Written questions by Blackman.

What assessment his Department has made of a respiratory Modern Service Framework on reducing winter pressures on the NHS by simultaneously improving outcomes for long-term respiratory conditions and short-term respiratory illnesses such as flu.

The Government will consider long-term conditions for future waves of modern service frameworks (MSFs), including respiratory conditions. The criteria for determining other conditions for future MSFs will be based on where there is potential for rapid and significant improvements in quality of care and productivity. After the initial wave of MSFs is complete, the National Quality Board will determine the conditions to prioritise for new MSFs as part of its work programme. There has not, therefore, been a specific assessment made in relation to winter pressures.NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care are working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to explore innovation and policy prioritisation in respiratory health, including the cross‑Government alignment that may be required.Data is available for emergency Finished Admission Episodes (FAEs) where there was a primary diagnosis of 'respiratory conditions’. The following table shows the number of emergency FAEs where there was a primary diagnosis of respiratory conditions, for activity in English National Health Service hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent sector, for Mid Harrow and England, for 2024/25 and 2025/26:Westminster Parliamentary Constituency of Residence2024/25 (August 2024 to March 2025)2025/26 (April 2025 to November 2025)Harrow1225795England608,449423,588Source: Hospital Episode Statistics, NHS England.Available data on trends in respiratory conditions can be found on the Department’s Fingertips dataset. Data is not available by parliamentary constituency. Data is available at regional, county, unitary authority, and integrated care board level. Information for the London Borough of Harrow can be found at the following link: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/search/respiratory#page/1/gid/1/pat/15/ati/502/are/E09000015/iid/40701/age/163/sex/4/cat/-1/ctp/-1/yrr/1/cid/4/tbm/1 NHS England, working with the Department, the UK Health Security Agency, and other partners, is taking action to reduce the impact of respiratory conditions on the NHS this winter. Further details of the actions being taken to reduce demand on acute services during winter is available at the following link:https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/urgent-and-emergency-care-plan-2025-26/

When he plans to announce the next phase of modern service frameworks.

I refer the Hon. Member to the answer I gave to the Hon. Member for Strangford on 26 January 2026 to Question 102753.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what discussions she has had with the Government of India on the killing of Dipu Chandra Das and measures to protect members of the Hindu community.

I refer the Hon Member to the answer provided on 12 January in response to Question 101933.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what recent discussions she has had with the Government of Bangladesh and humanitarian agencies about helping to improve safety and protection for Rohingya refugees.

We remain concerned by the challenges faced by Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, as seen first hand by the Minister for International Development on her visit to the country in November last year. We regularly engaged with the former Interim Government of Bangladesh on security in, and around, the refugee camps and press for actions to improve the protection environment, and these issues were raised with then Chief Adviser Yunus by Baroness Chapman on her visit.We also fund protection services for women and girls, and seek to ensure that UK-funded Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) health and site management projects are sensitive to the needs of women and girls. The UK is working through local partners to address the humanitarian situation in the refugee camps and closely monitoring levels of need and security.In September, the Foreign Secretary announced £27 million of new funding for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and the communities which host them. This brought the UK's total support since 2017 to £447 million. This includes support to help refugees build skills for the future and reduce reliance on aid.

With reference to the UK and Eire Glaucoma Society 2025 consensus on Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery, what estimate he has made of the number of glaucoma patients who weren't offered a combined procedure to treat the condition at the time of cataract surgery in the last year.

Data on the number of glaucoma patients who weren't offered a combined procedure to treat glaucoma at the time of cataract surgery is not held.The best treatment options will be decided by the treating clinician, in discussion with the patient, considering an individuals’ clinical circumstances and relevant professional clinical guidance and best available evidence.The Getting It Right First Time programme is also developing best practice guidance for glaucoma services, to support the consistent adoption of high standards of care from detection onwards.

With reference to the UK and Eire Glaucoma Society 2025 consensus on Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery, whether he has made an assessment of the potential impact on secondary care services when patients are not offered a glaucoma intervention at the time of cataract surgery.

Data on the number of glaucoma patients who weren't offered a combined procedure to treat glaucoma at the time of cataract surgery is not held.The best treatment options will be decided by the treating clinician, in discussion with the patient, considering an individuals’ clinical circumstances and relevant professional clinical guidance and best available evidence.The Getting It Right First Time programme is also developing best practice guidance for glaucoma services, to support the consistent adoption of high standards of care from detection onwards.

What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the expansion of the UK National Screening Committee’s remit to include consideration of targeted screening programmes on the evaluation of a wider range of screening options for conditions associated with lifestyle related risk factors.

Each year, over 15 million people are invited for screening by National Health Service screening programmes, with over 10 million taking up the invitation. Through our NHS screening programmes, we can reduce mortality and morbidity from cancer and other conditions in the population who appear healthy and have no symptoms, by detecting conditions at an earlier, more treatable stage.The Government is advised on all screening matters by the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC), an independent scientific advisory committee which is made up of leading medical and screening experts. It is only where there is robust evidence that an offer to screen provides more good than harm that a screening programme is recommended.Following its expanded remit, in 2022, the UK NSC recommended lung cancer screening to people between the ages of 55 and 74 years old who smoke or have previously smoked, a lifestyle related risk factor. The NHS Lung Cancer Screening Programme is being rolled out across England.During its three-month open call for topics, the UK NSC welcomes proposals that cover population screening or targeted screening topics. Any individual or organisation can submit a topic to the UK NSC to consider. The UK NSC will consider whether the proposal is within the UK NSC remit and, if so, how the topic should be explored further.

How many referrals Immigration Enforcement has received from (i) local authorities and (ii) police forces regarding rough sleeping by non-UK nationals.

The information requested is not centrally held and could only be collected and verified for the purpose of answering this question at disproportionate cost.

How many non-UK nationals have been removed from the UK following a decision under paragraphs SUI 26.1 or SUI 26.2 of Part Suitability of the Immigration Rules.

This information could only be collected and verified for the purpose of answering this question at disproportionate cost.

What the nationality breakdown was of people subject to decisions under paragraphs SUI 26.1 and SUI 26.2 of the Part Suitability of the Immigration Rules in each year since 1 December 2020.

This information could only be collected and verified for the purpose of answering this question at disproportionate cost.

How many non-UK nationals have had their permission to stay refused or cancelled under paragraphs SUI 26.1 and SUI 26.2 of Part Suitability of the Immigration Rules on the grounds of rough sleeping.

This information could only be collected and verified for the purpose of answering this question at disproportionate cost.

What estimate she made of the cost to her Department of implementing the digital ID scheme since September 2024.

Costs in this Spending Review period will be met within the existing Spending Review settlement.

What steps he has taken to ensure that people who have brought forward cases relating to the unsafe prescription of sodium valproate are not denied access to justice due to their (a) cases being complex and (b) disability.

NHS Resolution (NHSR) is the body that manages clinical negligence and other claims against the National Health Service in England, and a full list of their clinical schemes can be found at the following link:https://resolution.nhs.uk/services/claims-management/clinical-schemes/NHSR has published in their most recent Annual Report and Accounts, for 2024/25, that they offer simplified processes for vaginal mesh claims and sodium valproate claims to be reported to them by unrepresented claimants. They refer to these simplified processes as gateways. Further details can be found on page 41 of their NHS Resolution Annual report and accounts 2024/25, at the following link:https://resolution.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/NHS-Resolution-ARA-24-25_ACCESSIBLE.pdf

What discussions he has had with his international counterparts on the relevance of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to individuals harmed by sodium valproate.

My Rt Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, has not had specific discussions with international counterparts regarding the relevance of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to individuals harmed by sodium valproate. Our focus remains on improving the safety of sodium valproate, so it is not used for women or girls of childbearing potential unless a pregnancy prevention plan is in place and other treatments are ineffective or not tolerated. The Government is also carefully considering the recommendations made by the Patient Safety Commissioner in The Hughes Report, which sets out options for redress for those harmed by valproate.

What information his Department holds on the withdrawal of legal aid certificates in litigation cases relating to harm caused by sodium valproate; and whether people involved in such cases were aware of the availability of Exceptional Case Funding.

Legal aid was granted in respect of a multi-party action product liability dispute under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 against Sanofi, the manufacturers of Epilim, a sodium valproate containing medication. The availability of legal aid in connection with this matter was subject to a means and merits test. Legal aid funding was subsequently withdrawn on the basis that the case no longer met the merits test because the prospects of success in the case were assessed as being poor. This determination was subject to an appeal before the Special Cases Review Panel, a panel consisting of independent lawyers, in October 2010. When determining whether legal aid should be withdrawn all relevant factors were taken into account. The assessment of long-term care needs following a withdrawal of legal aid is not a process that is part of the legal aid scheme and there is no statutory provision which requires or envisions this happening. At the material time the Legal Services Commission (LSC), an executive non-departmental public body of the Ministry of Justice, was responsible for the operational administration of the legal aid scheme. Decisions about funding in individual cases were made independently in accordance with the statutory framework in place. At the relevant time this would have included the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the Funding Code Criteria and Guidance. Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) would not have been available for this matter as the case was in scope of legal aid under the Access to Justice Act 1999. In 2013, the LSC was replaced by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice, created by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Under LASPO, the scope of civil legal services funded under legal aid was significantly reduced. ECF as provided for under s.10 LASPO allows legal aid to be granted in respect of cases which fall outside the scope of civil legal aid services where it can be shown that, without legal aid, there would be a breach or a risk of a breach of the individual’s human rights or assimilated enforceable EU rights. However, as with in-scope legal aid eligibility is subject to a financial eligibility test and a legal merits test, including where appropriate, the prospect of success test. The nature and availability of ECF is published on GOV.UK and the LAA publishes detailed guidance on how to apply for ECF Legal aid: apply for exceptional case funding - GOV.UK. All solicitors have an obligation in accordance with professional body rules to advise clients about funding options available including legal aid whether provided as in-scope funding or ECF. The independence of decision making in individual cases under LASPO was preserved by the creation of the statutory role of the Director of Legal Aid Casework. The Lord Chancellor may not issue directions or guidance in relation to an individual case. It is this separation that enables the LAA to make decisions without influence from the Ministry of Justice or from Ministers. This is an important part of the legal aid system and ensuring access to justice. All applications for legal aid, whether in-scope or ECF, are considered on a case-by-case basis against the statutory framework and any applicable general guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor. Legal aid will be granted in all cases where the appropriate eligibility criteria are met.

Whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of making Exceptional Case Funding available to women and families on their legal cases relating to harm caused by sodium valproate.

Legal aid was granted in respect of a multi-party action product liability dispute under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 against Sanofi, the manufacturers of Epilim, a sodium valproate containing medication. The availability of legal aid in connection with this matter was subject to a means and merits test. Legal aid funding was subsequently withdrawn on the basis that the case no longer met the merits test because the prospects of success in the case were assessed as being poor. This determination was subject to an appeal before the Special Cases Review Panel, a panel consisting of independent lawyers, in October 2010. When determining whether legal aid should be withdrawn all relevant factors were taken into account. The assessment of long-term care needs following a withdrawal of legal aid is not a process that is part of the legal aid scheme and there is no statutory provision which requires or envisions this happening. At the material time the Legal Services Commission (LSC), an executive non-departmental public body of the Ministry of Justice, was responsible for the operational administration of the legal aid scheme. Decisions about funding in individual cases were made independently in accordance with the statutory framework in place. At the relevant time this would have included the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the Funding Code Criteria and Guidance. Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) would not have been available for this matter as the case was in scope of legal aid under the Access to Justice Act 1999. In 2013, the LSC was replaced by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice, created by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Under LASPO, the scope of civil legal services funded under legal aid was significantly reduced. ECF as provided for under s.10 LASPO allows legal aid to be granted in respect of cases which fall outside the scope of civil legal aid services where it can be shown that, without legal aid, there would be a breach or a risk of a breach of the individual’s human rights or assimilated enforceable EU rights. However, as with in-scope legal aid eligibility is subject to a financial eligibility test and a legal merits test, including where appropriate, the prospect of success test. The nature and availability of ECF is published on GOV.UK and the LAA publishes detailed guidance on how to apply for ECF Legal aid: apply for exceptional case funding - GOV.UK. All solicitors have an obligation in accordance with professional body rules to advise clients about funding options available including legal aid whether provided as in-scope funding or ECF. The independence of decision making in individual cases under LASPO was preserved by the creation of the statutory role of the Director of Legal Aid Casework. The Lord Chancellor may not issue directions or guidance in relation to an individual case. It is this separation that enables the LAA to make decisions without influence from the Ministry of Justice or from Ministers. This is an important part of the legal aid system and ensuring access to justice. All applications for legal aid, whether in-scope or ECF, are considered on a case-by-case basis against the statutory framework and any applicable general guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor. Legal aid will be granted in all cases where the appropriate eligibility criteria are met.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the withdrawal of legal aid in cases involving sodium valproate on the long-term care needs on people who have brought such cases forward.

Legal aid was granted in respect of a multi-party action product liability dispute under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 against Sanofi, the manufacturers of Epilim, a sodium valproate containing medication. The availability of legal aid in connection with this matter was subject to a means and merits test. Legal aid funding was subsequently withdrawn on the basis that the case no longer met the merits test because the prospects of success in the case were assessed as being poor. This determination was subject to an appeal before the Special Cases Review Panel, a panel consisting of independent lawyers, in October 2010. When determining whether legal aid should be withdrawn all relevant factors were taken into account. The assessment of long-term care needs following a withdrawal of legal aid is not a process that is part of the legal aid scheme and there is no statutory provision which requires or envisions this happening. At the material time the Legal Services Commission (LSC), an executive non-departmental public body of the Ministry of Justice, was responsible for the operational administration of the legal aid scheme. Decisions about funding in individual cases were made independently in accordance with the statutory framework in place. At the relevant time this would have included the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the Funding Code Criteria and Guidance. Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) would not have been available for this matter as the case was in scope of legal aid under the Access to Justice Act 1999. In 2013, the LSC was replaced by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice, created by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Under LASPO, the scope of civil legal services funded under legal aid was significantly reduced. ECF as provided for under s.10 LASPO allows legal aid to be granted in respect of cases which fall outside the scope of civil legal aid services where it can be shown that, without legal aid, there would be a breach or a risk of a breach of the individual’s human rights or assimilated enforceable EU rights. However, as with in-scope legal aid eligibility is subject to a financial eligibility test and a legal merits test, including where appropriate, the prospect of success test. The nature and availability of ECF is published on GOV.UK and the LAA publishes detailed guidance on how to apply for ECF Legal aid: apply for exceptional case funding - GOV.UK. All solicitors have an obligation in accordance with professional body rules to advise clients about funding options available including legal aid whether provided as in-scope funding or ECF. The independence of decision making in individual cases under LASPO was preserved by the creation of the statutory role of the Director of Legal Aid Casework. The Lord Chancellor may not issue directions or guidance in relation to an individual case. It is this separation that enables the LAA to make decisions without influence from the Ministry of Justice or from Ministers. This is an important part of the legal aid system and ensuring access to justice. All applications for legal aid, whether in-scope or ECF, are considered on a case-by-case basis against the statutory framework and any applicable general guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor. Legal aid will be granted in all cases where the appropriate eligibility criteria are met.

What steps he has taken to reduce the level of incorrect Personal Independence Payment decisions for people with disabilities resulting from sodium valproate.

It is our aim to make the right decision as early as possible in the claim journey. To support this, we have made improvements to our decision-making processes to help ensure people get the support they are entitled to without needing to appeal. This includes giving Decision Makers additional time to proactively contact customers if they think additional evidence may support the claim.

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of payments received by unpaid carers for people harmed by sodium valproate.

People in Great Britain who provide unpaid care of 35 hours a week or more can receive financial support from the benefit system through Universal Credit (UC) or Pension Credit (PC). Carer’s Allowance (CA) is also available to those in England and Wales. UC and PC are means-tested and include additional amounts for carers worth around £2,400 a year. CA is not means-tested and is worth around £4,300 a year.Payments to the unpaid carer are linked to the extra costs disability benefit received by the person with care needs. This is most commonly the Daily Living Component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP), the middle or highest rate Care Component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Attendance Allowance (AA), or the equivalent rates of Child Disability Payment, Adult Disability Payment, Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance or Pension Age Disability Payment in Scotland. Receipt of PIP, DLA or AA is based on functional ability, rather than the health condition or disability itself. Individuals can be affected in different ways by the same condition, and so the outcome of a PIP claim from somebody harmed by sodium valproate would depend on individual circumstances. The amount of the carer additions in UC and PC, and the rate of CA, do not depend on the reason that the extra costs disability benefit is in payment.

Whether Personal Independence Payment assessors receive specialist training on disabilities caused by sodium valproate.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is committed to ensuring that individuals with disabilities caused by sodium valproate receive high-quality, objective, and accurate assessments. Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessments are functional assessments designed to evaluate how an individual’s health conditions or impairments affect their ability to carry out daily living activities and mobility. Health professionals (HPs) conducting these assessments are trained specialists in disability analysis, focusing on understanding the functional impact of a claimant’s condition rather than its clinical diagnosis. DWP does not require HPs to be specialists in the specific medical conditions or impairments of those they assess. Additionally, HPs have access to Condition Insight Reports and Continuing Professional Development guides. These resources offer detailed clinical and functional information on a range of conditions, including disabilities cause by sodium valproate such as, Fetal Valproate Spectrum Disorder (FVSD), to support HPs in delivering informed assessments.