Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many (a) Notices to Improve and (b) written instructions her Department issued to train operating companies for which the Department is the operator in relation to (i) service performance and (ii) financial control in January 2026 and each subsequent month.

Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

The Department has not issued any Notices to Improve on any of the DfT Operator train operating companies in January 2026 and in each subsequent month because none have been in breach of their formal contractual terms.

The DfT regularly engages with all operators on service performance and financial management, aligned with this Government's priorities on improving performance and reducing subsidy.

Question to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of UK Export Finance support for the tooling and working-capital requirements of automotive suppliers.

Answered by Blair McDougall - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade) (Jointly with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)

UK Export Finance (UKEF) can offer guarantees through its Export Development Guarantee (EDG) and General Export Facility (GEF) to help current and prospective exporters of all sizes and in all sectors, including the automotive industry, access working capital loans to support or extend their export activities.

For instance, in July 2025, UKEF announced it was providing a £1 billion EDG to Ford UK, supporting its long-term growth ambitions and helping its transition towards manufacturing electric vehicles. Meanwhile through the GEF, UKEF can offer support to smaller businesses looking to access working capital finance. Since its introduction, UKEF has provided over £1 billion in support to hundreds of exporting businesses through the GEF.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 8 June 2026 to Question 4268 on Driving Licences: Electronic Government, what progress the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has made in bringing all its online services into compliance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2 level AA; and whether completion remains scheduled for February 2027.

Answered by Justin Madders - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s (DVLA) online services currently meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 requirements. Work is underway to bring all services into compliance with WCAG 2.2 level AA, the latest accessibility standard.

Almost half of DVLA’s online services now comply with WCAG 2.2. While all services may not meet the DVLA’s internal target of February 2027, work is ongoing to bring the remaining services into compliance as soon as possible.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 7 September 2026 to Question 26119 on East West Rail Line, what is her Department's latest estimated date for the commencement of passenger services between Oxford and Milton Keynes; and what was the estimated commencement date on (a) 1 January 2026 and (b) 1 July 2026.

Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

The Department continues to work closely with Chiltern Railways and other partners to confirm a start date for the first East West Rail services between Oxford and Milton Keynes. Before services between Oxford and Milton Keynes commence, not only have physical alterations to the trains been necessary, but also software and systems changes remain to be completed. Driver training will need to have been completed. Winslow Station also needs to be fully handed over, and future staffing arrangements also remain to be agreed.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, on what date her Department first informed each relevant local authority that its scheme would be withdrawn or removed from the Major Road Network and Large Local Majors programme following the review announced in her Written Ministerial Statement of 26 March 2026, HCWS1466.

Answered by Justin Madders - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

Following a review of the Major Road Network/Large Local Majors (MRN/LLM) Programme, relevant local authorities were informed that their schemes were being removed from the Programme on 8th October 2026.

The above confirmation was part of the finalisation of the MRN/LLM Programme Review and letters were sent to Mayors, local MPs and Council Leaders on this date.

Question to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, what steps he is taking to prevent tariffs being imposed on UK-EU trade in electric vehicles from 1 January 2027.

Answered by Blair McDougall - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade) (Jointly with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)

Stricter rules of origin for electric vehicles and batteries are scheduled to come into force on 1 January 2027 under the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement. We are engaging closely with the automotive sector to understand readiness for these changes. We continue to work with industry and the European Commission to find a solution that supports the competitiveness of the UK automotive sector, protects investment and maintains tariff-free access to one of the UK’s largest export markets. That includes, as a priority, looking to finalise joint guidance on the origin requirements related to Cathode Active Material.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether her Department has considered redress for men adversely impacted by mesh implants.

Answered by Diana Johnson - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

As the Hon. Member will know, the July 2020 Cumberledge Review recommended the establishment of specific redress schemes for women harmed by pelvic mesh and sodium valproate. While the previous government did not accept that recommendation, it asked the Patient Safety Commissioner, Dr Henrietta Hughes, to explore the options further in December 2022. Neither the Cumberledge nor Hughes Reviews considered the wider case for redress for all patients harmed by medicines and medical devices, including other types of mesh implants, and – while we sympathise greatly with all individuals who have been harmed in that way – there are no plans for any further such review at this stage.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 8 September 2026 to Question 21973 on High Speed 2 Line, in what year she expects the plans referred to in that Answer to be realised.

Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

We expect the feasibility work that is now underway to conclude by the end of 2027. Further decisions will be required once this work is complete.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many young people under the age of 25 receiving the Universal Credit health element are NEET, and how many are in education or employment.

Answered by Stephen Timms - Minister of State (Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government) (Equalities)

The Universal Credit health journey includes claimants with a fit note, those assessed as having Limited Capability for Work (LCW), and those assessed as having Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity (LCWRA).

Claimants who have submitted a fit note have not yet completed a Work Capability Assessment (WCA) and are therefore not considered to be receiving the Universal Credit health element. Similarly, claimants in the LCW group do not receive the health element; instead, they benefit from reduced work-related requirements and conditionality. Only claimants assessed as having LCWRA are entitled to receive the health element within Universal Credit.

Table 1 - Under-25 Universal Credit claimants with LCWRA in England, May 2024, by participation in education, training and employment:

Notes/caveats:

1. Cohort is England only as we do not hold education data from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
2. DFE data for education does not cover private education so a small number may be missed.
3. Education also includes those on training courses such as apprenticeships.
4. Data covers those on the caseload in May 2024 to match both employment and education datasets.
5. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.
6. Those under 18 can claim UC (and by extension UC Health) in specific circumstances such as no parental support, pregnancy (or recently given birth), responsible for a child or have a long-term health condition.
7. Usually those in full-time education cannot claim UC. Exceptions are made for those responsible for a child or have received LCWRA and are entitled to another disability benefit such as PIP.

Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, for what reason former members of the Armed Forces who left service before 6 April 1975 were excluded from the preserved and deferred pension arrangements introduced from that date.

Answered by Calvin Bailey - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans and People)

Prior to 1975 there were no rights to preserved pensions in any public or private pension schemes. Most schemes had very restricted qualifying criteria for the award of pensions. For the Armed Forces, occupational pensions were awarded only if a member had completed at least 16 years reckonable service as an officer or 22 years reckonable service as another rank. Reckonable service is paid service after age 21 for officers or after age 18 for other ranks. Gratuities (lump- sum payments) were awarded to those who did not serve long enough for a pension but had completed at least nine years reckonable service as an officer or 12 years reckonable service as an Other Rank.

The Social Security Act 1973 brought about changes by requiring all pension schemes (not only Armed Forces pensions) to preserve pension rights for those who left service after 6th April 1975 having completed at least five years qualifying service and having attained the age of 26. Later Social Security Acts reduced the qualifying period from five years to two years and removed the age qualification requirement. These changes were not made retrospective. Individuals receive the benefits in accordance with the scheme rules in place at the time of their retirement.

Given the length of time since the change was introduced, I cannot say for certain whether an assessment was made at the time for extending those rights to personnel who had left before this change was introduced. However, it has long been a principle of public service pensions policy, and one that has been upheld by successive Governments, that improvements to pension schemes are not made retrospective.

Retrospection would add significantly to the cost of introducing any meaningful improvements to the scheme because, typically, legacy issues are common to other public service schemes in existence prior to the Social Security Act 1973 and not limited to just the Armed Forces. Where legacy issues are common across public sector schemes, a retrospective change implemented for the Armed Forces would certainly result in pressure from others for similar treatment. To concede retrospection for one group would place great pressure on other public service schemes. No specific estimate has been made of the cost of resolving these legacy issues.

I can confirm that there are no plans to reassess this position.

Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether his Department has undertaken any review of the position of former Armed Forces personnel who left service before 6 April 1975 after completing substantial periods of service but who are not entitled to an Armed Forces pension.

Answered by Calvin Bailey - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans and People)

Prior to 1975 there were no rights to preserved pensions in any public or private pension schemes. Most schemes had very restricted qualifying criteria for the award of pensions. For the Armed Forces, occupational pensions were awarded only if a member had completed at least 16 years reckonable service as an officer or 22 years reckonable service as another rank. Reckonable service is paid service after age 21 for officers or after age 18 for other ranks. Gratuities (lump- sum payments) were awarded to those who did not serve long enough for a pension but had completed at least nine years reckonable service as an officer or 12 years reckonable service as an Other Rank.

The Social Security Act 1973 brought about changes by requiring all pension schemes (not only Armed Forces pensions) to preserve pension rights for those who left service after 6th April 1975 having completed at least five years qualifying service and having attained the age of 26. Later Social Security Acts reduced the qualifying period from five years to two years and removed the age qualification requirement. These changes were not made retrospective. Individuals receive the benefits in accordance with the scheme rules in place at the time of their retirement.

Given the length of time since the change was introduced, I cannot say for certain whether an assessment was made at the time for extending those rights to personnel who had left before this change was introduced. However, it has long been a principle of public service pensions policy, and one that has been upheld by successive Governments, that improvements to pension schemes are not made retrospective.

Retrospection would add significantly to the cost of introducing any meaningful improvements to the scheme because, typically, legacy issues are common to other public service schemes in existence prior to the Social Security Act 1973 and not limited to just the Armed Forces. Where legacy issues are common across public sector schemes, a retrospective change implemented for the Armed Forces would certainly result in pressure from others for similar treatment. To concede retrospection for one group would place great pressure on other public service schemes. No specific estimate has been made of the cost of resolving these legacy issues.

I can confirm that there are no plans to reassess this position.

Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he has made an assessment of the cost of providing pension benefits, compensation or other forms of redress to former members of the Armed Forces who left service before 6 April 1975 without qualifying for a service pension.

Answered by Calvin Bailey - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans and People)

Prior to 1975 there were no rights to preserved pensions in any public or private pension schemes. Most schemes had very restricted qualifying criteria for the award of pensions. For the Armed Forces, occupational pensions were awarded only if a member had completed at least 16 years reckonable service as an officer or 22 years reckonable service as another rank. Reckonable service is paid service after age 21 for officers or after age 18 for other ranks. Gratuities (lump- sum payments) were awarded to those who did not serve long enough for a pension but had completed at least nine years reckonable service as an officer or 12 years reckonable service as an Other Rank.

The Social Security Act 1973 brought about changes by requiring all pension schemes (not only Armed Forces pensions) to preserve pension rights for those who left service after 6th April 1975 having completed at least five years qualifying service and having attained the age of 26. Later Social Security Acts reduced the qualifying period from five years to two years and removed the age qualification requirement. These changes were not made retrospective. Individuals receive the benefits in accordance with the scheme rules in place at the time of their retirement.

Given the length of time since the change was introduced, I cannot say for certain whether an assessment was made at the time for extending those rights to personnel who had left before this change was introduced. However, it has long been a principle of public service pensions policy, and one that has been upheld by successive Governments, that improvements to pension schemes are not made retrospective.

Retrospection would add significantly to the cost of introducing any meaningful improvements to the scheme because, typically, legacy issues are common to other public service schemes in existence prior to the Social Security Act 1973 and not limited to just the Armed Forces. Where legacy issues are common across public sector schemes, a retrospective change implemented for the Armed Forces would certainly result in pressure from others for similar treatment. To concede retrospection for one group would place great pressure on other public service schemes. No specific estimate has been made of the cost of resolving these legacy issues.

I can confirm that there are no plans to reassess this position.

Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether an estimate has been made of the number of former members of the Armed Forces who left service before 6 April 1975 after completing substantial periods of service but who are not entitled to an Armed Forces pension.

Answered by Calvin Bailey - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans and People)

Prior to 1975 there were no rights to preserved pensions in any public or private pension schemes. Most schemes had very restricted qualifying criteria for the award of pensions. For the Armed Forces, occupational pensions were awarded only if a member had completed at least 16 years reckonable service as an officer or 22 years reckonable service as another rank. Reckonable service is paid service after age 21 for officers or after age 18 for other ranks. Gratuities (lump- sum payments) were awarded to those who did not serve long enough for a pension but had completed at least nine years reckonable service as an officer or 12 years reckonable service as an Other Rank.

The Social Security Act 1973 brought about changes by requiring all pension schemes (not only Armed Forces pensions) to preserve pension rights for those who left service after 6th April 1975 having completed at least five years qualifying service and having attained the age of 26. Later Social Security Acts reduced the qualifying period from five years to two years and removed the age qualification requirement. These changes were not made retrospective. Individuals receive the benefits in accordance with the scheme rules in place at the time of their retirement.

Given the length of time since the change was introduced, I cannot say for certain whether an assessment was made at the time for extending those rights to personnel who had left before this change was introduced. However, it has long been a principle of public service pensions policy, and one that has been upheld by successive Governments, that improvements to pension schemes are not made retrospective.

Retrospection would add significantly to the cost of introducing any meaningful improvements to the scheme because, typically, legacy issues are common to other public service schemes in existence prior to the Social Security Act 1973 and not limited to just the Armed Forces. Where legacy issues are common across public sector schemes, a retrospective change implemented for the Armed Forces would certainly result in pressure from others for similar treatment. To concede retrospection for one group would place great pressure on other public service schemes. No specific estimate has been made of the cost of resolving these legacy issues.

I can confirm that there are no plans to reassess this position.

Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when introducing preserved and deferred Armed Forces pension rights on 6 April 1975, whether he considered extending those rights to personnel who had already left the Armed Forces after completing substantial periods of service.

Answered by Calvin Bailey - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans and People)

Prior to 1975 there were no rights to preserved pensions in any public or private pension schemes. Most schemes had very restricted qualifying criteria for the award of pensions. For the Armed Forces, occupational pensions were awarded only if a member had completed at least 16 years reckonable service as an officer or 22 years reckonable service as another rank. Reckonable service is paid service after age 21 for officers or after age 18 for other ranks. Gratuities (lump- sum payments) were awarded to those who did not serve long enough for a pension but had completed at least nine years reckonable service as an officer or 12 years reckonable service as an Other Rank.

The Social Security Act 1973 brought about changes by requiring all pension schemes (not only Armed Forces pensions) to preserve pension rights for those who left service after 6th April 1975 having completed at least five years qualifying service and having attained the age of 26. Later Social Security Acts reduced the qualifying period from five years to two years and removed the age qualification requirement. These changes were not made retrospective. Individuals receive the benefits in accordance with the scheme rules in place at the time of their retirement.

Given the length of time since the change was introduced, I cannot say for certain whether an assessment was made at the time for extending those rights to personnel who had left before this change was introduced. However, it has long been a principle of public service pensions policy, and one that has been upheld by successive Governments, that improvements to pension schemes are not made retrospective.

Retrospection would add significantly to the cost of introducing any meaningful improvements to the scheme because, typically, legacy issues are common to other public service schemes in existence prior to the Social Security Act 1973 and not limited to just the Armed Forces. Where legacy issues are common across public sector schemes, a retrospective change implemented for the Armed Forces would certainly result in pressure from others for similar treatment. To concede retrospection for one group would place great pressure on other public service schemes. No specific estimate has been made of the cost of resolving these legacy issues.

I can confirm that there are no plans to reassess this position.

Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he plans to undertake a review of former Armed Forces personnel who left service before 6 April 1975 without qualifying for a service pension with a view to considering (a) compensation and (b) other forms of redress.

Answered by Calvin Bailey - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans and People)

Prior to 1975 there were no rights to preserved pensions in any public or private pension schemes. Most schemes had very restricted qualifying criteria for the award of pensions. For the Armed Forces, occupational pensions were awarded only if a member had completed at least 16 years reckonable service as an officer or 22 years reckonable service as another rank. Reckonable service is paid service after age 21 for officers or after age 18 for other ranks. Gratuities (lump- sum payments) were awarded to those who did not serve long enough for a pension but had completed at least nine years reckonable service as an officer or 12 years reckonable service as an Other Rank.

The Social Security Act 1973 brought about changes by requiring all pension schemes (not only Armed Forces pensions) to preserve pension rights for those who left service after 6th April 1975 having completed at least five years qualifying service and having attained the age of 26. Later Social Security Acts reduced the qualifying period from five years to two years and removed the age qualification requirement. These changes were not made retrospective. Individuals receive the benefits in accordance with the scheme rules in place at the time of their retirement.

Given the length of time since the change was introduced, I cannot say for certain whether an assessment was made at the time for extending those rights to personnel who had left before this change was introduced. However, it has long been a principle of public service pensions policy, and one that has been upheld by successive Governments, that improvements to pension schemes are not made retrospective.

Retrospection would add significantly to the cost of introducing any meaningful improvements to the scheme because, typically, legacy issues are common to other public service schemes in existence prior to the Social Security Act 1973 and not limited to just the Armed Forces. Where legacy issues are common across public sector schemes, a retrospective change implemented for the Armed Forces would certainly result in pressure from others for similar treatment. To concede retrospection for one group would place great pressure on other public service schemes. No specific estimate has been made of the cost of resolving these legacy issues.

I can confirm that there are no plans to reassess this position.

Senior Courts of England and Wales