT by the Home Office for Immigration Enforcement.

Details of the services provided under this contract can be found at the following link Provision of Travel Services for Immigration Purposes. - Contracts Finder, which also contains a redacted copy of the contract which can be downloaded.

CWT provides travel services related to public expense removals, and immigration enforcement activity. This primarily includes international travel for deportation, enforced returns, and voluntary returns. In addition to international travel the contract also provides some limited immigration enforcement related domestic travel, such as internal flights. The CWT contract does not provide domestic travel services for persons within the Asylum system.

CWT provides travel services to Immigration Enforcement via a contract procured under the Public Contract Regulations 2015, awarded in 2017. This contract covers the payments that have been made to CWT UK Group Ltd for UK Immigration Enforcement services since 1 October 2024, and currently expires on 30th April 2027. This is the sole contract held with CWT by the Home Office for Immigration Enforcement.

Details of the services provided under this contract can be found at the following link Provision of Travel Services for Immigration Purposes. - Contracts Finder, which also contains a redacted copy of the contract which can be downloaded.

CWT provides travel services related to public expense removals, and immigration enforcement activity. This primarily includes international travel for deportation, enforced returns, and voluntary returns. In addition to international travel the contract also provides some limited immigration enforcement related domestic travel, such as internal flights. The CWT contract does not provide domestic travel services for persons within the Asylum system.

CWT provides travel services to Immigration Enforcement via a contract procured under the Public Contract Regulations 2015, awarded in 2017. This contract covers the payments that have been made to CWT UK Group Ltd for UK Immigration Enforcement services since 1 October 2024, and currently expires on 30th April 2027. This is the sole contract held with CWT by the Home Office for Immigration Enforcement.

Details of the services provided under this contract can be found at the following link Provision of Travel Services for Immigration Purposes. - Contracts Finder, which also contains a redacted copy of the contract which can be downloaded.

CWT provides travel services related to public expense removals, and immigration enforcement activity. This primarily includes international travel for deportation, enforced returns, and voluntary returns. In addition to international travel the contract also provides some limited immigration enforcement related domestic travel, such as internal flights. The CWT contract does not provide domestic travel services for persons within the Asylum system.

CWT provides travel services to Immigration Enforcement via a contract procured under the Public Contract Regulations 2015, awarded in 2017. This contract covers the payments that have been made to CWT UK Group Ltd for UK Immigration Enforcement services since 1 October 2024, and currently expires on 30th April 2027. This is the sole contract held with CWT by the Home Office for Immigration Enforcement.

Details of the services provided under this contract can be found at the following link Provision of Travel Services for Immigration Purposes. - Contracts Finder, which also contains a redacted copy of the contract which can be downloaded.

CWT provides travel services related to public expense removals, and immigration enforcement activity. This primarily includes international travel for deportation, enforced returns, and voluntary returns. In addition to international travel the contract also provides some limited immigration enforcement related domestic travel, such as internal flights. The CWT contract does not provide domestic travel services for persons within the Asylum system.

The Asylum Accommodation estate is kept under constant review. We are moving at pace to fulfil the Government’s commitment to close every asylum hotel by the end of this parliament. Work to facilitate this exit is ongoing, and the Asylum Accommodation Taskforce is working across Government to deliver alternative asylum accommodation.

We have placed Asylum Move‑On Liaison Officers (AMLOs) in 59 local authorities across the UK, working alongside Migrant Help to support individuals who will be leaving asylum accommodation.

In England, we have AMLO presence in the following regions:

– London

– West Midlands

– East Midlands

– North West

– Yorkshire and the Humber

– South East

– South West

AMLO deployment is kept under regular review to ensure support is directed appropriately.

Current reforms prioritise restoring order and control to the asylum system, including ending the use of hotels, enhancing fairness, and improving efficiency, rather than moving to a single end-to-end co-located reception hub model.

We are committed to ensuring that asylum reforms are considered carefully so that they support creation of a system which is both fair and sustainable. As with all significant policy changes, the impacts will be subject to assessment.

Funding allocated from the Home Office capital property change budget for infrastructure installation costs associated with electric vehicle (EV) charging is as follows:

• 2024–25 (actual): £503,000
• 2025–26 (forecast): £604,000
• 2026–27 (forecast): £1.3 million
• 2027–28 (forecast): £1 million
• 2028–29 (forecast): £1 million

The allocations for 2027–28 and 2028–29 are currently indicative placeholder figures included within the existing project pipeline and may be subject to change. The current forecast allocation for 2026–27 remains £1.3 million. A review of the longer-term electric vehicle charging infrastructure delivery strategy for the remainder of the Spending Review period is ongoing.

The Government has set a target for all vehicles in the central government fleet to be zero-emission by the end of 2027. This transition predominantly impacts operational vehicles used by Immigration Enforcement, Border Force and Border Security Command.

To support this transition, Home Office Property Services has been commissioned to install EV charging infrastructure at Home Office buildings to enable the charging of electric fleet vehicles. The Electric Vehicle Charging Project (EVCP) was mobilised to deliver this infrastructure and is currently undertaking a strategic review to set priorities for the remainder of the Spending Review period.

The costs covered by this funding include the design and installation of charging points, associated legal fees where landlord agreements are required, and enabling works with local electricity distribution network operators.

In the Restoring Order and Control policy statement, published on 21 November 2025, the Government committed to transforming its approach to safe and legal routes. This included the creation of a named sponsorship scheme to enable community groups to sponsor refugees and displaced persons.

The Home Office assesses that launching new safe and legal routes, including community sponsorship, supports the Government’s overall objectives of reducing dangerous journeys and ending the use of hotels for asylum seekers. The new routes in isolation will not lead to the closure of asylum hotels, however, they form part of the broader package of measures set out in the Restoring Order and Control policy statement to support sustainable exit from hotel accommodation.

The Home Office is working with the Animals in Science Regulation Unit, funders and wider stakeholders to progress implementation of the Rawle report recommendations. Specifically, the Animals in Science Committee, a ministerial advisory body, has been commissioned for advice on leading practice in delivery of the responsibilities of Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies (AWERBs); addressing a key finding from the Rawle report.

The Government will publish a delivery update, alongside key performance indicators on progress across all elements of the strategy, later in 2026.

The Home Office is working with the Animals in Science Regulation Unit, funders and wider stakeholders to progress implementation of the Rawle report recommendations. Specifically, the Animals in Science Committee, a ministerial advisory body, has been commissioned for advice on leading practice in delivery of the responsibilities of Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies (AWERBs); addressing a key finding from the Rawle report.

The Government will publish a delivery update, alongside key performance indicators on progress across all elements of the strategy, later in 2026.

On 26 March 2026, the Home Secretary announced the terms of reference and start date for the Orgreave Inquiry. The terms of reference include the aim to publish a final report within 24 months of the start date 26^th March 2026. Decisions about the timetable, process and procedures will be made by the Inquiry’s independent Chair, the Right Revd Dr Bishop Pete Wilcox.

Ministers will discuss budgets with the Chair and the timetable for the Inquiry in more detail now that the terms of reference have been published, as this enables more reliable estimates of the Inquiry’s costs to be made.

The Home Office has not formally assessed the potential impact of police facial recognition cameras on levels of local crime rates or effectiveness against traditional policing methods. However, when the Government introduces legislation on a new framework this will be accompanied by an impact assessment. This will include consideration of operational benefits, costs and wider impacts, alongside legal, ethical and equality considerations.

When using live facial recognition, police forces must comply with existing legal obligations including the requirement that its use is necessary and proportionate to a specific policing objective.

National guidance issued by the College of Policing requires forces to define the purpose of a deployment in advance and ensure watchlists are focused and limited to appropriate categories of people, which may include wanted individuals, suspects, missing or vulnerable people, or those posing risks. Watchlists must be tailored to the policing objective and reviewed before each deployment to ensure the legal tests of necessity and proportionality are met.

Last year, we launched a public consultation on when and how biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies should be used by law enforcement, and what safeguards and oversight are needed. This consultation included questions on when the use of such technologies should be considered necessary and proportionate. We are currently considering the responses, which will inform the scope and content of any legal changes brought before Parliament

The Home Office has not formally assessed the potential impact of police facial recognition cameras on levels of local crime rates or effectiveness against traditional policing methods. However, when the Government introduces legislation on a new framework this will be accompanied by an impact assessment. This will include consideration of operational benefits, costs and wider impacts, alongside legal, ethical and equality considerations.

When using live facial recognition, police forces must comply with existing legal obligations including the requirement that its use is necessary and proportionate to a specific policing objective.

National guidance issued by the College of Policing requires forces to define the purpose of a deployment in advance and ensure watchlists are focused and limited to appropriate categories of people, which may include wanted individuals, suspects, missing or vulnerable people, or those posing risks. Watchlists must be tailored to the policing objective and reviewed before each deployment to ensure the legal tests of necessity and proportionality are met.

Last year, we launched a public consultation on when and how biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies should be used by law enforcement, and what safeguards and oversight are needed. This consultation included questions on when the use of such technologies should be considered necessary and proportionate. We are currently considering the responses, which will inform the scope and content of any legal changes brought before Parliament

The Home Office has not formally assessed the potential impact of police facial recognition cameras on levels of local crime rates or effectiveness against traditional policing methods. However, when the Government introduces legislation on a new framework this will be accompanied by an impact assessment. This will include consideration of operational benefits, costs and wider impacts, alongside legal, ethical and equality considerations.

When using live facial recognition, police forces must comply with existing legal obligations including the requirement that its use is necessary and proportionate to a specific policing objective.

National guidance issued by the College of Policing requires forces to define the purpose of a deployment in advance and ensure watchlists are focused and limited to appropriate categories of people, which may include wanted individuals, suspects, missing or vulnerable people, or those posing risks. Watchlists must be tailored to the policing objective and reviewed before each deployment to ensure the legal tests of necessity and proportionality are met.

Last year, we launched a public consultation on when and how biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies should be used by law enforcement, and what safeguards and oversight are needed. This consultation included questions on when the use of such technologies should be considered necessary and proportionate. We are currently considering the responses, which will inform the scope and content of any legal changes brought before Parliament

The Government supports police innovation, including the responsible use of facial recognition technologies. The Government recognises that facial recognition and similar technologies can support the police to prevent and detect crime and protect the public, when used appropriately and responsibly.

Police forces must comply with the existing legal framework for any use of facial recognition technology. As part of this, any use of facial recognition technology must be necessary and proportionate to a specific policing objective.

The Home Office launched a public consultation which closed on 12 February 2026 on when and how biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies should be used by law enforcement, and what safeguards and oversight are needed. This consultation included questions on when the use of such technologies should be considered necessary and proportionate. We are currently considering the responses, which will inform the scope and content of any legal changes brought before Parliament. However, there are currently no plans for the Government to fund body worn video or drone projects in relation to facial recognition technologies.

The Home Office has engaged with NHS England in the development of large sites established in England under the Asylum Accommodation Programme. Further engagement with health partners including the Department for Health and Social Care and NHS England will be undertaken to support suitable provision for future sites.

Police forces will be held accountable for improving response times and investigative outcomes through the new Police Performance System, which will provide a single, consistent picture of police performance across all forces, enable earlier identification of problems and provide targeted support to deliver better service for the public.

As set out in the Police Reform White Paper, we have committed to introducing clear national targets on response times. The Police Performance System will enable consistent assessment of contact and response, using nationally comparable data. This will strengthen the scrutiny of underperforming forces, enabling earlier and robust intervention, including performance improvement plans where necessary and statutory intervention powers.

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.

The Home Office publishes annual statistics on the use of animals in science which contain information on the number of procedures conducted, including breakdowns by species of animals. The statistics report both the total number of procedures conducted and the number of animals used for the first time in a given year. Data is collected and published on an annual basis and is not disaggregated by establishment.

The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) requires establishments that breed or supply animals for use in scientific procedures to be licensed and regulated, even where no scientific procedures are carried out on site.

MBR Acres Ltd is a breeding facility and does not carry out onsite testing.

We follow and abide by Government and Home Office guidance for all AI development, however the development and delivery of the Asylum project pilots predated the AI Playbook.

The police have appropriate powers to seize dangerous dogs, including under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the general seizure power in section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The exercise of these powers is an operational decision for the police, who must take account of the circumstances of each case. We keep police powers under regular review to ensure the police have the necessary tools to respond quickly and effectively to tackle crime and protect the public.

The information requested is not currently available from published statistics.

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.

Whilst local management information is held on absconder numbers and updated in line with operational need, this is used only for local management purposes. This data has not been verified or checked for accuracy to a standard that would make it suitable for publication, or to be provided to Members of Parliament.

The Home Office has two key strands of work to improve licence approval processes under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 regulatory framework. First, it is working with the Animals in Science Regulation Unit, funders and wider stakeholders to progress implementation of recommendations provided by Dr Frances Rawle relating to approvals processes to ensure that animals continue to only be used where there is no practicable alternative.

Concurrently, the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction is scheduled to provide recommendations to the Home Office to enhance the project licence application form for undertaking research involving animals. This will include advice aimed at strengthening the evaluation of replacement strategies.

The Government will publish a delivery update, alongside key performance indicators on progress across all elements of the strategy, later in 2026.

The Home Office is responsible for the regulation and collection of statistics on the use of animals in science under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Home Office is working closely with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to consider how the existing and future collections of publication of additional statistics can continue to support good practice.

This work is progressing as part of cross government collaboration to ensure that data collection, analysis and publication remain proportionate, scientifically meaningful and aligned with the objectives of the Replacing animals in science strategy, while maintaining the UK’s high standards of animal welfare and regulatory oversight.

The Government will publish a delivery update, alongside key performance indicators on progress across all elements of the strategy, later in 2026.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A meeting of the cross-government working group on reducing barriers to research with Schedule 1 drugs took place on 23 January. The working group is comprised of officials from the relevant government departments and regulatory bodies. The group’s role is the formulation of policy. As such its considerations are not agreed government policy and we have no plans to publish them. The Government remains committed to implementing the recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on reducing barriers to research with Schedule 1 drugs and we will publish our plans in this area in due course.