Written questions by Lowe.

What guidance her Department issues to local licensing authorities on minimum English language proficiency requirements for taxi and private hire vehicle drivers; and whether her Department has collected or reviewed any evidence or audits in the last five years on the ability of non‑native English‑speaking drivers to communicate effectively in English with passengers.

The department recognises the importance of proficiency in English language. That’s why its existing statutory guidance recommends that all licensing authorities should require taxi and private hire vehicle drivers to demonstrate written and oral English language proficiency. Licensing authorities are responsible for deciding how English language proficiency is demonstrated. As of 1 April 2024, 81% of licensing authorities in England reported that they required the taxi drivers they license to demonstrate English language proficiency and 82% of licensing authorities in England reported that they required the private hire vehicle drivers they license to demonstrate English language proficiency.

Whether employment and apprenticeship reforms announced on 16 March 2026 include measures to reduce the number of young men not in education, employment or training.

It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.

What the total value of damages and legal costs paid by NHS Resolution in relation to clinical negligence claims involving non‑UK citizen claimants was in each year since 2015–16.

NHS Resolution (NHSR) is an arm’s length body of the Department of Health and Social Care. Its role is to manage clinical negligence and other claims against the National Health Service in England.This data is not held by NHSR. NHSR has not routinely collected demographic information about claimants or clinicians beyond what is strictly necessary to progress individual claims. This is typically limited to basic identifiers such as age and sex where relevant. This reflects both the legal framework under which the NHSR operates and the fact that demographic information is not required to manage claims effectively.

Whether NHS Resolution records the nationality or citizenship status of claimants in clinical negligence claims.

NHS Resolution (NHSR) is an arm’s length body of the Department of Health and Social Care. Its role is to manage clinical negligence and other claims against the National Health Service in England.This data is not held by NHSR. NHSR has not routinely collected demographic information about claimants or clinicians beyond what is strictly necessary to progress individual claims. This is typically limited to basic identifiers such as age and sex where relevant. This reflects both the legal framework under which the NHSR operates and the fact that demographic information is not required to manage claims effectively.

How many clinical negligence claims notified to NHS Resolution in each of the last ten years involved claimants who were not UK citizens at the time of treatment.

NHS Resolution (NHSR) is an arm’s length body of the Department of Health and Social Care. Its role is to manage clinical negligence and other claims against the National Health Service in England.This data is not held by NHSR. NHSR has not routinely collected demographic information about claimants or clinicians beyond what is strictly necessary to progress individual claims. This is typically limited to basic identifiers such as age and sex where relevant. This reflects both the legal framework under which the NHSR operates and the fact that demographic information is not required to manage claims effectively.

Whether any analysis has been undertaken comparing the volume, severity, or cost of clinical negligence claims involving UK‑trained and internationally trained clinicians.

No analysis has been undertaken comparing the volume, severity, or cost of clinical negligence claims involving United Kingdom trained and internationally trained clinicians.

What steps he plans to take to improve transparency on the characteristics of claimants and clinicians involved in clinical negligence claims, in light of the National Audit Office’s report published in October 2025.

We welcome the National Audit Office’s (NAO’s) report, Costs of Clinical Negligence, and David Lock KC is providing expert policy advice on the rising costs of clinical negligence and how we can improve patients’ experience of claims and will take into account the recommendations of the NAO’s report.

Whether NHS Resolution records whether the clinician primarily responsible for the care giving rise to a clinical negligence claim was UK‑trained or internationally trained.

NHS Resolution (NHSR) is an arm’s length body of the Department of Health and Social Care. Its role is to manage clinical negligence and other claims against the National Health Service in England.This data is not held by NHSR. NHSR has not routinely collected demographic information about claimants or clinicians beyond what is strictly necessary to progress individual claims. This is typically limited to basic identifiers such as age and sex where relevant. This reflects both the legal framework under which the NHSR operates and the fact that demographic information is not required to manage claims effectively.

Whether NHS Resolution records the nationality or immigration status of clinicians against whom clinical negligence claims are brought.

NHS Resolution (NHSR) is an arm’s length body of the Department of Health and Social Care. Its role is to manage clinical negligence and other claims against the National Health Service in England.This data is not held by NHSR. NHSR has not routinely collected demographic information about claimants or clinicians beyond what is strictly necessary to progress individual claims. This is typically limited to basic identifiers such as age and sex where relevant. This reflects both the legal framework under which the NHSR operates and the fact that demographic information is not required to manage claims effectively.

Whether NHS Resolution records whether claimants had a pre‑existing disability at the time of the incident giving rise to a clinical negligence claim, and whether any data is held on long‑term disability arising as a result of negligent care.

NHS Resolution (NHSR) is an arm’s length body of the Department of Health and Social Care. Its role is to manage clinical negligence and other claims against the National Health Service in England.This data is not held by NHSR. NHSR has not routinely collected demographic information about claimants or clinicians beyond what is strictly necessary to progress individual claims. This is typically limited to basic identifiers such as age and sex where relevant. This reflects both the legal framework under which the NHSR operates and the fact that demographic information is not required to manage claims effectively.

Whether NHS Resolution holds data on the nationality or training background of clinicians involved in high‑value clinical negligence claims.

NHS Resolution (NHSR) is an arm’s length body of the Department of Health and Social Care. Its role is to manage clinical negligence and other claims against the National Health Service in England.This data is not held by NHSR. NHSR has not routinely collected demographic information about claimants or clinicians beyond what is strictly necessary to progress individual claims. This is typically limited to basic identifiers such as age and sex where relevant. This reflects both the legal framework under which the NHSR operates and the fact that demographic information is not required to manage claims effectively.

What written guidance or briefing material is provided to recruits and officer cadets on acceptable expression of views during training and assessment activities.

All of our Service personnel are expected to uphold the highest standards of behaviour and to adhere to the core values and ethos of the Armed Forces. There is no single piece of written guidance or briefing material to cover these expectations across all the single Services, however they are consistently embedded during Phase 1 training and are made explicitly clear through multiple policy documents.

What formal routes of appeal or review are available to recruits, officer cadets, and serving personnel who are subject to administrative action under JSP 767 following views expressed during training or education.

I can advise the hon. Member that JSP 767 does not exist. Each Service has their own set of core values and standards that should be adhered to at all times. These can be viewed online: Royal Navy: https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/organisation/our-people/our-valuesArmy: https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/about-the-army/values-and-standards/Royal Air Force: https://recruitment.raf.mod.uk/media/ig5dhw0z/20200703-raf_ap1_2019_rev_3_page_spreads.pdf Minor Administrative Action guidance is contained in Joint Service Publication 833 (Minor Administrative Action) which sets out an individual’s rights during the process. This includes the right to review at a higher level than that at which it is initiated. In addition, a Service person who considers themselves to have been wronged in a matter relating to their service has the right to submit a Service complaint, seeking redress of individual grievance. Service Complaints guidance is published within Joint Service Publication 831 (Redress of Individual Grievances (Service Complaints)). This includes a Complainant’s right to appeal if they disagree with the decision of their Service Complaint, and also how they can ask the Armed Forces Commissioner to investigate issues relating to the outcome of their complaint if they are dissatisfied. Furthermore, all Complainants and Respondents are entitled to the services of an Assisting Officer whose role is to support and help them throughout the process. Defence remains committed to decisive, evidence-based action to protect our people and uphold the highest standards for everyone.

Whether guidance on the application of JSP 767 relating to the expression of views is issued uniformly across the Armed Forces or separately by each Service.

I can advise the hon. Member that JSP 767 does not exist. Each Service has their own set of core values and standards that should be adhered to at all times. These can be viewed online: Royal Navy: https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/organisation/our-people/our-valuesArmy: https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/about-the-army/values-and-standards/Royal Air Force: https://recruitment.raf.mod.uk/media/ig5dhw0z/20200703-raf_ap1_2019_rev_3_page_spreads.pdf Minor Administrative Action guidance is contained in Joint Service Publication 833 (Minor Administrative Action) which sets out an individual’s rights during the process. This includes the right to review at a higher level than that at which it is initiated. In addition, a Service person who considers themselves to have been wronged in a matter relating to their service has the right to submit a Service complaint, seeking redress of individual grievance. Service Complaints guidance is published within Joint Service Publication 831 (Redress of Individual Grievances (Service Complaints)). This includes a Complainant’s right to appeal if they disagree with the decision of their Service Complaint, and also how they can ask the Armed Forces Commissioner to investigate issues relating to the outcome of their complaint if they are dissatisfied. Furthermore, all Complainants and Respondents are entitled to the services of an Assisting Officer whose role is to support and help them throughout the process. Defence remains committed to decisive, evidence-based action to protect our people and uphold the highest standards for everyone.

What written guidance exists under JSP 767 to assist commanding officers and training establishments in distinguishing between lawful expression of opinion and unacceptable behaviour during training and education, and on how many occasions since 1 January 2015 disciplinary or administrative action relating to expressed views has been reviewed centrally for policy compliance.

I can advise the hon. Member that JSP 767 does not exist. Each Service has their own set of core values and standards that should be adhered to at all times. These can be viewed online: Royal Navy: https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/organisation/our-people/our-valuesArmy: https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/about-the-army/values-and-standards/Royal Air Force: https://recruitment.raf.mod.uk/media/ig5dhw0z/20200703-raf_ap1_2019_rev_3_page_spreads.pdf Minor Administrative Action guidance is contained in Joint Service Publication 833 (Minor Administrative Action) which sets out an individual’s rights during the process. This includes the right to review at a higher level than that at which it is initiated. In addition, a Service person who considers themselves to have been wronged in a matter relating to their service has the right to submit a Service complaint, seeking redress of individual grievance. Service Complaints guidance is published within Joint Service Publication 831 (Redress of Individual Grievances (Service Complaints)). This includes a Complainant’s right to appeal if they disagree with the decision of their Service Complaint, and also how they can ask the Armed Forces Commissioner to investigate issues relating to the outcome of their complaint if they are dissatisfied. Furthermore, all Complainants and Respondents are entitled to the services of an Assisting Officer whose role is to support and help them throughout the process. Defence remains committed to decisive, evidence-based action to protect our people and uphold the highest standards for everyone.

In cases since 1 January 2015 where service personnel have been removed from training or had their service terminated following the expression of opinions during training or instructional activity, what guidance exists to distinguish between lawful expression of opinion, unacceptable conduct, and discriminatory behaviour, and whether records are kept of the grounds on which such administrative decisions were made.

The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

How many members of the UK Armed Forces, including recruits and officer cadets, have since 1 January 2015 been subject to administrative action including suspension, removal from training, or termination of service, as a direct result of statements or viewpoints expressed during formal training, education, or assessment activities; and to provide the figures by Service, by calendar year, and by type of administrative action.

The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

What welfare or legal support is available to personnel while investigations or reviews are ongoing following administrative action taken in connection with the expression of views or opinions.

Welfare support is always available to Service personnel, who are free to access unrestricted welfare support whatever the circumstances. Following an administrative action, Service personnel are able to access legal support at their own cost should they wish to do so.

Whether decisions to take administrative action under JSP 767 in relation to views expressed during training are required to be reviewed by a senior officer not directly involved in the original decision, and if so, at what stage such review takes place.

I can advise the hon. Member that JSP 767 does not exist. Each Service has their own set of core values and standards that should be adhered to at all times. These can be viewed online: Royal Navy: https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/organisation/our-people/our-valuesArmy: https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/about-the-army/values-and-standards/Royal Air Force: https://recruitment.raf.mod.uk/media/ig5dhw0z/20200703-raf_ap1_2019_rev_3_page_spreads.pdf Minor Administrative Action guidance is contained in Joint Service Publication 833 (Minor Administrative Action) which sets out an individual’s rights during the process. This includes the right to review at a higher level than that at which it is initiated. In addition, a Service person who considers themselves to have been wronged in a matter relating to their service has the right to submit a Service complaint, seeking redress of individual grievance. Service Complaints guidance is published within Joint Service Publication 831 (Redress of Individual Grievances (Service Complaints)). This includes a Complainant’s right to appeal if they disagree with the decision of their Service Complaint, and also how they can ask the Armed Forces Commissioner to investigate issues relating to the outcome of their complaint if they are dissatisfied. Furthermore, all Complainants and Respondents are entitled to the services of an Assisting Officer whose role is to support and help them throughout the process. Defence remains committed to decisive, evidence-based action to protect our people and uphold the highest standards for everyone.

In how many cases since 1 January 2015 where a member of the Armed Forces was removed from training or had their service terminated following comments expressed during training or instructional activity, the action taken resulted in (a) reinstatement, (b) progression to a lesser administrative measure, or (c) permanent termination of service; and whether the Department holds a central record of the grounds on which each such decision was made.

The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.