Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether he has considered commissioning independent advice, including from people with direct experience of living on a low income, on the adequacy of Universal Credit’s standard allowance.
Answered by Stephen Timms - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The Department for Work and Pensions has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.
Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with reference to the publication of Trussell’s End of Year food bank stats, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that Universal Credit’s standard allowance covers essential costs.
Answered by Stephen Timms - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The Department for Work and Pensions has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.
Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of police facial recognition cameras on levels of local crime rates.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office has not formally assessed the potential impact of police facial recognition cameras on levels of local crime rates or effectiveness against traditional policing methods. However, when the Government introduces legislation on a new framework this will be accompanied by an impact assessment. This will include consideration of operational benefits, costs and wider impacts, alongside legal, ethical and equality considerations.
When using live facial recognition, police forces must comply with existing legal obligations including the requirement that its use is necessary and proportionate to a specific policing objective.
National guidance issued by the College of Policing requires forces to define the purpose of a deployment in advance and ensure watchlists are focused and limited to appropriate categories of people, which may include wanted individuals, suspects, missing or vulnerable people, or those posing risks. Watchlists must be tailored to the policing objective and reviewed before each deployment to ensure the legal tests of necessity and proportionality are met.
Last year, we launched a public consultation on when and how biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies should be used by law enforcement, and what safeguards and oversight are needed. This consultation included questions on when the use of such technologies should be considered necessary and proportionate. We are currently considering the responses, which will inform the scope and content of any legal changes brought before Parliament
Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether police facial recognition technology is being used in conjunction with (a) body-worn video and (b) drones.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Government supports police innovation, including the responsible use of facial recognition technologies. The Government recognises that facial recognition and similar technologies can support the police to prevent and detect crime and protect the public, when used appropriately and responsibly.
Police forces must comply with the existing legal framework for any use of facial recognition technology. As part of this, any use of facial recognition technology must be necessary and proportionate to a specific policing objective.
The Home Office launched a public consultation which closed on 12 February 2026 on when and how biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies should be used by law enforcement, and what safeguards and oversight are needed. This consultation included questions on when the use of such technologies should be considered necessary and proportionate. We are currently considering the responses, which will inform the scope and content of any legal changes brought before Parliament. However, there are currently no plans for the Government to fund body worn video or drone projects in relation to facial recognition technologies.
Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the proportionality of the police using live facial recognition technology to identify suspects for low-level offences.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office has not formally assessed the potential impact of police facial recognition cameras on levels of local crime rates or effectiveness against traditional policing methods. However, when the Government introduces legislation on a new framework this will be accompanied by an impact assessment. This will include consideration of operational benefits, costs and wider impacts, alongside legal, ethical and equality considerations.
When using live facial recognition, police forces must comply with existing legal obligations including the requirement that its use is necessary and proportionate to a specific policing objective.
National guidance issued by the College of Policing requires forces to define the purpose of a deployment in advance and ensure watchlists are focused and limited to appropriate categories of people, which may include wanted individuals, suspects, missing or vulnerable people, or those posing risks. Watchlists must be tailored to the policing objective and reviewed before each deployment to ensure the legal tests of necessity and proportionality are met.
Last year, we launched a public consultation on when and how biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies should be used by law enforcement, and what safeguards and oversight are needed. This consultation included questions on when the use of such technologies should be considered necessary and proportionate. We are currently considering the responses, which will inform the scope and content of any legal changes brought before Parliament
Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what comparative assessment she has made of the cost effectiveness of facial recognition technology when compared against traditional policing methods.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office has not formally assessed the potential impact of police facial recognition cameras on levels of local crime rates or effectiveness against traditional policing methods. However, when the Government introduces legislation on a new framework this will be accompanied by an impact assessment. This will include consideration of operational benefits, costs and wider impacts, alongside legal, ethical and equality considerations.
When using live facial recognition, police forces must comply with existing legal obligations including the requirement that its use is necessary and proportionate to a specific policing objective.
National guidance issued by the College of Policing requires forces to define the purpose of a deployment in advance and ensure watchlists are focused and limited to appropriate categories of people, which may include wanted individuals, suspects, missing or vulnerable people, or those posing risks. Watchlists must be tailored to the policing objective and reviewed before each deployment to ensure the legal tests of necessity and proportionality are met.
Last year, we launched a public consultation on when and how biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies should be used by law enforcement, and what safeguards and oversight are needed. This consultation included questions on when the use of such technologies should be considered necessary and proportionate. We are currently considering the responses, which will inform the scope and content of any legal changes brought before Parliament
Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what oversight mechanisms are in place to monitor the use of ACS and APS tools; and whether any independent audits have been (a) conducted and (b) planned.
Answered by Alex Norris - Minister of State (Home Office)
All members of the Department were required to complete a mandatory 'AI for all' learning package in 2025. All caseworkers were given comprehensive training on the use of APS before it was operationalised. Both ACS and APS underwent user acceptance testing and evaluation was conducted following pilots of both tools.
A specific inbox was set up for Decision Makers to feed back any issues found with the tool. All questions asked of the tool, have and will be logged, and are auditable. Subject Matter Expert (SME) testing continues after operationalisation, in conjunction with the CPIT (Country Policy & Information Team) for APS.
ACS has not yet been operationalised, but our Analysis and Insight team plan to conduct further follow up evaluations in due course.
Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what training has been provided to caseworkers on the use of AI-supported tools during the pilot phase of ACS and APS.
Answered by Alex Norris - Minister of State (Home Office)
All members of the Department were required to complete a mandatory 'AI for all' learning package in 2025. All caseworkers were given comprehensive training on the use of APS before it was operationalised. Both ACS and APS underwent user acceptance testing and evaluation was conducted following pilots of both tools.
A specific inbox was set up for Decision Makers to feed back any issues found with the tool. All questions asked of the tool, have and will be logged, and are auditable. Subject Matter Expert (SME) testing continues after operationalisation, in conjunction with the CPIT (Country Policy & Information Team) for APS.
ACS has not yet been operationalised, but our Analysis and Insight team plan to conduct further follow up evaluations in due course.
Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will publish any legal advice on UK participation in military operations connected to the conflict in the Middle East.
Answered by Al Carns - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans)
A summary of the government’s legal position was published on gov.uk on 1 March 2026.
Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether she plans to impose sanctions on Israel to help prevent mass civilian casualties in Lebanon.
Answered by Hamish Falconer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
I refer the Hon Member to the statement made to the House by the Foreign Secretary on 17 March, and her answers to the questions raised in response.