Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the adequacy of protective security funding allocated to places of worship, schools and community centres in financial year 2025-26; and what steps she is taking to ensure such funding is adequate to meet current threat levels.
Answered by Dan Jarvis - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
This Government is committed to protecting the right of individuals to freely practise their religion at their chosen place of worship, and to making our streets and communities safer.
In 2025/26, up to £70.9 million is available to protect faith communities. This includes additional emergency funding of £10 million each this year to support the safety, security and peace of mind for both Jewish and Muslim communities.
The Government and police work closely together to review threats and strengthen protections for communities against terrorism and hate crime. The Home Office continuously reviews the adequacy of its protective security schemes for faith communities through evaluating information provided by policing and intelligence partners on threat levels, monitoring data on uptake of the schemes, and reviewing feedback from faith communities and other stakeholders.
Asked by: David Simmonds (Conservative - Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Home Office and its subcontractor are paying above market rates to hire Houses in Multiple Occupation for asylum accommodation.
Answered by Alex Norris - Minister of State (Home Office)
This Government is determined to restore order to the asylum system so that it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly. This includes our accommodation sites, as the Home Office continues to identify a range of options to minimise the use of hotels and ensure better use of public money, whilst maintaining sufficient accommodation to meet demand.
The procurement process is guided by principles of sustainability and measured growth, ensuring that accommodation is not only available but also suitable for long-term use and integrated within local communities.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she is taking to ensure that the use of return hubs will not be subject to external judicial scrutiny.
Answered by Alex Norris - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Government has been clear we will continue to work with international partners to tackle the global migration crisis. Our guiding principle will always be that any partnership must be workable and meet our international obligations.
Asked by: Claire Hanna (Social Democratic & Labour Party - Belfast South and Mid Down)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether people living in the UK on family visas will be exempt from the sustained economic contribution requirement under proposed changes to earned settlement.
Answered by Mike Tapp - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The new earned settlement model is currently subject to an ongoing public consultation, due to conclude on 12 February 2026. Details of the earned settlement model will be finalised following that consultation.
Asked by: Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what criteria are applied to determine how many diplomatic visas are issued to countries with embassies in the UK.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
His Majesty's Government does not set criteria for limiting the number of diplomatic staff accredited to the UK. However, as set out in the 1985 Government Report on the Review of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, His Majesty's Government may limit the size of a mission in cases where there are issues relating to the nature of a mission's activities, or to take account of the size of the UK mission in the country concerned. Such considerations are made on a case-by-case basis.
Asked by: Lee Dillon (Liberal Democrat - Newbury)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what recent discussions she has had with the Metropolitan Police on its decision to retract approval for farmers to bring their tractors to London for a protest.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
The right to peaceful protest is a vital part of our democracy and will not be curtailed by this government. However, these rights are not absolute and must be balanced with the rights and freedoms of others.
Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 allows the police to impose conditions on public processions protest as appears necessary to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community. Any conditions that are considered necessary by a senior police officer can be placed on the protest including the location, route and date of the protest or prohibiting individuals entering any public place specified.
The management of demonstrations is an operational matter for the police and Ministers are not involved in such decisions. Police forces work with organisers to plan protests and assess risks and manage safety.
Asked by: Lee Dillon (Liberal Democrat - Newbury)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what discussions she had with the Metropolitan Police prior to their decision to retract approval for farmers to bring their tractors to London for a protest.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
The right to peaceful protest is a vital part of our democracy and will not be curtailed by this government. However, these rights are not absolute and must be balanced with the rights and freedoms of others.
Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 allows the police to impose conditions on public processions protest as appears necessary to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community. Any conditions that are considered necessary by a senior police officer can be placed on the protest including the location, route and date of the protest or prohibiting individuals entering any public place specified.
The management of demonstrations is an operational matter for the police and Ministers are not involved in such decisions. Police forces work with organisers to plan protests and assess risks and manage safety.
Asked by: Andrew Rosindell (Conservative - Romford)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she has taken to help reduce violations of the Firearms Act 1968.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Government’s priority is public safety, and we look to ensure our controls on firearms are as strong as possible and keep the legislation under active consideration. It is imperative that we do everything we can to stop firearms getting into hands of criminals and those who would misuse them with devastating consequences.
The Firearms Act 1968 provides the framework for action to be taken by police forces, and we have seen the number of firearms offences fall to 5,053 from 5,991 over the past 12 months - for the year ending June 2025. We work in partnership with the National Police Chiefs Council, police forces and the National Crime Agency to respond to emerging firearms risks, and for example, we have recently taken action against some types of blank firing firearms which have found to be readily convertible into lethal weapons so they can be removed from circulation.
We are also ensuring licensing of firearms, as set out in the Firearms Act 1968, is as effective and robust as possible. Recent measures to support this include the revised Statutory Guidance to Chief Officers issued in August this year, the rollout of new national training to firearms licensing police personnel, and the increase in licensing fees to support full cost recovery.
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: Lord Mott (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what recent discussions they have had with the Charity Commission about reports that the Al-Ikhlas Education Centre in Willesden has links to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Government takes very seriously any alleged links between a charity and extremism or terrorism and will respond robustly to evidence of wrongdoing.
While we cannot comment on individual cases, the promotion of extremist views or terrorism in charities is unacceptable. The Charity Commission is alive to the risks of state threats to the charity sector and works with other agencies to protect the sector from the risks of being exploited.
The Charity Commission has consistently been clear that it will respond robustly where there proves to have been wrongdoing and I am confident that it has the ability to do so effectively. They have a range of powers at their disposal including freezing bank accounts, directing trustees to take corrective action, or disqualifying trustees, and will do so as appropriate.
The Charity Commission has published guidance that explains in which circumstances a report about serious wrongdoing should be made, which details should be provided, and what it will do after receiving a report.
Ministers and officials regularly meet with the Charity Commission to discuss a range of issues relating to the regulation of charities.