Written questions by McMurdock.

Pursuant to her Department’s press release entitled Government to Improve Support for Affordable Debt Repayments, published on 20 March 2026, what estimate she has made of the proportion of people in government debt repayment plans who are currently making payments deemed unaffordable.

The press release entitled ‘Government to Improve Support for Affordable Debt Repayments’, published on 20 March 2026, publicised the Government Debt Management Strategy 2026–2030. The strategy sets out the Government Debt Management Function’s (GDMF) vision and principles for good debt management across central government. It does not introduce a single new, cross-government “affordable repayment plan” policy with uniform terms; repayment arrangements continue to be set by individual departments and arm’s-length bodies (ALBs) in line with their specific legislation, policies and the circumstances of the individual. This includes consideration of interest rates, repayment incentives / disincentives, repayment period length, specific performance metrics and associated costs. Affordability is assessed with an income and expenditure statement, discussion and regular reviews. All repayment plans should be affordable, so requested data on the proportion of repayment plans that are affordable, as well as metrics to assess this in the future, does not exist. The ability for an individual to challenge or seek a review of an affordability assessment depends on the type of debt, the individual’s circumstances and the department or ALB to which the debt is owed. Individuals can contact the relevant organisation to discuss their circumstances and any review or appeal routes available for that debt type. Information about the government’s plan to identify individuals at risk of falling into debt at an earlier stage and how the government has taken consideration of differences in repayment practices is available at Prevent Resolve Improve 26-30 Government Debt Management Strategy - GOV.UK.

Pursuant to his Department’s press release entitled Reforms to make it easier for overseas companies to move to the UK, published on 25 March 2026, what timetable he has set for introducing legislation to implement the re-domiciliation regime.

A corporate re-domiciliation regime will require primary legislation to implement the required changes to company, insolvency and tax legislation. The Government is committed to introducing legislation when parliamentary time allows.

Pursuant to his Department’s press release entitled Reforms to make it easier for overseas companies to move to the UK, published on 25 March 2026, what assessment he has made of the capacity of Companies House to process an increased volume of company registrations resulting from the reforms.

The Department for Business and Trade will continue to work closely with Companies House to ensure the regime will be implemented effectively and applications can be processed in a timely manner.

Pursuant to his Department’s press release entitled Reforms to make it easier for overseas companies to move to the UK, published on 25 March 2026, what safeguards will be in place to prevent companies relocating to the UK to avoid regulatory or legal obligations in their original jurisdiction.

Under current proposals set out for public consultation, re-domiciled companies will retain all criminal and civil liabilities, and all contracts, debts and other obligations, to which the re-domiciling body corporate was subject immediately before re-domiciliation.To successfully re-domicile, companies will need to provide proof of de-registration in the departing jurisdiction within 60 days of registration in the UK. It is expected that the departing jurisdiction will satisfy itself that the body corporate has met any existing jurisdiction-specific liabilities that need to be met prior to approving its exit and de-registration.Companies must also confirm in their application that any authorisation or other action required by the departing jurisdiction has been given or will have been given on re-domiciliation and that the body corporate is not prevented from making the application because it is subject to a restriction on applying with an offence for making a false or misleading statement in the application.Once a body corporate has re-domiciled to the UK, it will be treated in the same way as a company originally incorporated in the UK . This includes relevant new requirements introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, such as confirming that future activities will be lawful and for the proposed directors and persons of significant control to have their identities verified.

Pursuant to his Department’s press release entitled Reforms to make it easier for overseas companies to move to the UK, published on 25 March 2026, what quantitative assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits of introducing a re-domiciliation regime.

The Government has published an analytical paper alongside the consultation providing a high-level assessment of the likely impacts. Initial analysis suggests that the regime would help to make the UK more attractive to companies wishing to change their domicile and signal the UK’s openness to business, and position as a global centre. The impact on the UK economy is therefore expected to be positive, but the scale of that impact is uncertain. A further, more detailed assessment, incorporating the findings of the consultation, will be produced to accompany the legislation that introduces the re-domiciliation regime.During the Department’s stakeholder engagement, some companies indicated that they decided against moving to the UK under the current system, which they found to be prohibitive. However, the Department is unable to estimate the overall number of non-UK companies that have been deterred from relocating to the UK under the current system as this is not information that is ordinarily published or announced by companies.

What proportion of containers inspected were found to be in breach of customs, safety or import regulations in each of the last three years.

Border Force operates a risk‑based approach to container security, focusing resources on identifying and intervening against higher‑risk movements of goods rather than physically inspecting all shipping containers entering the UK.The Home Office does not hold centrally aggregated or routinely collated data on:the number or proportion of shipping containers physically inspected;the duration of container examinations or their impact on port processing times; orBorder Force staffing levels specifically dedicated to container examinations.It is therefore not possible to provide figures for the last three years on inspections, inspection times, staffing, or breach rates.Border Force uses a range of risk‑based targeting systems to identify containers for intervention. The primary system for risking shipping containers is the Advanced Freight Targeting Capability – Shipping Containers (AFTC‑SC) platform. This capability is supported by intelligence and information from across government, including law‑enforcement partners, international partners, and other relevant government and commercial sources.Container screening is supported by non‑intrusive inspection technology, including high‑energy X‑ray imaging. Where containers are selected for further examination, Border Force officers may also deploy specialist capabilities, including detector dogs and technical detection equipment.Border Force works closely with port operators and partner agencies to ensure that security interventions are delivered effectively while minimising disruption to legitimate trade. The Department keeps its approach under regular review to ensure that it remains proportionate and effective. The effectiveness of this intelligence‑led approach is reflected in publicly reported Border Force enforcement outcomes.

Pursuant to her Department’s press release entitled Government to Improve Support for Affordable Debt Repayments, published on 20 March 2026, what types of data will be shared between departments to assess individuals’ ability to repay debts under the new strategy.

Some government organisations share information to support debt management, including to help assess an individual’s ability to pay. Where data is shared, it may include information relating to income, employment and benefits, depending on the purpose, the lawful gateway and the specific debt and department involved. This data can be used as a way to distinguish between financial hardship and deliberate non-payment. Departments and ALBs will apply their own policies and statutory frameworks when determining the most appropriate approach to debt recovery, but government guidance on support for those in financial difficulty is available at Public Sector Toolkits - GOV.UK. Any sharing and use of personal data for debt management purposes is carried out in accordance with the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. Where data sharing takes place under the Digital Economy Act 2017, it is subject to the Act’s statutory framework and the Digital Economy Act Code of Practice, including requirements and principles on lawful purpose, necessity and proportionality, security and accountability. Performance against the strategy will be monitored by the GDMF in line with the Cabinet Office functional standards and governance requirements. Where monitoring indicates that intended improvements are not being achieved, the GDMF will use established functional governance to work with departments and ALBs to understand the issues and support improvements, including through guidance, sharing good practice and engagement with relevant organisations.

Pursuant to her Department’s press release entitled Government to Improve Support for Affordable Debt Repayments, published on 20 March 2026, whether guidance will be issued to departments to distinguish between deliberate non-payment and financial hardship.

Some government organisations share information to support debt management, including to help assess an individual’s ability to pay. Where data is shared, it may include information relating to income, employment and benefits, depending on the purpose, the lawful gateway and the specific debt and department involved. This data can be used as a way to distinguish between financial hardship and deliberate non-payment. Departments and ALBs will apply their own policies and statutory frameworks when determining the most appropriate approach to debt recovery, but government guidance on support for those in financial difficulty is available at Public Sector Toolkits - GOV.UK. Any sharing and use of personal data for debt management purposes is carried out in accordance with the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. Where data sharing takes place under the Digital Economy Act 2017, it is subject to the Act’s statutory framework and the Digital Economy Act Code of Practice, including requirements and principles on lawful purpose, necessity and proportionality, security and accountability. Performance against the strategy will be monitored by the GDMF in line with the Cabinet Office functional standards and governance requirements. Where monitoring indicates that intended improvements are not being achieved, the GDMF will use established functional governance to work with departments and ALBs to understand the issues and support improvements, including through guidance, sharing good practice and engagement with relevant organisations.

Pursuant to her Department’s press release entitled Government to Improve Support for Affordable Debt Repayments, published on 20 March 2026, what assessment she has made of variations in repayment practices between departments prior to the introduction of the new strategy.

The press release entitled ‘Government to Improve Support for Affordable Debt Repayments’, published on 20 March 2026, publicised the Government Debt Management Strategy 2026–2030. The strategy sets out the Government Debt Management Function’s (GDMF) vision and principles for good debt management across central government. It does not introduce a single new, cross-government “affordable repayment plan” policy with uniform terms; repayment arrangements continue to be set by individual departments and arm’s-length bodies (ALBs) in line with their specific legislation, policies and the circumstances of the individual. This includes consideration of interest rates, repayment incentives / disincentives, repayment period length, specific performance metrics and associated costs. Affordability is assessed with an income and expenditure statement, discussion and regular reviews. All repayment plans should be affordable, so requested data on the proportion of repayment plans that are affordable, as well as metrics to assess this in the future, does not exist. The ability for an individual to challenge or seek a review of an affordability assessment depends on the type of debt, the individual’s circumstances and the department or ALB to which the debt is owed. Individuals can contact the relevant organisation to discuss their circumstances and any review or appeal routes available for that debt type. Information about the government’s plan to identify individuals at risk of falling into debt at an earlier stage and how the government has taken consideration of differences in repayment practices is available at Prevent Resolve Improve 26-30 Government Debt Management Strategy - GOV.UK.

Pursuant to her Department’s press release entitled Government to Improve Support for Affordable Debt Repayments, published on 20 March 2026, which types of debt owed to government will be included within the scope of the new affordability measures.

The press release entitled ‘Government to Improve Support for Affordable Debt Repayments’, published on 20 March 2026, publicised the Government Debt Management Strategy 2026–2030. The strategy sets out the Government Debt Management Function’s (GDMF) vision and principles for good debt management across central government. It does not introduce a single new, cross-government “affordable repayment plan” policy with uniform terms; repayment arrangements continue to be set by individual departments and arm’s-length bodies (ALBs) in line with their specific legislation, policies and the circumstances of the individual. This includes consideration of interest rates, repayment incentives / disincentives, repayment period length, specific performance metrics and associated costs. Affordability is assessed with an income and expenditure statement, discussion and regular reviews. All repayment plans should be affordable, so requested data on the proportion of repayment plans that are affordable, as well as metrics to assess this in the future, does not exist. The ability for an individual to challenge or seek a review of an affordability assessment depends on the type of debt, the individual’s circumstances and the department or ALB to which the debt is owed. Individuals can contact the relevant organisation to discuss their circumstances and any review or appeal routes available for that debt type. Information about the government’s plan to identify individuals at risk of falling into debt at an earlier stage and how the government has taken consideration of differences in repayment practices is available at Prevent Resolve Improve 26-30 Government Debt Management Strategy - GOV.UK.

Pursuant to her Department’s press release entitled Government to Improve Support for Affordable Debt Repayments, published on 20 March 2026, what contingency plans are in place if the strategy does not lead to improved repayment outcomes.

Some government organisations share information to support debt management, including to help assess an individual’s ability to pay. Where data is shared, it may include information relating to income, employment and benefits, depending on the purpose, the lawful gateway and the specific debt and department involved. This data can be used as a way to distinguish between financial hardship and deliberate non-payment. Departments and ALBs will apply their own policies and statutory frameworks when determining the most appropriate approach to debt recovery, but government guidance on support for those in financial difficulty is available at Public Sector Toolkits - GOV.UK. Any sharing and use of personal data for debt management purposes is carried out in accordance with the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. Where data sharing takes place under the Digital Economy Act 2017, it is subject to the Act’s statutory framework and the Digital Economy Act Code of Practice, including requirements and principles on lawful purpose, necessity and proportionality, security and accountability. Performance against the strategy will be monitored by the GDMF in line with the Cabinet Office functional standards and governance requirements. Where monitoring indicates that intended improvements are not being achieved, the GDMF will use established functional governance to work with departments and ALBs to understand the issues and support improvements, including through guidance, sharing good practice and engagement with relevant organisations.

Communities and Local Government, pursuant to his Department’s letter to Essex councils dated 26 March 2026, whether nomination to be the Essex County Council representative on the Joint Committee will be determined by (a) the full council, (b) the local county councillors, (c) the district council, or (d) someone else.

The Department’s letter of 26 March set out the Secretary of State’s decisions for inclusion in the proposed Structural Change Order, including the intended total number of councillors for each new council, based on the proposals submitted. Those figures will inform the Order, subject to the Parliamentary process. Interim warding arrangements are required to support first elections to new councils. They differ from a full electoral review, reflecting the need to put transitional arrangements in place within the available timetable for reorganisation. This is the usual process for reorganisation. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is responsible for delivering fair electoral and boundary arrangements for English councils. It is an independent body accountable to Parliament that reviews the electoral and boundary arrangements of councils and is responsible for calculating the appropriate number of Councillors per authority and assessing the appropriate ward boundaries, taking into account local issues. The Commission intend to undertake a full electoral review of all new councils after their first election and before their second. As set out in the letter, Joint Committees will be established for each new council area and will comprise members drawn from the relevant predecessor authorities. The process for nominating members will be determined by those councils within the framework provided by the Order.

Communities and Local Government, pursuant to his Department’s letter to Essex councils dated 26 March 2026, whether the total number of councillors per new local authority can be amended from the currently announced figures during the initial local government boundary review process.

The Department’s letter of 26 March set out the Secretary of State’s decisions for inclusion in the proposed Structural Change Order, including the intended total number of councillors for each new council, based on the proposals submitted. Those figures will inform the Order, subject to the Parliamentary process. Interim warding arrangements are required to support first elections to new councils. They differ from a full electoral review, reflecting the need to put transitional arrangements in place within the available timetable for reorganisation. This is the usual process for reorganisation. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is responsible for delivering fair electoral and boundary arrangements for English councils. It is an independent body accountable to Parliament that reviews the electoral and boundary arrangements of councils and is responsible for calculating the appropriate number of Councillors per authority and assessing the appropriate ward boundaries, taking into account local issues. The Commission intend to undertake a full electoral review of all new councils after their first election and before their second. As set out in the letter, Joint Committees will be established for each new council area and will comprise members drawn from the relevant predecessor authorities. The process for nominating members will be determined by those councils within the framework provided by the Order.

Pursuant to his Department’s press release entitled Reforms to make it easier for overseas companies to move to the UK, published on 25 March 2026, which types of overseas companies will be eligible to relocate to the UK under the proposed regime.

Under current proposals set out for public consultation, re-domiciliation to the UK will be available to bodies corporate located in a jurisdiction that permits outward re-domiciliation to the UK and which fulfil the following requirements:Meet the definition for a ‘body corporate’ as defined in section 1173(1) of the Companies Act 2006.Intend to carry on business following its re-domiciliation.Are solvent.Not subject to (and its proposed directors, persons with significant control or members are not subject to) asset freezes or director disqualifications sanctions.Provide all the information required to apply to re-domicile to the UK. This includes all the information that someone forming a company in the UK would provide as well as additional information. This includes confirmation that any authorisation or other action required by the departing jurisdiction has been given or will have been given on re-domiciliation and that the body corporate is not prevented from making the application because it is subject to a restriction on applying.

What assessment she has made of the impact of container inspections on port congestion and processing times.

Border Force operates a risk‑based approach to container security, focusing resources on identifying and intervening against higher‑risk movements of goods rather than physically inspecting all shipping containers entering the UK.The Home Office does not hold centrally aggregated or routinely collated data on:the number or proportion of shipping containers physically inspected;the duration of container examinations or their impact on port processing times; orBorder Force staffing levels specifically dedicated to container examinations.It is therefore not possible to provide figures for the last three years on inspections, inspection times, staffing, or breach rates.Border Force uses a range of risk‑based targeting systems to identify containers for intervention. The primary system for risking shipping containers is the Advanced Freight Targeting Capability – Shipping Containers (AFTC‑SC) platform. This capability is supported by intelligence and information from across government, including law‑enforcement partners, international partners, and other relevant government and commercial sources.Container screening is supported by non‑intrusive inspection technology, including high‑energy X‑ray imaging. Where containers are selected for further examination, Border Force officers may also deploy specialist capabilities, including detector dogs and technical detection equipment.Border Force works closely with port operators and partner agencies to ensure that security interventions are delivered effectively while minimising disruption to legitimate trade. The Department keeps its approach under regular review to ensure that it remains proportionate and effective. The effectiveness of this intelligence‑led approach is reflected in publicly reported Border Force enforcement outcomes.

Communities and Local Government, pursuant to his Department’s letter to Essex councils dated 26 March 2026, whether the public and local parties will be able to contribute to the initial boundary review process.

The Department’s letter of 26 March set out the Secretary of State’s decisions for inclusion in the proposed Structural Change Order, including the intended total number of councillors for each new council, based on the proposals submitted. Those figures will inform the Order, subject to the Parliamentary process. Interim warding arrangements are required to support first elections to new councils. They differ from a full electoral review, reflecting the need to put transitional arrangements in place within the available timetable for reorganisation. This is the usual process for reorganisation. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is responsible for delivering fair electoral and boundary arrangements for English councils. It is an independent body accountable to Parliament that reviews the electoral and boundary arrangements of councils and is responsible for calculating the appropriate number of Councillors per authority and assessing the appropriate ward boundaries, taking into account local issues. The Commission intend to undertake a full electoral review of all new councils after their first election and before their second. As set out in the letter, Joint Committees will be established for each new council area and will comprise members drawn from the relevant predecessor authorities. The process for nominating members will be determined by those councils within the framework provided by the Order.

What steps her Department is taking to reduce the time taken to inspect shipping containers at ports while maintaining accuracy.

Border Force operates a risk‑based approach to container security, focusing resources on identifying and intervening against higher‑risk movements of goods rather than physically inspecting all shipping containers entering the UK.The Home Office does not hold centrally aggregated or routinely collated data on:the number or proportion of shipping containers physically inspected;the duration of container examinations or their impact on port processing times; orBorder Force staffing levels specifically dedicated to container examinations.It is therefore not possible to provide figures for the last three years on inspections, inspection times, staffing, or breach rates.Border Force uses a range of risk‑based targeting systems to identify containers for intervention. The primary system for risking shipping containers is the Advanced Freight Targeting Capability – Shipping Containers (AFTC‑SC) platform. This capability is supported by intelligence and information from across government, including law‑enforcement partners, international partners, and other relevant government and commercial sources.Container screening is supported by non‑intrusive inspection technology, including high‑energy X‑ray imaging. Where containers are selected for further examination, Border Force officers may also deploy specialist capabilities, including detector dogs and technical detection equipment.Border Force works closely with port operators and partner agencies to ensure that security interventions are delivered effectively while minimising disruption to legitimate trade. The Department keeps its approach under regular review to ensure that it remains proportionate and effective. The effectiveness of this intelligence‑led approach is reflected in publicly reported Border Force enforcement outcomes.

Communities and Local Government, pursuant to his Department’s letter to Essex councils dated 26 March 2026, what safeguards will be in place to ensure fair and equal representation of voters in light of his Department’s stated expectation that the usual criteria are unlikely to be met in the same way as a full review.

The Department’s letter of 26 March set out the Secretary of State’s decisions for inclusion in the proposed Structural Change Order, including the intended total number of councillors for each new council, based on the proposals submitted. Those figures will inform the Order, subject to the Parliamentary process. Interim warding arrangements are required to support first elections to new councils. They differ from a full electoral review, reflecting the need to put transitional arrangements in place within the available timetable for reorganisation. This is the usual process for reorganisation. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is responsible for delivering fair electoral and boundary arrangements for English councils. It is an independent body accountable to Parliament that reviews the electoral and boundary arrangements of councils and is responsible for calculating the appropriate number of Councillors per authority and assessing the appropriate ward boundaries, taking into account local issues. The Commission intend to undertake a full electoral review of all new councils after their first election and before their second. As set out in the letter, Joint Committees will be established for each new council area and will comprise members drawn from the relevant predecessor authorities. The process for nominating members will be determined by those councils within the framework provided by the Order.

Communities and Local Government, pursuant to his Department’s letter to Essex councils dated 26 March 2026, why his Department believe the usual criteria are unlikely to be met in the same way as a full review, regarding the initial proposal of ward boundaries.

The Department’s letter of 26 March set out the Secretary of State’s decisions for inclusion in the proposed Structural Change Order, including the intended total number of councillors for each new council, based on the proposals submitted. Those figures will inform the Order, subject to the Parliamentary process. Interim warding arrangements are required to support first elections to new councils. They differ from a full electoral review, reflecting the need to put transitional arrangements in place within the available timetable for reorganisation. This is the usual process for reorganisation. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is responsible for delivering fair electoral and boundary arrangements for English councils. It is an independent body accountable to Parliament that reviews the electoral and boundary arrangements of councils and is responsible for calculating the appropriate number of Councillors per authority and assessing the appropriate ward boundaries, taking into account local issues. The Commission intend to undertake a full electoral review of all new councils after their first election and before their second. As set out in the letter, Joint Committees will be established for each new council area and will comprise members drawn from the relevant predecessor authorities. The process for nominating members will be determined by those councils within the framework provided by the Order.

Pursuant to his Department’s press release entitled Reforms to make it easier for overseas companies to move to the UK, published on 25 March 2026, whether companies relocating under the proposed regime will be required to settle outstanding tax liabilities in their original jurisdiction.

Under current proposals set out for public consultation, re-domiciled companies will retain all criminal and civil liabilities, and all contracts, debts and other obligations, to which the re-domiciling body corporate was subject immediately before re-domiciliation.To successfully re-domicile, companies will need to provide proof of de-registration in the departing jurisdiction within 60 days of registration in the UK. It is expected that the departing jurisdiction will satisfy itself that the body corporate has met any existing jurisdiction-specific liabilities that need to be met prior to approving its exit and de-registration.Companies must also confirm in their application that any authorisation or other action required by the departing jurisdiction has been given or will have been given on re-domiciliation and that the body corporate is not prevented from making the application because it is subject to a restriction on applying with an offence for making a false or misleading statement in the application.Once a body corporate has re-domiciled to the UK, it will be treated in the same way as a company originally incorporated in the UK . This includes relevant new requirements introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, such as confirming that future activities will be lawful and for the proposed directors and persons of significant control to have their identities verified.