Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, if she will review the decision taken earlier this year not to award funding to the Wellington Orbit from the Creative Foundations Fund.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)

The Creative Foundation Fund, announced in 2025 as part of the Arts Everywhere Fund, is being delivered by Arts Council England. The Arts Council makes decisions about which organisations and projects to fund independently of government and Ministers, which means there is no question of any political involvement in arts funding decisions. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for Ministers to ask Arts Council England to revisit their decision on the application made by Wellington Orbit. Demand for this fund in its first round was extremely high, with a large number of applicants demonstrating the ability to meet the programme aims. As a result, the Arts Council had to make very difficult decisions about which applicants to invite to the full application stage. This was to ensure that applicants did not spend time and resources completing an application with very limited chance of success in that round.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has recently announced a new round of the Arts Everywhere Fund, including up to £340 million of new funding for the Creative Foundations Fund, which will be invested from 2026/27 up to and including 2029/30. Wellington Orbit may wish to submit an application. Arts Council England will announce further details regarding the application process and eligibility criteria in due course.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what action she is taking to help stop illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Answered by Hamish Falconer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)

I refer the Hon Member to the answers given to Question 907375 on 20 January, Question 77510 on 15 October 2025, and Question 74580 on 17 September 2025.

Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will convene the pensions forfeiture committee to meet and agree to cease the pensions of ex-UK armed forces personnel who are fighting in support of the Russian Federation's illegal war in Ukraine.

Answered by Louise Sandher-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence)

Pension forfeiture for public service pension schemes, including the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, is governed by primary and secondary legislation, notably the Pensions Act 1995 and the Occupational Pension Schemes (Assignment, Forfeiture, Bankruptcy etc.) Regulations 1997. Under this legislative framework, an Armed Forces pension may only be forfeited following certain serious criminal convictions, except in cases involving a monetary obligation.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is not aware of any successful convictions of active or former Service Personnel for fighting on behalf of Russia in Ukraine. If the MOD becomes aware of any such convictions, we will consider the implementation of forfeiture policy where relevant.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what information her Department holds on whether the Security Service was aware of (a) the illegal activities of Jeffrey Epstein, (b) his relationship with Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and (c) advice given by the Security Service to the Royal Household about these matters.

Answered by Dan Jarvis - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)

It has been the long-standing policy of successive governments not to comment on intelligence matters.

Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will increase stockpiles of the component parts of the D5 Trident II.

Answered by Luke Pollard - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)

Enabled by the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement, as amended for Trident in 1982, the United Kingdom buys title to an agreed number of a shared stock of Trident II D5 missiles from the United States of America (US). These missiles are maintained at the Kings Bay Submarine Base, Georgia.

The UK is working with US partners to extend the life and replenish the Trident II D5 missiles to meet the future programme requirements of both Nations. These life extension programmes will provide sufficient missile packages, including spares, to support the UK’s requirement.

Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps he is taking to counter engagement with extreme online political content by members of the armed forces.

Answered by Louise Sandher-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence)

The Ministry of Defence remains vigilant to the risks associated with Service personnel engaging with extremist or extreme online political content and treats such matters with the utmost seriousness. Such behaviour is wholly incompatible with the values and standards of the Armed Forces.

Defence maintains clear expectations of conduct, requiring all personnel to uphold the core values of respect, integrity and commitment, and to adhere to strict rules on political impartiality. It also voluntarily applies the Government’s Prevent Duty. Service regulations set out clear restrictions on online and public activity to ensure personnel do not engage in behaviour that could undermine the reputation, neutrality or operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces. Through a combination of clear behavioural standards, mandatory training, counter-terrorism intelligence, vetting and robust personnel policies, Defence works to reduce the risk of Armed Forces personnel engaging with extreme online political content.

Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, if he will take legislative steps to amend the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 to protect whistleblowers from (a) illegal and (b) unethical work placed practices.

Answered by Kate Dearden - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade)

Workers in Great Britain are protected from detriment or dismissal under the whistleblowing framework in the Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended by the Public Interest and Disclosure Act 1998, if they ‘blow the whistle’ on wrongdoing and certain conditions in the legislation are met.

The Government recognises that the whistleblowing framework may not be operating as effectively as it should and recently committed through the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2025 to explore opportunities for reform. We welcome continued engagement with parliamentarians and stakeholders on this important area of public policy.

Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what steps he is taking to counter espionage within the civil service.

Answered by Dan Jarvis - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)

The Government Security Group (GSG) is part of the Cabinet Office and is the centre of the Government Security Function. GSG is responsible for the oversight and coordination of protective security within all central government departments, their agencies, and arm’s length bodies.

GSG works with stakeholders across government to mitigate risks posed to government security from a range of threats, including espionage, and is constantly seeking to develop and strengthen measures to improve its risk mitigation capability.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will take steps to ensure illegal migrants accommodated in (a) hotels and (b) other government supported accommodation who leave that accommodation and do not report back within 72 hours are reported to UK Visas and Immigration and the police as having absconded except in pre-arranged and agreed exceptional circumstances.

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

The Home Office provides accommodation and support to destitute asylum seekers under statutory provisions such as Sections 95 and 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. This accommodation is non‑detained, and the Department does not have legal powers to keep individuals securely within it or limit the hours they may leave.

Some individuals may be on immigration bail, which is an alternative to detention and requires them to comply with one or more conditions. These may include residing at a specific address or reporting to the Home Office. Breach of a bail condition is a criminal offence and may result in detention or other enforcement action.

Absence from accommodation does not automatically mean a person has absconded. A person is only considered to have absconded if they fail to comply with their immigration bail conditions and the Home Office cannot re‑establish contact. A dedicated tracing team works closely with the police and other partners to locate such individuals.

Accommodation providers must report when service users are absent from their address, and the Home Office investigates these cases as possible breaches of asylum support conditions. If a person is found to have left their accommodation without good reason, their support may be discontinued. Providers are also expected to escalate concerns where someone may be at risk or potentially a victim of modern slavery.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will take steps to ensure illegal migrants accommodated in (a) hotels and (b) other government supported accommodation are (i) kept securely within that accommodation and (ii) limited in the number of hours they are permitted to leave that accommodation.

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

The Home Office provides accommodation and support to destitute asylum seekers under statutory provisions such as Sections 95 and 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. This accommodation is non‑detained, and the Department does not have legal powers to keep individuals securely within it or limit the hours they may leave.

Some individuals may be on immigration bail, which is an alternative to detention and requires them to comply with one or more conditions. These may include residing at a specific address or reporting to the Home Office. Breach of a bail condition is a criminal offence and may result in detention or other enforcement action.

Absence from accommodation does not automatically mean a person has absconded. A person is only considered to have absconded if they fail to comply with their immigration bail conditions and the Home Office cannot re‑establish contact. A dedicated tracing team works closely with the police and other partners to locate such individuals.

Accommodation providers must report when service users are absent from their address, and the Home Office investigates these cases as possible breaches of asylum support conditions. If a person is found to have left their accommodation without good reason, their support may be discontinued. Providers are also expected to escalate concerns where someone may be at risk or potentially a victim of modern slavery.

Found: 7219 1424 Social: @houseofcommons parliament.uk Thursday, 12 February 2026 Councillor Mark Pritchard