Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what guidance her Department provides to police forces on including children in live facial recognition camera watchlists.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

Guidance on watchlists is provided by the College of Policing in the form of an Authorised Professional Practice. This sets out the categories of people who may be included on a watchlist, which depends on the nature of the deployment. Watchlists must be tailored to a specific policing objective and reviewed before each deployment to ensure they meet the legal tests of necessity and proportionality.

Watchlists may include individuals wanted by the police or the courts, suspects, missing or vulnerable people, or those posing a risk of harm to themselves or others. In some cases, this may include vulnerable individuals such as missing children.

Although there is a legal framework in place, it is complicated, inflexible and difficult for the public and police to understand. That is why we have launched a consultation to support the development of a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what guidance her Department provides to police forces on their deployment of live facial recognition cameras.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

Guidance on watchlists is provided by the College of Policing in the form of an Authorised Professional Practice. This sets out the categories of people who may be included on a watchlist, which depends on the nature of the deployment. Watchlists must be tailored to a specific policing objective and reviewed before each deployment to ensure they meet the legal tests of necessity and proportionality.

Watchlists may include individuals wanted by the police or the courts, suspects, missing or vulnerable people, or those posing a risk of harm to themselves or others. In some cases, this may include vulnerable individuals such as missing children.

Although there is a legal framework in place, it is complicated, inflexible and difficult for the public and police to understand. That is why we have launched a consultation to support the development of a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has assessed the potential implications for open justice of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision to bar the press and public from recent proceedings.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) is an independent statutory tribunal that hears cases of alleged misconduct by solicitors, registered European Lawyers, registered foreign lawyers, and employees of solicitors’ firms.

The SDT is committed to upholding the principles of open justice. Its default position is that hearings should be held in public and that any departure from this principle must be justified as an exception. Rule 35 of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019 governs the SDT's power to hold a private hearing and stipulates the specific exceptions where hearings may be private. The primary ground for holding a private hearing is exceptional hardship or prejudice to a party, witness, or affected person. In addition, a private hearing may be necessary where a public hearing would prejudice the interests of justice. Details of the SDT’s approach to conducting hearings, or parts of a hearing, in private are available here: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/resource/policy-public-private-hearings/.

Whilst the Ministry of Justice does not intervene in individual cases or decisions of the SDT, we keep the underlying legislative framework under review to ensure it continues to provide an effective and transparent disciplinary system.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what is the average time between a Child Maintenance Service complaint being received by the Independent Case Examiner and the issuing of a final decision.

Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)

As of 31 October 2025, Child Maintenance Service (CMS) cases in investigation waited an average of 25 weeks from the date they were received by the Independent Case Examiner’s office to the date they were allocated to an Investigator. This is a significant improvement compared to January 2024, when CMS cases in investigation had waited an average of 66 weeks from receipt date to the date they were allocated to an Investigator. The Independent Case Examiner’s office continually seeks to improve this further.

In CMS cases cleared between 01/04/25 – 31/10/25, it took an average of 33 weeks from the date complaints were received into the Independent Case Examiners office to the date a decision was made and issued. The 33 weeks is made up of 25 weeks awaiting allocation to an Investigator and 8 weeks in investigation.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what is the average time between a Child Maintenance Service complaint being received by the Independent Case Examiner and its allocation to an investigator.

Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)

As of 31 October 2025, Child Maintenance Service (CMS) cases in investigation waited an average of 25 weeks from the date they were received by the Independent Case Examiner’s office to the date they were allocated to an Investigator. This is a significant improvement compared to January 2024, when CMS cases in investigation had waited an average of 66 weeks from receipt date to the date they were allocated to an Investigator. The Independent Case Examiner’s office continually seeks to improve this further.

In CMS cases cleared between 01/04/25 – 31/10/25, it took an average of 33 weeks from the date complaints were received into the Independent Case Examiners office to the date a decision was made and issued. The 33 weeks is made up of 25 weeks awaiting allocation to an Investigator and 8 weeks in investigation.

Jury trial rights

Found: made oral representations: • Sam Rushworth: International Men’s Day • Sir Iain Duncan Smith, David Davis

Found: It triggered the resignation of David Davis and Boris Johnson.