Question to the HM Treasury:

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps she is taking to ensure that anti-money laundering supervisory authorities effectively discharge their functions under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 in relation to commercial activity connected with Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Syrian Golan Heights.

Answered by Rachel Blake

The MLRs do not prescribe separate requirements on supervisors in relation to commercial activity involving particular geographic areas or territories. Regulated businesses and firms are required to consider relevant risk factors relating to customers, transactions and the countries and geographical areas in which they operate. Anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing (AML/CTF) supervisors help businesses and firms comply with the Money Laundering Regulations (MLRs), this includes issuing relevant guidance. HM Treasury publishes an annual report on supervision activity using information requested from supervisors.

The Government keeps threats posed by money laundering and terrorist financing under review and works with supervisors, law enforcement agencies and the private sector to identify and address emerging risks. HMT and the Home Office jointly-published the latest National Risk Assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing in 2025. This is used to inform regulated businesses’ own risk assessments, along with supervisors’ risk assessments and other sources of risk information and intelligence.

Question to the HM Treasury:

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment she has made of whether UK persons and regulated businesses are exposed to money laundering risks through transactions involving companies whose goods or revenues are wholly or partly generated from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Syrian Golan Heights.

Answered by Rachel Blake

The MLRs do not prescribe separate requirements on supervisors in relation to commercial activity involving particular geographic areas or territories. Regulated businesses and firms are required to consider relevant risk factors relating to customers, transactions and the countries and geographical areas in which they operate. Anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing (AML/CTF) supervisors help businesses and firms comply with the Money Laundering Regulations (MLRs), this includes issuing relevant guidance. HM Treasury publishes an annual report on supervision activity using information requested from supervisors.

The Government keeps threats posed by money laundering and terrorist financing under review and works with supervisors, law enforcement agencies and the private sector to identify and address emerging risks. HMT and the Home Office jointly-published the latest National Risk Assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing in 2025. This is used to inform regulated businesses’ own risk assessments, along with supervisors’ risk assessments and other sources of risk information and intelligence.

Question to the HM Treasury:

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether she has issued, or plans to issue, guidance to anti-money laundering supervisory authorities on the application of Regulation 47 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 in relation to commercial activity connected with Israeli settlements in occupied territory.

Answered by Rachel Blake

The MLRs do not prescribe separate requirements on supervisors in relation to commercial activity involving particular geographic areas or territories. Regulated businesses and firms are required to consider relevant risk factors relating to customers, transactions and the countries and geographical areas in which they operate. Anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing (AML/CTF) supervisors help businesses and firms comply with the Money Laundering Regulations (MLRs), this includes issuing relevant guidance. HM Treasury publishes an annual report on supervision activity using information requested from supervisors.

The Government keeps threats posed by money laundering and terrorist financing under review and works with supervisors, law enforcement agencies and the private sector to identify and address emerging risks. HMT and the Home Office jointly-published the latest National Risk Assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing in 2025. This is used to inform regulated businesses’ own risk assessments, along with supervisors’ risk assessments and other sources of risk information and intelligence.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that statutory pre-enforcement requirements for council tax debt include mandatory affordability checks, vulnerability identification and pauses in enforcement while residents are engaging with local authorities.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Government has published a technical consultation, targeted at local authorities and debt advice organisations, on proposed statutory steps for councils to take before formal council tax enforcement action, alongside accompanying guidance on other actions councils should consider before enforcement.

This follows the Government’s response to its public consultation on modernising council tax administration, which announced wider reforms to council tax collection and enforcement. The technical consultation seeks views from local authorities and key stakeholders on how councils should support vulnerable taxpayers before moving to formal enforcement. The consultation closes on 29 July and can be found here.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what protections will be put in place for households already in council tax arrears to prevent escalation action while they engage with their local authority to agree sustainable repayment arrangements.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Government has published a technical consultation, targeted at local authorities and debt advice organisations, on proposed statutory steps for councils to take before formal council tax enforcement action, alongside accompanying guidance on other actions councils should consider before enforcement.

This follows the Government’s response to its public consultation on modernising council tax administration, which announced wider reforms to council tax collection and enforcement. The technical consultation seeks views from local authorities and key stakeholders on how councils should support vulnerable taxpayers before moving to formal enforcement. The consultation closes on 29 July and can be found here.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, whether his Department plans to review Council Tax Reduction schemes, minimum payment policies and the overall affordability of council tax for low income households.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Government remains committed to keeping all taxes and elements of local government finance system under review and will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the system, considering options for reform where there is clear evidence that change would deliver better outcomes for residents and councils alike.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, whether he plans to introduce restrictions on the use of enforcement agents for council tax debt in cases where households are in receipt of Council Tax Reduction, are identified as vulnerable or are actively engaging with repayment plans.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

This Government is committed to introducing several reforms to support taxpayers in managing their council tax bills. These include giving them more time to resolve any debts ahead of enforcement and agree sustainable payment plans with their councils. It is ultimately for councils to assess which actions are necessary and appropriate to recover debt. The Government will publish guidance on how councils can support households in managing council tax debt.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, whether his Department has undertaken or commissioned analysis of the fiscal implications of restoring pay to its 2008 inflation-adjusted value for (a) local government and (b) school support staff pay under the National Joint Council (NJC) arrangements.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

Central government does not monitor this. Local authorities are independent employers and it is for them to set levels of pay in negotiation with trade unions.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, whether his Department has undertaken or commissioned analysis of the fiscal implications of restoring pay to its 2008 inflation-adjusted value for (a) local government and (b) school support staff pay under the National Joint Council (NJC) arrangements.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

Central government does not monitor this. Local authorities are independent employers and it is for them to set levels of pay in negotiation with trade unions.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what assessment his Department has made of the real-terms value of (a) local government and (b) school support staff pay under the National Joint Council (NJC) arrangements compared with 2008 levels.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

Central government does not monitor this. Local authorities are independent employers and it is for them to set levels of pay in negotiation with trade unions.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of capped council tax liability order costs on low income households, and whether he is considering exemptions or reductions for those least able to pay.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Government has published a technical consultation, targeted at local authorities and debt advice organisations, on proposed statutory steps for councils to take before formal council tax enforcement action, alongside accompanying guidance on other actions councils should consider before enforcement.

This follows the Government’s response to its public consultation on modernising council tax administration, which announced wider reforms to council tax collection and enforcement. The technical consultation seeks views from local authorities and key stakeholders on how councils should support vulnerable taxpayers before moving to formal enforcement. The consultation closes on 29 July and can be found here.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, how he will ensure consistent application of council tax enforcement reforms across local authorities, including minimum standards on affordable repayment offers and advice signposting prior to court action.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Government has published a technical consultation, targeted at local authorities and debt advice organisations, on proposed statutory steps for councils to take before formal council tax enforcement action, alongside accompanying guidance on other actions councils should consider before enforcement.

This follows the Government’s response to its public consultation on modernising council tax administration, which announced wider reforms to council tax collection and enforcement. The technical consultation seeks views from local authorities and key stakeholders on how councils should support vulnerable taxpayers before moving to formal enforcement. The consultation closes on 29 July and can be found here.

Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, how individuals are informed by his Department that decisions affecting them have been taken (a) in whole and (b) in part by automated means.

Answered by Kate Dearden - Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)

The Department does not currently have tools, products or processes that rely on automated decision-making (ADM).

Individuals are informed about how their personal data is processed through Privacy Notices, which are kept under review and updated where required.

If ADM is introduced, transparency requirements would apply as soon as the Department obtains individuals’ data for solely ADM. Articles 13 and 14 of the UK GDPR require organisations to provide privacy information about the existence of solely ADM. Where decisions are supported by automation but involve meaningful human input that influences the outcome, they would not be considered solely automated decisions.

Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what steps his Department has taken to ensure that human oversight of automated decisions is (a) substantive and (b) effective.

Answered by Kate Dearden - Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)

The Department does not currently have tools, products or processes that rely on automated decision-making. Reforms to the solely automated decision-making provisions in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 make clear that such decisions are those made without meaningful human involvement, helping to prevent 'rubber stamping' of decisions. The Information Commissioner's Office guidance states that human involvement must be active and not merely a token gesture to be meaningful. Adoption of that type of approach in the Department would comply with legal requirements and associated guidance through amendments to existing governance processes.

Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, on what basis Automated Decision-Making in his Department are being made.

Answered by Kate Dearden - Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)

The Department for Business and Trade does not use automated decision-making to make decisions about individuals or businesses that produce legal or similarly significant effects without meaningful human involvement. Where automated tools are used to support decision-making, outputs are reviewed by departmental officials and final decisions remain subject to human judgement.

Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what steps his Department is taking to ensure compliance with data protection requirements under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 relating to the processing of special category data, including data relating to health or protected characteristics.

Answered by Kate Dearden - Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)

Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) are automatically triggered within the Department's governance system where a processing activity involves the use of special category data, including health data or data relating to protected characteristics. Data Protection advisors review these assessments and provide advice to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place in line with UK GDPR requirements and Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) guidance. Where substantial public interest is relied upon as the condition for processing special category data, an Appropriate Policy Document is put in place.

Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what guidance his Department has issued internally to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 in relation to automated decision-making.

Answered by Kate Dearden - Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)

The department does not currently have tools, products or processes that rely on automated decision making. Future plans include making decisions about businesses including eligibility and will have the necessary safeguards. The department is in the process of introducing this technology in relation to new work being undertaken and plans to issue future guidance.

Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, whether his Department maintains a (a) public register and (b) internal inventory of automated decision-making systems.

Answered by Kate Dearden - Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)

The Department does not currently use automated decision-making systems and therefore does not maintain a dedicated public or internal register of such systems. Should the Department introduce automated decision-making in future, it would ensure compliance with applicable legal and governance requirements, including the safeguards set out in the UK GDPR and the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. Public-facing algorithmic tools may be recorded through the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard, and the Department maintains internal governance records relating to AI tools and systems.

Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what safeguards he has implemented to ensure compliance with statutory requirements relating to automated decision-making, including rights to information, human review and challenge in the context of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.

Answered by Kate Dearden - Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)

The Department does not currently have tools, products or processes that rely on automated decision-making. Article 22C of the UK GDPR contains safeguards for solely automated decisions that have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. The Department processes a relatively low volume of personal data, and decisions are more commonly made about organisations rather than individuals.

Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what steps his Department has taken to assess and mitigate risks of (a) bias and (b) discrimination arising from the use of automated decision-making systems.

Answered by Kate Dearden - Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)

The Department does not currently use tools, products or processes that rely on automated decision making.

Our AI Governance process assesses all AI-related use cases for potential bias and discrimination. Where risks are identified, additional governance and assurance activities are required before approval is granted.

The UK’s data protection framework is underpinned by principles of lawfulness, fairness, transparency and accountability. The Government commissioned ICO guidance has been published on automated decision-making, profiling and artificial intelligence to support organisations in complying with their obligations. If the department makes use of ADM then it will fully comply with legal requirements and associated guidance.

Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what processes are in place to enable individuals to seek human review and to challenge decisions made by automated systems in the context of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.

Answered by Kate Dearden - Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)

The department does not currently have tools, products or processes that rely on automated decision making.

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 clarified safeguards relating to solely automated decision-making. Individuals who are subject to significant decisions made solely through automated processing must be provided with information about the decision and have the right to challenge it, make representations and obtain human intervention.

Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, how his Department defines and ensures meaningful human involvement in decisions supported and made by automated systems in the context of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.

Answered by Kate Dearden - Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)

If the Department adopts automated decision-making (ADM), relevant legal requirements and associated guidance would be followed. The Government does not prescribe a single definition of meaningful human involvement, as this is context specific. Current ICO guidance states that human involvement must be active and not merely a token gesture to be meaningful. It is for each data controller to determine and demonstrate whether processing includes meaningful human involvement and to ensure compliance with applicable data protection legislation. The Department does not currently have tools, products or processes that rely on automated decision-making.

Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, how are automated decision-making systems used in relation to civil service employment, including recruitment, performance management, discipline, or allocation of work.

Answered by Kate Dearden - Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)

The Department for Business and Trade does not currently use automated decision-making systems to make binding decisions relating to civil service employment, including recruitment, performance management, disciplinary processes or the allocation of work. The UK’s data protection legislation does not lay down specific rules regarding particular employment systems. Where individuals are subject to significant decisions based solely on automated processing, the legislation provides safeguards including rights to information, challenge and human intervention.

Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what discussions his Department has had with recognised trade unions regarding the (a) introduction and (b) use of automated decision-making systems affecting staff.

Answered by Kate Dearden - Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)

The Plan to Make Work Pay set out that the government would engage with workers, trade unions, employers and experts to examine how technology is impacting work, jobs and skills.

The Department has engaged with recognised trade unions on workplace monitoring technologies, algorithmic management systems and automated decision-making.

The Government will continue to engage with trade unions and other key stakeholders to inform policy development. A public consultation was launched on Wednesday 8 July and those with an interest are encouraged to respond.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, to what extent are automated decision-making systems used in relation to employment by her Department, including recruitment, performance management, discipline, or allocation of work.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)

There is no automated decision making in DCMS affecting individuals. Any automated outputs are always verified, edited, reviewed and owned by a human. Our training and guidance to staff reinforce these principles.

Processing of personal data through part automation is subject to a Data Protection Impact Assessment, confirming the lawful basis for processing, as well as human oversight and accountability on any output.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what steps her Department has taken to ensure that human oversight of automated decisions is (a) substantive and (b) effective.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)

There is no automated decision making in DCMS affecting individuals. Any automated outputs are always verified, edited, reviewed and owned by a human. Our training and guidance to staff reinforce these principles.

Processing of personal data through part automation is subject to a Data Protection Impact Assessment, confirming the lawful basis for processing, as well as human oversight and accountability on any output.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what consultation has taken place with recognised trade unions regarding the introduction or use of automated decision-making systems affecting staff within her Department.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)

While no formal consultation has yet taken place, we recently met with our recognised trade unions to provide an update on AI adoption in the department. There is currently no use of automated decision making within the department; however, should circumstances change, the department will meet its obligations under our trade union partnership arrangements and engage fully through formal routes.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what steps has the Department taken to assess and mitigate risks of bias or discrimination arising from the use of automated decision-making systems.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)

There is no automated decision making in DCMS affecting individuals. Any automated outputs are always verified, edited, reviewed and owned by a human. Our training and guidance to staff reinforce these principles.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whether the Department maintains a public register or internal inventory of automated decision-making systems.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)

There is no automated decision making in DCMS affecting individuals. Any automated outputs are always verified, edited, reviewed and owned by a human. Our training and guidance to staff reinforce these principles.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, given the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 what safeguards have been implemented to ensure compliance with statutory requirements relating to automated decision-making, including rights to information, human review, and challenge.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)

There is no automated decision making in DCMS affecting individuals. Any automated outputs are always verified, edited, reviewed and owned by a human. Our training and guidance to staff reinforce these principles.

Processing of personal data through part automation is subject to a Data Protection Impact Assessment, confirming the lawful basis for processing, as well as human oversight and accountability on any output.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, given the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 what guidance has the Department issued internally to ensure compliance with the provisions of the 2025 Act in relation to automated decision-making.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)

There is no automated decision making in DCMS affecting individuals. Any automated outputs are always verified, edited, reviewed and owned by a human. Our training and guidance to staff reinforce these principles.

Processing of personal data through part automation is subject to a Data Protection Impact Assessment, confirming the lawful basis for processing, as well as human oversight and accountability on any output.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on what basis Automated Decision-Making in her Department are being made.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)

There is no automated decision making in DCMS affecting individuals. Any automated outputs are always verified, edited, reviewed and owned by a human. Our training and guidance to staff reinforce these principles.

Processing of personal data through part automation is subject to a Data Protection Impact Assessment, confirming the lawful basis for processing, as well as human oversight and accountability on any output.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, how her Department define and ensure meaningful human involvement in decisions supported or made by automated systems in the context of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)

There is no automated decision making in DCMS affecting individuals. Any automated outputs are always verified, edited, reviewed and owned by a human. Our training and guidance to staff reinforce these principles.

Processing of personal data through part automation is subject to a Data Protection Impact Assessment, confirming the lawful basis for processing, as well as human oversight and accountability on any output.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what processes are in place within his Department to enable individuals to seek human review and to challenge decisions made by automated systems.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)

There is no automated decision making in DCMS affecting individuals. Any automated outputs are always verified, edited, reviewed and owned by a human. Our training and guidance to staff reinforce these principles.

Processing of personal data through part automation is subject to a Data Protection Impact Assessment, confirming the lawful basis for processing, as well as human oversight and accountability on any output.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, how individuals are informed by his Department that decisions affecting them have been taken, in whole or in part, by automated means.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)

There is no automated decision making in DCMS affecting individuals. Any automated outputs are always verified, edited, reviewed and owned by a human. Our training and guidance to staff reinforce these principles.

Processing of personal data through part automation is subject to a Data Protection Impact Assessment, confirming the lawful basis for processing, as well as human oversight and accountability on any output.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the rate at which Universal Credit claimants aged 18 to 24 are sanctioned compared with older claimants; and whether he plans to review the application of sanctions to different age groups.

Answered by Diana Johnson - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

The latest published Universal Credit sanction rate figures for claimants aged 20 to 24 for February 2026 are available in the latest Benefit Sanction Statistics bulletin and accompanying data tables to February 2026, as well as through Stat-Xplore from the UC Sanction Rates dataset.

The Department keeps the operation of conditionality and sanctions under continuous review to ensure the system remains fair and proportionate.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether his Department has assessed the impact of Universal Credit sanctions on the confidence, wellbeing and long-term employment outcomes of young people aged 18 to 24.

Answered by Diana Johnson - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

The latest published Universal Credit sanction rate figures for claimants aged 20 to 24 for February 2026 are available in the latest Benefit Sanction Statistics bulletin and accompanying data tables to February 2026, as well as through Stat-Xplore from the UC Sanction Rates dataset.

The Department keeps the operation of conditionality and sanctions under continuous review to ensure the system remains fair and proportionate.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, given the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 how does the Department ensure compliance with data protection requirements relating to the processing of special category data, including data relating to health or protected characteristics.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)

Processing of personal data, and especially special category data, is subject to a Data Protection Impact Assessment, confirming the lawful basis for processing. There is no automated decision making in DCMS affecting individuals. The DPIA process identifies potential risks and documents the appropriate measures to mitigate those risks.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of Universal Credit conditionality on the likelihood of young people entering employment that matches their skills, qualifications and long-term career aspirations.

Answered by Diana Johnson - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

As part of the Government’s investment of an additional £2.5 billion over the next three years in the Youth Guarantee and the Growth and Skills Levy, young people are now benefiting from expanded Jobcentre support through the Youth Guarantee. This enhanced support provides young people on Universal Credit and looking for work tailored employment support and a structured path into a job, apprenticeship, work experience, SWAP, learning or training from their first appointment in the Jobcentre.

Work coaches have conversations with claimants to understand their individual circumstances and experience, including taking into account a claimant's skills, qualifications and long-term career aspirations, in order to tailor their work-related requirements and employment support opportunities.

For some claimants with a strong employment history, work coaches may also agree a period during which job search activity is focused on roles similar to their previous occupation. However, it may not always be possible to support claimants into roles that meet their skills and aspirations, for example, when their preferred roles are not available in the local labour market. In these cases, Work Coaches will support them into other suitable employment opportunities.

As part of our broader plans to Get Britain Working, we are creating a Jobs and Careers Service, with an enhanced focus on skills and careers. As part of this, we have set up three Pathfinders to test how employment, skills and wider support can work together to meet local labour market needs. This includes a Pathfinder based in the East Midlands, which is focussed on young people (aged 16-24), particularly those not in education, employment or training (NEET), exploring how tailored support, skills provision and Youth Hub models can help young people to move closer to, enter, and remain in work.

Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, given the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, what processes are in place to enable individuals to seek human review and to challenge decisions made by automated systems.

Answered by James Frith - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

To the extent that the Cabinet Office relies on automated decision making, we rely on our prerogative powers as a Crown department rather than specific legislation.

Article 22C of the UK GDPR contains safeguards specific to solely automated decision-making, including profiling, that have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. Solely automated decision-making is decision-making without “any meaningful human involvement”.

Where individuals have been subject to decisions based solely on automated processing with legal or significant effects on them, the legislation also requires organisations to provide the individual with information about the decision that has been taken, and the right for them to contest that decision and to obtain human intervention on it, if they believe the decision is incorrect or unfair.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which is the independent regulator for data protection has taken steps to provide guidance on how data protection law applies specifically to AI systems. The ICO recently consulted on its updated guidance about automated decision-making, including profiling, in light of the reforms to the rules in the Data (Use and Access) Act.

The Cabinet Office mandates the completion of Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) early in the design phase of any project involving profiling or automated decision-making. All DPIAs are reviewed by data protection specialists, including the Deputy Data Protection Officer and Data Protection Officer, to ensure that data protection legislation will be complied with, including requirements for meaningful human involvement in automated systems. This process involves reference to ICO guidance, the Data and AI Ethics Frameworks, and other relevant authoritative guidance.

Data subjects’ right to be informed is upheld by the Cabinet Office through privacy notices, which are also reviewed during the DPIA process. These include information on how and why personal data is processed, associated information including any automated decision-making, and how to contact, challenge, and complain about any aspect of personal data processing by the Cabinet Office.

The Cabinet Office provides ongoing training, communications, and bespoke support, as well as quarterly assessments and periodic audit validations of Business Units to ensure data protection policies, such as the DPIA process and data subject rights handling, are being followed.

Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, given the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, what measures are in place to ensure that human oversight is substantive and effective.

Answered by James Frith - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

To the extent that the Cabinet Office relies on automated decision making, we rely on our prerogative powers as a Crown department rather than specific legislation.

Article 22C of the UK GDPR contains safeguards specific to solely automated decision-making, including profiling, that have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. Solely automated decision-making is decision-making without “any meaningful human involvement”.

Where individuals have been subject to decisions based solely on automated processing with legal or significant effects on them, the legislation also requires organisations to provide the individual with information about the decision that has been taken, and the right for them to contest that decision and to obtain human intervention on it, if they believe the decision is incorrect or unfair.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which is the independent regulator for data protection has taken steps to provide guidance on how data protection law applies specifically to AI systems. The ICO recently consulted on its updated guidance about automated decision-making, including profiling, in light of the reforms to the rules in the Data (Use and Access) Act.

The Cabinet Office mandates the completion of Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) early in the design phase of any project involving profiling or automated decision-making. All DPIAs are reviewed by data protection specialists, including the Deputy Data Protection Officer and Data Protection Officer, to ensure that data protection legislation will be complied with, including requirements for meaningful human involvement in automated systems. This process involves reference to ICO guidance, the Data and AI Ethics Frameworks, and other relevant authoritative guidance.

Data subjects’ right to be informed is upheld by the Cabinet Office through privacy notices, which are also reviewed during the DPIA process. These include information on how and why personal data is processed, associated information including any automated decision-making, and how to contact, challenge, and complain about any aspect of personal data processing by the Cabinet Office.

The Cabinet Office provides ongoing training, communications, and bespoke support, as well as quarterly assessments and periodic audit validations of Business Units to ensure data protection policies, such as the DPIA process and data subject rights handling, are being followed.

Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, given the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, what safeguards have been implemented to ensure compliance with statutory requirements relating to automated decision-making, including rights to information, human review, and challenge.

Answered by James Frith - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

To the extent that the Cabinet Office relies on automated decision making, we rely on our prerogative powers as a Crown department rather than specific legislation.

Article 22C of the UK GDPR contains safeguards specific to solely automated decision-making, including profiling, that have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. Solely automated decision-making is decision-making without “any meaningful human involvement”.

Where individuals have been subject to decisions based solely on automated processing with legal or significant effects on them, the legislation also requires organisations to provide the individual with information about the decision that has been taken, and the right for them to contest that decision and to obtain human intervention on it, if they believe the decision is incorrect or unfair.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which is the independent regulator for data protection has taken steps to provide guidance on how data protection law applies specifically to AI systems. The ICO recently consulted on its updated guidance about automated decision-making, including profiling, in light of the reforms to the rules in the Data (Use and Access) Act.

The Cabinet Office mandates the completion of Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) early in the design phase of any project involving profiling or automated decision-making. All DPIAs are reviewed by data protection specialists, including the Deputy Data Protection Officer and Data Protection Officer, to ensure that data protection legislation will be complied with, including requirements for meaningful human involvement in automated systems. This process involves reference to ICO guidance, the Data and AI Ethics Frameworks, and other relevant authoritative guidance.

Data subjects’ right to be informed is upheld by the Cabinet Office through privacy notices, which are also reviewed during the DPIA process. These include information on how and why personal data is processed, associated information including any automated decision-making, and how to contact, challenge, and complain about any aspect of personal data processing by the Cabinet Office.

The Cabinet Office provides ongoing training, communications, and bespoke support, as well as quarterly assessments and periodic audit validations of Business Units to ensure data protection policies, such as the DPIA process and data subject rights handling, are being followed.

Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, given the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, under what statutory authority are significant Automated Decision-Making being made or intended to be made.

Answered by James Frith - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

To the extent that the Cabinet Office relies on automated decision making, we rely on our prerogative powers as a Crown department rather than specific legislation.

Article 22C of the UK GDPR contains safeguards specific to solely automated decision-making, including profiling, that have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. Solely automated decision-making is decision-making without “any meaningful human involvement”.

Where individuals have been subject to decisions based solely on automated processing with legal or significant effects on them, the legislation also requires organisations to provide the individual with information about the decision that has been taken, and the right for them to contest that decision and to obtain human intervention on it, if they believe the decision is incorrect or unfair.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which is the independent regulator for data protection has taken steps to provide guidance on how data protection law applies specifically to AI systems. The ICO recently consulted on its updated guidance about automated decision-making, including profiling, in light of the reforms to the rules in the Data (Use and Access) Act.

The Cabinet Office mandates the completion of Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) early in the design phase of any project involving profiling or automated decision-making. All DPIAs are reviewed by data protection specialists, including the Deputy Data Protection Officer and Data Protection Officer, to ensure that data protection legislation will be complied with, including requirements for meaningful human involvement in automated systems. This process involves reference to ICO guidance, the Data and AI Ethics Frameworks, and other relevant authoritative guidance.

Data subjects’ right to be informed is upheld by the Cabinet Office through privacy notices, which are also reviewed during the DPIA process. These include information on how and why personal data is processed, associated information including any automated decision-making, and how to contact, challenge, and complain about any aspect of personal data processing by the Cabinet Office.

The Cabinet Office provides ongoing training, communications, and bespoke support, as well as quarterly assessments and periodic audit validations of Business Units to ensure data protection policies, such as the DPIA process and data subject rights handling, are being followed.

Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, given the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, how individuals are informed that decisions affecting them have been taken, in whole or in part, by automated means.

Answered by James Frith - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

To the extent that the Cabinet Office relies on automated decision making, we rely on our prerogative powers as a Crown department rather than specific legislation.

Article 22C of the UK GDPR contains safeguards specific to solely automated decision-making, including profiling, that have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. Solely automated decision-making is decision-making without “any meaningful human involvement”.

Where individuals have been subject to decisions based solely on automated processing with legal or significant effects on them, the legislation also requires organisations to provide the individual with information about the decision that has been taken, and the right for them to contest that decision and to obtain human intervention on it, if they believe the decision is incorrect or unfair.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which is the independent regulator for data protection has taken steps to provide guidance on how data protection law applies specifically to AI systems. The ICO recently consulted on its updated guidance about automated decision-making, including profiling, in light of the reforms to the rules in the Data (Use and Access) Act.

The Cabinet Office mandates the completion of Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) early in the design phase of any project involving profiling or automated decision-making. All DPIAs are reviewed by data protection specialists, including the Deputy Data Protection Officer and Data Protection Officer, to ensure that data protection legislation will be complied with, including requirements for meaningful human involvement in automated systems. This process involves reference to ICO guidance, the Data and AI Ethics Frameworks, and other relevant authoritative guidance.

Data subjects’ right to be informed is upheld by the Cabinet Office through privacy notices, which are also reviewed during the DPIA process. These include information on how and why personal data is processed, associated information including any automated decision-making, and how to contact, challenge, and complain about any aspect of personal data processing by the Cabinet Office.

The Cabinet Office provides ongoing training, communications, and bespoke support, as well as quarterly assessments and periodic audit validations of Business Units to ensure data protection policies, such as the DPIA process and data subject rights handling, are being followed.

Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what steps has the Department taken to assess and help prevent bias and discrimination following the use of automated decision-making systems.

Answered by James Frith - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Article 22C of the UK GDPR contains safeguards specific to solely automated decision-making, including profiling, that have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. Solely automated decision-making is decision-making without “any meaningful human involvement”.

Where individuals have been subject to decisions based solely on automated processing with legal or significant effects on them, the legislation also requires organisations to provide the individual with information about the decision that has been taken, and the right for them to contest that decision and to obtain human intervention on it, if they believe the decision is incorrect or unfair.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which is the independent regulator for data protection has taken steps to provide guidance on how data protection law applies specifically to AI systems.

The government does not wish to be overly prescriptive by defining meaningful human involvement, as it is context specific. ICO guidance can be more appropriate than legislation for providing such a definition or interpretation, given guidance can be more easily updated and can provide detail and nuances that legislation would not usually capture. Current ICO guidance sets out that “human involvement [in the decision making] has to be active and not just a token gesture” to be meaningful”. It is for each data controller to determine and be able to demonstrate whether their processing includes meaningful human involvement, as this is context specific.

As such, the government believes in the importance of the ICO continuing to provide its views on interpretation of terms used in the legislation. Our reforms do not remove the ICO's ability to do this, or to advise Parliament or the government if it considers that the law needs clarification.

The Cabinet Office ensures 'meaningful' human involvement by requiring that active oversight is applied by informed staff who possess the clear authority and technical capability to overturn automated outputs.

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 introduced reforms to the rules on solely automated decision-making (ADM), while maintaining safeguards for individuals. The Act clarifies that organisations must inform individuals when significant decisions are taken solely by automated means, and individuals retain rights to challenge such decisions and obtain human intervention.

The Government has required the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as the independent data protection regulator to produce a Code of Practice on AI and ADM. This Code will provide authoritative guidance to support organisations with their data protection compliance in this area.

The UK’s data protection framework is underpinned by principles of lawfulness, fairness, transparency and accountability. The Government has required the ICO to produce a Code of Practice on Artificial Intelligence and solely automated decision-making, and the ICO has published guidance on automated decision-making, profiling and artificial intelligence to support organisations in complying with their obligations.

To support this, the Cabinet Office has updated internal guidance which mandates the completion of Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) early in the design phase of any project involving profiling or automated decision-making. These assessments proactively evaluate bias risks against the HMG 'Ethics and Bias' guidance, while targeted testing ensures compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) by preventing system designs from creating unfair outcomes for protected groups.

Furthermore, data subjects’ right to be informed is upheld by the Cabinet Office through privacy notices, which are also reviewed during the DPIA process. These include information on how and why personal data is processed, associated information including any automated decision-making, and how to contact, challenge, and complain about any aspect of personal data processing by the Cabinet Office.

The Cabinet Office has issued communications, live training, and updated internal guidance across the business to ensure full operational compliance with this reformed framework.

Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, given the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, what guidance has the Department issued internally to ensure compliance with the provisions of the 2025 Act in relation to automated decision-making.

Answered by James Frith - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Article 22C of the UK GDPR contains safeguards specific to solely automated decision-making, including profiling, that have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. Solely automated decision-making is decision-making without “any meaningful human involvement”.

Where individuals have been subject to decisions based solely on automated processing with legal or significant effects on them, the legislation also requires organisations to provide the individual with information about the decision that has been taken, and the right for them to contest that decision and to obtain human intervention on it, if they believe the decision is incorrect or unfair.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which is the independent regulator for data protection has taken steps to provide guidance on how data protection law applies specifically to AI systems.

The government does not wish to be overly prescriptive by defining meaningful human involvement, as it is context specific. ICO guidance can be more appropriate than legislation for providing such a definition or interpretation, given guidance can be more easily updated and can provide detail and nuances that legislation would not usually capture. Current ICO guidance sets out that “human involvement [in the decision making] has to be active and not just a token gesture” to be meaningful”. It is for each data controller to determine and be able to demonstrate whether their processing includes meaningful human involvement, as this is context specific.

As such, the government believes in the importance of the ICO continuing to provide its views on interpretation of terms used in the legislation. Our reforms do not remove the ICO's ability to do this, or to advise Parliament or the government if it considers that the law needs clarification.

The Cabinet Office ensures 'meaningful' human involvement by requiring that active oversight is applied by informed staff who possess the clear authority and technical capability to overturn automated outputs.

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 introduced reforms to the rules on solely automated decision-making (ADM), while maintaining safeguards for individuals. The Act clarifies that organisations must inform individuals when significant decisions are taken solely by automated means, and individuals retain rights to challenge such decisions and obtain human intervention.

The Government has required the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as the independent data protection regulator to produce a Code of Practice on AI and ADM. This Code will provide authoritative guidance to support organisations with their data protection compliance in this area.

The UK’s data protection framework is underpinned by principles of lawfulness, fairness, transparency and accountability. The Government has required the ICO to produce a Code of Practice on Artificial Intelligence and solely automated decision-making, and the ICO has published guidance on automated decision-making, profiling and artificial intelligence to support organisations in complying with their obligations.

To support this, the Cabinet Office has updated internal guidance which mandates the completion of Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) early in the design phase of any project involving profiling or automated decision-making. These assessments proactively evaluate bias risks against the HMG 'Ethics and Bias' guidance, while targeted testing ensures compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) by preventing system designs from creating unfair outcomes for protected groups.

Furthermore, data subjects’ right to be informed is upheld by the Cabinet Office through privacy notices, which are also reviewed during the DPIA process. These include information on how and why personal data is processed, associated information including any automated decision-making, and how to contact, challenge, and complain about any aspect of personal data processing by the Cabinet Office.

The Cabinet Office has issued communications, live training, and updated internal guidance across the business to ensure full operational compliance with this reformed framework.

Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, given the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, how does the Department define and ensure meaningful human involvement in decisions supported or made by automated systems.

Answered by James Frith - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Article 22C of the UK GDPR contains safeguards specific to solely automated decision-making, including profiling, that have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. Solely automated decision-making is decision-making without “any meaningful human involvement”.

Where individuals have been subject to decisions based solely on automated processing with legal or significant effects on them, the legislation also requires organisations to provide the individual with information about the decision that has been taken, and the right for them to contest that decision and to obtain human intervention on it, if they believe the decision is incorrect or unfair.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which is the independent regulator for data protection has taken steps to provide guidance on how data protection law applies specifically to AI systems.

The government does not wish to be overly prescriptive by defining meaningful human involvement, as it is context specific. ICO guidance can be more appropriate than legislation for providing such a definition or interpretation, given guidance can be more easily updated and can provide detail and nuances that legislation would not usually capture. Current ICO guidance sets out that “human involvement [in the decision making] has to be active and not just a token gesture” to be meaningful”. It is for each data controller to determine and be able to demonstrate whether their processing includes meaningful human involvement, as this is context specific.

As such, the government believes in the importance of the ICO continuing to provide its views on interpretation of terms used in the legislation. Our reforms do not remove the ICO's ability to do this, or to advise Parliament or the government if it considers that the law needs clarification.

The Cabinet Office ensures 'meaningful' human involvement by requiring that active oversight is applied by informed staff who possess the clear authority and technical capability to overturn automated outputs.

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 introduced reforms to the rules on solely automated decision-making (ADM), while maintaining safeguards for individuals. The Act clarifies that organisations must inform individuals when significant decisions are taken solely by automated means, and individuals retain rights to challenge such decisions and obtain human intervention.

The Government has required the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as the independent data protection regulator to produce a Code of Practice on AI and ADM. This Code will provide authoritative guidance to support organisations with their data protection compliance in this area.

The UK’s data protection framework is underpinned by principles of lawfulness, fairness, transparency and accountability. The Government has required the ICO to produce a Code of Practice on Artificial Intelligence and solely automated decision-making, and the ICO has published guidance on automated decision-making, profiling and artificial intelligence to support organisations in complying with their obligations.

To support this, the Cabinet Office has updated internal guidance which mandates the completion of Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) early in the design phase of any project involving profiling or automated decision-making. These assessments proactively evaluate bias risks against the HMG 'Ethics and Bias' guidance, while targeted testing ensures compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) by preventing system designs from creating unfair outcomes for protected groups.

Furthermore, data subjects’ right to be informed is upheld by the Cabinet Office through privacy notices, which are also reviewed during the DPIA process. These include information on how and why personal data is processed, associated information including any automated decision-making, and how to contact, challenge, and complain about any aspect of personal data processing by the Cabinet Office.

The Cabinet Office has issued communications, live training, and updated internal guidance across the business to ensure full operational compliance with this reformed framework.

Prohibiting Members of Parliament from having paid second jobs

Strike action and industrial dispute at Tower Hamlets leisure centres

Richard Pengelly

NEU dispute and strike action at St Paul’s Way Trust school

Durham Miners’ Gala 2026

Found: corporations 29 Commons Library Research Briefing, 8 July 2026 Independent review of Teesworks Andy McDonald