Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether she has had discussions with airport operators on recent increases in terminal drop-off charges at (a) Heathrow Airport and (b) other airports; and what assessment she has made of the potential impact of these charges on passengers.

Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

The Department for Transport regularly engages with airport operators on a range of matters, including surface access and car parking arrangements at airports. The Department has not undertaken an assessment of the potential impact of car parking and drop-off charges on passengers. The provision and charging of airport parking are matters for each airport to manage and justify as a commercial business. Parking revenue including that from drop-off charges, is an important source of income for airports, supporting investment in future infrastructure and upgrades, enhancing public transport options, and helping to manage congestion around airport sites.  We will continue to engage with operators to ensure that where airports do choose to charge, they do so in a way that is fair and transparent.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if his Department will make an assessment of the potential merits of reducing the state pension age to 60 for women and 65 for men.

Answered by Torsten Bell - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)

The pace of State Pension age increases was hugely, and unfairly, accelerated by the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Coalition Government.

The Government is required to regularly review State Pension age under the Pensions Act 2014. The Government’s third State Pension age Review is underway and will assess the rules for State Pension age based on the latest life expectancy data and other evidence.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment she has made of the potential impact on parents of requiring a revised court order before the Child Maintenance Service can recognise changes to shared care arrangements that are already taking place in practice.

Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)

The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) does not require a court order in all cases. The job of the CMS is to determine what contact is actually taking place and ensure that is reflected in the maintenance calculation. Where shared care arrangements are disputed, the CMS will seek to collect evidence from parents to establish the actual level of care being given. Acceptable evidence can include a current court order but can also include; a formal written agreement such as one drawn up by a solicitor, or other official documentation such as reports from Social Services or the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. This approach ensures that decisions are based on clear and verifiable information so that maintenance calculations are fair, consistent, and reflect the care actually being provided.

In some circumstances, where for example there is a dispute over whether the terms of a current court order are being honoured, formal evidence such as a revised court order may be required, especially in the absence of other robust evidence around the level of shared care being provided in practice. Here, the requirement for robust evidence plays an important role in ensuring that CMS decisions are accurate and that both parents are treated fairly, thereby minimising the risk of further disputes.

That said, the CMS does not determine contact arrangements itself, as these matters are primarily for parents and, where they cannot agree, for the family courts.

Shared care remains an important consideration within the child maintenance system, and this is an area that the CMS will continue to keep under review.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment she has made of the accessibility and affordability of requiring parents to seek repeated court orders for the Child Maintenance Service to recognise changes to child contact arrangements.

Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)

The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) does not require a court order in all cases. The job of the CMS is to determine what contact is actually taking place and ensure that is reflected in the maintenance calculation. Where shared care arrangements are disputed, the CMS will seek to collect evidence from parents to establish the actual level of care being given. Acceptable evidence can include a current court order but can also include; a formal written agreement such as one drawn up by a solicitor, or other official documentation such as reports from Social Services or the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. This approach ensures that decisions are based on clear and verifiable information so that maintenance calculations are fair, consistent, and reflect the care actually being provided.

In some circumstances, where for example there is a dispute over whether the terms of a current court order are being honoured, formal evidence such as a revised court order may be required, especially in the absence of other robust evidence around the level of shared care being provided in practice. Here, the requirement for robust evidence plays an important role in ensuring that CMS decisions are accurate and that both parents are treated fairly, thereby minimising the risk of further disputes.

That said, the CMS does not determine contact arrangements itself, as these matters are primarily for parents and, where they cannot agree, for the family courts.

Shared care remains an important consideration within the child maintenance system, and this is an area that the CMS will continue to keep under review.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whether the BBC charter renewal process will assess the impact of the BBC on developing (a) musical skills and (b) creative talent.

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

The BBC continues to hold a uniquely important role as a cornerstone of the whole of the UK’s creative economy, including playing an important role in the provision of music.

As part of the Charter Review process, the Government is looking at how the BBC can best use its significant public funding to act differently to other broadcasters and prioritise genres and activities that would otherwise be underserved by the market. We are also considering options to ensure that the BBC drives opportunities and good jobs across the UK, including in the creative sector and the arts.

More widely, the government remains committed to supporting a flourishing music industry. We will soon launch a £30 million Music Growth Package (2026-29) and publish a Music Plan, drawing together all that the government is doing to support the music industry - including the BBC's crucial contributions - to make the UK the best place in the world to create, play and invest in music.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what steps she is taking to support the BBC’s work on (a) classical music and (b) choral singing.

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

The BBC continues to hold a uniquely important role as a cornerstone of the whole of the UK’s creative economy, including playing an important role in the provision of music.

As part of the Charter Review process, the Government is looking at how the BBC can best use its significant public funding to act differently to other broadcasters and prioritise genres and activities that would otherwise be underserved by the market. We are also considering options to ensure that the BBC drives opportunities and good jobs across the UK, including in the creative sector and the arts.

More widely, the government remains committed to supporting a flourishing music industry. We will soon launch a £30 million Music Growth Package (2026-29) and publish a Music Plan, drawing together all that the government is doing to support the music industry - including the BBC's crucial contributions - to make the UK the best place in the world to create, play and invest in music.

Question to the Department for Education:

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment she has made of whether the complaints framework operated by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education is fit for purpose in the context of current (a) higher education tuition fees and (b) student consumer protections.

Answered by Josh MacAlister - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) for Higher Education (HE) continues to perform well despite sustained year on year increases in the number of complaints it handles. Its latest annual report shows that over 90% of complaints were closed within six months, and that the average case handling time has reduced to 81 days.

The department also welcomes also the OIA’s ongoing consultation, open until the end of July, which should help ensure it remains fit for purpose in response to the evolving HE landscape.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of the number of legal aid public law solicitors on an individual's ability to bring Judicial Review proceedings within the current three-month time limit.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Under Civil Procedure Rules Part 54, judicial review claims must be filed promptly and no later than three months after the grounds for the claim first arose, subject to shorter statutory time limits in particular areas such as planning cases.

Claimants can apply to the Court for an extension of time when filing their claim form if they are unable to meet the three-month deadline, for example if they are having difficulties securing legal representation in that time. In determining whether to grant an extension of time, the Court will consider all the circumstances, including whether an adequate explanation has been given for the delay and whether an extension will cause substantial hardship or prejudice to other parties or be detrimental to good administration. Further information can be found in the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide.

It is the Government’s view that the three-month time limit, with the possibility of extension at the Court’s discretion, provides the right balance between ensuring individuals have adequate opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of public decisions and providing legal certainty for those public decisions.

The scope of legal aid is set out under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO).  Legal aid is available for legal services provided in relation to judicial review of an enactment, decision, act or omission subject to the application of an assessment of the merits of the case and an assessment of financial eligibility. Not all cases will qualify for legal aid.

Legal aid services for judicial reviews can be undertaken by providers holding a Public Law contract or a contract in the relevant underlying area of law e.g. housing or immigration. This means that the available supply of legal aid solicitors able to assist with a judicial review is not limited to those holding a Public Law contract.

Individuals can use the ‘Find a legal aid adviser’ search tool on GOV.UK to locate legal aid solicitors nearby using the following link: Find a Legal Aid Adviser or Family Mediator.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an assessment of the adequacy of the three-month time limit for applying for Judicial Review in cases where applicants are unable to secure legal representation within that period.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Under Civil Procedure Rules Part 54, judicial review claims must be filed promptly and no later than three months after the grounds for the claim first arose, subject to shorter statutory time limits in particular areas such as planning cases.

Claimants can apply to the Court for an extension of time when filing their claim form if they are unable to meet the three-month deadline, for example if they are having difficulties securing legal representation in that time. In determining whether to grant an extension of time, the Court will consider all the circumstances, including whether an adequate explanation has been given for the delay and whether an extension will cause substantial hardship or prejudice to other parties or be detrimental to good administration. Further information can be found in the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide.

It is the Government’s view that the three-month time limit, with the possibility of extension at the Court’s discretion, provides the right balance between ensuring individuals have adequate opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of public decisions and providing legal certainty for those public decisions.

The scope of legal aid is set out under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO).  Legal aid is available for legal services provided in relation to judicial review of an enactment, decision, act or omission subject to the application of an assessment of the merits of the case and an assessment of financial eligibility. Not all cases will qualify for legal aid.

Legal aid services for judicial reviews can be undertaken by providers holding a Public Law contract or a contract in the relevant underlying area of law e.g. housing or immigration. This means that the available supply of legal aid solicitors able to assist with a judicial review is not limited to those holding a Public Law contract.

Individuals can use the ‘Find a legal aid adviser’ search tool on GOV.UK to locate legal aid solicitors nearby using the following link: Find a Legal Aid Adviser or Family Mediator.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether her Department has had discussions with insurers on the availability of public liability insurance for diversified agricultural businesses that host members of the public as part of their business model.

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

The Government engages regularly with insurers and regulators on a variety of topics. The Government has not made a specific assessment regarding the availability of public liability insurance for diversified agricultural businesses.

The Government would always recommend that consumers shop around to find the most suitable cover at the best price. For more specialised risks, it may be helpful for consumers to consult an insurance broker, who will be able to help search the market for specialist providers.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment has the Government made of the availability and affordability of public liability insurance for diversified agricultural businesses that rely on visitor income.

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

The Government engages regularly with insurers and regulators on a variety of topics. The Government has not made a specific assessment regarding the availability of public liability insurance for diversified agricultural businesses.

The Government would always recommend that consumers shop around to find the most suitable cover at the best price. For more specialised risks, it may be helpful for consumers to consult an insurance broker, who will be able to help search the market for specialist providers.

Towards a ceasefire and political resolution in Sudan

Enhertu for metastatic breast cancer patients

Domestic abuse and the FIFA World Cup

VAT for UK hospitality

Climate Change Committee's seventh Carbon Budget

Public disorder in Southampton and Belfast

Payment of employment tribunal awards (No. 2)

Reform of the asylum system

Right to work

Indefinite Leave to Remain changes

British citizens' right to a family life with spouses in the UK

Dual nationals without British passports

UK trade with illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Found: In a Westminster Hall debate on social cohesion in March, the APPG chair Zöe Franklin said: “I hope