Asked by: Oliver Ryan (Labour (Co-op) - Burnley)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the age-related eligibility criteria for NHS screening and vaccination programmes, if he will make an assessment of (a) the evidential basis and decision-making process by which the upper and lower age limits for each programme are determined; and (b) the impact of those age thresholds on patient outcomes, including early diagnosis, morbidity, mortality, and health inequalities.
Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
For screening programmes, the Government is guided by the independent scientific advice of the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC). It is only where the offer to screen provides more good than harm that a screening programme is recommended.
The UK NSC considers all of the latest scientific evidence when reviewing the case for screening for different conditions. As the policy is based on the benefits and harms to whole populations, the screening decisions are based on the effect on the whole population, rather than individual circumstances. Where there is a lack of evidence, the committee cannot be confident that screening would benefit the population as a whole. In these circumstances, the proportionate approach is to screen within the range that has evidence to support the policy.
The National Health Service bowel screening programme in England was recently extended from 60 – 74 years old to 50 – 74 years old. This aligns with the evidence of where the screening programme can do the most good with the least harm caused. Harm can include increased anxiety, misdiagnosis, over diagnosis (where unnecessary and invasive follow up tests are offered), or unnecessary treatment.
The UK NSC is awaiting the results of the AgeX trial which is looking at extending the upper and lower age thresholds for breast screening. The Committee is also working with researchers in Australia who are considering whether vaccination would have an impact on the lower age of cervical screening.
The UK NSC keeps these age brackets under review. The Committee recognises that screening programmes are not static and that, over time, they may need to change to be more effective.
The Government’s policy on groups eligible for vaccination programmes is based on the recommendation of the independent expert advisory committee, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI). When advising on programme eligibility, including any upper and lower age limit for vaccination programmes, the JCVI evaluates clinical data from a wide range of sources including disease epidemiology, age specific estimates of disease burden including deaths and hospitalisations, as well as age-specific vaccine efficacy and cost-effectiveness analyses.
Patient outcomes, including early diagnosis, morbidity, mortality, and health inequalities are influenced by multiple health factors. It would therefore not be possible to make an accurate assessment of how age threshold for screening and immunisation alone impacted those outcomes.
Asked by: Oliver Ryan (Labour (Co-op) - Burnley)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what plans his Department has to reform corporate reporting requirements to support economic growth and competitiveness.
Answered by Blair McDougall - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade)
The government has announced plans to modernise and simplify the corporate reporting framework and expects to publish its Modernising Corporate Reporting consultation shortly. The consultation will consider financial, non-financial, remuneration and corporate governance reporting, as well as options to drive greater digitisation. The proposals are intended to ensure the UK has one of the most proportionate, internationally competitive and investor-focused corporate reporting frameworks in the world. An improved framework creates the conditions for well-functioning markets and thereby drives economic growth.
Asked by: Oliver Ryan (Labour (Co-op) - Burnley)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to Clause 4 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, if she will set out (a) what safeguards will be put in place to protect information shared under this clause against unauthorized access, misuse, or hacking; (b) how she will define the scope of relevant information, (c) which identifier will be used as the consistent identifier, (d) whether she has taken any independent advice on the strength of oversight procedures, and (e) what steps her Department will take to ensure that marginalized or vulnerable children and families are not disproportionately affected by this data-sharing duty.
Answered by Josh MacAlister - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
Information sharing governance is crucial to Clause 4, and existing data protection requirements will apply. As is the case now, misuse of personally identifiable information is guarded against via governance processes that are the responsibility of data controllers and processors, who use systems to store sensitive children's data and follow the relevant security and processes. Consistent identifier piloting will consider what measures are needed for the number to be used securely and effectively.
“Relevant information” will be set out in statutory guidance, which relevant agencies must have regard to
The NHS number is being piloted as the consistent identifier, we will mandate the consistent identifier via regulations only when confident in the benefits, cost, security and governance
The department is working closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office for both the consistent identifier and the information sharing duty to develop our approach.
Impact and equalities assessments will ensure vulnerable families are not disproportionately affected.
Asked by: Oliver Ryan (Labour (Co-op) - Burnley)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment she has made of the potential (a) implications for her policies on reforming the driving-test booking system’s of DataDome’s blog entitled Alert: Security Gaps Allow Bots to Exploit UK Driving Test Booking System, published on 16 April 2025, and (b) impact of restricting instructors from booking and managing tests on the professional driver-training sector, small businesses and learner drivers, including vulnerable and neurodiverse learners.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
To ensure fairness for everyone wanting to book a practical driving test, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) continues to work hard to combat the unscrupulous practice of reselling tests across the country.
The measures the Secretary of State for Transport announced on 12 November are designed to make the practical driving test booking process fairer, providing all learners with equal access to the booking system and ensuring that everyone pays the prescribed fee.
The public consultation sought views from the driver training industry, learner drivers and other interested parties. Further detail on the rationale, which will set out the detailed analysis, will be provided in the consultation report which will be published in due course.
DVSA has implemented a multi-layered approach to protect the integrity of its booking system and ensure fair access for legitimate users. Where bots are known to actively target, DVSA deploys and utilises advanced bot protection.
DVSA deploys enhanced bot protection to help stop automated systems from buying up tests unfairly. However, these applications constantly evolve and change. DVSA’s work on this is ongoing. Protection measures taken by DVSA analyse multiple indicators such as typing speed, request frequency, device fingerprinting, and traffic patterns to identify non-human activity. When suspicious behaviour is detected, DVSA applied rules to block or throttle automated requests. DVSA continuously updates it approach to counter evolving tactics used by bot operators, who often attempt to mimic human behaviour.
Asked by: Oliver Ryan (Labour (Co-op) - Burnley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the safeguarding implications for children who have a parent in prison; and whether he plans to introduce a national statutory mechanism to identify those children, including a requirement for prisons and probation services to notify local authorities and schools when a parent is incarcerated.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
We recognise that more can be done to ensure children with a parent in prison are identified so that they get the support they need. This is why the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education are working together to determine the best mechanism to identify these children.
We will continue to engage with those with those who have direct experience of having a parent in prison and with the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sector to inform our approach. For example, 25 November marked the first-ever National Day to recognise children with a parent in prison. This provided a powerful opportunity for Ministers and officials from both Departments to attend a conference hosted by the charity Children Heard and Seen to hear directly from children and young people with lived experience of parental imprisonment. This demonstrates our commitment to putting children’s voices at the heart of our policymaking.
HMPPS has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Children Act (2004) to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. HMPPS staff are required to check if prisoners received into custody have caring responsibilities for any children, to make enquiries with children’s services and record known safeguarding concerns. HMPPS works in partnership with police forces, children’s services and other relevant agencies to fulfil its safeguarding responsibilities. Where HMPPS professionals are concerned about the welfare of a child of a prisoner, they must consider whether a referral to local authority children’s social care is required and should always refer immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering, or likely to, suffer significant harm. Additionally, HMPPS provides a comprehensive range of staff training and learning opportunities for staff, including an annual “Think Child” campaign, aimed at promoting children’s safety.
Asked by: Oliver Ryan (Labour (Co-op) - Burnley)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of the compulsory GCSE (a) English and (b) maths resit policy on the (i) wellbeing, (ii) progression and (iii) attainment of post-16 learners, including those with SEND or who experienced pandemic-related disruption; and whether she plans to expand the use of (A) Functional Skills and (B) alternative competency-based qualifications to support learners for whom repeated GCSE retakes are not appropriate.
Answered by Josh MacAlister - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
The department recognises that Level 2 English and maths skills are essential for progressing in life, learning and work. That is why we require providers to continue teaching English and maths to students without these skills. This policy has seen hundreds of thousands of 16 -19 students attain Level 2, and many others improve their grade beneath that. It allows students to study towards a range of approved qualifications including Functional Skills Qualifications at Level 2, 1 and entry level.
In our Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper and response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review, we recognise we can further support providers to improve English and maths outcomes for all students. We have introduced a minimum teaching hours requirement, supported by additional funding, and will also introduce new Level 1 preparation for GCSE qualifications. To support student wellbeing, we have clarified our expectations around exam entry and are working with the Further Education Commissioner to share effective practice.
Asked by: Oliver Ryan (Labour (Co-op) - Burnley)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps his Department is taking to improve (a) awareness, (b) diagnosis and (c) clinical understanding of Bertolotti Syndrome within the NHS; and whether he plans to update NHS training materials or clinical guidelines to include reference to the (i) Jenkins LSTV classification system and (ii) other up-to-date approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of this condition.
Answered by Ashley Dalton - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
We are committed to giving people with long-term conditions, such as Bertolotti syndrome, the support that they need, including referral to specialist services as appropriate.
While there are no current plans to update National Health Service training materials or clinical guidelines to include reference to the Jenkins LSTV classification system, we would expect all spinal surgeons in England to be aware of Bertolotti syndrome and possible treatment options. Decision making about the risks and benefits of a treatment option is a matter of clinical judgement and shared decision-making with the patient.
Healthcare professionals are responsible for ensuring that their own clinical knowledge remains up-to-date, and for identifying learning needs as part of their continuing professional development.
Our recently published 10 Year Health Plan presents a significant opportunity to revolutionise care for people with conditions like Bertolotti syndrome by shifting from hospital-centric care to community-based and preventative approaches to manage or reduce symptoms, alongside digital advancements. The plan focuses on earlier intervention, improved access to care, and better integration of services to address the challenges faced by individuals with long-term conditions like Bertolotti syndrome.
Asked by: Oliver Ryan (Labour (Co-op) - Burnley)
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 (a) address the funding disparity and (b) provide additional financial support for Pendleside Hospice in Burnley.
Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
Most hospices are charitable, independent organisations which receive some statutory funding for providing National Health Services. The amount of funding each charitable hospice receives varies both within and between integrated care board (ICB) areas. This will vary depending on demand in that ICB area, but will also be dependent on the totality and type of palliative and end of life care provision from both NHS and non-NHS services, including charitable hospices, within each ICB area.
We are supporting the hospice sector with a £100 million capital funding boost for eligible adult and children’s hospices in England to ensure they have the best physical environment for care. Pendleside Hospice in Burnley received £95,256 from the first £25 million tranche of this funding in 2024/25. It will receive £285,768 from the second £75 million tranche of funding in 2025/26.
The Government and the NHS will closely monitor the shift towards the strategic commissioning of palliative and end of life care services to ensure that the future state of services reduces variation in access and quality, although some variation may be appropriate to reflect both innovation and the needs of local populations.
Asked by: Oliver Ryan (Labour (Co-op) - Burnley)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether her Department plans to provide additional funding to support repairs to the bridge on the Padiham Greenway walking and cycling route in Burnley; and how much funding her Department has provided to Lancashire County Council for walking, cycling and active travel in the last five years.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
In December 2024, Sustrans was awarded £280,000 for the ‘NCN 685 River Calder bridge reinstatement’ construction scheme in the eighth tranche of National Cycle Network funding. Active Travel England will set out future allocations to Sustrans to upgrade and maintain the NCN following department business planning decisions later this year. Sustrans will then be responsible for setting out proposals on the optimum use of this funding across the NCN, which could include funding for repairs to the Padiham Greenway.
In the last five years, Lancashire County Council has received £10,589,933 in capital funding through the Active Travel Fund and £2,940,541 in revenue funding through the Capability Fund. In addition, the authority has been allocated £4,508,882 for 25/26 through the Consolidated Active Travel Fund.
Asked by: Oliver Ryan (Labour (Co-op) - Burnley)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether her Department plans to provide additional funding to support repairs to the bridge on the Padiham Greenway walking and cycling route in Burnley; and how much funding her Department has provided to Lancashire County Council for (a) walking, (b) cycling and (c) active travel in the last five years.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
In December 2024, Sustrans was awarded £280,000 for the ‘NCN 685 River Calder bridge reinstatement’ construction scheme in the eighth tranche of National Cycle Network funding. Active Travel England will set out future allocations to Sustrans to upgrade and maintain the NCN following department business planning decisions later this year. Sustrans will then be responsible for setting out proposals on the optimum use of this funding across the NCN, which could include funding for repairs to the Padiham Greenway.
In the last five years, Lancashire County Council has received £10,589,933 in capital funding through the Active Travel Fund and £2,940,541 in revenue funding through the Capability Fund. In addition, the authority has been allocated £4,508,882 for 25/26 through the Consolidated Active Travel Fund.