Every parliamentary written question tabled by Charlie Dewhirst this session, with the full answer and department. See how every department answers, or back to the MP page.
Showing 521–540 of 990 · this parliament
Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 11 March 2025 to Question 35636 on Agriculture and Business: Inheritance Tax, whether his Department has requested sight of the Treasury’s modelling that concludes a clawback mechanism would raise significantly less revenue than the proposed reforms to Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided on 4 March 2025 to PQ 32918.
Food and Rural Affairs, what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential merits of a clawback mechanism as an alternative to the proposed changes to Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief.
This is a decision for His Majesty’s Treasury.
Whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential impact of proposed changes to NHS staffing levels on the economy of local communities.
NHS England has asked integrated care boards (ICBs) to act primarily as strategic commissioners of health and care services and reduce duplication of responsibilities within the health and care structure. To deliver on this commitment, ICBs have drafted and shared their delivery and resource plan including staffing management in accordance with the guidance set out in Sir Jim Mackey's letter of 1 April 2025 and the Model ICB framework. NHS England is working with ICBs to review and implement these plans.NHS England is also working closely with ICBs to ensure these changes do not compromise quality of care or the statutory responsibilities of ICBs. We expect ICBs to consider how these changes impact on staff and take the necessary steps to protect frontline staff. No specific assessment has been made in regard to the impact on the economy of the local communities.
What estimate he has made of the projected total cost of redundancy packages arising from the proposed changes to NHS England and DHSC; and what estimate he has made of the net financial benefit after these costs are accounted for.
The future Department will be smaller, more agile, and more efficient, delivering value for money for the public and empowering our health system to improve health and care for patients. We recognise that to achieve this, there will be some short-term upfront costs as we undertake the integration of NHS England and the Department, but these costs and more will be recouped in future years because of a smaller and leaner centre. By the end of the process, we estimate that these changes will save hundreds of millions of pounds a year, which will be reinvested in frontline services. At this stage it is too early to say what the upfront costs of integration are, including any redundancy, while transition planning is ongoing.
What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of proposed NHS workforce reductions on (a) East Yorkshire and (b) other (i) rural and (ii) coastal communities.
NHS England has asked integrated care boards (ICBs) to act primarily as strategic commissioners of health and care services and reduce duplication of responsibilities within the health and care structure. All ICBs, including Humber and North Yorkshire ICB and other ICBs covering rural and coastal areas, have drafted and shared their delivery and resource plan in accordance with the guidance set out in Sir Jim Mackey's letter of 1 April 2025 and the Model ICB framework. NHS England is working with ICBs to review and implement these plans.NHS England is working closely with ICBs to ensure these changes do not compromise quality of care or the statutory responsibilities of ICBs. We expect ICBs to consider how these changes impact on staff and take the necessary steps to protect frontline staff. No specific assessment of impact has been made for rural and coastal communities.
What (a) analysis and (b) modelling he used for the target of 50% reduction in staff across (i) NHS England and (ii) his Department; and whether that target was based on (A) internal performance reviews, (B) external advice and (C) financial modelling.
The future Department will be smaller, more agile, and more efficient, delivering value for money for the public and empowering our health system to improve health and care for patients. To realise this vision, the new Department will be stripped of duplication and bureaucracy. It will also need to operate very differently from the current arrangement, making important decisions about what it does and does not do and transforming ways of working.As part of these changes, we are intending to reduce the headcount across the Department and NHS England which will deliver hundreds of millions of pounds of savings each year which can be recycled into front line service delivery. Work is progressing to now take forward the detailed design and operating model for the new integrated organisation, and plan for the smooth transfer of people, functions and responsibilities. The precise reduction agreed will be done through careful design, deliberation and consultation in the spirit of making sure that the set-up is right for the longer term.
Food and Rural Affairs, what steps his Department is taking to (a) ensure that fishing corridors are maintained and (b) minimise the potential impact of offshore wind developments on fishing grounds.
Defra established the cross-Government Marine Spatial Prioritisation programme to build our understanding of how we can best manage the demands on the English marine environment, including fisheries. Through our work on co-location we are also looking at ways for different industries such as offshore wind and fishing to co-exist and benefit from our marine space.
Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of (a) Marine Protected Areas and (b) offshore wind development on (i) fishing grounds and (ii) fishermen.
Defra established the cross-Government Marine Spatial Prioritisation programme to build our understanding of how we can best manage the demands on the English marine environment. Through our work on co-location we are also looking at ways for different industries such as offshore wind and fishing to co-exist and benefit from our marine space. When designating Marine Protected Areas, fisheries regulators make detailed assessments of the impact of all fishing activities on the protected species and habitats in our MPAs and develop byelaws to restrict fishing when it has been assessed as damaging. Any proposed byelaws are consulted on, including with the fishing industry. These site-by-site assessments help to ensure fishing is not unduly restricted.
What data the Government holds on gender disparities in Child Maintenance Service cases; and what steps she is taking to ensure that the system treats both mothers and fathers equally and without bias.
In the quarter ending December 2024, of the 680,000 Paying Parents 93% were male.The Child Maintenance Service aims to provide a high-quality service to all of its parents. The CMS treats parents equally as individuals based on their roles within the scheme and makes no reference to gender. The Department has a specific duty to assess the impact of proposed policies and services and any changes to them on equality. This ensures the Department meets the Public Sector Equality Duty.
Whether her Department has made an assessment of the potential (a) mental health and (b) financial impact of losing entitlement to Personal Independence Payment due to the 20-metre walking rule on claimants; and if she will review this criterion in light of concern from disabled groups.
For those with physical restrictions, the enhanced rate of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) mobility component is for those "unable" or "virtually unable" to walk. The 20 metre distance distinguishes between those whose mobility is significantly more limited than others and who face the greater barriers on a day-to-day basis, (those who have the highest need). Distance is not the only factor considered when applying a descriptor for the ‘moving around’ activity, and the ‘reliability’ criteria also apply. This means individuals who can walk more than 20 metres can still receive the enhanced rate of the mobility component if they cannot do so safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly or in a reasonable time. Whilst claimants can only reach an enhanced mobility award in activity 12 if they cannot reliably walk more than 20 metres, they may still qualify for a standard award should they satisfy another descriptor scoring a minimum of 8 points. Claimants can also reach a standard or enhanced mobility award by scoring 8, or 12 points respectively across activities 11 and 12 combined. No assessment has been made of the potential mental health impact of losing entitlement to PIP due to the 20 metre distance in the criteria. It would be extremely difficult to objectively separate the specific impact of this on mental health from other contributory factors. I have launched a review of the PIP assessment, including the descriptors, which I am leading. The first phase of this work has now begun, which includes speaking to stakeholders to gather views on how best to approach the review, and the terms of reference will be published in due course.
If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of Child Maintenance Service enforcement procedures on (a) the mental health of and (b) suicide rates for non-resident (i) parents and (ii) parents who are men.
The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) is committed to ensuring that it delivers a safe service that is sensitive to the needs of all the parents that use it. We recognise that some parents may face difficult circumstances, particularly at a time of separation.The CMS is well prepared to respond quickly and effectively if it becomes aware that the safety of any of its customers are at risk, and caseworkers receive extensive training and follow a well-managed process with clear steps to support vulnerable clients.Caseworkers have access to several tools and procedures to help support customers when they advise they cannot afford to pay child maintenance or are struggling with the cost of living in general and are in financial or emotional crisis.This includes the National District Provision Toolkit and Affordability Hub which provides invaluable information to allow caseworkers to signpost to national and local support organisations for debt help and mental health assistance across the UK.The CMS do not recognise any data or evidence that indicates a causal link between the Child Maintenance Service and suicides amongst paying parents. However, we do recognise that many paying parents face difficult circumstances and may be in emotional crisis.
What safeguards are in place to prevent misuse of the Child Maintenance Service by resident parents making unfounded or exaggerated claims in order to maximise payments from the non-resident parent.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS) decisions are made by caseworkers who consider all the evidence and apply the law, including any relevant case law, to the facts of each case.Where the legislation specifies or implies that a caseworker make a discretionary decision, the judgement must be reasonable and unbiased, taking in all relevant matters and discarding irrelevant matters.There may be occasions where a caseworker must make a decision based on incomplete or contradictory information. If this is the case and the caseworker is unable to corroborate the information, they will have to exercise their judgement, considering all the available evidence, and make a decision based on the balance of probabilities the information or allegation provided is true or not.If a parent feels that a decision taken by the Child Maintenance Service is incorrect, they can ask it to look at the decision again. This is known as a mandatory reconsideration. If a parent still feels that the decision taken is incorrect after they receive a mandatory reconsideration notice, they will be able to appeal to an independent tribunal.
Communities and Local Government, what recent estimate she has made of the number of small-scale landlords exiting the private rented sector due to incoming regulation and tax changes; and what assessment she has made of the potential impact on (a) housing availability and (b) rent prices.
In the most recent release of the English Private Landlord Survey in 2024, 45% of landlords had only one property. This is similar to findings in 2021 (43%) and 2018 (45%).Whilst landlords have been aware of successive governments’ plans to reform the private rented sector since 2019, the size of the sector as a whole has remained broadly stable since 2013-14.The government is clear that it values the contribution of professional landlords who understand their responsibilities and comply with regulation, regardless of the size of their portfolios. The Renters’ Rights Bill will make sure good landlords have the confidence and support they need to continue to invest and operate in the sector.
What the average response time is for CMS dispute appeals where a non-resident parent challenges the assessment on the basis of (a) false information and (b) undeclared shared care.
Information specifically in relation to false information or undeclared share care is not available. Child Maintenance Service appeals, together with Jobseekers Allowance, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Relief and Employment and Support Allowance (with no medical element), are heard by a judge. In the last quarter for which data is available, January to March 2025, the average time to clear Social Security and Child Support Tribunal appeals which were heard by a Judge only, was 33 weeks. To reduce the time taken to resolve CMS disputes that have reached Appeal stage, the disputes service has taken the following actions: Recruited an additional team of CMS Appeal Writers in January 2025.Working to identify continuous improvement activity to improve the customer journey and reduce wait times.Utilising overtime to increase clearance volumes.Supporting a two-way data sharing agreement with HMCTS to identify pre-registration Appeal volumes.
What steps the Child Maintenance Service is taking to ensure that calculations reflect (a) shared parenting arrangements and (b) shared parenting arrangements in which a non-resident parent cares for their child for 10–16 days per month.
The Child Maintenance Service operates on the principle that both parents have financial responsibility for their child, including their food and clothing, as well as contributing towards the associated costs of running the home that the child lives in. Reductions can be made for the extra cost of care where it is shared by the paying parent. The paying parent must have overnight care of any qualifying children for at least 52 nights a year, equivalent of 1 night per week. The amount payable is reduced by a maximum of fifty per cent within bands based on the number of nights overnight care is provided over a 12-month period. The bands are used to give greater stability to maintenance payments and as a result there is greater reliability of payments, which contributes towards the welfare of the children in the case. If evidence shows that both parties are providing equal day-to-day care of a qualifying child, in addition to sharing overnight care, there is no requirement for either parent to pay child maintenance. There is no statutory definition of day-to-day care, our definition is broadly aligned with that of Child Benefit, where an ‘overall care test’ is used. This provides consistency across government and receipt of Child Benefit is regarded as a good indicator of who is entitled to child maintenance payments. Where a dispute does arise, the CMS will seek to collect evidence from parents, for example a Court ordered arrangement, to establish the correct figure. The evidence acceptable in these circumstances isa current court order providing for contact between the paying parent and the childa formal written agreement, for example drawn up by a solicitor, oranother official document for example, Social Services or Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) reports. The Child Maintenance Service is committed to ensuring that it delivers a safe service that is sensitive to the needs of all the parents that use it. We recognise that some parents may face difficult circumstances, particularly at a time of separation. We are engaging with other DWP services, and with external stakeholders, who have a range of different models for providing additional support to work together in the interests of their children where necessary, to identify best practice and see what else we could usefully add.Child Maintenance on-line services promote the benefits of mediation to parents where this is appropriate and provide signposting to accredited mediation services.The CMS is well prepared to respond quickly and effectively if it becomes aware that the safety of any of its customers are at risk, and caseworkers receive extensive training and follow a well-managed process with clear steps to support vulnerable clients. Caseworkers have access to several tools and procedures to help support customers when they advise they cannot afford to pay child maintenance, or are struggling with the cost of living in general, and are in financial or emotional crisis. This includes the National District Provision Toolkit and Affordability Hub which provides invaluable information to allow caseworkers to signpost to national and local support organisations for debt help and mental health assistance across the UK.
What steps his Department is taking to improve the resilience of the electricity distribution network in (a) rural areas and (b) Kilham in the East Riding of Yorkshire.
Energy resilience is important, including in rural areas. We work with the energy industry, regulators and other stakeholders to continually improve and maintain the resilience of energy infrastructure. Great Britain has a highly resilient energy network, although disruptions can still occur. Network investments are funded by customers through network charges on their energy bills. Ofgem determine this funding through price controls accounting for a wide variety of factors. We are working with Ofgem to provide funding to Distribution Network Operators to improve the service experienced by those customers who receive the poorest levels of performance.
What steps she is taking to support sole traders and small family-run businesses with the cost of (a) inflation and (b) living; and if she will review VAT thresholds and business rates for small enterprises.
The Government recognises the important role that small businesses and sole traders play in the economy, and the impact that inflation can have on them. We are putting the public finances on a sustainable path and investing in the future, creating a stable environment for growth.At the Budget we introduced a range of tax measures that benefit small businesses and sole traders. These included:• More than doubling the Employment Allowance to £10,500. This means more than half of businesses with NICs liabilities will either gain or see no change this year. • Maintaining the Small Profits Rate and marginal relief at their current rates and thresholds, as well as maintaining the £1 million Annual Investment Allowance; and• Freezing the small business multiplier for 2025/26 meaning that, taken together with Small Business Rate Relief (SBRR), over a million properties are protected from inflationary bill increases.The Budget announcements on business rates reflect the Government’s first steps to support the high street. We want to go further to modernise the system, and so, we have published a Discussion Paper setting out priority areas for reform. This paper invited industry to help co-design a fairer business rates system that supports investment and is fit for the 21st century.At £90,000, the UK has a higher VAT registration threshold than any EU country and the joint highest in the OECD. This means the majority of UK businesses are kept out of the VAT system.
If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of Child Maintenance Service payments on the (a) mental health and (b) financial stability of (i) all non-resident parents and (ii) non-resident parents who share care responsibilities nearly equally.
The Child Maintenance Service operates on the principle that both parents have financial responsibility for their child, including their food and clothing, as well as contributing towards the associated costs of running the home that the child lives in. Reductions can be made for the extra cost of care where it is shared by the paying parent. The paying parent must have overnight care of any qualifying children for at least 52 nights a year, equivalent of 1 night per week. The amount payable is reduced by a maximum of fifty per cent within bands based on the number of nights overnight care is provided over a 12-month period. The bands are used to give greater stability to maintenance payments and as a result there is greater reliability of payments, which contributes towards the welfare of the children in the case. If evidence shows that both parties are providing equal day-to-day care of a qualifying child, in addition to sharing overnight care, there is no requirement for either parent to pay child maintenance. There is no statutory definition of day-to-day care, our definition is broadly aligned with that of Child Benefit, where an ‘overall care test’ is used. This provides consistency across government and receipt of Child Benefit is regarded as a good indicator of who is entitled to child maintenance payments. Where a dispute does arise, the CMS will seek to collect evidence from parents, for example a Court ordered arrangement, to establish the correct figure. The evidence acceptable in these circumstances isa current court order providing for contact between the paying parent and the childa formal written agreement, for example drawn up by a solicitor, oranother official document for example, Social Services or Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) reports. The Child Maintenance Service is committed to ensuring that it delivers a safe service that is sensitive to the needs of all the parents that use it. We recognise that some parents may face difficult circumstances, particularly at a time of separation. We are engaging with other DWP services, and with external stakeholders, who have a range of different models for providing additional support to work together in the interests of their children where necessary, to identify best practice and see what else we could usefully add.Child Maintenance on-line services promote the benefits of mediation to parents where this is appropriate and provide signposting to accredited mediation services.The CMS is well prepared to respond quickly and effectively if it becomes aware that the safety of any of its customers are at risk, and caseworkers receive extensive training and follow a well-managed process with clear steps to support vulnerable clients. Caseworkers have access to several tools and procedures to help support customers when they advise they cannot afford to pay child maintenance, or are struggling with the cost of living in general, and are in financial or emotional crisis. This includes the National District Provision Toolkit and Affordability Hub which provides invaluable information to allow caseworkers to signpost to national and local support organisations for debt help and mental health assistance across the UK.
Communities and Local Government, whether her Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of capping local authority landlord licensing fees in (a) rural and (b) low-income areas.
Local authorities are responsible for setting fees for their licensing schemes, taking account of a number of factors. These include the initial set-up costs of the scheme, the cost of assessing applications and issuing licences, and, where necessary, the cost of inspecting properties . Licence fees will vary between areas to account for differences in costs, however local authorities are not expected to profit from licensing. The government expects local authorities to make details of these fees, along with the rationale behind their determination, transparent and readily accessible.
What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of proposed changes to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) eligibility criteria on (a) disabled people and (b) people with (i) autism spectrum disorder, (ii) ADHD, (iii) mental health conditions, (iv) chronic fatigue syndrome and other non-visible disabilities.
No assessment has been made. Information on the impacts of the Pathways to Work Green Paper has been published here ‘Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper’. Impacts of the proposed changes depend on many factors including how the mix of conditions among claimants evolves over time, and behavioural responses. These impacts are uncertain at an overall England and Wales level, and it would not be possible to make an informed assessment at such a granular level as individual primary medical conditions. After taking account of behavioural changes, the OBR predicts that 9 in 10 of those on PIP daily living at the point any changes come in will still be receiving PIP by the end of the decade. No one will lose access to PIP immediately - and most people will not lose access at all. Our intention is that changes will start to come into effect from November 2026 for PIP, subject to parliamentary approval. After that date, no one will lose PIP without first being reassessed by a trained assessor or healthcare professional, who assesses individual needs and circumstance. Reassessments happen on average every 3 years. We are consulting on how best to support those who are affected by the new eligibility changes, including ensuring health and care needs are met. We have also announced a wider review of the PIP assessment to make it fair and fit for purpose, which I am leading. We are bringing together a range of experts, stakeholders and people with lived experience to consider how best to do this. We will provide further details as plans progress. Even with these reforms, the overall number of people on PIP and DLA is expected to rise by 750,000 by the end of this parliament and spending will rise from £23bn in 24/25 to £31bn in 29/30.