Written questions by Shastri-Hurst.

What assessment her Department has made of the potential merits of increasing the maximum age for post-foster care arrangements to age 25.

The government is committed to supporting care leavers as they transition to independence.Staying Put enables care leavers to prepare for independence more gradually in a stable and secure family setting. It enables young people to continue living with their former foster carer(s) when they turn age 18, potentially up to age 21, if both parties want this.We are committed to Staying Put arrangements but must prioritise the introduction of the Staying Close duty in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which provides support to those who cannot benefit from Staying Put.Staying Close offers tailored support for care leavers, including help to find and keep suitable accommodation and access to wraparound services such as health and wellbeing, education, training and employment. This measure ensures that eligible care leavers can receive support up to age 25, helping them to build stability and life skills and reducing the risk of homelessness and poor outcomes. This includes young people who might have previously been in a Staying Put arrangement.

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of current national oversight arrangements for the implementation of the framework set out in the document Maintaining High Professional Standards procedures within NHS trusts.

Maintaining High Professional Standards was first published in 2005, and it remains an important framework for the initial handling of concerns about doctors and dentists in the National Health Service. All Department and NHS England guidance documents are kept under review.

What steps his Department is taking to ensure that concerns raised by NHS whistleblowers on patient safety are (a) recorded, (b) escalated and (c) reviewed.

There are a number of avenues through which healthcare workers can speak up and raise concerns, with established procedures in place to record, act on, and escalate issues as needed.In England, more than 1,300 Freedom to Speak Up Guardians now support staff in speaking up. Their role involves working alongside governance, risk, and safety teams to ensure that speaking up translates into improvements in patient care, as well as identifying patterns and trends, for example, in patient safety incidents. Freedom to Speak Up Guardians collect and report anonymised data on the issues raised with them, including patient safety. This data is published by the National Guardian’s Office at the following link:https://nationalguardian.org.uk/learning-resources/speaking-up-data/The National Guardian’s Office and NHS England are ‘prescribed persons’, authorised to receive protected disclosures, including those in relation to safety and quality concerns. They are legally required to publish annual reports on protected disclosures and their outcomes.Every National Health Service organisation in England should be following the national Freedom to Speak Up policy, which outlines minimum standards for handling and addressing concerns. This policy ensures that all reported concerns are considered carefully and investigated objectively when necessary.

How many NHS staff were subject to Maintaining High Professional Standards procedures in each of the last five years.

The Department does not hold data centrally on how many National Health Service staff were investigated under the Maintaining High Professional Standards framework in each of the last five years. This data is also not held by NHS England.

If he will make an assessment of the prevalence of the use of Class (a) A, (b) B and (c) C drugs in NHS Mental Health Facilities.

We currently have no plans to make such an assessment. NHS England does not hold information or data related to the prevalence of illegal drug use across specialised mental health facilities.

Food and Rural Affairs, what steps her Department is taking to ensure that where objections to a Geographical Indication (GI) application are upheld under assimilated Regulation (EU) 2019/787 the applicant body engages in a formal consultation process with the objector before the GI is finalised.

By publishing names proposed for Geographical Indication protection and their associated product specifications on the gov.uk website, Defra enables any person with a legitimate interest, or the authorities of a third country, to submit a notice of opposition to the Secretary of State regarding the proposals. If objections are considered admissible, Defra invites the applicant and the objector to engage in appropriate consultations with each other to understand the issue and if possible, propose a solution. At the conclusion of the consultation period, the Secretary of State will consider all the evidence presented and make a decision on whether the revised proposals (if any) support registration, whether the proposal should be rejected on the evidence, whether a new consultation is needed because the changes proposed are “non-standard” (ie significant), or whether the application should be approved in its original format.

What assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of charging members of Overseas Territory Regiments home rates rather than overseas rates for attendance at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.

There is no distinction between the home and international rates for attendance at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. The only difference is whether costs are charged, and this is dependent on a number of factors which are considered at the time of application. These include the country’s GDP, historic links and the regiment’s place in the British Army Order of Battle.

How much his Department has spent in (a) cash terms and (b) constant prices in the UK (i) aircraft and (ii) spacecraft industry in the last 20 years.

Whilst we are unable to separate out “Aircraft” and “Spacecraft”, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) currently publish an annual bulletin on MOD Regional Expenditure with Industry which includes details on MOD’s spending with UK industry in the combined category of “Aircraft and Spacecraft”. The table below shows this industry spend in both current and constant prices for the last 20 years (2005/06 to 2024/25). Financial Year Aircraft and Spacecraft Expenditure at Current Prices (£ million)Aircraft and Spacecraft Expenditure at Constant 2024/25 Prices (£ million) [note 3]2005/061,7302,8122006/071,9603,1032007/082,1003,2462008/09 [b] [note 1]2,4803,6992009/102,6403,8862010/11 [b] [note 2]2,7103,9152011/12 [b] [note 3]2,4303,4492012/132,4603,4292013/14 [b] [note 4]2,4523,3532014/152,2353,0192015/162,0072,6932016/171,8322,4032017/181,7192,2202018/191,6192,0472019/201,5701,9402020/21 [b] [note 5]1,6121,8902021/221,7282,0382022/232,0232,2292023/242,2052,2942024/252,4492,449 Notes:[b] signifies a break in series 1 Break in series between 2007/08 and 2008/09. For 2008/09 onwards, industrial groupings are based on Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2007 codes. Prior to this, industrial groupings may have used SIC 1992 or SIC 2003 guidelines 2 Break in series between 2009/10 and 2010/11 due to methodology changes, resulting in significant changes in allocation of spending to several industry groupings including that of Aircraft and Spacecraft. 3 Break in series between 2011/12 and 2012/13 due to a reclassification of Resource Account Codes, more extensive exclusion of 'Other Government Organisations' and improvements to processes on SIC code data cleansing. 4 Break in series between 2012/13 and 2013/14 due to methodology changes. Improvements were made to identify expenditure to be excluded as overseas, with Other Government Departments, or related to elements such as pay. 5 Break in series between 2019/20 and 2020/21 due to methodology changes. Direct comparison across the years 2019/20 to 2020/21 should not be made, longer comparisons across the time series should still be valid noting other breaks in series. More details can be found by visiting the background quality report (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/mod-regional-expenditure-statistics-with-industry-202425).

Pursuant to the Answer of 30 June 2025 to Question 904908 on Defence: Investment, when his Department plans to publish the Defence Investment Plan.

The Defence Investment Plan will be published later this year. It will set out our plans to deliver the recommendations as agreed in the 2025 Strategic Defence Review.

How much his Department spent overseas on (a) equipment and (b) equipment support in 2024-25 by country.

Total Ministry of Defence (MOD) overseas expenditure in 2024-25 was £5,978 million. Of this, £3,771 million was spent directly with industry overseas and can be readily separated by equipment type: equipment (£1,539 million), non-equipment (£1,373 million), and equipment support (£859 million). The remaining £2,207 million of overseas spend in 2024-25 was made through Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Agreements with the US Government and through direct spending with foreign Governments for work completed overseas. The MOD does not hold enough granular information to be able to split the FMS and foreign government expenditure across both equipment type and location. We are unable to provide a breakdown by country as an assessment of the commercial sensitivities of the underlying contract location data has not been made. The above totals are derived from the MOD annual publication of regional expenditure with industry 2024-25 which can be found at: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/mod-regional-expenditure-statistics-with-industry-202425

Whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of establishing a Cadet Forces Day as part of Armed Forces Week.

Whilst the Ministry of Defence (MOD) Cadet Forces are not part of the Armed Forces, they do firmly belong within the wider Defence family. It is therefore appropriate that they are recognised accordingly and we are planning to explore the viability of using Armed Forces Week to further raise awareness of the Cadet Forces. Cadets already contribute to Armed Forces Week, typically through locally organised events, and we will continue to encourage this.

When he plans to provide a substantive Answer to Question 68513 on Armoured Fighting Vehicles: Repairs and Maintenance.

As the hon. Member is aware, the Department keeps under review its approach to the disclosure of information in light of a wide range of factors. In this instance, having carefully considered the matter, I have concluded that the operational security risks are such that I am not able to disclose the level of detail requested. I can, however, provide a general response to your question regarding the maintenance downtime of various vehicles. Over the last 12 months (June 2024 – June 2025), the proportion of maintenance downtime time for routine mandated inspections, servicing and emergent repairs of the Army’s three main armoured platforms: Challenger 2, Warrior and Bulldog is 2.5%. This information has not been broken down by platform due to operational sensitivities. Maintenance downtime consists of planned routine servicing/inspection and unplanned average annual repair time. To be clear this is an average estimation based on a single sample for each vehicle type of which 2.5% is the combined total.

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of existing remuneration rates and contractual terms in attracting and retaining Level 6 qualified interpreters to undertake work in the courts.

I refer the honourable Member to the answer I gave on Monday 8 September to Question 73394: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-08-29/73394.

How many proposals have been funded through the Defence and Security Accelerator delivering operational advantage via improved self-sufficiency competition.

Due to a change to programme prioritisation after this competition had closed, there were no proposals funded directly through this competition. Fundable proposals submitted into DASA competitions but not funded are retained for potential future use. One proposal submitted as part of the competition was later funded through alternative customer funding.

With reference to to the Independent Technical Review of Qualifications and Experience Requirements for the Provision of Spoken Language Interpreting, published on 17 March 2025, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that there will be a sufficient number of Level 6 qualified interpreters available to meet the October 2026 target for court interpreting services.

I refer the honourable Member to the answer I gave on Tuesday 9 September to Question 74494: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-09-02/74494.

What key performance indicators he plans to publish on the impact of the National Armaments Director Group on defence procurement.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are being developed for the National Armaments Director (NAD) Group as part of a single NAD Group performance framework for 2026-27. The KPIs will be aligned to the intent set in the Strategic Defence Review recommendations.

Whether his Department plans to introduce a remuneration and conditions framework for court interpreters ahead of the October 2026 target date to support the sustainability of the systems.

I refer the honourable Member to the answer I gave on Friday 5 September to Question 73395: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-08-29/73395.

What his Department's recruitment targets for each branch of the armed forces are for (a) 2025-26 and (b) 2026-27.

The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) 2025 is clear that Defence must now meet the longstanding challenge of recruiting and retaining new generations with different requirements. We are committed to the vision that long-term success depends on reconnecting society with the Armed Forces and the purpose of Defence, and for recruitment the focus should be on speed, drastically shortening the period between applicants expressing interest and joining. We have already implemented conditional offers of employment in 10 days from a candidate’s application, and provisional training start dates in 30 days if they desire it. To provide a response regarding the period 2025-26, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 7 April 2025 to Question 43215 to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-04-01/43215 We are currently engaged in planning activity to determine recruitment targets for 2026-27From Full-Service Implementation in 2027, the previously announced Armed Forces Recruiting Service (AFRS) will deliver against annual recruitment targets and demand, which will be set by the three Services via the Command Recruiting Support Plan (CRSP). The CRSP is generated and approved in conjunction with the single Services, with AFRS containing a mechanism to adjust demand during each Recruiting Year.

What assessment he has made of the potential merits of mandating specialist dementia care homes to complete the Herbert Protocol for all residents with dementia.

The Herbert Protocol is a form that can provide the police and other emergency services with essential information about a person with dementia should they go missing.While this is not currently mandated, it is freely available for use online and can be completed by a person living with dementia, or those that care for them. Further information is available on the Herbert Protocol website at the following link:https://herbertprotocol.com/

What discussions he has had with NHS England on the provision of (a) peer-support and (b) community-based networks for parents and carers of children with obsessive compulsive disorder.

Decisions about service provision are made locally, determined by locally identified need. Whilst service configurations and offers will differ across the country, local provision may include peer support or community-based networks for parents and carers, although NHS England does not hold this information.