Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what information her Department hold on the antidepressant prescribing rate among parents and carers of children with EHC plans.
Answered by James Frith - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Department of Health and Social Care has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.
Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will introduce species-specific welfare standards for budgerigars under its Animal Welfare Strategy for England, including regulations on conspecific social housing, restrictions on non-veterinary wing-clipping, reviews of commercial hand-rearing and enforcement of flight guidance for bird retailers.
Answered by Stephen Morgan - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
As part of this Government’s Animal Welfare Strategy, we are committed to working with the sector to improve compliance with existing welfare requirements. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes it an offence to cause animals unnecessary suffering. Furthermore, businesses selling animals as pets must meet statutory minimum welfare standards under the Licensing of Activities Involving Animals Regulation 2018. There are no plans to introduce further regulation on the issues raised.
Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of the timing of EHC plan issue on Key Stage 4 attainment and post-19 employment.
Answered by Georgia Gould - Minister of State (Education)
The government wants all settings, including early years, schools and post-16 providers, to be confident in accurately identifying special educational needs and choosing evidence-based interventions that effectively address them. For those who require an education health and care (EHC) plan, our reforms will seek to improve families’ experiences and outcomes for children and young people (CYP).
The department has not made a specific assessment of the impact of timing of issuing EHC plans on key stage 4 attainment or post-19 employment outcomes. However, we recognise the importance of timely support for CYP with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) at every stage of their education.
Effective, timely identification and intervention are critical to improving outcomes for CYP with SEND. Through our proposed reforms, we will also seek to establish smoother transitions from school to post-16 education. This will include ensuring that settings work together and that transition planning for learners with SEND begins 12 months in advance.
The department recently consulted on its proposed SEND reforms and will set out its response in due course.
Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many children with EHC plans and no setting are waiting for a placement that exists but is full, as against one that does not exist at all.
Answered by Georgia Gould - Minister of State (Education)
The department does not hold information on the reason why children are not attending the placement named in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan.
This government is committed to supporting local areas to create high-quality places that are suitable to meet the needs of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). We want more children and young people to access the right support in a local mainstream setting which will enable them to learn alongside their peers and siblings, instead of travelling a long way to a special school.
This is why we are investing at least £3.7 billion in high needs capital funding between 2025/26 and 2029/30, to support local authorities to provide places for children and young people with SEND, or who require alternative provision, across early years settings, schools, and colleges.
Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will review the rules on Ofsted-registered childminders claiming government-funded early education and childcare hours for children to whom they are related, where care is provided outside the child’s home; and if she will adopt the same approach as in Wales.
Answered by Paul Waugh - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
Parents are free to choose the childcare that is right for them and their children. However, the restriction on funding relatives is set out in the Childcare Act (2006). Section 18(4) of this Act specifically excludes care provided for a child by a parent or other relative. This approach avoids creating an incentive for adults to register to become childminders and be paid to look after related children that they are already looking after on an informal basis.
A local authority can choose to fund a childminder providing childcare for a related child, but this would have to be from the local authority’s funds independent of the dedicated schools grant.
Flexibilities within staff to child ratios can be used to enable childminders who are caring for related children, to avoid limiting the income they can earn. We currently have no plans to change this long-standing position.
Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment her Department has made of the adequacy of health and social care support available to autistic people who do not have a learning disability.
Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The independent review into the prevalence and support for mental health conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism, led by Professor Peter Fonagy, was published on 9 October, providing analysis and recommendations across a wide range of issues relating to the current provision of services in this area.
The Government issued an initial response on the day of publication, available at the link below, but we will set out the full action we are taking in response to the review recommendations in our new Mental Health Strategy to be published later this year, which will be relevant to the issues raised by the Hon Member. The Government remains fully committed to developing and publishing a revised cross-Government autism strategy in line with the Autism Act 2009. We will engage on the development of the revised autism strategy including on whether the scope of the autism strategy should be extended to cover ADHD.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-pledges-earlier-support-to-tackle-mental-health-crises
Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether she plans to improve access to health and social care support for autistic people who do not have a learning disability.
Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The independent review into the prevalence and support for mental health conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism, led by Professor Peter Fonagy, was published on 9 October, providing analysis and recommendations across a wide range of issues relating to the current provision of services in this area.
The Government issued an initial response on the day of publication, available at the link below, but we will set out the full action we are taking in response to the review recommendations in our new Mental Health Strategy to be published later this year, which will be relevant to the issues raised by the Hon Member. The Government remains fully committed to developing and publishing a revised cross-Government autism strategy in line with the Autism Act 2009. We will engage on the development of the revised autism strategy including on whether the scope of the autism strategy should be extended to cover ADHD.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-pledges-earlier-support-to-tackle-mental-health-crises
Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what estimate she has made of the economic and social costs associated with the mental health impact on parents and caregivers of children with SEND; and whether she plans to include these costs in future fiscal impact assessments for SEND provision.
Answered by Georgia Gould - Minister of State (Education)
The department has made no specific estimate of the economic and social costs associated with the mental health impact on parents and caregivers of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). The department has also made no assessment of whether such costs should be included in future fiscal impact assessments for SEND provision.
The government has recognised that too many children and young people with SEND and their families are being let down by the current system. The reforms seek to reduce the need for families to navigate adversarial processes and instead provide support that is earlier, clearer and more consistent, helping ensure that children and young people with SEND and their families have a better experience of the system.
Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps have been taken in response to receiving Prevention of Future Death reports.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Coroners do not make recommendations as part of their inquest findings. However, where a coroner investigation gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur, or will continue to exist, in the future, and the coroner considers that action should be taken to prevent future deaths, they have a statutory duty to issue a Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) report to a person (including an organisation, public body, Government department or private company) that may have the power to take such action.
Recipients are required to provide a written response to the coroner within 56 days, or within any extended period agreed by the coroner, setting out action taken or proposed, or explaining why no action is proposed. Reports and responses must be sent to the Chief Coroner and are generally published and available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/?s=&pfd_report_type=&post_type=pfd&order=relevance.
These reports have been intentionally placed into the public domain since July 2013 as part of the Government and the judiciary’s commitment to open justice, so that coroner concerns can be understood, analysed and utilised to improve learning by recipient and other interested organisations, as well as by academics and others with a relevant interest.
The Government recognises the important role that PFD reports play in highlighting circumstances where action may be required to reduce the risk of future deaths and promoting organisational learning. However, whilst the Lord Chancellor has responsibility for the legislative framework governing the coronial system, the Ministry of Justice does not centrally assess, monitor or record the implementation of actions arising from individual PFD reports across Government and does not hold centrally the number of PFD reports received by government departments since 2013, nor the number of reports with outstanding responses. Responsibility for considering concerns raised by coroners, determining any appropriate action and responding to the coroner rests with the organisations and departments to which reports are addressed.
PFD reports are sent directly to the relevant recipients, and as above, are published by the Chief Coroner along with responses. Information on reports received and responses provided can also be obtained from individual recipients. Since 2025, the Chief Coroner has also published periodic lists of reports for which no response has been received by the relevant coroner's office.
The Ministry of Justice keeps all aspects of the coronial system under review and continues to consider evidence and proposals to improve learning from deaths. However, the Department currently has no plans to introduce a national learning from deaths strategy. This reflects the fact that responsibility for preventing avoidable deaths and reducing harm sits across a wide range of government departments, agencies and bodies, each with their own specialist expertise, statutory responsibilities, policy levers, governance arrangements and learning mechanisms.
Many individual government departments and agencies have strategies and frameworks for reducing harm and preventable deaths in their areas of responsibility. One example is the Patient Safety Strategy updated by NHS England in July 2026. The purpose of this strategy is to continuously improve patient safety and evidence shows that is saving around 1,000 extra lives each year. The updated strategy can be found here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/patient-safety/the-nhs-patient-safety-strategy/.
In addition, the National Quality Board produced guidance in 2017 to help standardise and improve the way the NHS identifies, reports, reviews and investigates deaths to inform learning and improvement. Earlier this year, the newly revitalised National Quality Board commissioned a review of the national Learning from Deaths guidance to align with the introduction of the Medical Examiner system and new safety policy introduced via the NHS Patient Safety Strategy in 2019. The revision of the Learning from Deaths guidance will also incorporate a data strategy to support learning from deaths across the NHS in England. NHS England has met with Dr Georgia Richards and others working in the space of PFD analysis and the revised guidance will take this work into account. The Department for Health and Social Care tracks relevant PFD reports and ensures that relevant regulators and other bodies, are made aware of concerns, so that the relevant organisations can consider and act upon learning identified, including recurrent themes and risks.
More broadly, death certification, investigation, and registration system (including the coronial system and, through the reforms introduced by this Government in September 2024, the statutory Medical Examiner system) plays a vital role in establishing and recording universal and robust information about the circumstances of all deaths which take place in England and Wales. This information in turn contributes to work by ONS and other organisations to provide comprehensive and detailed mortality data for public benefit.
The Government recognises calls by the Infected Blood Inquiry and the Grenfell Inquiry that Parliament is the right body to undertake independent oversight of public inquiry recommendations and ensure that public authorities are held accountable for the actions they have committed to undertake. The Public Administration and Constitution Affairs Committee is currently looking at how Parliament can do this.
Ministers and officials regularly engage with a range of stakeholders on matters relating to the coronial system, including academic and research organisations. The Government recognises the contribution of the Preventable Deaths Tracker, led by Dr Georgia Richards of King’s College London, as well as work being undertaken by the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody and by other academics, in supporting access to and analysis of published PFD reports, and ministerial meetings are considered and arranged in the usual way.
Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many Prevention of Future Death reports the government has received since 2013 broken down by Department.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Coroners do not make recommendations as part of their inquest findings. However, where a coroner investigation gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur, or will continue to exist, in the future, and the coroner considers that action should be taken to prevent future deaths, they have a statutory duty to issue a Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) report to a person (including an organisation, public body, Government department or private company) that may have the power to take such action.
Recipients are required to provide a written response to the coroner within 56 days, or within any extended period agreed by the coroner, setting out action taken or proposed, or explaining why no action is proposed. Reports and responses must be sent to the Chief Coroner and are generally published and available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/?s=&pfd_report_type=&post_type=pfd&order=relevance.
These reports have been intentionally placed into the public domain since July 2013 as part of the Government and the judiciary’s commitment to open justice, so that coroner concerns can be understood, analysed and utilised to improve learning by recipient and other interested organisations, as well as by academics and others with a relevant interest.
The Government recognises the important role that PFD reports play in highlighting circumstances where action may be required to reduce the risk of future deaths and promoting organisational learning. However, whilst the Lord Chancellor has responsibility for the legislative framework governing the coronial system, the Ministry of Justice does not centrally assess, monitor or record the implementation of actions arising from individual PFD reports across Government and does not hold centrally the number of PFD reports received by government departments since 2013, nor the number of reports with outstanding responses. Responsibility for considering concerns raised by coroners, determining any appropriate action and responding to the coroner rests with the organisations and departments to which reports are addressed.
PFD reports are sent directly to the relevant recipients, and as above, are published by the Chief Coroner along with responses. Information on reports received and responses provided can also be obtained from individual recipients. Since 2025, the Chief Coroner has also published periodic lists of reports for which no response has been received by the relevant coroner's office.
The Ministry of Justice keeps all aspects of the coronial system under review and continues to consider evidence and proposals to improve learning from deaths. However, the Department currently has no plans to introduce a national learning from deaths strategy. This reflects the fact that responsibility for preventing avoidable deaths and reducing harm sits across a wide range of government departments, agencies and bodies, each with their own specialist expertise, statutory responsibilities, policy levers, governance arrangements and learning mechanisms.
Many individual government departments and agencies have strategies and frameworks for reducing harm and preventable deaths in their areas of responsibility. One example is the Patient Safety Strategy updated by NHS England in July 2026. The purpose of this strategy is to continuously improve patient safety and evidence shows that is saving around 1,000 extra lives each year. The updated strategy can be found here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/patient-safety/the-nhs-patient-safety-strategy/.
In addition, the National Quality Board produced guidance in 2017 to help standardise and improve the way the NHS identifies, reports, reviews and investigates deaths to inform learning and improvement. Earlier this year, the newly revitalised National Quality Board commissioned a review of the national Learning from Deaths guidance to align with the introduction of the Medical Examiner system and new safety policy introduced via the NHS Patient Safety Strategy in 2019. The revision of the Learning from Deaths guidance will also incorporate a data strategy to support learning from deaths across the NHS in England. NHS England has met with Dr Georgia Richards and others working in the space of PFD analysis and the revised guidance will take this work into account. The Department for Health and Social Care tracks relevant PFD reports and ensures that relevant regulators and other bodies, are made aware of concerns, so that the relevant organisations can consider and act upon learning identified, including recurrent themes and risks.
More broadly, death certification, investigation, and registration system (including the coronial system and, through the reforms introduced by this Government in September 2024, the statutory Medical Examiner system) plays a vital role in establishing and recording universal and robust information about the circumstances of all deaths which take place in England and Wales. This information in turn contributes to work by ONS and other organisations to provide comprehensive and detailed mortality data for public benefit.
The Government recognises calls by the Infected Blood Inquiry and the Grenfell Inquiry that Parliament is the right body to undertake independent oversight of public inquiry recommendations and ensure that public authorities are held accountable for the actions they have committed to undertake. The Public Administration and Constitution Affairs Committee is currently looking at how Parliament can do this.
Ministers and officials regularly engage with a range of stakeholders on matters relating to the coronial system, including academic and research organisations. The Government recognises the contribution of the Preventable Deaths Tracker, led by Dr Georgia Richards of King’s College London, as well as work being undertaken by the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody and by other academics, in supporting access to and analysis of published PFD reports, and ministerial meetings are considered and arranged in the usual way.