Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment her Department has made of the potential merits of compensation schemes for people wrongly identified by live facial recognition technology used by the police.

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

The Home Office has not assessed the potential merits of a specific compensation scheme for people wrongly identified by live facial recognition used by police.

The Home Office has not set a threshold for an acceptable proportion of misidentifications arising from police use of live facial recognition. However, police use of live facial recognition is subject to safeguards that are designed to minimise the risk of misidentifications. These are set out in the Authorised Professional Practice guidance by the College of Policing found here: Live facial recognition | College of Policing]. They must also comply with data protection, equality, and human rights laws and are subject to the Information Commissioner’s and Equality and Human Rights Commission’s oversight.

Following a possible live facial recognition alert, it is always a police officer on the ground who will decide what action, if any, to take. Facial recognition technology is not automated decision making – police officers and trained operators will always make the decisions about whether and how to use any suggested matches.

In November we launched a 10 public consultation, ending on 12 February to help shape a new framework on biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies. We want to hear views on when and how the technologies should be used, and what safeguards and oversight are needed. We are aware there have been concerns with the existing laws governing the use of facial recognition, and the consultation has been designed to explore these concerns by asking questions on additional safeguards around transparency, oversight and proportionality

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether her Department has set a threshold for an acceptable proportion of misidentifications arising from police use of live facial recognition.

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

The Home Office has not assessed the potential merits of a specific compensation scheme for people wrongly identified by live facial recognition used by police.

The Home Office has not set a threshold for an acceptable proportion of misidentifications arising from police use of live facial recognition. However, police use of live facial recognition is subject to safeguards that are designed to minimise the risk of misidentifications. These are set out in the Authorised Professional Practice guidance by the College of Policing found here: Live facial recognition | College of Policing]. They must also comply with data protection, equality, and human rights laws and are subject to the Information Commissioner’s and Equality and Human Rights Commission’s oversight.

Following a possible live facial recognition alert, it is always a police officer on the ground who will decide what action, if any, to take. Facial recognition technology is not automated decision making – police officers and trained operators will always make the decisions about whether and how to use any suggested matches.

In November we launched a 10 public consultation, ending on 12 February to help shape a new framework on biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies. We want to hear views on when and how the technologies should be used, and what safeguards and oversight are needed. We are aware there have been concerns with the existing laws governing the use of facial recognition, and the consultation has been designed to explore these concerns by asking questions on additional safeguards around transparency, oversight and proportionality

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which of her Department's officials informed the Metropolitan Police that the US would not be extraditing Omar al-Bayoumi in 2001.

Answered by Dan Jarvis - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)

The attacks on 9/11 were an appalling assault on freedom. The courage displayed by the American people in the aftermath and in the years since is extraordinary and our thoughts remain with the victims and survivors, as well as all who loved them.

It would be inappropriate to comment on an individual case. It is also long standing government policy, followed by successive governments, to neither confirm nor deny any extradition request in these circumstances.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what information her Department holds on the work of the Metropolitan Police in September 2001 on the possible extradition of Omar al Bayoumi.

Answered by Dan Jarvis - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)

The attacks on 9/11 were an appalling assault on freedom. The courage displayed by the American people in the aftermath and in the years since is extraordinary and our thoughts remain with the victims and survivors, as well as all who loved them.

It would be inappropriate to comment on an individual case. It is also long standing government policy, followed by successive governments, to neither confirm nor deny any extradition request in these circumstances.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what discussions her Department had with US counterparts on extraditing Omar al Bayoumi in 2001.

Answered by Dan Jarvis - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)

The attacks on 9/11 were an appalling assault on freedom. The courage displayed by the American people in the aftermath and in the years since is extraordinary and our thoughts remain with the victims and survivors, as well as all who loved them.

It would be inappropriate to comment on an individual case. It is also long standing government policy, followed by successive governments, to neither confirm nor deny any extradition request in these circumstances.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he has had with the Solicitors Regulation Authority on the operation of it complaints procedure for matters involving alleged Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

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

The Government has not held any discussions with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regarding its handling of complaints relating to Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). The SRA operates independently of Government, and it would therefore not be appropriate for the Government to comment on its decisions.

The SRA has taken a series of regulatory, guidance-based, and enforcement-related actions to address SLAPPs to tackle reports of related misconduct within the legal profession. This includes issuing a warning notice in 2022 setting out expectations on solicitors’ conduct in SLAPP-type cases, which was updated in 2024, and publishing accompanying guidance reminding solicitors and law firms of their wider professional obligations not to bring unmeritorious or abusive claims. However, I will raise this with the SRA to determine what additional action they might be able to take in this area.

The Government implemented the SLAPPs measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 in June 2025, which provides protection against SLAPPs relating to economic crime. While this represents a positive first step, we are considering all options for reform to ensure that all types of SLAPPs are addressed comprehensively.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what progress his Department has made on ensuring the adequacy of legal protections for journalists, academics, campaigners and other public-interest actors facing Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation that fall outside the scope of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.

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

The Government has not held any discussions with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regarding its handling of complaints relating to Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). The SRA operates independently of Government, and it would therefore not be appropriate for the Government to comment on its decisions.

The SRA has taken a series of regulatory, guidance-based, and enforcement-related actions to address SLAPPs to tackle reports of related misconduct within the legal profession. This includes issuing a warning notice in 2022 setting out expectations on solicitors’ conduct in SLAPP-type cases, which was updated in 2024, and publishing accompanying guidance reminding solicitors and law firms of their wider professional obligations not to bring unmeritorious or abusive claims. However, I will raise this with the SRA to determine what additional action they might be able to take in this area.

The Government implemented the SLAPPs measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 in June 2025, which provides protection against SLAPPs relating to economic crime. While this represents a positive first step, we are considering all options for reform to ensure that all types of SLAPPs are addressed comprehensively.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he has had with the Solicitors Regulation Authority on their approach to complaints involving alleged Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation activity, including concerns that such complaints are being closed without substantive investigation.

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

The Government has not held any discussions with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regarding its handling of complaints relating to Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). The SRA operates independently of Government, and it would therefore not be appropriate for the Government to comment on its decisions.

The SRA has taken a series of regulatory, guidance-based, and enforcement-related actions to address SLAPPs to tackle reports of related misconduct within the legal profession. This includes issuing a warning notice in 2022 setting out expectations on solicitors’ conduct in SLAPP-type cases, which was updated in 2024, and publishing accompanying guidance reminding solicitors and law firms of their wider professional obligations not to bring unmeritorious or abusive claims. However, I will raise this with the SRA to determine what additional action they might be able to take in this area.

The Government implemented the SLAPPs measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 in June 2025, which provides protection against SLAPPs relating to economic crime. While this represents a positive first step, we are considering all options for reform to ensure that all types of SLAPPs are addressed comprehensively.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to strengthen protections against non-economic crime Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

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

The Government has not held any discussions with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regarding its handling of complaints relating to Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). The SRA operates independently of Government, and it would therefore not be appropriate for the Government to comment on its decisions.

The SRA has taken a series of regulatory, guidance-based, and enforcement-related actions to address SLAPPs to tackle reports of related misconduct within the legal profession. This includes issuing a warning notice in 2022 setting out expectations on solicitors’ conduct in SLAPP-type cases, which was updated in 2024, and publishing accompanying guidance reminding solicitors and law firms of their wider professional obligations not to bring unmeritorious or abusive claims. However, I will raise this with the SRA to determine what additional action they might be able to take in this area.

The Government implemented the SLAPPs measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 in June 2025, which provides protection against SLAPPs relating to economic crime. While this represents a positive first step, we are considering all options for reform to ensure that all types of SLAPPs are addressed comprehensively.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he has had with the Solicitors Regulation Authority's on that organisation's ability to regulate solicitors where it is unable to access material over which privilege is claimed during investigations.

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

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of government. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is the frontline regulator responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales. The Legal Services Board (LSB) oversees the performance of all frontline regulators, including the SRA, to ensure they operate effectively and in the public interest, including through annual performance assessments, targeted reviews and ongoing engagement with regulators on their statutory duties.

Section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 provides the SRA with the power to require solicitors and law firms to produce information and documents where the SRA is satisfied that it is necessary to do so (amongst other grounds) for the purpose of investigating whether there has been professional misconduct by a solicitor or a breach of its rules by a recognised body. It has a similar power under section 93 of the Legal Services Act 2007 in relation to licensed bodies. The SRA has published guidance on its approach to evidence gathering, which states that the SRA may request material where privilege is asserted, subject to safeguards and use for regulatory purposes only. This guidance is available at: SRA | How we gather evidence in our regulatory and disciplinary investigations | Solicitors Regulation Authority.

I met recently with the new Chief Executive of the SRA to raise a series of performance issues with her. Whilst this Government has not undertaken its own specific assessment of the impact of the SRA’s ability to seek material over which privilege is claimed on its effectiveness as a regulator, I will discuss this with the SRA. I am aware of the ongoing proceedings concerning the scope of its statutory powers in relation to legally privileged material, and officials have discussed the matter with the SRA as part of their routine regulatory engagement.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the ability of the Solicitors Regulation Authority to access material over which privilege is claimed on the effectiveness of that organisation.

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

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of government. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is the frontline regulator responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales. The Legal Services Board (LSB) oversees the performance of all frontline regulators, including the SRA, to ensure they operate effectively and in the public interest, including through annual performance assessments, targeted reviews and ongoing engagement with regulators on their statutory duties.

Section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 provides the SRA with the power to require solicitors and law firms to produce information and documents where the SRA is satisfied that it is necessary to do so (amongst other grounds) for the purpose of investigating whether there has been professional misconduct by a solicitor or a breach of its rules by a recognised body. It has a similar power under section 93 of the Legal Services Act 2007 in relation to licensed bodies. The SRA has published guidance on its approach to evidence gathering, which states that the SRA may request material where privilege is asserted, subject to safeguards and use for regulatory purposes only. This guidance is available at: SRA | How we gather evidence in our regulatory and disciplinary investigations | Solicitors Regulation Authority.

I met recently with the new Chief Executive of the SRA to raise a series of performance issues with her. Whilst this Government has not undertaken its own specific assessment of the impact of the SRA’s ability to seek material over which privilege is claimed on its effectiveness as a regulator, I will discuss this with the SRA. I am aware of the ongoing proceedings concerning the scope of its statutory powers in relation to legally privileged material, and officials have discussed the matter with the SRA as part of their routine regulatory engagement.