Written questions by Morton.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what role the Independent Commission for Aid Impact plays in assessing value for money in the UK’s multilateral Official Development Assistance contributions.

I refer the Rt Hon Member to the statement made to the House by the Foreign Secretary on 19 March setting out the Official Development Assistance allocations for the period up to 2028-29, and to the accompanying documents detailing the forecast impact of those allocations, and the ways in which their impact will be assessed.

What steps she is taking with her Ethiopian counterpart to improve the efficiency of returns of Ethiopian nationals with no right to remain in the UK.

The Home Office, working with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, engages regularly with the Ethiopian Government to support the return of Ethiopian nationals with no right to remain in the UK.In February 2026 the Foreign Secretary visited Ethiopia and discussed cooperation on illegal migration and returns with Ethiopian counterparts, and officials are taking forward further technical and operational engagement to enhance cooperation on returns.The Government has removed or deported nearly 60,000 illegal migrants and foreign criminals since it took office.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, when her Department last undertook a department-wide value for money assessment of Official Development Assistance spending; and whether this assessment was shared with the Independent Commission for Aid Impact.

I refer the Rt Hon Member to the statement made to the House by the Foreign Secretary on 19 March setting out the Official Development Assistance allocations for the period up to 2028-29, and to the accompanying documents detailing the forecast impact of those allocations, and the ways in which their impact will be assessed.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what proportion of UK Official Development Assistance was delivered through technical assistance in 2024-25; and what proportion was delivered through grant-based programmes.

I refer the Rt Hon Member to the statement made to the House by the Foreign Secretary on 19 March setting out the Official Development Assistance allocations for the period up to 2028-29, and to the accompanying documents detailing the forecast impact of those allocations, and the ways in which their impact will be assessed.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the proposed relocation and permanent reprovision of the Education Centre, what assessment the client board has made of the potential merits of relocating the Education Centre as part of the core Restoration and Renewal scope rather than retaining or upgrading its temporary arrangements; what the estimated capital and lifecycle costs of relocation are; whether alternative options involving refurbishment of existing facilities were costed; and how relocation contributes to (a) fire safety, (b) building services, (c) asbestos remediation and (d) fabric conservation.

As set out in the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Client Board’s recent report, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576), the preferred scope for the R&R works will deliver a permanent Education Centre. Early designs propose that the centre is based within the Palace.The current Education Centre on the Victoria Tower Gardens site was always intended to be a temporary facility and it is not sited on Parliamentary estate land. The land is owned by the Royal Parks and Parliament’s license for its use is with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The temporary planning and license agreements for the Victoria Gardens site expire at the end of 2030. The relevant statutory bodies have said that any further application for extension of the current Education Centre temporary permission and licence will not be granted. A new location for the centre is therefore required after this date.The proposed Education Centre accounts for 0.3% of Palace construction costs under the full decant option and 1.6% under the enhanced maintenance and improvement plus (EMI+) option. This is based on the base construction costs for the Palace project set out in Annex 2, table 2 of the report, which exclude risk and inflation.The net reduction in Palace lifecycle costs as a result of the renewal of the Palace does not isolate a specific change for the Education Centre. The cost of refurbishing existing facilities was not considered given their temporary nature and the known requirement to move the facility.The location of the new education centre has been considered as part of the wider fire strategy, though its provision does not directly contribute to the fire safety, building services, asbestos remediation or fabric conservation outlined in the R&R Client Board’s report.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the concept proposals for the creation of a new visitor plaza and underground space beneath Central Lobby, whether those proposals are necessary for delivering the core safety and resilience objectives of the Programme; what the estimated capital cost of the proposed underground plaza and associated works is; what risk assessment has been undertaken in relation to archaeological disturbance; and whether this element was included in earlier scope levels.

Section 2(5) of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, which established the framework for the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Programme, requires the Programme to have regard to (amongst other things) the need for improved visitor access to the Palace of Westminster after the completion of the Parliamentary building works.As set out in the R&R Client Board’s recent report, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576), the preferred scope for the R&R works will deliver a fit-for-purpose and accessible visitor arrival space, including higher capacity security search and screen areas that will reduce the likelihood of queuing outside. The current proposal is to use the area in the basement directly below Central Lobby for visitors as an access point into the public areas of the remainder of the Palace.The majority of the construction costs for the Palace relate to the priority areas which both Houses agreed for the R&R Programme in 2022—namely, fire safety and protection, building services, asbestos, and building fabric conservation. 84% of the Palace construction costs for the full decant option and 86% of the Palace construction costs for the enhanced maintenance and improvement plus (EMI+) option relate to these priority areas.The new visitor arrival space is not defined as a ‘priority area’ for the R&R Programme as agreed by the Houses. However, its delivery does contribute to safety and security objectives, for example by improving the search and screen capacity at the visitor entrance, improving secure routes through the Palace for the public and members, and supporting new accessible visitor routes. These improvements could not be delivered through enhancements to the existing entrance in Cromwell Green (largely due to inadequate space requirements).The proposed visitor arrival space and route account for 0.5% of Palace construction costs under the full decant option and 1.1% under the EMI+ option. This is based on the base construction costs for the Palace project set out in Annex 2, table 2 of the report, which exclude risk and inflation.The proposed location for the visitor arrival space in the basement of the Palace was selected in part because it aligns with the footprint of existing plantroom which was constructed in the 20th century. These areas are expected to require extension regardless of the visitor search and screening facility, as they will need to accommodate increased plant capacity in future. As a result, any archaeological impact is likely to be primarily driven by the final below‑ground plant requirements, rather than by the co‑location of search and screening functions. The visitor arrival space therefore does not independently introduce a new or additional archaeological impact beyond what would already be required for plant expansion.In 2024 the R&R Client Board considered the scope of the R&R Programme: that is, the improvements and benefits to be achieved in the end-state Palace, to which both Houses of Parliament will return. Having considered various scope levels, the Client Board decided against the most "transformational" scope but selected a scope which it agreed would deliver improvements while maintaining value-for-money. The selected scope including provision for improved visitor services is set out in the R&R costed proposals report. Earlier scope levels at previous stages in the Programme also included improvements to visitor and educational facilities.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the overall Programme scope set out in Chapter 2, what criteria were used to distinguish between essential works necessary to prevent catastrophic failure and additional enhancement projects intended to improve visitor experience and public engagement; whether a reduced core safety and resilience only scope was fully costed; and what the estimated difference in capital expenditure would be between such a reduced scope and the level 4 reasonably ambitious scope.

Section 2(5) of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, which established the framework for the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Programme, requires the Programme to have regard to (amongst other things) the need to ensure the Parliamentary building works represent good value for money, the need for improved visitor access to the Palace of Westminster after completion of the works, and the need to ensure that educational and other facilities are provided for people visiting the Palace after completion of the works. The Act did not specify whether any of these areas should be prioritised over others.In 2022 the Houses agreed four priority areas for the R&R Programme—fire safety and protection, building services, asbestos, and building fabric conservation. 84% of the Palace construction costs for the full decant option and 86% of the Palace construction costs for the enhanced maintenance and improvement plus (EMI+) option relate to these priority works.In 2024 the R&R Client Board considered the scope of the R&R Programme: that is, the improvements and benefits to be achieved in the end-state Palace, to which both Houses of Parliament will return. Having considered various scope levels, the Client Board decided against the most "transformational" scope but selected a scope which it agreed would deliver improvements while maintaining value-for-money.No other scope options have been fully costed to the maturity presented in the R&R Client Board’s report. The R&R Programme Board considered cost estimates for all scope options in 2023 as part of the work for the R&R Strategic Case. Following the R&R Client Board’s publication of the R&R Strategic Case in 2024 (HC Paper 621), designs were progressed to align with the selected scope and provide fully costed proposals. The costs as set out in the R&R Client Board’s recent report, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576), will not be comparable with those considered in 2023 because they have been developed in more detail and take into account the four different delivery methods.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the consistency of Planning Inspectorate decisions where local plans are absent, emerging or under review; how often inspectors have cited housing land supply shortfalls to justify approving development on protected land; and whether he will review the weighting given to local democratic decisions versus national housing targets in such cases.

My Department has made no such assessment. The Planning Inspectorate does not compile data on the number of instances Inspectors have cited Housing Land Supply shortfalls to allow an appeal on designated land, such as a protected site.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the extent to which housing delivery shortfalls are being used to justify development on protected land; how many homes approved on appeal in the last 12 months were on land previously designated as green belt; and what proportion of those approvals were opposed by the relevant local planning authority and ward councillors.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out clear safeguards for land which is designated for its environmental or amenity value. While a poor score on the Housing Delivery Test (HDT) is a strong indicator of housing need in an area not being met sufficiently, HDT failure does not mean that planning permission for housing will be automatically granted. In 2025, the Planning Inspectorate approved approximately 3,000 homes on Green Belt land, of which 88% had been originally refused by the relevant Local Planning Authority. My Department does not hold information in relation to opposition to specific applications by individual ward councillors.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether the Government has obtained legal advice on the implications of the proposed UK-EU Agreement in respect of Gibraltar for (a) sovereignty, (b) jurisdiction and (c) the exercise of enforcement powers on Gibraltar territory; and whether that advice, or a summary of it, will be published.

I refer the Hon Member to the statement I made to the House on 26 February, and to my answers to the questions raised in response to that statement.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what documents relating to the proposed UK-EU Agreement in respect of Gibraltar the Government intends to publish alongside the treaty text, including (a) explanatory memoranda, (b) impact assessments, (c) draft implementing legislation and (d) any administrative arrangements referenced in the Agreement.

I refer the Hon Member to the statement I made to the House on 26 February, and to my answers to the questions raised in response to that statement.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, when the UK-EU Agreement in respect of Gibraltar will be laid before Parliament under the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010; and whether the Government intends to allow a scrutiny period longer than the statutory 21 sitting days.

I refer the Hon Member to the statement I made to the House on 26 February, and to my answers to the questions raised in response to that statement.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether the Government intends to provisionally apply any provisions of the proposed UK-EU Agreement in respect of Gibraltar from 10 April 2026 in connection with the introduction of the Entry/Exit System (EES).

I refer the Hon Member to the statement I made to the House on 26 February, and to my answers to the questions raised in response to that statement.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what support her Department is providing to British Nationals affected by travel disruption and flight cancellations in the Middle East, including those transiting through Qatar; and what guidance her Department has issued to affected travellers.

The safety and security of British nationals is our top priority. On 3 March, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the House about the consular support available to individuals in the Middle East, and assisted departures have now taken place from both Oman and Dubai. We will provide further updates on a regular basis, including details of our ongoing evacuation flights, as well as our efforts to secure an end to Iran's attacks on countries in the region, and the full resumption of normal commercial flights.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the financial sustainability of local authorities that are implementing the maximum permitted council tax increase while also delivering more than £25 million of in-year service reductions; what information his Department holds on the number of councils that have both increased council tax by 4.99% and reduced services in excess of £25 million in the same financial year; and what monitoring his Department undertakes of council tax increases, reserves usage and projected future budget gaps.

It is for individual local authorities to decide their level of council tax, including whether to use their full flexibility and balancing the extra spending with the impact on taxpayers. Local authorities are expected to manage their financial position prudently, and the department does not monitor their day-to-day business. The department does not proscriptively set a level of expected reserves for local authorities to hold and is clear that that this should be a locally managed decision. We rely on local authorities to accurately reflect their reserve positions in the Revenue Outturn forms to ensure we have good quality data in the department to understand the reserves the sector hold. The recent Local Government Finance Settlement is our most significant step yet to make English local government more sustainable. We are delivering fairer funding, targeting money where it is needed most through the first multi-year Settlement in a decade. The department will continue to have a framework in place to support those in the most difficult positions. Any council that has concerns about its ability to set or maintain a balanced budget should approach the department in the first instance.

Communities and Local Government, how many local authorities have forecast a structural budget deficit beyond 2026–27 at the same time as applying the maximum council tax increase; and what assessment he has made of the level of likelihood of further Section 114 notices.

The recent Local Government Finance Settlement is our most significant step yet to make English local government more sustainable. Our reforms are delivering a fairer Settlement which puts funding where it is needed most. Before our reforms, only around a third of councils were given the funding that broadly matched their assessed need. Our reforms bring that up to nine in ten councils by 2028-29. However, delivering reform will take time, and the government recognises the challenging financial context for local authorities as they continue to deal with the legacy of the previous flawed system. That is why the government previously confirmed that there will continue to be a framework in place to support councils in the most difficult financial positions ahead of 2026-27, as councils start the transition to new funding allocations. On 23 February 2026 we wrote to a number of councils to confirm in-principle support through the Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) process. Details of these councils and the support provided have been published on GOV.UK. Councils are responsible for their own financial management and under the relevant legislation the decision to issue a Section 114 notice is an entirely local one. It would not be appropriate for the government to speculate on these decisions.

What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of youth scrutiny panels in improving trust and accountability in the use of stop and search powers; what data her Department has collected on changes in the level of disproportionality following the introduction of such panels; and whether she will publish comparative data across police force areas.

Stop and search is a vital tool for tackling crime, but it must be used fairly and effectively. Trust and accountability in its use are crucial, and the government recognises that youth scrutiny panels can play a positive role in strengthening confidence and transparency.The Home Office does not collect national level data on how youth scrutiny panels affect disproportionality in stop and search.However, the Department does publish significant data annually on ethnic disparity rates in stop and search. Black individuals remain 3.8 times more likely to be stopped and searched than White individuals. The government continues to consider a range of tools and approaches that could support further reductions in disproportionality, including the role of youth scrutiny panels.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the proposals relating to temporary accommodation within Richmond House, what assessment the Client Board has made of the necessity of constructing a new purpose-built Chamber facility within Richmond House in circumstances where the House of Commons may ultimately decide not to utilise it; what proportion of the projected costs of phase one works relate to Chamber-capable infrastructure in Richmond House; whether alternative lower-cost temporary arrangements were formally assessed; and what estimate has been made of the sunk cost risk should that facility not be required.

Under full decant a temporary Chamber would be provided in Richmond House, which Members would decant to and which would enable the House to operate much the same as it does now. Under other delivery options the provision in Richmond House would be to provide space for a resilience Chamber, a place that could be used, for example, as a consequence of any intolerable or unplanned disruption during the R&R works (and could be used for other purposes when not needed as a resilience chamber). It was therefore deemed necessary under all approaches.The costs that are driven by the need for a temporary (or resilience) chamber as part of the R&R Programme accounts for 13% of phase one works costs. This is set out in chapter 7 of the R&R Client Board’s recent report, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576).The use of the Northern Estate as a decant location for the House of Commons was re-confirmed in the R&R Client Board’s Strategic Case in March 2024. This location has been consistently identified in numerous reviews and studies as the most suitable location given it is part of the Parliamentary Estate and close to Whitehall, offers value for money, retains the Commons in the secure perimeter and is capable of meeting the House’s security requirements. Other relevant studies include the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, First Report of Session 2016–17, Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster (HC 659) and the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, Restoration and Renewal Programme Strategic Review, March 2021.Regardless of the R&R Programme, the Northern Estate requires refurbishment to ensure it meets modern parliamentary standards, which is being carried out under the Commons Buildings Infrastructure Portfolio. There will therefore be a legacy value to Parliament from the refurbishment of these buildings.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the projected programme durations and decant periods set out in the report, what assessment the Client Board has made of the risk that the 19–24 year Full Decant duration could extend beyond current projections; what modelling has been undertaken of the institutional impact of prolonged Chamber decant on parliamentary procedure and Member effectiveness; what assessment has been made of staff retention and operational efficiency during extended displacement; and what consideration has been given to the democratic and reputational costs associated with relocation over multiple Parliaments.

Chapter 4 of the recent report from the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Client Board, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576) provides information about the full decant option. This is one of two options which the R&R Client Board recommends for further development.The 19 to 24 year duration for full decant reflects a P50–P80 range and therefore incorporates provision for schedule risks. The Commons Chamber would be decanted to Richmond House for 8 to 10 years under full decant.Pages 50 to 52 of the Client Board’s report sets out some examples of how parliamentary business would look and feel different under full decant (during the course of the Programme, not in the end-state Palace). These impacts have been considered by both the Member-led R&R Client Board and the R&R Programme Board.As referenced in the report, decant provision needs to be comparable—as a minimum—to the current provision. For the House of Commons, that means that not only will the Northern Estate need to be refurbished to ensure it is resilient and fit for purpose for increased use over the life of the R&R Programme, but a creative and purposeful approach will need to be taken to identify other opportunities for decant, given that the space available on the Northern Estate is not adequate to recreate many of the Commons’ existing facilities. This will need to be a priority focus of work before a final decision is taken on an R&R delivery approach by mid-2030.Several Commons committees and the Commission have been engaged about the high-level proposals for temporary accommodation on the Northern Estate. Engagement with Members will continue as designs continue to develop.A number of other parliaments internationally are undergoing or have completed restoration projects for their parliamentary buildings, for example Canada, Austria, Hungary and the Netherlands, and several of these have had to decant from Chambers for some period of time. The R&R Programme is learning about how these moves operated in practice and were managed as well as the various impacts, including on Members and staff.Substantial staff decants have already been successfully managed by the House in recent years to a range of buildings with no loss of business service levels and good staff satisfaction, aided by appropriate business change support.

Representing the Restoration and Renewal Client Board, with reference to the proposed phase one works package estimated at up to £3 billion, what assessment the Client Board has made of the level of the risk that Parliament will have committed substantial irreversible expenditure prior to selecting a final delivery option; what proportion of phase one expenditure would constitute sunk costs if the preferred option were subsequently amended; whether the phase one works materially prejudice the choice between Full Decant and EMI+; and how this phased commitment aligns with the requirement in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 for upfront approval of a funding envelope.

Chapter 7 of the recent report from the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Client Board, Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals (HC Paper 1576) sets out the Board’s recommendation for a package of phase one works, in line with emerging best practice. The phase one works would include up to seven years of expenditure as well as financial commitment for some work started in this period, such as underground construction, which would be completed after seven years.The phase one works are not an alternative to the full R&R Programme; they are foundational to it, however it is delivered. This means the phase one works do not prejudice a choice between the R&R Client Board’s two recommended options of full decant or enhanced maintenance and improvement plus (EMI+). In developing the phase one proposals, the R&R Programme Board considered a range of down‑selection scenarios and the associated impacts on cost and schedule, ensuring that the proposed package remains flexible and does not commit the Programme to a particular delivery option.A decision by the Houses on a preferred delivery option would be required no later than mid-2030 to ensure that the Programme has a clear trajectory on the final delivery option that Parliament wishes to take. During the period when the phase one works are being delivered, the Programme will develop more robust estimates and detailed designs with its strategic partners, to help inform the Houses to take a decision on a preferred option in the next Parliament.The sum for the phase one works is included in the overall costs for the options set out in the R&R Client Board’s report. Normal contractual clauses will be used for the work to ensure that any additional expenditure is minimised should a decision be made by the Houses to change the Programme in future.The Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, which established the framework for the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Programme, divides the Programme into two phases:Phase one includes preparatory works for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of WestminsterPhase two covers the period between when Parliamentary approval is obtained for the main works and when it ends with completion of the Parliamentary buildings works.Under section 7 of the 2019 Act, the two Houses are required to approve both the Delivery Authority’s proposals for the Palace restoration and a total funding envelope before the Programme can move to phase two.The scope of the phase one works is considered to fall within the definition of preparatory works.