Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what guidance exists to help ensure that building managers do not rely on welfare checks, curtain‑management or the provision of fans as substitutes for addressing underlying building performance or overheating issues in specialist retirement housing.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is used to assess health and safety hazards in homes, including excess heat. The HHSRS evaluates the potential risk of harm to an occupier and rates the seriousness of any hazard identified.

My Department recently reviewed the HHSRS, publishing new statutory operating and enforcement guidance, a new suite of illustrated case studies, and new baseline indicators for ensuring safety against each hazard.

Building managers can use this guidance for advice on preventative measures, relevant matters, and baseline indicators for hazardous excess heat in any home, including retirement housing. The guidance covers structural issues and defects and can be found on gov.uk here.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps he is taking to establish women's health hubs in NHS Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin ICB.

Answered by Sharon Hodgson

NHS Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin Integrated Care Board (ICB) supports the national ambition to improve access to neighbourhood women’s health services.

Locally, this builds on women’s health hub activity already established across the system, including early adopter sites and primary care network (PCN)-led models delivering a range of core services.

Work is underway to further develop a broader women’s health neighbourhood offer that builds on existing provision, PCN-led innovation and community partnerships.

Existing hub-related activity includes PCN-led women’s health provision in areas such as Wrekin, with workforce upskilling to expand access to long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) and pessary care. Since April 2025, 62 PCN-led LARC clinics have been delivered.

The local model also includes menopause group consultations, community open-day approaches, schools-based menstrual health education, targeted outreach, and data-led work to improve screening uptake and engagement in areas of higher deprivation.

The ICB is progressing a comprehensive women’s health needs assessment using population health management approaches. This will identify priorities for women and girls across the life course and inform the development of future hub models, ensuring services reflect local need, including addressing health inequalities and the challenges of access across a predominantly rural geography.

In parallel, the ICB is exploring opportunities to strengthen prevention and improve coordination across services. This includes work on preconception health, including an education pilot funded by the Burdett Trust for Nursing, and strengthening links between abortion services and sexual and reproductive health commissioning through a local forum focused on service coordination and shared learning.

The ICB’s approach is to continue strengthening current women’s health hub activity while using needs assessment findings and engagement with primary care, local authorities, NHS and independent providers, and the voluntary and community sector to determine the most appropriate future model. The ambition is to develop a broader, integrated offer that improves access to contraception, menopause support, menstrual health, preconception care and other priority areas identified by women and girls locally.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in reference to the Department’s written statement on Prostate Cancer Screening on the 2nd June, what specific process the Department will use to update the UK National Screening Committee’s prostate cancer screening model as new peer reviewed evidence becomes available.

Answered by Sharon Hodgson

The Prostate Cancer Screening Model, used by the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) to make its recommendation, was commissioned from modelling experts at the Sheffield Centre of Health and Related Research (SCHARR). SCHARR has been commissioned and funded by the Government to maintain the model and continue to work with the UK NSC on developing it for a further three years. This means that new data and evidence can be considered and included in the model throughout the life of the contract.

The model uses data and evidence from a variety of sources, some of which, for example epidemiological data and National Health Service costs, will need to be kept updated throughout the three-year period to ensure that the most up-to-date and relevant data is used in the model before new analyses are run.

The team at SCHARR is already working with the UK NSC Secretariat to identify and consider new evidence. This includes, for example, whether the definition of family history can be refined and whether there is robust additional evidence that can be put into the model.

The UK NSC and SCHARR are also preparing to examine evidence relating to risk algorithms and biomarkers, for example, the Stockholm3 tool. The underpinning evidence on these will be examined in a large evidence review. If the evidence is compelling, then the model will be adjusted to allow varying pathways, risk stratification, for men depending on the results of multiple tests.

In addition, the UK NSC Secretariat is liaising with the research team running the TRANSFORM trial and will work with SCHARR to update the model in the light of any significant information from the trial, especially on Black men.

Furthermore, the UK NSC Secretariat will continue to horizon scan for other relevant evidence. The UK NSC launched an open call for screening topics to be put forward on 1 July, and this is open until 30 September, with further information available at the following link:

https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/2026/07/01/the-uk-nsc-2026-call-for-screening-topics-is-now-open/

This may yield submissions related to prostate cancer screening that will be considered and fed into the model as appropriate.

All the potential scenarios and options built into the model will be based on the best available evidence and will be considered carefully to ensure the best use of the resources allocated and to optimise timely and useful outputs to the committee.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if he will outline the expected timeline for incorporating new evidence, including on the Stockholm3 test, into the UK National Screening Committee’s prostate cancer screening model.

Answered by Sharon Hodgson

The Prostate Cancer Screening Model, used by the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) to make its recommendation, was commissioned from modelling experts at the Sheffield Centre of Health and Related Research (SCHARR). SCHARR has been commissioned and funded by the Government to maintain the model and continue to work with the UK NSC on developing it for a further three years. This means that new data and evidence can be considered and included in the model throughout the life of the contract.

The model uses data and evidence from a variety of sources, some of which, for example epidemiological data and National Health Service costs, will need to be kept updated throughout the three-year period to ensure that the most up-to-date and relevant data is used in the model before new analyses are run.

The team at SCHARR is already working with the UK NSC Secretariat to identify and consider new evidence. This includes, for example, whether the definition of family history can be refined and whether there is robust additional evidence that can be put into the model.

The UK NSC and SCHARR are also preparing to examine evidence relating to risk algorithms and biomarkers, for example, the Stockholm3 tool. The underpinning evidence on these will be examined in a large evidence review. If the evidence is compelling, then the model will be adjusted to allow varying pathways, risk stratification, for men depending on the results of multiple tests.

In addition, the UK NSC Secretariat is liaising with the research team running the TRANSFORM trial and will work with SCHARR to update the model in the light of any significant information from the trial, especially on Black men.

Furthermore, the UK NSC Secretariat will continue to horizon scan for other relevant evidence. The UK NSC launched an open call for screening topics to be put forward on 1 July, and this is open until 30 September, with further information available at the following link:

https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/2026/07/01/the-uk-nsc-2026-call-for-screening-topics-is-now-open/

This may yield submissions related to prostate cancer screening that will be considered and fed into the model as appropriate.

All the potential scenarios and options built into the model will be based on the best available evidence and will be considered carefully to ensure the best use of the resources allocated and to optimise timely and useful outputs to the committee.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the consumer protections available to purchasers of new‑build homes where a developer rejects a formal complaint about the performance of a building element or fixture without undertaking a physical site inspection.

Answered by Samantha Dixon

The Government expects all housebuilders to deliver high-quality homes and to swiftly resolve issues if things go wrong.

If the developer is registered with a consumer code they may be able to seek redress through them in the first two years after purchase. In addition almost all new homes are sold with the benefit of a warranty. Where a homeowner is dissatisfied with the service given by their developer, warranty providers should have a clear complaints procedure for warranty holders to follow. If this still does not resolve the issue, the next step is to refer the case to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) for a decision.

The Government is carefully considering options to further support newbuild homeowners with redress against developers and warranty providers. This includes using existing powers in the Building Safety Act and delivering the commitment to establish a statutory New Homes Ombudsman.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what recent guidance his Department has issued to help ensure that local planning authority requirements for traditional building aesthetics are not cited by developers as a reason for not meeting the optional accessibility standard in Approved Document M4(2).

Answered by Samantha Dixon

I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to Question UIN 123094 on 31 March 2026. Accessibility standards in new homes, including M4(1), M4(2) and M4(3), are set out in statutory guidance accompanying the Building Regulations (Approved Document M ,Volume 1). Provision for accessibility in historic dwellings should be balanced against the preservation of the historic buildings or environments. To achieve this balance, it would be appropriate to take into account the advice of the local authority’s conservation and access officers, English Heritage and views of local access groups.

Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:

To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what discussions she has had with Ofcom on the implementation of duties relating to online fraud under the Online Safety Act 2023, with particular reference to paid-for advertisements impersonating insurers and insurance ghost broking.

Answered by Kanishka Narayan - Minister of State (Cabinet Office) (Jointly with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Technology)

Ministers and officials have regular meetings with a wide range of stakeholders, including Ofcom, on a number of subjects such as online fraud.

Under the Online Safety Act, services designated as Category 1 and 2A (large user-to-user and large search services respectively) will have additional duties to tackle paid-for fraudulent advertising. Ofcom published its register of categorised services on 10 July; on the same day, the regulator also launched consultations on additional duties for categorised services – including on fraudulent advertising.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what steps his Department is taking to help improve transparency in developer communications in the retirement housing sector.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The government is taking no specific steps to improve transparency in developer communications in the retirement housing sector. However, retirement housing providers must comply with relevant consumer legislation.

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, all terms of written contracts must be fair and transparent, that is: expressed in plain, intelligible language and they must be legible. If terms in a consumer contract are assessed by a court as unfair, they will not be binding on the consumer, even if the consumer has “accepted” them.

In addition, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 prohibits unfair commercial practices, including misleading actions and omissions of material information, that are likely to impact the average consumer’s transactional decisions.

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act also updates existing protections that prohibit traders from engaging in aggressive or misleading commercial practices, including harassment, high pressure-selling techniques, coercion or undue influence against consumers..

Lastly, the retirement housing sector is also supported by industry codes, including the Association of Retirement Housing Managers' (ARHM) Code of Practice and the Associated Retirement Community Operators' (ARCO) Consumer Code. These codes set standards for transparency, disclosure of fees and charges, and communications with prospective and existing residents, helping consumers make informed decisions about retirement housing.

Support for post offices

Miscarriage care

National strategy for fertility

Funding of Jodrell Bank Observatory

Cosmetic specifications for fresh produce and national food security

Devon maternity services

Josh Kerr

Fire ponds

Hartley Pensions and FCA enforcement action (No. 2)

Local Housing Allowance rates

2026 Sustainable Farming Incentive

International Court of Justice's July 2024 Advisory Opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Defence Investment Plan

Military housing

Russian sanctions

Essential energy guarantee

Memorial plaque for Ann Widdecombe

The Bookmonger, Bearsden Cross

Ehlers Danlos Syndrome

Found: (c) M OTH none specified NON-HW R 58800 1 EW_EA-17934 2021 David And Helen Morgan Penllan A

Found: 2680 M WEIGH none specified 1 [email protected] EW_EA-17934 2016 David And Helen Morgan

Found: (c) M WEIGH none specified NON-HW R 3320 EW_EA-17934 2017 David And Helen Morgan David And

Found: (c) M WEIGH none specified NON-HW R 39700 1 EW_EA-17934 2020 David And Helen Morgan Penllan

Found: (c) NON-HW R 58000 M WEIGH none specified 1 EW_EA-17934 2019 David And Helen Morgan Penllan

Found: (c) NON-HW R 37200 M WEIGH none specified 1 EW_EA-17934 2022 DAVID AND HELEN MORGAN Penllan

Found: (c) NON-HW R 104000 M WEIGH none specified 1 EW_EA-17934 2018 David And Helen Morgan Penllan

Found: EW_EA-17934 EW_EA-17934 2023 DAVID AND HELEN MORGAN

Found: NULL NULL Compulsory Grade 2 Yes 2025-12-02 00:00:00 NULL NULL Priority 1 52225 2680006 111643 Ms Helen Morgan

Found: Letter dated 09/07/2026 from Luke Pollard MP to Helen Morgan MP in response to a Written Parliamentary