Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, when his Department last reviewed the income thresholds for the Healthy Start scheme, and whether it will conduct an updated review given concerns that thresholds have not been revised for nearly a decade and may no longer reflect current economic conditions faced by low income working families.
Answered by Sharon Hodgson - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government has taken action to strengthen support through Healthy Start. From April 2026, an increase to the weekly payments has been implemented, which means pregnant women and children aged under four years old and over one years old each receive £4.65 every week, and children under one years old each receive £9.30.
The income-related eligibility criteria for the Healthy Start scheme are not set as standalone cash thresholds. Eligibility is linked to receipt of certain income-related benefits, including Universal Credit, which act as passporting mechanisms to ensure support is targeted at families on the lowest incomes. Eligibility criteria for the scheme are kept under continuous review.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether the Department has assessed the potential merits of extending Healthy Start eligibility to include working parents in receipt of Statutory Paternity Pay.
Answered by Sharon Hodgson - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Healthy Start Scheme was introduced in 2006 to encourage a healthy diet for pregnant women, babies, and young children under four years old from very low-income households. The Department has not undertaken a specific assessment of extending Healthy Start eligibility to include working parents in receipt of Statutory Paternity Pay. This is because Statutory Paternity Pay is not a means tested benefit and is available to individuals in work, including those on higher incomes.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether she has had recent discussions with the Religious Education Council’s Task and Finish Group on the development of the proposed Programmes of Study for a potential National Curriculum for Religious Education; and what the (a) criteria and (b) process was for selecting members of the (i) Task and Finish Group and (ii) any expert advisory groups.
Answered by Georgia Gould - Minister of State (Education)
My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education has met Vanessa Ogden, chair of the independent sector led group, along with some members of the group. She welcomes the independent work being undertaken to develop a draft religious education curriculum.
The department was not responsible for selecting its members or for determining the criteria or processes used to select members of the group or any associated expert advisory groups. As such, decisions on membership were a matter for the sector-led group and were intended to ensure a breadth of expertise and representation from across the religious education sector.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many patients have been affected by the recall of certain Boston Scientific CRT-P pacemakers (a) nationally and (b) within Somerset; what assessment has been made of the potential impact of this on NHS resources; and who is responsible for covering the costs of device replacement and associated care.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is closely monitoring the Boston Scientific Accolade Field Safety Corrective Action (FSCA) to ensure it progresses safely.
The FSCA affects 13,969 pacemaker patients at 153 sites in the United Kingdom, who have an increased risk of their pacemaker switching to “Safety Mode”. This represents approximately 14% of UK Accolade Pacemakers.
The Department is aware of two deaths associated with this malfunction, both of which occurred outside the UK, and resulted from injuries sustained from fainting following a malfunction.
Risk mitigation advice includes evaluation of patient devices and revision surgery for those with four years or less longevity remaining. While some devices may need earlier replacement than would have been expected, the risk to patients is low and affected patients are being reviewed locally by expert clinical teams, often as part of routine follow-up processes.
Musgrove Park Hospital’s pacing service, which includes the fitting of pacemakers, has been minimally affected, less than five patients, by the recall of the Boston Scientific CRT‑P pacemakers.
In most cases, the trust uses alternative pacemaker products, including Biotronik and Abbott devices. As a result, the recall has had minimal impact on services and patient care, but MHRA will continue to keep this under review.
The commissioning of pacemaker devices does not fall under the direct commissioning remit of NHS England. Given the benefits of trying to achieve a nationally coordinated response, NHS England worked with professional bodies and NHS Supply Chain to encourage an equitable approach from Boston Scientific relating to both additional device costs and the impact of additional activity.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
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 potential impact of the recall of certain Boston Scientific CRT-P pacemakers on NHS services; and what steps are being taken to support affected patients and recover associated costs.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is closely monitoring the Boston Scientific Accolade Field Safety Corrective Action (FSCA) to ensure it progresses safely.
The FSCA affects 13,969 pacemaker patients at 153 sites in the United Kingdom, who have an increased risk of their pacemaker switching to “Safety Mode”. This represents approximately 14% of UK Accolade Pacemakers.
The Department is aware of two deaths associated with this malfunction, both of which occurred outside the UK, and resulted from injuries sustained from fainting following a malfunction.
Risk mitigation advice includes evaluation of patient devices and revision surgery for those with four years or less longevity remaining. While some devices may need earlier replacement than would have been expected, the risk to patients is low and affected patients are being reviewed locally by expert clinical teams, often as part of routine follow-up processes.
Musgrove Park Hospital’s pacing service, which includes the fitting of pacemakers, has been minimally affected, less than five patients, by the recall of the Boston Scientific CRT‑P pacemakers.
In most cases, the trust uses alternative pacemaker products, including Biotronik and Abbott devices. As a result, the recall has had minimal impact on services and patient care, but MHRA will continue to keep this under review.
The commissioning of pacemaker devices does not fall under the direct commissioning remit of NHS England. Given the benefits of trying to achieve a nationally coordinated response, NHS England worked with professional bodies and NHS Supply Chain to encourage an equitable approach from Boston Scientific relating to both additional device costs and the impact of additional activity.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero:
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of proposed changes to energy infrastructure planning application fees on (a) network operator costs and (b) consumer bills.
Answered by Michael Shanks - Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
The Government has proposed a fully cost-reflective charging regime for its energy infrastructure planning application fees, in order to place this function on a sustainable footing for the future as application volumes increase. The Government is currently assessing the responses to the public consultation that ran from 16 December 2025 to 1 February 2026, which included specific questions on cost impacts.
This assessment will pay particular regard to the evidence provided by respondents on network operator costs and impacts on bills.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, with reference to the Minister for Housing’s statement during the final Commons debate on the Renters’ Rights Bill that the Government intends to establish an alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations as soon as possible, what specific milestones, deadlines and resourcing plans his Department has set for (a) completing the viability assessment and (b) establishing that body or mechanism.
Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to Question UIN 116835 on 9 March 2026.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero:
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that network operators do not bear the cost of the necessary wayleave process when landowners serve notices to remove electricity infrastructure.
Answered by Michael Shanks - Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
Government recognises that Network Operators play an important public service role in developing and maintaining an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity distribution and transmission – this includes securing the necessary permissions to install and maintain electric lines. These costs, including any costs associated with applying for a Necessary Wayleave, are not borne directly by Network Operators, but rather passed onto consumer energy bills through Ofgem regulated network charges.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of the proposed reduction in Skills Bootcamp funding on (a) regional labour markets with nationally significant infrastructure projects under active construction, with particular reference to Somerset and Hinkley Point C, and (b) the ability of local employers to meet workforce requirements for projects of strategic importance to the UK's energy security and industrial strategy.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
I refer the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to the answer of 26 February 2026 to Question 113869.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with reference to the findings of the Independent Review of Carer’s Allowance Overpayments published in November 2025, what assessment he has made of the proportionality and fairness of enforcement actions in cases where (a) inadvertent breaches of the earnings limit averaged only marginal amounts and (b) the total overpayment was substantially lower than the subsequent debt and penalty issued.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
The Government inherited a system where some busy carers, already struggling under a huge weight of caring responsibilities, found themselves with unexpected debts due to overpayments of CA. The Independent Review, undertaken by Liz Sayce, showed that some mistakes were made, and we are determined to put them right. We welcomed the report and accepted or partially accepted 38 of the 40 recommendations. The Department will now continue putting things right by reassessing cases affected because guidance on averaging irregularly fluctuating earnings between 2015 and 2025 did not accurately reflect the statutory position. We will set out more details on the reassessment exercise in the next few weeks.