Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether she plans to reduce the number of civil servants working for HM Treasury.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The department’s Spending Review settlement of a 10% real terms reduction to admin by 2028-29 means it will need to get smaller.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if he will commission research into the potential impact of the daily use of mobile phones on eye diseases and health-related conditions.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Department funds research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). The NIHR is funding research into the possible health impacts of mobile phone use on health, although this has not focused on eye diseases. The NIHR Policy Research Programme has allocated approximately £2 million of funding to support the United Kingdom arm of the pan-European Cohort Study of Mobile Phone Use and Health. This international cohort study has been funded since 2014 and is investigating possible health effects from long-term use of mobile phones and other wireless technologies. Specific health effects being examined are brain and other tumours, heart disease, stroke, fertility, birth events, for instance low birth weight or preterm birth, neurodegenerative diseases, and mental health conditions. Previously, NIHR provided £1.5 million to the Study of Cognition, Adolescents and Mobile Phones, which has investigated whether children’s use of mobile phones might affect their cognitive or behavioural development.
The NIHR welcomes research funding applications in any aspect of health and care, including the impact of mobile phone use on eye diseases.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what proportion of medical research funding has been allocated to eye research in each of the last five financial years; and what proportion of that funding has been directed towards age-related macular degeneration.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Department invests over £1.6 billion each year on research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. In the last five financial years it has awarded £26.2 million on eye research which has included £6.2 million on age related macular degeneration.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what comparative estimate he has made of the (a) cost to the NHS and social care services of age-related macular degeneration-related sight loss and (b) potential cost savings of increased funding for preventative and curative research.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Department has not made a specific comparative estimate of the cost to the National Health Service and adult social care of age‑related macular degeneration‑related sight loss. Whilst it is not possible to estimate the potential cost savings from increased funding for specific preventative and curative research, the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) provides a large economic return to society. For every £1 invested in NIHR research, over £13 of economic benefit is returned to the nation.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
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.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
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.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
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.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
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.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
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.
Asked by: Mark Pritchard (Conservative - The Wrekin)
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.