Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the intensive recovery programme replaced the national provider improvement programme (NPIP); and if so, what assessment they have made of the impact of the programme changes on the stability of the NHS trusts identified for intervention as part of the NPIP.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The intensive recovery programme (IRP) has been built to give the most challenged providers the support to turn around their performance in a precise and structured way. It will not directly replace the National Provider Improvement Programme (NPIP); however we are reviewing the improvement approach to ensure organisations receive the right level of support.
NPIP segmentation is derived from performance against the NHS Oversight Framework (NOF) and provider capability. The most challenged providers have been designated from a combination of sustained financial deficit for 11 or more years, long-standing issues, and those in segment five of the NOF.
The five organisations that have been selected for the IRP are the first wave of providers in the regime, and the programme will aim to cover more organisations in the future.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the level of bureaucracy for trusts participating in the national provider improvement programme.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The intensive recovery programme (IRP) has been built to give the most challenged providers the support to turn around their performance in a precise and structured way. It will not directly replace the National Provider Improvement Programme (NPIP); however we are reviewing the improvement approach to ensure organisations receive the right level of support.
NPIP segmentation is derived from performance against the NHS Oversight Framework (NOF) and provider capability. The most challenged providers have been designated from a combination of sustained financial deficit for 11 or more years, long-standing issues, and those in segment five of the NOF.
The five organisations that have been selected for the IRP are the first wave of providers in the regime, and the programme will aim to cover more organisations in the future.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to reports that the Joint Chair of the North West London Acute Provider Collaborative advised Palantir while privately advocating for the integration of patient-level data into that company’s platform, what assessment they have made of the adequacy of conflict of interest protections within the NHS.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Detailed guidance for National Health Service organisations on Managing conflicts of interest in the NHS was issued in 2024. NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts must have regard to this guidance and comply with the Code of Governance for NHS provider trusts.
This states that board of directors should take action to identify and manage conflicts of interest and ensure that the influence of third parties does not compromise or override independent judgement. Directors must declare any business interests, or any connection with bodies contracting for NHS services. These declarations must be entered into a publicly available register.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what factors led to the decision to exclude (1) University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, (2) Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, (3) Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, (4) Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, (5) Medway NHS Foundation Trust, and (6) Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, from the intensive recovery programme; and whether that exclusion is based on an assessment of improved performance since 4 March.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The intensive recovery programme (IRP) has been built to give the most challenged providers the support to turn around their performance in a precise and structured way. It will not directly replace the National Provider Improvement Programme (NPIP); however we are reviewing the improvement approach to ensure organisations receive the right level of support.
NPIP segmentation is derived from performance against the NHS Oversight Framework (NOF) and provider capability. The most challenged providers have been designated from a combination of sustained financial deficit for 11 or more years, long-standing issues, and those in segment five of the NOF.
The five organisations that have been selected for the IRP are the first wave of providers in the regime, and the programme will aim to cover more organisations in the future.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what criteria or performance improvements will determine whether a trust included in the national provider improvement programme will be (1) included in the intensive recovery programme, or (2) removed from intensive oversight.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The intensive recovery programme (IRP) has been built to give the most challenged providers the support to turn around their performance in a precise and structured way. It will not directly replace the National Provider Improvement Programme (NPIP); however we are reviewing the improvement approach to ensure organisations receive the right level of support.
NPIP segmentation is derived from performance against the NHS Oversight Framework (NOF) and provider capability. The most challenged providers have been designated from a combination of sustained financial deficit for 11 or more years, long-standing issues, and those in segment five of the NOF.
The five organisations that have been selected for the IRP are the first wave of providers in the regime, and the programme will aim to cover more organisations in the future.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have made representations to the government of Senegal regarding the Senegalese National Assembly’s recent vote to double prison sentences for consensual same-sex intimacy.
Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)
The UK is concerned by the Senegalese National Assembly's vote to increase prison sentences for same-sex sexual acts and criminalise the 'promotion' of homosexuality. If enacted, this would further undermine the human rights and freedoms of those perceived as being members or allies of the LGBT+ community in Senegal. His Majesty's Ambassador to Senegal has raised the issue with the Government of Senegal at the highest levels. We will continue to consider our response as the legislative process progresses.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the human rights situation and the protection of freedom of expression for citizens within each of the Gulf Cooperation Council states who have expressed dissent or disagreement with their respective governments' policies following the recent escalation in the conflict between the United States and Iran; and what representations they have made to those governments regarding the importance of upholding international human rights obligations during periods of regional instability.
Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)
The UK encourages all states to uphold international human rights obligations, and will continue to speak frankly about these issues with our Gulf Cooperation Council partners through ministerial and diplomatic channels.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Sherlock on 4 February (HL14073), what technical reasonable adjustments, beyond "plain English" and dynamically built questions, are embedded in the digital interface to support claimants with learning disabilities; and in particular whether session timeouts have been extended.
Answered by Baroness Sherlock - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
While Universal Credit is delivered as a digital first service, the Department recognises some customers need support to access or manage services online. Universal Credit is designed and built in line with accessibility standards and is regularly tested with users who have a range of access needs, including learning disabilities. Features such as step-by-step journeys, plain English and clear prompts are built-in to support understanding and reduce cognitive load.
Where customers have health conditions or learning disabilities, support is provided operationally through tailored help and reasonable adjustments. Any agreed adjustments are recorded on the customer’s account and reviewed regularly, ensuring support can be delivered consistently throughout the Universal Credit journey. These include telephone and face-to-face support, postal correspondence, home visits and support from an appointee or representative to act on the customer’s behalf if appropriate. The Department also offers the Help to Claim service, delivered by Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland and provides enhanced support for vulnerable customers, including some moving from ESA.
In addition, regarding session time‑outs, there is a feature to give users the opportunity to extend the time for them to complete that stage. When making a claim there are many points where the data is autosaved, meaning that when a customer is timed out their information is mainly saved. Where session length or digital interaction presents a barrier, customers can be supported through assisted digital routes or non‑digital channels, tailored to their individual needs.
There is continued focus on accessibility and support, allowing customers to transact via a variety of channels according to their needs, including offering non‑digital routes, reasonable adjustments and tailored help for customers who may struggle with the claims process.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of whether the designation of countries where homosexuality is prosecuted as ‘safe countries’ in relation to asylum claims is compatible with their commitment to human rights.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The designation of countries under Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 does not preclude protection for those at real risk of harm. The presumption of safety is rebuttable, in other words, claims are not automatically certified as 'clearly unfounded'. Instead, asylum claims from designated countries are assessed on their individual merits. If an applicant demonstrates a real risk of persecution, including on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, their claim will not be certified as clearly unfounded.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Border Security, Asylum, and Immigration Act 2025 on LGBT individuals fleeing the new glorification and financing offences in Senegal; and what their reasoning is for the temporary 30-month protection status for claimants impacted by the criminalisation of LGBT individuals in their home countries.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
Under s51 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, a person convicted overseas is only presumed to have committed a particularly serious crime where the act constituting the offence would have constituted a Schedule 3 sex offence in the UK.
The change to reduce refugee permission to stay to 30 months is the first step towards implementing the “core protection” model, announced as part of the reforms last autumn. These changes apply to all adults and accompanied children claiming asylum from 2 March 2026, including but not limited to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution or are at risk of serious harm on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Core Protection will allow those who are at risk to remain in the UK as long as necessary, whilst it is unsafe for them to return.
Refugees will be able to switch into a bespoke Protection, Work and Study route to access family reunion and settlement rights with new fees and conditions in accordance with the rules of that route. This will enable them to earn down their length of time before they can settle in the UK. This route will not include a safe, return review.