Asked by: Layla Moran (Liberal Democrat - Oxford West and Abingdon)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how lipoedema is classified within NICE guidance and NHS commissioning frameworks; and whether he plans to review the categorisation of lipoedema-related interventions to ensure they reflect clinical need.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Lipoedema services in England are commissioned locally by integrated care boards (ICBs), which are responsible for assessing the needs of their local populations and determining the most appropriate services to support people with long‑term conditions such as lipoedema.
There is no single national specification for lipoedema services. Instead, ICBs draw on a range of national guidance and best‑practice resources when designing care pathways. These include guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and best‑practice frameworks produced by bodies such as Wounds UK and the Royal College of General Practitioners. This helps ensure that services are safe, effective, and based on the best available evidence.
Most people with lipoedema are supported through primary and community care services, including assessment by local lymphoedema teams, compression therapy, advice on skin care and movement, and support with self‑management. These services aim to help people manage symptoms and maintain mobility and quality of life.
NICE classifies lipoedema within its interventional procedures guidance on the use of liposuction for chronic lipoedema, reference code HTG618, as a chronic, often painful, and progressive condition characterised by the abnormal, symmetrical accumulation of fat in the legs, hips, buttocks, and sometimes arms. In this guidance, NICE concluded that current evidence on both safety and effectiveness is limited and, therefore, recommends that liposuction should only be undertaken within the context of research or under rigorous governance arrangements. This guidance informs, but does not mandate, local commissioning decisions. NICE will review this guidance once the full results of the ongoing LIPLEG clinical trial are available, and will update its recommendations if new evidence supports doing so.
Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
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 repayment term for post-2012 student loans being set at 40 years on (a) graduates in lower-paid or insecure employment, (b) social mobility and (c) students from lower-income backgrounds.
Answered by Josh MacAlister - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
The repayment term for Plan 2 loans is 30 years. They were designed and implemented by previous governments. Students in England starting degrees under this government have different arrangements.
The student loan system is designed to protect borrowers, and repayments are determined by income, not the amount borrowed or the rate of interest. Borrowers only start repaying their student loan once earnings exceed the threshold, after which they pay 9% of income above that level. To protect lower earners, if a borrower’s earnings drop, so do their repayments, and if earnings fall below the repayment threshold, then they repay nothing at all.
After 30 years any outstanding loan and interest is cancelled at the end of the loan term, and debt is never passed on to family members or descendants. A borrower on Plan 2 entering repayment at age 21 would have any outstanding loan amount written off at age 51. No commercial loan offers this level of protection.
Asked by: Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask His Majesty's Government when they intend to publish their response to the report of the Social Mobility Policy Committee Social Mobility: Local Roots, Lasting Change, published on 18 November 2025.
Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The department is grateful for the work of the committee in producing this report. We are considering our response and will be publishing it in due course.
Asked by: Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat - Surrey Heath)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of road safety policy on older people's (a) mobility and (b) independence.
Answered by Lilian Greenwood - Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury
In Great Britain, 17 to 24-year-olds remain one of the highest fatality risk groups, especially young men, both as car drivers and passengers. While drivers aged 17 to 24 represent a high proportion of collisions in Great Britain older car drivers are more likely to be killed or seriously injured per licence held, at least in part due to their frailty.
We know we need to get the balance right for our younger and older drivers, to support young people’s access to work, education, and social activities. and to ensure that older people can actively participate in society and retain their independence, while also keeping both younger and older drivers safe on the roads.
That is why, as part of the Road Safety Strategy, we launched consultations on the 7 January 2025 on introducing a minimum learning period for learner drivers and introducing mandatory eyesight testing for older drivers.
Government policies are developed with due regard to protected characteristics as outlined by law. To ensure this an Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) will be carried out in line with PSED throughout the policy development process. As part of the EIA, the impact of policy options on people with protected characteristics will be considered proportionately and appropriate measures will be taken where a negative impact of policy is identified.
Asked by: Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of illegal e-bikes and e-scooters on the L-Category sector; and what steps they are taking to ensure a fair, safe, and properly regulated micro-mobility market.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
The Department continues to engage with the Motorcycle Industry Association to better understand how the micromobility and L-category sectors interact and can best support people in making the journeys that matter to them in a safe, efficient and cost-effective way.
The Government has committed to pursuing legislative reform for micromobility vehicles when parliamentary time allows. This will create safe, legal routes for people to use new transport technology, and help the police to crack down on those who use them in an irresponsible or anti-social way.
Asked by: Mike Wood (Conservative - Kingswinford and South Staffordshire)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, with reference to the Media Buying contract with MANNING GOTTLIEB OMD, for what reason the requirement to promote diversity, inclusion and social mobility is a key performance indicator.
Answered by Kate Dearden - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade)
The KPI is intended to incentivise the supplier to address issues of workforce inequality.
In line with Government procurement policy on social value, and because we are required to include a related KPI, this KPI was selected from an approved list in the Social Value Model linked to the policy.
Asked by: Alex Sobel (Labour (Co-op) - Leeds Central and Headingley)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment has been made of the potential impact of withdrawing funding for Level 7 apprenticeships for most learners aged 22 and over who are unable to self-fund postgraduate study on social mobility.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
I refer the hon. Member to the answer of 13 June 2025 to Question 57823.
Asked by: Luke Murphy (Labour - Basingstoke)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of the exclusion of Further Education Colleges from section 33 of the VAT Act 1994 on social mobility for students at those colleges.
Answered by Dan Tomlinson - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury)
Further Education (FE) funding is vital to ensure people are being trained in the skills they need to thrive in the modern labour market. The 2025 Spending Review provided an additional £1.2 billion per year by 2028-29 for skills and £1.7 billion of capital funding to help colleges maintain the condition of their estate. In addition, the Government is providing £375 million of capital investment to support the FE system to accommodate increasing student numbers.
For their non-business activity, FE colleges are unable to reclaim VAT incurred. We operate several VAT refund schemes for schools and academies which are designed variously to ensure that VAT is not a burden on local taxation, and that academies are not disincentivised from leaving local authority control. FE colleges do not meet the criteria for either scheme.
In relation to business activity, FE colleges enjoy an exemption from VAT which means that they do not have to charge VAT to students, but cannot recover it either.
Asked by: Sarah Pochin (Reform UK - Runcorn and Helsby)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether NHS England monitors local trust decisions on the withdrawal of designated parking arrangements for dialysis patients; and what mechanisms are in place to ensure such decisions take account of patient mobility and clinical vulnerability.
Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
Decisions on the provision of car parking are made locally by National Health Service organisations and should be consistent with the national guidance. This includes the provision of parking adjustments for patient groups receiving frequent treatments, including those undergoing dialysis. Further information on the guidance is available at the following link:
This guidance requires the provision of free hospital parking to groups classified as most ‘in-need’. This includes disabled people, frequent outpatient attenders, parents of sick children staying overnight, and NHS staff working overnight. These groups will include dialysis patients where applicable.
Asked by: Ann Davies (Plaid Cymru - Caerfyrddin)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether the Welsh Government have made a formal request for the devolution of heavy rail infrastructure to Wales.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The Government committed to invest £445 million to enhance rail infrastructure across Wales at the Spending Review. Through the Wales Rail Board, the UK and Welsh Government are collaborating to make sure this investment delivers the greatest passenger benefits, drives economic growth, promotes social mobility, and tackles inequality.
Great British Railways will have a close and collaborative relationship with Transport for Wales, underpinned by objectives set jointly by UK and Welsh Ministers, to ensure the railway better serves passengers and freight.