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 risk that pharmaceutical companies could withdraw compassionate access programmes due to VAT-related financial pressures.

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

The Government recognises the important role that compassionate and expanded access programmes can play in enabling patients, particularly those with serious or rare conditions, to access innovative medicines outside routine commissioning arrangements.

VAT treatment in the United Kingdom is governed by long-standing principles, including that where goods are supplied for non-business purposes or free of charge in certain circumstances, a taxable supply may arise. There is no specific VAT exemption for medicines provided through compassionate or expanded access programmes.

The Department has not made a formal assessment of the risk that pharmaceutical companies may withdraw such programmes specifically due to VAT-related costs. However, we are aware of concerns raised by industry and stakeholders about the potential impact on patient access.

We continue to engage with HM Treasury, HM Revenue and Customs, and the pharmaceutical industry to understand these issues and their implications for patients.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 27 May 2026 to Question 286 on Pets: EU Countries, if she will have discussions with Improve International to consider opportunities to increase the number of official veterinarians who are able to issue Animal Health Certificates.

Answered by Angela Eagle - Minister of State (Home Office) (Security) (Jointly with the Cabinet Office)

There are currently no plans to hold any discussions with Improve International on the number of Official Veterinarians who can issue Animal Health Certificates.

Defra is aware of the numerous challenges facing the veterinary sector, including recruitment and retention of qualified veterinary surgeons. Defra officials are working with the sector to increase capacity, for example through reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which will enable more activities to be delegated to other members of the veterinary team. This will give veterinary surgeons more time to undertake other activities including, if they wish, Official Veterinarian duties.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether steps have been taken to ensure neighbourhood health delivers effective suicide prevention support for middle aged men.

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

The Government recognises the importance of effective suicide prevention support for middle-aged men, who remain disproportionately affected by suicide.

The Government’s 10-Year Health Plan sets out ambitious reforms to shift healthcare from hospital to community, and from sickness to prevention, including transforming mental health services to improve access to treatment and promote good mental health and wellbeing for men and boys.

As part of this work, the Government is investing up to £3.6 million over the next three years in Suicide Prevention Support Pathfinder programmes for middle-aged men. These pathfinders will improve timely access to neighbourhood-based support and strengthen joined-up pathways between services.

The Government is also taking wider action to support men’s mental health through the forthcoming Men’s Health Strategy, which seeks to improve the health and wellbeing of men across England, including by tackling men’s mental health. This includes a landmark partnership with the Premier League to improve health literacy and engagement around mental health and suicide prevention, alongside work with employers to pilot approaches to supporting men’s mental health in the workplace.

Question to the Department for Education:

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether she is having discussions with cerebral palsy campaign organisations on the challenges faced by young people with cerebral palsy in mainstream education environments.

Answered by Georgia Gould - Minister of State (Education)

The Schools White Paper and SEND consultation document published earlier this year set out our proposed changes to improve help and support for children and young people with SEND across the 0 to 25 years system.

During the 12‑week consultation period, the department delivered an expanded and coordinated engagement programme to ensure we listened to children and young people, families and the sector. This included:

• ​Nine regional events, opened by ministers.
• ​24 children and young people–led sessions, which included young people with a range of special educational needs and disabilities including autism, down syndrome, and cerebral palsy.
• ​Six information webinars for health, education, local authority leaders, social care and parent carers.

Together, these strands ensured broad, balanced and representative engagement while following consultation principles around transparency, accessibility and fairness.

The department is now reviewing consultation responses alongside feedback from the events.

Our reforms are still proposals and not final decisions. We are continuing to listen and carefully reviewing feedback before setting out the government's response and next steps. The lived experience and insights shared by young people, families and professionals will play a central role in shaping the next stage of these reforms.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether she will conduct an assessment of the potential impact on regional connectivity from differing levels of transport investment between mayoral and non-mayoral combined authorities.

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

We are committed to evaluating the range of funding programmes and policies across local transport, and we are engaging with MHCLG on the approach to evaluation for places with integrated settlements. Additionally, we are using the Department's Connectivity Tool, which measures an area’s connectivity to support the analysis. More details on the Connectivity Tool can be found at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/connectivity-tool.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, whether he will conduct an assessment of the potential impact of variable levels of infrastructure investment on the extent of regeneration and strategic upgrades achieved by mayoral and non-mayoral combined authorities.

Answered by Nesil Caliskan - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

Given the differing roles and funding models, per capita comparisons for skills, transport and infrastructure between Mayoral Strategic Authorities and Local Authorities are not directly comparable. No direct assessment has been made on the potential effect of funding disparities on business location decisions, however through the Local Government Finance Settlement, the Government delivered fairer funding, targeting money where it is needed most. All funding information is published online through the “Local authority capital expenditure and receipts” and “Local authority revenue expenditure and financing” collection.

The Government has outlined intentions through the English Devolution White Paper to delivering ongoing process and impact evaluations of devolution as evidence becomes available, looking at delivery and implementation, future trends, and impact in place, including of infrastructure investment. In addition, all programme and project funding has monitoring, evaluation and reporting requirements to assess outcomes with exact requirements depending on the funding stream.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment has she made of current levels of consistency amongst [i] Councils [ii] Police and [iii] CPS of [a] the recording and [b] the publishing of data regarding the background of child sexual offenders.

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

Having been commissioned by the Home Office, Baroness Casey made clear in her National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, published in June last year, that the recording and publication of data on the background of child sex offenders by police forces was variable and insufficient.

Last July, the then Home Secretary wrote to all Chief Constables making clear that ethnicity data should be collected from all suspects in child sexual exploitation (CSE) cases and to urge them to make sure they are fulfilling this obligation. We are also legislating to give the Home Secretary the power to mandate the collection of ethnicity data by police officers. The Police Reform White Paper, set out our intention to put data standards for policing, including in this area, on a statutory footing.

The recording and publication of data by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Local Authorities are outside the remit of the Home Secretary.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what progress has been made on implementing the Men’s Health Strategy.

Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

Since the launch of the Men’s Health Strategy, significant work and focus has been on implementing the commitments set out in the strategy. For example, on 27 March 2026 the Men’s Health Community Fund, a £6.3 million programme, was launched in partnership with Movember and the People’s Health Trust. We have also established the Men’s Health Academic Network and Men’s Health Stakeholder Group to provide advice to the Department on implementation.

We will also work with the Men's Health Academic Network, the voluntary, community, and social enterprise sector, and wider stakeholders to develop and publish a one-year-on report, highlighting the improvements made and where future efforts will need to be targeted.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether his Department has held discussions with the General Medical Council on the potential impact of the policy on GPs’ use of advice and guidance on (a) GP indemnity and (b) patient safety.

Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Department and NHS England considered the potential impacts of expanding Advice and Guidance (A&G) as part of the policy development process, including through clinical input, established governance arrangements, and equalities considerations. A&G is intended to support timely clinical decision‑making and ensure patients are directed to the most appropriate care. National guidance is in place to support its safe and consistent use, and the use of A&G does not change existing clinical accountability or patient safety arrangements.

The Department has not held formal discussions with the General Medical Council (GMC) specifically on the impact of A&G on general practitioner (GP) indemnity or patient safety. The GMC’s role is to regulate individual professional standards rather than to co‑design or endorse contractual or service policy. These contractual changes do not alter existing clinical thresholds, professional duties or the central role of clinical judgement.

The Department and NHS England have engaged with the Care Quality Commission (CQC), alongside other system partners, to discuss the implementation of A&G, including in relation to patient safety. This has included multi‑agency discussions involving NHS England, the CQC, and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. The CQC has identified a number of areas where further clarity and assurance is required, and NHS England is working with system partners to respond to these points. This engagement forms part of ongoing oversight of the safe implementation of A&G.

The contract does not change the clinical threshold for referral to specialist care. GPs should continue to make a clinical decision to refer for specialist care where that is in the patient’s best interests, and to request specialist advice where it is needed. GPs retain responsibility for referral decisions, and this model supports, and does not replace, clinical judgement.

Clinical responsibility remains with appropriately qualified clinicians at each stage of the pathway, supported by established regulatory, indemnity, and local governance arrangements, including patient safety.

While advice is being sought or acted on in primary care, the GP remains responsible for the patient’s overall clinical care and risk. Under this model, requests for specialist advice and referrals are clinically reviewed by a named consultant, with the aim of ensuring patients are directed to the most suitable pathway. The specialist is responsible for the quality and appropriateness of the advice they give, not for ongoing management or follow‑up unless they formally assume responsibility for the patient’s care. Specialists also have clinical responsibility from the point at which a specialist advice request is converted into a referral or if the specialist initiates investigations or treatment directly.

Where a local model is already established, or has been agreed between primary and secondary care, that provides timely specialist clinical assessment with clear accountability, this may continue with oversight from a named consultant.

The 2026/27 GP Contract embeds the previous A&G enhanced service funding into core practice funding. Following near universal uptake of the A&G Enhanced Service in 2025/26, the focus for 2026/27 is on stability and simplicity. Embedding the specialist advice model within the core contract recognises its role in routine clinical practice, removes annual signups, and provides more predictable funding while supporting consistent patient pathways.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether his Department has held discussions with the Care Quality Commission on the potential impact of the policy on GPs’ use of advice and guidance on (a) GP indemnity and (b) patient safety.

Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Department and NHS England considered the potential impacts of expanding Advice and Guidance (A&G) as part of the policy development process, including through clinical input, established governance arrangements, and equalities considerations. A&G is intended to support timely clinical decision‑making and ensure patients are directed to the most appropriate care. National guidance is in place to support its safe and consistent use, and the use of A&G does not change existing clinical accountability or patient safety arrangements.

The Department has not held formal discussions with the General Medical Council (GMC) specifically on the impact of A&G on general practitioner (GP) indemnity or patient safety. The GMC’s role is to regulate individual professional standards rather than to co‑design or endorse contractual or service policy. These contractual changes do not alter existing clinical thresholds, professional duties or the central role of clinical judgement.

The Department and NHS England have engaged with the Care Quality Commission (CQC), alongside other system partners, to discuss the implementation of A&G, including in relation to patient safety. This has included multi‑agency discussions involving NHS England, the CQC, and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. The CQC has identified a number of areas where further clarity and assurance is required, and NHS England is working with system partners to respond to these points. This engagement forms part of ongoing oversight of the safe implementation of A&G.

The contract does not change the clinical threshold for referral to specialist care. GPs should continue to make a clinical decision to refer for specialist care where that is in the patient’s best interests, and to request specialist advice where it is needed. GPs retain responsibility for referral decisions, and this model supports, and does not replace, clinical judgement.

Clinical responsibility remains with appropriately qualified clinicians at each stage of the pathway, supported by established regulatory, indemnity, and local governance arrangements, including patient safety.

While advice is being sought or acted on in primary care, the GP remains responsible for the patient’s overall clinical care and risk. Under this model, requests for specialist advice and referrals are clinically reviewed by a named consultant, with the aim of ensuring patients are directed to the most suitable pathway. The specialist is responsible for the quality and appropriateness of the advice they give, not for ongoing management or follow‑up unless they formally assume responsibility for the patient’s care. Specialists also have clinical responsibility from the point at which a specialist advice request is converted into a referral or if the specialist initiates investigations or treatment directly.

Where a local model is already established, or has been agreed between primary and secondary care, that provides timely specialist clinical assessment with clear accountability, this may continue with oversight from a named consultant.

The 2026/27 GP Contract embeds the previous A&G enhanced service funding into core practice funding. Following near universal uptake of the A&G Enhanced Service in 2025/26, the focus for 2026/27 is on stability and simplicity. Embedding the specialist advice model within the core contract recognises its role in routine clinical practice, removes annual signups, and provides more predictable funding while supporting consistent patient pathways.

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 impact on patient safety of his policy on GPs’ use of advice and guidance.

Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Department and NHS England considered the potential impacts of expanding Advice and Guidance (A&G) as part of the policy development process, including through clinical input, established governance arrangements, and equalities considerations. A&G is intended to support timely clinical decision‑making and ensure patients are directed to the most appropriate care. National guidance is in place to support its safe and consistent use, and the use of A&G does not change existing clinical accountability or patient safety arrangements.

The Department has not held formal discussions with the General Medical Council (GMC) specifically on the impact of A&G on general practitioner (GP) indemnity or patient safety. The GMC’s role is to regulate individual professional standards rather than to co‑design or endorse contractual or service policy. These contractual changes do not alter existing clinical thresholds, professional duties or the central role of clinical judgement.

The Department and NHS England have engaged with the Care Quality Commission (CQC), alongside other system partners, to discuss the implementation of A&G, including in relation to patient safety. This has included multi‑agency discussions involving NHS England, the CQC, and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. The CQC has identified a number of areas where further clarity and assurance is required, and NHS England is working with system partners to respond to these points. This engagement forms part of ongoing oversight of the safe implementation of A&G.

The contract does not change the clinical threshold for referral to specialist care. GPs should continue to make a clinical decision to refer for specialist care where that is in the patient’s best interests, and to request specialist advice where it is needed. GPs retain responsibility for referral decisions, and this model supports, and does not replace, clinical judgement.

Clinical responsibility remains with appropriately qualified clinicians at each stage of the pathway, supported by established regulatory, indemnity, and local governance arrangements, including patient safety.

While advice is being sought or acted on in primary care, the GP remains responsible for the patient’s overall clinical care and risk. Under this model, requests for specialist advice and referrals are clinically reviewed by a named consultant, with the aim of ensuring patients are directed to the most suitable pathway. The specialist is responsible for the quality and appropriateness of the advice they give, not for ongoing management or follow‑up unless they formally assume responsibility for the patient’s care. Specialists also have clinical responsibility from the point at which a specialist advice request is converted into a referral or if the specialist initiates investigations or treatment directly.

Where a local model is already established, or has been agreed between primary and secondary care, that provides timely specialist clinical assessment with clear accountability, this may continue with oversight from a named consultant.

The 2026/27 GP Contract embeds the previous A&G enhanced service funding into core practice funding. Following near universal uptake of the A&G Enhanced Service in 2025/26, the focus for 2026/27 is on stability and simplicity. Embedding the specialist advice model within the core contract recognises its role in routine clinical practice, removes annual signups, and provides more predictable funding while supporting consistent patient pathways.

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 compatibility of minimum waiting time policies with the NHS Constitution for England, including patients’ rights to access services within maximum waiting times.

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

There is no formal national policy supporting minimum waits in the National Health Service. However, the NHS Standard Contract allows local commissioners to set activity planning assumptions to plan demand, capacity, and expenditure.

It is important to note that minimum waiting times must not be applied to urgent or urgent suspected cancer referrals, and must be below 18 weeks.

The NHS Constitution is clear that the 18-week standard refers to the full treatment pathway, and does not prevent patients from being seen within that period for diagnostic tests and outpatient appointments as required before the start of any treatment.

NHS England does not collect information on which integrated care boards (ICBs) have implemented minimum waiting time policies, the use and impact of minimum waiting time policies across ICBs, or the procedures, treatments, or clinical pathways for which minimum waiting time policies have been applied.

All trusts are expected to have their own safeguards to ensure that patients waiting for planned care are triaged, and that appointments take place according to clinical priority and the length of time patients have waited, avoiding risk of serious complications.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what data is held by NHS England on the use and impact of minimum waiting time policies across Integrated Care Boards; and whether this information is collected centrally.

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

There is no formal national policy supporting minimum waits in the National Health Service. However, the NHS Standard Contract allows local commissioners to set activity planning assumptions to plan demand, capacity, and expenditure.

It is important to note that minimum waiting times must not be applied to urgent or urgent suspected cancer referrals, and must be below 18 weeks.

The NHS Constitution is clear that the 18-week standard refers to the full treatment pathway, and does not prevent patients from being seen within that period for diagnostic tests and outpatient appointments as required before the start of any treatment.

NHS England does not collect information on which integrated care boards (ICBs) have implemented minimum waiting time policies, the use and impact of minimum waiting time policies across ICBs, or the procedures, treatments, or clinical pathways for which minimum waiting time policies have been applied.

All trusts are expected to have their own safeguards to ensure that patients waiting for planned care are triaged, and that appointments take place according to clinical priority and the length of time patients have waited, avoiding risk of serious complications.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what guidance NHS England has issued to Integrated Care Boards on the use of minimum waiting times; and whether prior approval is required before such policies are implemented.

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

There is no formal national policy supporting minimum waits in the National Health Service. However, the NHS Standard Contract allows local commissioners to set activity planning assumptions to plan demand, capacity, and expenditure.

It is important to note that minimum waiting times must not be applied to urgent or urgent suspected cancer referrals, and must be below 18 weeks.

The NHS Constitution is clear that the 18-week standard refers to the full treatment pathway, and does not prevent patients from being seen within that period for diagnostic tests and outpatient appointments as required before the start of any treatment.

NHS England does not collect information on which integrated care boards (ICBs) have implemented minimum waiting time policies, the use and impact of minimum waiting time policies across ICBs, or the procedures, treatments, or clinical pathways for which minimum waiting time policies have been applied.

All trusts are expected to have their own safeguards to ensure that patients waiting for planned care are triaged, and that appointments take place according to clinical priority and the length of time patients have waited, avoiding risk of serious complications.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, for which procedures, treatments or clinical pathways minimum waiting times have been applied by Integrated Care Boards; and what criteria are used to determine their application.

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

There is no formal national policy supporting minimum waits in the National Health Service. However, the NHS Standard Contract allows local commissioners to set activity planning assumptions to plan demand, capacity, and expenditure.

It is important to note that minimum waiting times must not be applied to urgent or urgent suspected cancer referrals, and must be below 18 weeks.

The NHS Constitution is clear that the 18-week standard refers to the full treatment pathway, and does not prevent patients from being seen within that period for diagnostic tests and outpatient appointments as required before the start of any treatment.

NHS England does not collect information on which integrated care boards (ICBs) have implemented minimum waiting time policies, the use and impact of minimum waiting time policies across ICBs, or the procedures, treatments, or clinical pathways for which minimum waiting time policies have been applied.

All trusts are expected to have their own safeguards to ensure that patients waiting for planned care are triaged, and that appointments take place according to clinical priority and the length of time patients have waited, avoiding risk of serious complications.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if he will list the integrated care boards that have implemented policies involving minimum waiting times for NHS treatment.

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

There is no formal national policy supporting minimum waits in the National Health Service. However, the NHS Standard Contract allows local commissioners to set activity planning assumptions to plan demand, capacity, and expenditure.

It is important to note that minimum waiting times must not be applied to urgent or urgent suspected cancer referrals, and must be below 18 weeks.

The NHS Constitution is clear that the 18-week standard refers to the full treatment pathway, and does not prevent patients from being seen within that period for diagnostic tests and outpatient appointments as required before the start of any treatment.

NHS England does not collect information on which integrated care boards (ICBs) have implemented minimum waiting time policies, the use and impact of minimum waiting time policies across ICBs, or the procedures, treatments, or clinical pathways for which minimum waiting time policies have been applied.

All trusts are expected to have their own safeguards to ensure that patients waiting for planned care are triaged, and that appointments take place according to clinical priority and the length of time patients have waited, avoiding risk of serious complications.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to WPQs 2849, 2850 and 2851 answered on 9 June 2026 about Steroid Drugs: Young People, if he will ensure that issues surrounding Anabolic Steroids, IPEDs and SARMs are included in work to improve men's health literacy, as set out in the Men’s Health Strategy.

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

The UK Health Security Agency published a national Syphilis Response Plan in March 2026, which is available at the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/syphilis-public-health-england-action-plan/ukhsa-syphilis-response-plan

The plan focuses on four key areas: preventing infection; improving testing; ensuring timely treatment; and eliminating congenital syphilis, where infection is passed from mother to baby during pregnancy. Actions include raising public and professional awareness, strengthening prevention activity, expanding and optimising access to testing, improving care pathways, and supporting partner notification to reduce onward transmission.

During 2025, national provision of doxycycline post exposure prophylaxis (doxyPEP) through sexual health services was implemented as a new intervention. This followed evidence of its impact on reducing syphilis incidence in clinical trials and real-world application. United Kingdom guidelines recommend doxyPEP for gay, bisexual, or other men who have sex with men and transgender women at elevated risk of acquiring syphilis.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 27 May to Question 2168 on Dogs: Insurance, what discussions she had with the Dogs Trust, the Devolved Governments and the insurance sector on the development of a replacement insurance scheme to the Dogs Trust Companion Club.

Answered by Stephen Morgan - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

Defra recognises the importance of public safety and responsible dog ownership. The provision of insurance is a commercial decision for insurers and there is currently very limited coverage available for certain types of dogs.

No alternative third-party public liability insurance product is currently available for banned breed dogs following the withdrawal of the only provider. This is a commercial decision for insurance providers, who determine which products they make available.

Ministers and officials have engaged with Dogs Trust, the Devolved Governments and the insurance sector to discuss options for maintaining access to third‑party public liability insurance for owners of banned dogs. Defra officials continue to work with these partners to explore potential options and will provide further updates in due course.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she made of the potential availability of a replica third-party public liability insurance scheme for owners of exempted dogs, following the Companion Club's announcement of withdrawal of its cover.

Answered by Stephen Morgan - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

Defra recognises the importance of public safety and responsible dog ownership. The provision of insurance is a commercial decision for insurers and there is currently very limited coverage available for certain types of dogs.

No alternative third-party public liability insurance product is currently available for banned breed dogs following the withdrawal of the only provider. This is a commercial decision for insurance providers, who determine which products they make available.

Ministers and officials have engaged with Dogs Trust, the Devolved Governments and the insurance sector to discuss options for maintaining access to third‑party public liability insurance for owners of banned dogs. Defra officials continue to work with these partners to explore potential options and will provide further updates in due course.

Question to the Department for Education:

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will make an assessment of the adequacy of guidance to schools on the [i] sourcing of meats for school dinners and [ii] labelling of meat based on methods of slaughter for school dinners.

Answered by Olivia Bailey - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Education) (Equalities)

This government is committed to raising the healthiest generation ever. Schools are required to follow the school food standards to ensure that all children can access a healthy, nutritious meal while at school.

We have published guidance and resources for schools to help them deliver a range of tasty and nutritious meals, accessible at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-food-standards-resources-for-schools.

Headteachers, school governors and caterers are best placed to make decisions about their school food policies, considering local circumstances and to ensure appropriate provision for cultural, religious and special dietary requirements.

Question to the Department for Education:

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what recent assessment she has made of the role of central government in sharing best practice amongst councils in respect of responding to increased demands for SEND provision.

Answered by Georgia Gould - Minister of State (Education)

Special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) reform plans have been commissioned from local area partnerships, setting out how they are strengthening their systems to drive effective long-term outcomes. Where exemplary practice is identified, we will work closely with local areas, using mechanisms such as the Regional Improvement and Innovation Alliances (RIIAs), which support collaboration, address shared challenges and disseminate effective SEND practice regionally.

Where inspections, local intelligence or monitoring highlight concerns, universal, targeted, and specialist support and challenge are offered through expert programmes. Including peer‑to‑peer support from high‑performing local authority partnerships with the capability to support others; RIIAs; leadership development delivered by the Local Government Association for new and existing leaders; and support from the Council for Disabled Children through the What Works in SEND programme and Targeted Performance Improvement to strengthen SEND practice. This tailored approach supports local authority partnerships.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made about the [i] effectiveness of the potential means of enforcement of the prohibition on children being left unsupervised with banned breeds, and [ii] the consequences to the dog owner for the child being left unsupervised.

Answered by Stephen Morgan - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

Enforcement of the Dangerous Dogs Act is a matter for the police, who have existing powers to take action where necessary. These powers apply to all conditions of exemption, including the prohibition on leaving children unsupervised with banned breed dogs, which takes effect from 1 November 2026.

If non-compliance with the condition is identified, they can take enforcement action in line with those powers. This may include seizing a dog and pursuing prosecution of the owner where appropriate.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate she has made of the cost of re-issuing exemption certificates following the removal of the requirement for third-party public liability insurance for owners of exempted banned dog breeds from 1 July 2026.

Answered by Stephen Morgan - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

A one-off cost to the Government is expected, estimated to be between £66,000 and £80,000. This includes staff time and the cost of issuing physical certificates, responding to related correspondence and printing and postage costs.

There will be no cost to dog owners.