Asked by: Anneliese Midgley (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of introducing a targeted national screening programme for prostate cancer for men identified as high risk.
Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government is guided by the independent scientific advice of the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC). It is only where the offer to screen provides more good than harm that a screening programme is recommended. The UK NSC makes its recommendations based on internationally recognised criteria and a rigorous evidence review and consultation process. The UK NSC is currently considering the responses to a public consultation on their draft recommendation to:
- offer a targeted national prostate cancer screening programme to men with confirmed BRCA1/2 gene variants every two years, from the age 45 years old to age 61 years old;
- not recommend population screening;
- not recommend targeted screening of black men;
- not recommend targeted screening of men with family history; and
- collaborate with the Transform trial team to answer outstanding questions on screening effectiveness for black men and men with a family history, as soon as trial data becomes available, and await the results of the study to develop and trial a more accurate test than the prostate specific antigen test alone, to improve the balance of the benefits and harms of screening.
The evidence that supports this recommendation can be found on the following link:
https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/
The modelling used to arrive at the recommendation included cost benefit analysis.
Asked by: Anneliese Midgley (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether his Department has conducted a cost-benefit analysis of offering routine prostate-specific antigen testing to high-risk groups.
Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government is guided by the independent scientific advice of the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC). It is only where the offer to screen provides more good than harm that a screening programme is recommended. The UK NSC makes its recommendations based on internationally recognised criteria and a rigorous evidence review and consultation process. The UK NSC is currently considering the responses to a public consultation on their draft recommendation to:
- offer a targeted national prostate cancer screening programme to men with confirmed BRCA1/2 gene variants every two years, from the age 45 years old to age 61 years old;
- not recommend population screening;
- not recommend targeted screening of black men;
- not recommend targeted screening of men with family history; and
- collaborate with the Transform trial team to answer outstanding questions on screening effectiveness for black men and men with a family history, as soon as trial data becomes available, and await the results of the study to develop and trial a more accurate test than the prostate specific antigen test alone, to improve the balance of the benefits and harms of screening.
The evidence that supports this recommendation can be found on the following link:
https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/
The modelling used to arrive at the recommendation included cost benefit analysis.
Asked by: Anneliese Midgley (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what guidance her Department has issued on the levying of service charges in residential buildings that have been fully decanted pending remediation works; and whether she will take steps to restrict the recovery of such charges in those circumstances.
Answered by Samantha Dixon - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
Some levying of service charges in the event of a decant may be necessary to help pay for remediation. However, leaseholders with qualifying leases will still benefit from the caps on service charges for building safety defects, as set out at Schedule 8 of the Building Safety Act, irrespective of whether their building has been decanted.
Any service charges wrongfully raised from leaseholders for building safety defects can be recovered from building owners via Remediation Contribution Orders. RCOs can include associated costs of alternative accommodation when residents are decanted from relevant buildings on building safety grounds. This has been set out in extensive guidance on the UK Government website.
Local authorities can apply to the Court to recover their costs if they pay to rehouse residents in these circumstances. There is also limited scope for Resident Management Companies to recover the legal costs of raising an RCO from leaseholders where they might otherwise struggle to find the funds to do so. Relevant guidance can be found here: Amendments to the Building Safety Act introduced through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 - GOV.UK.
Asked by: Anneliese Midgley (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, whether (a) his Department and (b) any of its arms-length bodies are (i) investigating and (ii) undertaking enforcement action against Rockwell (FC100) Ltd in relation to its residential building remediation obligations.
Answered by Samantha Dixon - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
The Department is not actively investigating or taking enforcement action against Rockwell (FC100), nor to our knowledge are any of the Department’s arm’s length bodies.
The Government is working with local authorities and fire and rescue services to take enforcement action against building owners who are failing to get on with remediation.
Regulators are operationally independent and are subject to their own duties and regulatory regimes. As such it would be inappropriate for the department to comment on regulatory decision making.
Where remediation is not progressing, local authorities and fire and rescue services have a range of tools to compel building owners to fix their unsafe buildings.
Regulators have long-standing powers under the Housing Act 2004 and Fire Safety Order 2005 to make sure building owners fix their unsafe buildings.
The Building Safety Act 2022 bolstered these powers by introducing remediation orders and remediation contribution orders. These powers allow regulators to apply to the First-tier Tribunal for an order that requires a building owner to fix, or pay to fix, unsafe buildings. In addition, the Fire Safety Order has been strengthened through changes to Section 156 of the Building Safety Act 2022.
Section 116 of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 makes it clear that a Remediation Contribution Order, under section 124 of the Building Safety Act, can include associated costs of alternative accommodation when residents are decanted from relevant buildings on building safety grounds. There is also provision for local authorities to apply to the Courts, to recover their costs if they pay to rehouse residents in these circumstances.
Asked by: Anneliese Midgley (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what deadline the Government has set for residential freeholders to complete remediation works on buildings with unsafe cladding; and what steps he will take in cases where such works are not completed by that deadline.
Answered by Samantha Dixon - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
In the Remediation Acceleration Plan, we set a clear target that, by the end of 2029, every residential building over 11 metres with unsafe cladding will have either completed remediation works or have a firm completion date in place, otherwise the responsible entity will face enforcement action. To this end, we are legislating to give regulators access to new criminal and civil penalties to deal with those that are not doing all they can to remediate their buildings and any party that stands in their way.
The Remediation Acceleration Plan sets out the Government’s intentions to give regulators the power to identify beneficial owners and hold all relevant parties to account. We will also create a new Remediation Backstop, which grants the State step-in powers for remediation. No matter where the responsible entity is based and their responsiveness to enforcement, resident safety must be ensured.
Asked by: Anneliese Midgley (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what steps his Department is taking to secure compliance with building safety remediation requirements where the freeholder is registered overseas.
Answered by Samantha Dixon - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
In the Remediation Acceleration Plan, we set a clear target that, by the end of 2029, every residential building over 11 metres with unsafe cladding will have either completed remediation works or have a firm completion date in place, otherwise the responsible entity will face enforcement action. To this end, we are legislating to give regulators access to new criminal and civil penalties to deal with those that are not doing all they can to remediate their buildings and any party that stands in their way.
The Remediation Acceleration Plan sets out the Government’s intentions to give regulators the power to identify beneficial owners and hold all relevant parties to account. We will also create a new Remediation Backstop, which grants the State step-in powers for remediation. No matter where the responsible entity is based and their responsiveness to enforcement, resident safety must be ensured.
Asked by: Anneliese Midgley (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what proportion of research funding is allocated to epilepsy research; and if she will make an assessment of the adequacy of this proportion.
Answered by Kanishka Narayan - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)
The Medical Research Council (MRC), which is part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), has committed a total of over £25.5 million since 2018/19 on epilepsy research, including over £9.5 million in 2024/25. This research spans discovery science and fundamental understanding of the disease, through to new approaches for diagnosis and intervention. MRC also supports epilepsy research within its portfolio of larger investments. For example, this includes a new MRC Centre of Research Excellence (CoRE) in Restorative Neural Dynamics which aims to develop brain stimulation devices to treat a range of conditions including childhood epilepsy, and the UK data platform for Traumatic Brain Injury research (TBI-REPORTER) which includes post-traumatic epilepsy as one of the areas of focus.
The Department of Health and Social Care also funds research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). The NIHR has funded a range of ongoing epilepsy research and has awarded £12.8 million to studies in the last five financial years. The NIHR continues to welcome funding applications for research into any aspect of human health and care, including alternative treatments for epilepsy.
Asked by: Anneliese Midgley (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of his Department's funding for epilepsy research.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Department funds research into epilepsy via the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Between 2020/21 and 2024/25, the NIHR invested £12.8 million in direct research funding on epilepsy. This investment in epilepsy research allows us to continue developing our understanding of the condition and make a real difference to people living with epilepsy, as demonstrated by the examples of impact outlined below.
In 2022, the NIHR-hosted James Lind Alliance (JLA) carried out a UK Epilepsy Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) with epilepsy patients, carers, and service providers to identify the most pressing research priorities for ongoing epilepsy research investment. Many NIHR-funded research projects align to and address the priorities set out by the JLA PSP, boosting epilepsy research. These include:
Other examples of NIHR-funded epilepsy research and impact include:
The NIHR also works closely with other Government funders, including UK Research and Innovation, which is funded by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and includes the Medical Research Council, to fund research into epilepsy to improve treatments and prevent poor health outcomes for patients.
The NIHR welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health and care, including epilepsy. Applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and health and care services, value for money, and scientific quality. Welcoming applications on epilepsy to all NIHR programmes enables maximum flexibility both in terms of amount of research funding a particular area can be awarded, and the type of research which can be funded.
Asked by: Anneliese Midgley (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what mechanisms his Department plans to use to monitor the effectiveness of the multi-year Settlement in reducing disparities in funding between more and less deprived local authorities.
Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
The government is making good on long overdue promises to fundamentally update the way we fund local authorities. We are realigning funding with need by introducing a fairer and evidence-based funding assessment, which will target a greater proportion of central government grant funding towards the most deprived places which need it the most. By 2028-29, we expect that the 10% most deprived authorities in England will see a significant increase in Core Spending Power per head compared to the least deprived.
The new assessment will be based on the most up-to-date data available. Going forwards, we will update the data at the beginning of each multi-year Settlement to balance dynamism with providing certainty and stability over the Settlement period.
Asked by: Anneliese Midgley (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what estimate his Department has made of the cost of epilepsy to (a) the NHS and (b) the wider economy; and how this estimate informs decisions on funding for epilepsy research.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
While the Government has not made a formal estimate of the cost of epilepsy to the National Health Service and the wider economy, we are aware of a report published by Economist Impact in February 2024, titled, The value of action: mitigating the impact of neurological disorders in the United Kingdom, which estimated that idiopathic epilepsy cost the economy £1.7 billion or 0.07% of gross domestic product in 2019. This report is available at the following link:
The Department funds research into epilepsy via the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Between 2020/21 and 2024/25, the NIHR invested £12.8 million in direct research funding on epilepsy.
The NIHR welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health and care, including epilepsy. Applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and health and care services, value for money, and scientific quality. Welcoming applications on epilepsy to all NIHR programmes enables maximum flexibility both in terms of the amount of research funding a particular area can be awarded, and the type of research which can be funded.