Asked by: Wendy Morton (Conservative - Aldridge-Brownhills)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Written Statement entitled Consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1129, what assessment her Department has made of current police practice regarding the deployment of facial recognition and related technologies; how operational consistency across police forces will be ensured under the proposed new framework; and what plans she has to strengthen oversight mechanisms, including independent scrutiny, to guarantee that law enforcement agencies use these technologies only within clearly defined legal parameters and with transparent accountability.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Government recognises the importance of ensuring the use of facial recognition and similar biometric technologies by law enforcement remains proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed. The consultation launched on 4 December seeks views on whether seriousness of harm should be a factor to decide how and when law enforcement organisations can acquire, retain, and use biometrics, facial recognition, and similar technology. The consultation also asks for views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing ‘seriousness’ of harm and for which purposes should law enforcement organisations be allowed to use these technologies.
We do not intend to publish an impact assessment specifically on the potential implications for civil liberties as part of the consultation process. However, alongside the consultation we have published an equalities impact assessment which makes clear the Government’s commitment to building public trust by highlighting the specific legal frameworks that will be put in place and the statutory bodies for oversight, which will apply to everyone in England and Wales.
We recognise that to maintain public confidence we must ensure individual rights, privacy and data security are protected. We believe that the use of biometric and inferential technology should always be demonstrably ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’ to the objective being sought. Furthermore, a clear and consistent justification for interference with people’s rights is required. Threshold setting and decision making needs to be attributed to, and shared appropriately between, Parliament, Ministers, independent oversight bodies, and law enforcement organisations. The consultation seeks views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing interference with privacy so as to ensure the legal framework reflects the views of the public.
When using facial recognition technology, police forces must comply with existing legislation including the Human Rights Act 1998, Equality Act 2010, Data Protection Act 2018, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as well as their own published policies. For live facial recognition, police forces must also follow the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Live Facial Recognition.
Oversight of police practice regarding deployment of facial recognition and related technologies is currently provided by regulators and public bodies, including the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, HMICFRS, Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The courts system also plays a vital role in ensuring the law is upheld.
The Government recognises the importance of independent scrutiny to ensure operational consistency across forces under new framework. That is why the consultation explained the government’s proposal to create a single regulatory and oversight body to oversee law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies.
The Government envisage giving this body the necessary powers to provide assurance that law enforcement use of biometric technologies is legal, responsible, and necessary. These powers could include setting standards to assure scientific validity, issuing codes of practice and investigating instances where a technology has been misused, hacked or accessed without authorisation.
Asked by: Wendy Morton (Conservative - Aldridge-Brownhills)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Written Statement entitled Consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1129, what assessment she has made of the safeguards required to ensure that the use of facial recognition and similar biometric technologies by law enforcement remains proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed; what steps she plans to take to ensure that the legal framework maintains public confidence in the protection of individual rights, privacy and data security; and whether she intends to publish an impact assessment on the potential implications for civil liberties as part of the consultation process.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Government recognises the importance of ensuring the use of facial recognition and similar biometric technologies by law enforcement remains proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed. The consultation launched on 4 December seeks views on whether seriousness of harm should be a factor to decide how and when law enforcement organisations can acquire, retain, and use biometrics, facial recognition, and similar technology. The consultation also asks for views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing ‘seriousness’ of harm and for which purposes should law enforcement organisations be allowed to use these technologies.
We do not intend to publish an impact assessment specifically on the potential implications for civil liberties as part of the consultation process. However, alongside the consultation we have published an equalities impact assessment which makes clear the Government’s commitment to building public trust by highlighting the specific legal frameworks that will be put in place and the statutory bodies for oversight, which will apply to everyone in England and Wales.
We recognise that to maintain public confidence we must ensure individual rights, privacy and data security are protected. We believe that the use of biometric and inferential technology should always be demonstrably ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’ to the objective being sought. Furthermore, a clear and consistent justification for interference with people’s rights is required. Threshold setting and decision making needs to be attributed to, and shared appropriately between, Parliament, Ministers, independent oversight bodies, and law enforcement organisations. The consultation seeks views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing interference with privacy so as to ensure the legal framework reflects the views of the public.
When using facial recognition technology, police forces must comply with existing legislation including the Human Rights Act 1998, Equality Act 2010, Data Protection Act 2018, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as well as their own published policies. For live facial recognition, police forces must also follow the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Live Facial Recognition.
Oversight of police practice regarding deployment of facial recognition and related technologies is currently provided by regulators and public bodies, including the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, HMICFRS, Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The courts system also plays a vital role in ensuring the law is upheld.
The Government recognises the importance of independent scrutiny to ensure operational consistency across forces under new framework. That is why the consultation explained the government’s proposal to create a single regulatory and oversight body to oversee law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies.
The Government envisage giving this body the necessary powers to provide assurance that law enforcement use of biometric technologies is legal, responsible, and necessary. These powers could include setting standards to assure scientific validity, issuing codes of practice and investigating instances where a technology has been misused, hacked or accessed without authorisation.
Asked by: Wendy Morton (Conservative - Aldridge-Brownhills)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Written Statement entitled Consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1129, what assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of police practice in the deployment of facial recognition and other biometric technologies; and whether she plans to enhance oversight and independent scrutiny of that deployment.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Government recognises the importance of ensuring the use of facial recognition and similar biometric technologies by law enforcement remains proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed. The consultation launched on 4 December seeks views on whether seriousness of harm should be a factor to decide how and when law enforcement organisations can acquire, retain, and use biometrics, facial recognition, and similar technology. The consultation also asks for views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing ‘seriousness’ of harm and for which purposes should law enforcement organisations be allowed to use these technologies.
We do not intend to publish an impact assessment specifically on the potential implications for civil liberties as part of the consultation process. However, alongside the consultation we have published an equalities impact assessment which makes clear the Government’s commitment to building public trust by highlighting the specific legal frameworks that will be put in place and the statutory bodies for oversight, which will apply to everyone in England and Wales.
We recognise that to maintain public confidence we must ensure individual rights, privacy and data security are protected. We believe that the use of biometric and inferential technology should always be demonstrably ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’ to the objective being sought. Furthermore, a clear and consistent justification for interference with people’s rights is required. Threshold setting and decision making needs to be attributed to, and shared appropriately between, Parliament, Ministers, independent oversight bodies, and law enforcement organisations. The consultation seeks views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing interference with privacy so as to ensure the legal framework reflects the views of the public.
When using facial recognition technology, police forces must comply with existing legislation including the Human Rights Act 1998, Equality Act 2010, Data Protection Act 2018, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as well as their own published policies. For live facial recognition, police forces must also follow the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Live Facial Recognition.
Oversight of police practice regarding deployment of facial recognition and related technologies is currently provided by regulators and public bodies, including the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, HMICFRS, Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The courts system also plays a vital role in ensuring the law is upheld.
The Government recognises the importance of independent scrutiny to ensure operational consistency across forces under new framework. That is why the consultation explained the government’s proposal to create a single regulatory and oversight body to oversee law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies.
The Government envisage giving this body the necessary powers to provide assurance that law enforcement use of biometric technologies is legal, responsible, and necessary. These powers could include setting standards to assure scientific validity, issuing codes of practice and investigating instances where a technology has been misused, hacked or accessed without authorisation.
Asked by: Wendy Morton (Conservative - Aldridge-Brownhills)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the Written Statement entitled Mental Health Conditions, Autism and ADHD Prevalence and Support, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1132, what assessment he has made of regional variation in diagnostic practice, referral thresholds and waiting times for autism and ADHD assessments; whether the Independent Review will examine the extent to which inconsistent clinical pathways drive disparities in outcomes; and what steps he plans to take to ensure that adults, young people and children in every Integrated Care Board area receive timely, consistent and clinically robust diagnostic assessment and ongoing support.
Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Department has not made an assessment. We have commissioned an independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism. The review will look to understand the similarities and difference between mental health conditions, ADHD, and autism. It will look at prevalence, early intervention and treatment, and the current challenges facing clinical services. This will include exploring the factors that have contributed to the increase in prevalence and inequalities in access and outcomes. It will also examine the extent to which diagnosis, medicalisation, and treatment improve outcomes for individuals. This will include exploring the evidence around clinical practice and the risks and benefits of medicalisation.
The review will appoint an Advisory Working Group which involves a multidisciplinary group of leading academics, clinicians, epidemiological experts, charities, and people with lived experience to directly shape the recommendations and scrutinise the evidence.
The chairs will provide a short report within six months setting out conclusions and recommendations for responding to the rising need, both within the Government and across the health system and wider public services.
As this is an independent review, it is therefore for the Chair and vice-chairs to explore and consider topics and themes relevant to the terms of reference. It would not be appropriate for the Department to comment or influence further on specific topics, findings, and recommendations. The Government will consider any recommendations and respond accordingly.
Asked by: Wendy Morton (Conservative - Aldridge-Brownhills)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the Written Statement entitled Mental Health Conditions, Autism and ADHD Prevalence and Support, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1132, what assessment his Department has made of the wider financial and operational impact on local authorities, schools, criminal justice agencies and employers arising from the increased prevalence of mental health conditions, autism and ADHD; and whether the Independent Review will produce recommendations for cross-government funding mechanisms or reforms to ensure that pressure on non-NHS services does not undermine the sustainability of local support and early-intervention provision.
Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Department has not made an assessment. We have commissioned an independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism. The review will look to understand the similarities and difference between mental health conditions, ADHD, and autism. It will look at prevalence, early intervention and treatment, and the current challenges facing clinical services. This will include exploring the factors that have contributed to the increase in prevalence and inequalities in access and outcomes. It will also examine the extent to which diagnosis, medicalisation, and treatment improve outcomes for individuals. This will include exploring the evidence around clinical practice and the risks and benefits of medicalisation.
The review will appoint an Advisory Working Group which involves a multidisciplinary group of leading academics, clinicians, epidemiological experts, charities, and people with lived experience to directly shape the recommendations and scrutinise the evidence.
The chairs will provide a short report within six months setting out conclusions and recommendations for responding to the rising need, both within the Government and across the health system and wider public services.
As this is an independent review, it is therefore for the Chair and vice-chairs to explore and consider topics and themes relevant to the terms of reference. It would not be appropriate for the Department to comment or influence further on specific topics, findings, and recommendations. The Government will consider any recommendations and respond accordingly.
Asked by: Wendy Morton (Conservative - Aldridge-Brownhills)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the Written Statement entitled Mental Health Conditions, Autism and ADHD Prevalence and Support, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1132, what assessment his Department has made of the factors contributing to the reported increase in the prevalence of mental health conditions, autism and ADHD over the past decade; what analysis he has undertaken to differentiate between changes in underlying incidence, improved public awareness, altered diagnostic practice and broader social determinants; and whether he will publish a cross-government strategy setting out how Departments intend to respond to rising prevalence and associated demand on public services.
Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Department has not made an assessment. We have commissioned an independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism. The review will look to understand the similarities and difference between mental health conditions, ADHD, and autism. It will look at prevalence, early intervention and treatment, and the current challenges facing clinical services. This will include exploring the factors that have contributed to the increase in prevalence and inequalities in access and outcomes. It will also examine the extent to which diagnosis, medicalisation, and treatment improve outcomes for individuals. This will include exploring the evidence around clinical practice and the risks and benefits of medicalisation.
The review will appoint an Advisory Working Group which involves a multidisciplinary group of leading academics, clinicians, epidemiological experts, charities, and people with lived experience to directly shape the recommendations and scrutinise the evidence.
The chairs will provide a short report within six months setting out conclusions and recommendations for responding to the rising need, both within the Government and across the health system and wider public services.
As this is an independent review, it is therefore for the Chair and vice-chairs to explore and consider topics and themes relevant to the terms of reference. It would not be appropriate for the Department to comment or influence further on specific topics, findings, and recommendations. The Government will consider any recommendations and respond accordingly.
Asked by: Wendy Morton (Conservative - Aldridge-Brownhills)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Written Statement entitled Criminal Court Reform, published on 2 December 2025, HCWS1123, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of expanding judge-only trials to a wider class of offences, including fraud cases and triable-either-way cases involving likely sentences of up to three years, on the right to a fair trial and jury participation in the justice system; and what safeguards he intends to put in place to ensure transparency, accountability and public confidence in verdicts reached without a jury.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.
The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial.
As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates and only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants, or anyone involved in the justice system.
The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court framework, following the same process and procedures. Safeguards will be in place, including the existing appeals procedure, and judges in the ‘swift courts’ will be required to provide reasoned judgments when delivering decisions to convict or acquit. An impact assessment will accompany our legislative measures, as is usual practice.
Asked by: Wendy Morton (Conservative - Aldridge-Brownhills)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Written Statement entitled Criminal Court Reform, published on 2 December 2025, HCWS1123, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of removing the option for defendants to elect for trial by jury in certain triable-either-way cases on (a) the constitutional role of juries, (b) defendants’ right to a fair trial and (c) public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.
The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial.
As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates and only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants, or anyone involved in the justice system.
The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court framework, following the same process and procedures. Safeguards will be in place, including the existing appeals procedure, and judges in the ‘swift courts’ will be required to provide reasoned judgments when delivering decisions to convict or acquit. An impact assessment will accompany our legislative measures, as is usual practice.
Asked by: Wendy Morton (Conservative - Aldridge-Brownhills)
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 his Department's planning reform proposals on the continued protection of green spaces and environmentally sensitive sites in the West Midlands.
Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
Green spaces and environmentally sensitive sites continue to receive protection in national planning policy.
The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that open space should not be built on unless there is clear evidence it is no longer required; equivalent or better provision is secured in a suitable location; or development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use. It also makes clear that planning decisions should conserve and enhance sites of biodiversity value and that local plans should safeguard local wildlife rich habitats and designated sites of importance for biodiversity.
In addition, the designation of land as Local Green Space allows communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them.
Asked by: Wendy Morton (Conservative - Aldridge-Brownhills)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the Railways Bill on service reliability of rail routes (a) connecting Birmingham and Walsall and (b) the rest of the West Midlands.
Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The Railways Bill includes the introduction of Great British Railways (GBR) which will be a new public company responsible for providing the single point of leadership our railways sorely need, squarely accountable to its passengers for the service it delivers. This will help prioritise service reliability throughout the country, including Birmingham and Walsall, as well as the rest of the West Midlands.