Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether his Department has made an assessment of the adequacy of the immediate assurances relied upon by CQC in deciding not to use urgent powers under section 31.

Answered by Preet Kaur Gill - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is an independent regulator, and decisions about enforcement action, including the use of urgent powers under section 31 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, are a matter for the CQC, exercised in line with its statutory remit and published enforcement policy.

In relation to the community-based mental health services for adults of working age at the Lambeth Single Point of Access team, the CQC considered the use of urgent powers under section 31 following the 2025 inspection findings. However, following further submissions and evidence from the provider, the CQC determined that the statutory threshold for urgent action was no longer met at the point of decision, and urgent enforcement action was not pursued. Regulatory breaches remained and are being addressed through ongoing regulatory oversight and follow‑up activity.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the answer of 14 May 2026 to question 1302 on NHS: Standards, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the technical issues and backlogs on the Care Quality Commission's ability to record, retrieve and act upon information of concern in respect of services at that Trust.

Answered by Preet Kaur Gill - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has established systems and processes to receive, record, assess, and act on safety intelligence about providers, submitted by members of the public, employees of registered providers, people using services and their family members and carers, and partner organisations.

All information of concern is reviewed and triangulated with inspection findings, provider-submitted data, and partner information. Where necessary, concerns are followed up directly with National Health Service trusts and incorporated into the CQC’s assessment of risk, informing decisions about further regulatory action.

The Department holds regular accountability meetings with the CQC to assess the CQC’s performance, including clearing a backlog of information of concern cases following technical issues.

In relation to the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, the CQC has continued to receive and review information and intelligence as part of its ongoing regulatory oversight following the 2025 inspections. Based on the material reviewed, the CQC has not identified evidence of a significant impact on its ability to record, retrieve, and act on information of concern in respect of services at that trust. The CQC continues to strengthen its assurance processes as part of its wider recovery and improvement work.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether his Department has made an assessment of the effectiveness of the Care Quality Commission's regulatory oversight of Lambeth adult community mental health services, including the Single Point of Access team.

Answered by Preet Kaur Gill - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is an independent regulator responsible for assessing and monitoring providers in line with its statutory remit. The Department holds the CQC to account for its overall performance and delivery of its regulatory functions.

The CQC is undertaking a programme of improvement, and the Department continues to engage closely with CQC leadership to monitor progress through regular sponsorship and accountability meetings.

The CQC conducted inspections of community mental health services for adults of working age and crisis services as part of its Adult Community Mental Health Programme, a national programme focused on assessing access, quality, safety, and outcomes in community mental health services, including crisis pathways and single points of access. Following inspection, the adult community mental health services at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust were rated as ‘Requires Improvement’. This programme forms part of the CQC’s wider work to strengthen oversight of community mental health services across England.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether he has taken steps in response to the recommendation issued by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in January 2025 on removing stigma, informational and technological barriers to access to health for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities.

Answered by Sharon Hodgson - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Government is committed to reducing health inequalities, including for Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities, through its 10-Year Health Plan for England and NHS England’s CORE20PLUS5 approach.

Regarding barriers identified by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, we are taking action to address stigma, informational, and technological barriers to healthcare. This includes supporting guidance for health and care professionals, developed in partnership with Roma-led organisations, to improve understanding of community needs, challenge discrimination, and build trust in services. The supporting guidance is available at the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/improving-roma-health-a-guide-for-health-and-care-professionals

We are also improving access to information and care by promoting accessible communication, including tailored resources, such as visual materials and wordless picture stories, community-language materials, face-to-face outreach, and non-digital routes into services. Further information on the wordless picture stories is available at the following link:

https://www.booksbeyondwords.co.uk/

Alongside this, we are strengthening ethnicity data collection and investing in research on lived experience to ensure services are better designed to meet the needs of Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities and reduce inequalities in access, experience, and outcomes.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether her Department is taking steps to tackle the use of motorcycle plate flippers.

Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

It is already an offence to display a vehicle licence plate that does not comply with the relevant legal requirements, and enforcement is an operational matter for the police.

The Department published a consultation earlier this year on proposals to introduce penalty points and vehicle seizure powers for being in charge of a motor vehicle displaying an incorrect, altered or false registration plate. The consultation has now closed and the Government is considering responses, which will inform next steps.

The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) is also working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), police forces and Trading Standards to tackle the supply and use of modified and illegally displayed number plates.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether she has made an assessment of recent research by the Jesuit Refugee Service UK and the Humans for Rights Network on the misidentification of children by the one in, one out scheme.

Answered by Alex Norris - Minister of State (Home Office)

Unaccompanied children are not subject to the agreement between the United Kingdom and France on the prevention of dangerous journeys, also known as the one-in, one-out policy.

Upon arrival, where an individual claims to be a child without any credible and clear documentary evidence of age, and where there is reason to doubt their claimed age, immigration officers are required to make an initial age decision to determine whether the individual should be treated as a child or an adult. This is an important first step to prevent individuals who are clearly an adult or child from being subjected unnecessarily to a more substantive age assessment and ensure individuals are routed to the correct adult or child process.

The ‘Assessing Age’ guidance details the Home Office’s age assessment policy for immigration purposes. It provides that immigration officers may only treat an individual as an adult where they have no credible and clear documentary evidence proving their age, and two members of Home Office staff independently assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that the individual is ‘significantly over 18’.

This is a deliberately high threshold where the principle of the benefit of the doubt is key and if that threshold is not met, but there remains doubt about the individual’s age, they will be treated as a child and transferred to a local authority for further consideration of their age. This often involves a further, more comprehensive ‘Merton-compliant’ age assessment. This approach to initial decisions on age has been considered by the Supreme Court in BF (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 38 and held to be lawful.

Where individuals are assessed to be significantly over 18, they are able to approach local authorities for further age assessment if they disagree with the Home Office’s decision. Individuals also have access to legal representation and can make legal challenges to age assessments. Individuals are not removed to France where their age is in dispute.

All information relevant to age is taken into consideration. However, operational details of the scheme are not disclosed outside of what has already been published as this may impact migrant behaviour or be exploited by organised crime gangs.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many children misidentified as adults and detained under the one in, one out scheme have subsequently had their ages confirmed to be under-18 by (a) a local authority and (b) the National Age Assessment Board.

Answered by Alex Norris - Minister of State (Home Office)

Unaccompanied children are not subject to the agreement between the United Kingdom and France on the prevention of dangerous journeys, also known as the one-in, one-out policy.

Upon arrival, where an individual claims to be a child without any credible and clear documentary evidence of age, and where there is reason to doubt their claimed age, immigration officers are required to make an initial age decision to determine whether the individual should be treated as a child or an adult. This is an important first step to prevent individuals who are clearly an adult or child from being subjected unnecessarily to a more substantive age assessment and ensure individuals are routed to the correct adult or child process.

The ‘Assessing Age’ guidance details the Home Office’s age assessment policy for immigration purposes. It provides that immigration officers may only treat an individual as an adult where they have no credible and clear documentary evidence proving their age, and two members of Home Office staff independently assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that the individual is ‘significantly over 18’.

This is a deliberately high threshold where the principle of the benefit of the doubt is key and if that threshold is not met, but there remains doubt about the individual’s age, they will be treated as a child and transferred to a local authority for further consideration of their age. This often involves a further, more comprehensive ‘Merton-compliant’ age assessment. This approach to initial decisions on age has been considered by the Supreme Court in BF (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 38 and held to be lawful.

Where individuals are assessed to be significantly over 18, they are able to approach local authorities for further age assessment if they disagree with the Home Office’s decision. Individuals also have access to legal representation and can make legal challenges to age assessments. Individuals are not removed to France where their age is in dispute.

All information relevant to age is taken into consideration. However, operational details of the scheme are not disclosed outside of what has already been published as this may impact migrant behaviour or be exploited by organised crime gangs.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps her Department is taking to enforce vehicle noise limits.

Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

The Government takes the impact of excessive noise on health, wellbeing and the natural environment seriously. Strict vehicle noise regulations are harmonised at an international level and require vehicles to demonstrate compliance before being placed on the UK market.

Once on the market, the Market Surveillance Unit (MSU) within the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) ensures new vehicles and components in the UK comply with legislative requirements, including on noise.

The MSU is currently conducting surveillance to check the fit and supply of vehicle components relating to noise, and aftermarket motorcycle silencers available for sale. In 2023-24, two companies were successfully prosecuted for the fit and supply of defective components relating to noise. Further work in this area is ongoing and will be reported on the MSU’s website.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps her Department is taking to help tackle the antisocial use of motorbikes.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

There are clear powers in place for the police to stop and seize vehicles, including motorbikes, used anti-socially. We further strengthened police enforcement powers through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, by removing the requirement for police to issue a warning before seizing motorbikes and other vehicles used antisocially. We have also consulted on measures to allow police to dispose of seized motorbikes and other seized vehicles, more quickly, to deter and prevent re-offending. The government response to the consultation will be issued shortly.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment his Department has made of regional variation in access to CGRP and gepant migraine treatments for patients; and what steps he is taking to ensure that adult neurology waiting lists do not delay access to clinically appropriate alternative treatments.

Answered by Sharon Hodgson - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Department recognises concerns about variation in access to specialist headache services, which can affect the prescribing of newer therapies typically initiated in secondary care.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has published technology appraisals recommending a number of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) treatments and, more recently, gepants for specific groups of patients, and these should be made available in line with those recommendations. It is the responsibility of integrated care boards to commission services and ensure appropriate access to NICE-approved treatments for their local populations.

General practitioners can prescribe some gepants, such as rimegepant and atogepant, for migraine prevention, provided it is done in accordance with local shared-care agreements or after an initial specialist recommendation.

NHS England is taking steps to reduce variation and improve access through neurology networks, and programmes such as Getting It Right First Time, which support more consistent pathways and earlier use of appropriate treatments where clinically indicated.

We are also aware of the impact that waiting times for neurology services can have on access to specialist-prescribed treatments. NHS England is working to improve elective recovery, including for neurology, and to support pathway redesign so that patients can access the most appropriate treatment without unnecessary delay.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether she has made an assessment of the potential merits of publishing reasons for denial of visitor visas in high profile cases.

Answered by Mike Tapp - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)

The Home Office ensures that all applicants for visit visas receive clear and detailed reasons where their application is refused. These reasons are set out in an individual refusal letter issued directly to the applicant.

As these letters contain personal data relating to the individual applicant, they are protected under data protection legislation, including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). It would therefore not be appropriate to publish them more widely.

However, applicants are free to share their own refusal decision if they wish to do so.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what data he holds on the number of NHS appointments that have been missed due to administrative issues in the last 12 months.

Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

Data is not held in the format requested.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of current national clinical arrangements for identifying, recording and acting on patient (a) psychiatric history, (b) psychotropic medication use and (c) previous psychiatric adverse drug reactions prior to the initiation of preventive migraine treatments.

Answered by Preet Kaur Gill - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Department has not made a specific assessment of national arrangements in relation to these issues.

However, we recognise the importance of clinicians having the right information available when considering preventive migraine treatment, including relevant psychiatric history, current medicines, and any previous adverse drug reactions. Prescribers are accountable for their prescribing decisions and should work with patients to decide the most appropriate course of treatment. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance is clear that the choice of preventive treatment should take account of contraindications, comorbidities, and the risk of adverse events. Access to a patient’s full clinical record is therefore important in supporting safe, appropriate, and individualised care.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if her Department will accept all 13 recommendations made in the Angiolini Inquiry Part 2 First Report, published on 2 December 2025.

Answered by Natalie Fleet - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)

This Government is absolutely committed to ensuring women and girls feel safe going about their everyday lives.

We are carefully considering the Inquiry’s Part 2 First Report’s recommendations and will respond as soon as possible.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has received advice on the use of terrorism-connection sentencing provisions under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 in cases where no terrorism offence was charged or proven before a jury.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent courts. In England and Wales, the terrorist connection aggravating factor applies where an offence is not itself a terrorism offence but takes place in the course of an act of terrorism or is committed for the purposes of terrorism, as defined at section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The determination of such an aggravating factor is a matter for the sentencing judge, not the jury. The existence of aggravating factors is a well-established principle in sentencing and their application does not prejudice the fairness of a trial.

Parliament has provided courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. The courts also have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice for them to do so.

The Ministry of Justice is responsible for sentencing policy, and the Secretary of State for Justice receives advice on such matters as appropriate. The Ministry of Justice does not centrally hold data on the number of sentences aggravated by a terrorism connection under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many defendants have been subject to terrorism-connection sentencing provisions under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 in cases where (a) no terrorism offence was charged and (b) no terrorism offence was proven before a jury, in each of the last five years.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent courts. In England and Wales, the terrorist connection aggravating factor applies where an offence is not itself a terrorism offence but takes place in the course of an act of terrorism or is committed for the purposes of terrorism, as defined at section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The determination of such an aggravating factor is a matter for the sentencing judge, not the jury. The existence of aggravating factors is a well-established principle in sentencing and their application does not prejudice the fairness of a trial.

Parliament has provided courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. The courts also have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice for them to do so.

The Ministry of Justice is responsible for sentencing policy, and the Secretary of State for Justice receives advice on such matters as appropriate. The Ministry of Justice does not centrally hold data on the number of sentences aggravated by a terrorism connection under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of applying terrorism-connection sentencing provisions to defendants in cases where the existence of those provisions was not disclosed to the jury on the right to a fair trial.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent courts. In England and Wales, the terrorist connection aggravating factor applies where an offence is not itself a terrorism offence but takes place in the course of an act of terrorism or is committed for the purposes of terrorism, as defined at section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The determination of such an aggravating factor is a matter for the sentencing judge, not the jury. The existence of aggravating factors is a well-established principle in sentencing and their application does not prejudice the fairness of a trial.

Parliament has provided courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. The courts also have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice for them to do so.

The Ministry of Justice is responsible for sentencing policy, and the Secretary of State for Justice receives advice on such matters as appropriate. The Ministry of Justice does not centrally hold data on the number of sentences aggravated by a terrorism connection under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps his department is taking to ensure continuity of haematopoietic stem cell supply for UK patients in the event of a significant disruption to supply.

Answered by Preet Kaur Gill - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The import of stem cells is important for ensuring that patients can be matched to the most suitable donor, but it relies on global supply chains that can be vulnerable to disruption. Anthony Nolan is responsible for importing stem cells to the United Kingdom in response to requests from clinicians where the most suitable matched donor is outside the UK. Business continuity plans are in place in case of disruption to supply. Systems are also in place to support domestic supply, which is less vulnerable to disruption. Through our funding of the Department’s stem cell programme, we have supported recruitment of UK donors to the UK aligned stem cell registry and supported the creation of a cord stem cell bank. The Department is also funding research to improve techniques for cryopreservation of stem cells, which permits long term storage of viable stem cells until a suitable time to transplant them.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether the independent review of haematopoietic stem cell supply will include consideration of appointing a single accountable organisation, such as NHS Blood and Transplant, with overall responsibility for the UK HSC supply chain.

Answered by Preet Kaur Gill - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

To ensure sustainability and resilience of the United Kingdom’s stem cell supply, the UK Stem Cell Strategic Forum recommended a 45% share for UK-to-UK donor to recipient provision. Imported stem cells have a significantly higher cost than collecting them from UK donors. Through our funding of the DHSC Stem Cell Programme we have supported recruitment of UK donors to the UK aligned stem cell registry to make progress towards the suggested target. The Department recognises that UK-to-UK provision has nonetheless continued to decline and we have launched a comprehensive review of the current system to ensure stem cell supply and use for transplantation is optimised.

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 financial implications for the NHS of the level of reliance on imported haematopoietic stem cell donations.

Answered by Preet Kaur Gill - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

To ensure sustainability and resilience of the United Kingdom’s stem cell supply, the UK Stem Cell Strategic Forum recommended a 45% share for UK-to-UK donor to recipient provision. Imported stem cells have a significantly higher cost than collecting them from UK donors. Through our funding of the DHSC Stem Cell Programme we have supported recruitment of UK donors to the UK aligned stem cell registry to make progress towards the suggested target. The Department recognises that UK-to-UK provision has nonetheless continued to decline and we have launched a comprehensive review of the current system to ensure stem cell supply and use for transplantation is optimised.

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 implications for national health security of the decline in domestically sourced haematopoietic stem cell (HSC) donations from 42% in 2017/18 to 24% in 2024/25, in the context of the UK Stem Cell Strategic Forum's recommended minimum of 45%.

Answered by Preet Kaur Gill - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

To ensure sustainability and resilience of the United Kingdom’s stem cell supply, the UK Stem Cell Strategic Forum recommended a 45% share for UK-to-UK donor to recipient provision. Imported stem cells have a significantly higher cost than collecting them from UK donors. Through our funding of the DHSC Stem Cell Programme we have supported recruitment of UK donors to the UK aligned stem cell registry to make progress towards the suggested target. The Department recognises that UK-to-UK provision has nonetheless continued to decline and we have launched a comprehensive review of the current system to ensure stem cell supply and use for transplantation is optimised.

Carbon monoxide alarms

Action Mesothelioma Day 2026

Pet-inclusive homelessness and temporary accommodation

Ownership and regulation of water

Air conditioning in hospitals, care homes, schools and nurseries

NARPO Love or Money Campaign

Arrest of Dr Mazen Al-Rantisi and Israeli action against Palestinian civil society

Five-year indefinite leave to remain pathway for Skilled Worker visa holders (No. 2)

Technology companies and crimes against Palestinians

Toxicity testing on animals

Release of Venezuela's gold reserves held at the Bank of England

Working in high temperatures

Food prices

Government response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report on communication of changes to women’s state pension age

Public ownership of Thames Water

Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo

Rosebank oil field

England men's football team

Retirement of Tracy Thirlwall

Found: Labour; Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) Joani Reid (Independent; East Kilbride and Strathaven) Bell Ribeiro-Addy

Found: Chair); Lewis Atkinson; Ben Maguire; Robbie Moore; Margaret Mullane; Chris Murray; Joani Reid; Bell Ribeiro-Addy

Found: Chair); Lewis Atkinson; Ben Maguire; Robbie Moore; Margaret Mullane; Chris Murray; Joani Reid; Bell Ribeiro-Addy