Every parliamentary written question tabled by Wendy Morton this session, with the full answer and department. See how every department answers, or back to the MP page.
Showing 401–420 of 1,717 · this parliament
Communities and Local Government, what plans he has to review the performance and efficiency of the planning appeals process under forthcoming reforms.
The Planning Inspectorate's Strategic Plan commits the Agency to removing all casework backlogs and meeting all Ministerial targets, including those on relating to planning appeals, by 2027. The Inspectorate regularly publishes updates on its performance.
Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of how planning reforms will affect public consultation and community engagement in planning decisions in the West Midlands.
Local planning authorities are required to undertake a formal period of public consultation, prior to deciding a planning application. The proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that the government is currently consulting on will not affect this requirement.
What assessment he has made of trends in the level of unemployment in the West Midlands.
The information requested is published and available at:https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/default.asp Guidance for users can be found at:https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/home/newuser.aspThe estimated unemployment levels can be found by selecting “Query data” on the NOMIS home page and selecting “Annual Population Survey/Labour Force Survey” and then “labour force survey – national and regional – headline indicators (seasonally adjusted) (May 1992 to Sep 2025)” in the lists of data sources. The Geography will need to be set for the relevant region (West Midlands) from the menu. The economic activity Variable needs to be set to “Total unemployed” (16 and over). The rate also needs to be selected in the ‘people/rate’ section.
Communities and Local Government, what recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of planning reform proposals on the timescales for the adoption of local plans by local authorities in the West Midlands.
Local planning authorities are responsible for publishing the intended timeframes for the production and adoption of their local plans. The government is determined to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible in order to achieve our ambition of universal plan coverage and to ensure plans contribute positively to our Plan for Change milestone of building 1.5 million new safe and decent homes in England by the end of this Parliament. Local planning authorities are expected to work towards the adoption of an up-to-date local plan as soon as possible. In 2025, my Department awarded over £19 million of funding to support local plan delivery. We recently announced a further £14 million of funding in the financial year 2025-2026 to support local planning authorities with plan-making.
With reference to the Written Statement entitled Consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1129, what assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of police practice in the deployment of facial recognition and other biometric technologies; and whether she plans to enhance oversight and independent scrutiny of that deployment.
The Government recognises the importance of ensuring the use of facial recognition and similar biometric technologies by law enforcement remains proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed. The consultation launched on 4 December seeks views on whether seriousness of harm should be a factor to decide how and when law enforcement organisations can acquire, retain, and use biometrics, facial recognition, and similar technology. The consultation also asks for views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing ‘seriousness’ of harm and for which purposes should law enforcement organisations be allowed to use these technologies.We do not intend to publish an impact assessment specifically on the potential implications for civil liberties as part of the consultation process. However, alongside the consultation we have published an equalities impact assessment which makes clear the Government’s commitment to building public trust by highlighting the specific legal frameworks that will be put in place and the statutory bodies for oversight, which will apply to everyone in England and Wales.We recognise that to maintain public confidence we must ensure individual rights, privacy and data security are protected. We believe that the use of biometric and inferential technology should always be demonstrably ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’ to the objective being sought. Furthermore, a clear and consistent justification for interference with people’s rights is required. Threshold setting and decision making needs to be attributed to, and shared appropriately between, Parliament, Ministers, independent oversight bodies, and law enforcement organisations. The consultation seeks views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing interference with privacy so as to ensure the legal framework reflects the views of the public.When using facial recognition technology, police forces must comply with existing legislation including the Human Rights Act 1998, Equality Act 2010, Data Protection Act 2018, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as well as their own published policies. For live facial recognition, police forces must also follow the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Live Facial Recognition.Oversight of police practice regarding deployment of facial recognition and related technologies is currently provided by regulators and public bodies, including the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, HMICFRS, Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The courts system also plays a vital role in ensuring the law is upheld.The Government recognises the importance of independent scrutiny to ensure operational consistency across forces under new framework. That is why the consultation explained the government’s proposal to create a single regulatory and oversight body to oversee law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies.The Government envisage giving this body the necessary powers to provide assurance that law enforcement use of biometric technologies is legal, responsible, and necessary. These powers could include setting standards to assure scientific validity, issuing codes of practice and investigating instances where a technology has been misused, hacked or accessed without authorisation.
With reference to the Written Statement entitled Mental Health Conditions, Autism and ADHD Prevalence and Support, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1132, what assessment his Department has made of the wider financial and operational impact on local authorities, schools, criminal justice agencies and employers arising from the increased prevalence of mental health conditions, autism and ADHD; and whether the Independent Review will produce recommendations for cross-government funding mechanisms or reforms to ensure that pressure on non-NHS services does not undermine the sustainability of local support and early-intervention provision.
The Department has not made an assessment. We have commissioned an independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism. The review will look to understand the similarities and difference between mental health conditions, ADHD, and autism. It will look at prevalence, early intervention and treatment, and the current challenges facing clinical services. This will include exploring the factors that have contributed to the increase in prevalence and inequalities in access and outcomes. It will also examine the extent to which diagnosis, medicalisation, and treatment improve outcomes for individuals. This will include exploring the evidence around clinical practice and the risks and benefits of medicalisation.The review will appoint an Advisory Working Group which involves a multidisciplinary group of leading academics, clinicians, epidemiological experts, charities, and people with lived experience to directly shape the recommendations and scrutinise the evidence.The chairs will provide a short report within six months setting out conclusions and recommendations for responding to the rising need, both within the Government and across the health system and wider public services.As this is an independent review, it is therefore for the Chair and vice-chairs to explore and consider topics and themes relevant to the terms of reference. It would not be appropriate for the Department to comment or influence further on specific topics, findings, and recommendations. The Government will consider any recommendations and respond accordingly.
Communities and Local Government, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that planning reforms support the timely delivery of local infrastructure in areas experiencing housing growth in the West Midlands.
I refer the Rt Hon. Member to the answer given to Question UIN 26106 on 5 February 2025.
With reference to the Written Statement entitled Consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1129, what assessment her Department has made of current police practice regarding the deployment of facial recognition and related technologies; how operational consistency across police forces will be ensured under the proposed new framework; and what plans she has to strengthen oversight mechanisms, including independent scrutiny, to guarantee that law enforcement agencies use these technologies only within clearly defined legal parameters and with transparent accountability.
The Government recognises the importance of ensuring the use of facial recognition and similar biometric technologies by law enforcement remains proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed. The consultation launched on 4 December seeks views on whether seriousness of harm should be a factor to decide how and when law enforcement organisations can acquire, retain, and use biometrics, facial recognition, and similar technology. The consultation also asks for views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing ‘seriousness’ of harm and for which purposes should law enforcement organisations be allowed to use these technologies.We do not intend to publish an impact assessment specifically on the potential implications for civil liberties as part of the consultation process. However, alongside the consultation we have published an equalities impact assessment which makes clear the Government’s commitment to building public trust by highlighting the specific legal frameworks that will be put in place and the statutory bodies for oversight, which will apply to everyone in England and Wales.We recognise that to maintain public confidence we must ensure individual rights, privacy and data security are protected. We believe that the use of biometric and inferential technology should always be demonstrably ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’ to the objective being sought. Furthermore, a clear and consistent justification for interference with people’s rights is required. Threshold setting and decision making needs to be attributed to, and shared appropriately between, Parliament, Ministers, independent oversight bodies, and law enforcement organisations. The consultation seeks views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing interference with privacy so as to ensure the legal framework reflects the views of the public.When using facial recognition technology, police forces must comply with existing legislation including the Human Rights Act 1998, Equality Act 2010, Data Protection Act 2018, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as well as their own published policies. For live facial recognition, police forces must also follow the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Live Facial Recognition.Oversight of police practice regarding deployment of facial recognition and related technologies is currently provided by regulators and public bodies, including the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, HMICFRS, Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The courts system also plays a vital role in ensuring the law is upheld.The Government recognises the importance of independent scrutiny to ensure operational consistency across forces under new framework. That is why the consultation explained the government’s proposal to create a single regulatory and oversight body to oversee law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies.The Government envisage giving this body the necessary powers to provide assurance that law enforcement use of biometric technologies is legal, responsible, and necessary. These powers could include setting standards to assure scientific validity, issuing codes of practice and investigating instances where a technology has been misused, hacked or accessed without authorisation.
What assessment he has made of trends in the level of youth unemployment in the West Midlands.
The information requested is published and available at:https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/default.asp Guidance for users can be found at:https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/home/newuser.aspThe estimated unemployment levels can be found by selecting “Query data” on the NOMIS home page and selecting “Annual Population Survey/Labour Force Survey” and then “annual population survey (Dec 2004 to Jun 2025)” in the lists of data sources. The Geography will need to be set for the relevant region (West Midlands) from the menu, and the Variable set to “Unemployment rate - aged 16-24”.
With reference to the Written Statement entitled Criminal Court Reform, published on 2 December 2025, HCWS1123, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of expanding judge-only trials to a wider class of offences, including fraud cases and triable-either-way cases involving likely sentences of up to three years, on the right to a fair trial and jury participation in the justice system; and what safeguards he intends to put in place to ensure transparency, accountability and public confidence in verdicts reached without a jury.
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial.As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates and only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants, or anyone involved in the justice system.The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court framework, following the same process and procedures. Safeguards will be in place, including the existing appeals procedure, and judges in the ‘swift courts’ will be required to provide reasoned judgments when delivering decisions to convict or acquit. An impact assessment will accompany our legislative measures, as is usual practice.
Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of his Department's planning reform proposals on the continued protection of green spaces and environmentally sensitive sites in the West Midlands.
Green spaces and environmentally sensitive sites continue to receive protection in national planning policy. The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that open space should not be built on unless there is clear evidence it is no longer required; equivalent or better provision is secured in a suitable location; or development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use. It also makes clear that planning decisions should conserve and enhance sites of biodiversity value and that local plans should safeguard local wildlife rich habitats and designated sites of importance for biodiversity. In addition, the designation of land as Local Green Space allows communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them.
With reference to the Written Statement entitled Criminal Court Reform, published on 2 December 2025, HCWS1123, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of removing the option for defendants to elect for trial by jury in certain triable-either-way cases on (a) the constitutional role of juries, (b) defendants’ right to a fair trial and (c) public confidence in the criminal justice system.
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial.As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates and only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants, or anyone involved in the justice system.The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court framework, following the same process and procedures. Safeguards will be in place, including the existing appeals procedure, and judges in the ‘swift courts’ will be required to provide reasoned judgments when delivering decisions to convict or acquit. An impact assessment will accompany our legislative measures, as is usual practice.
With reference to the Written Statement entitled Mental Health Conditions, Autism and ADHD Prevalence and Support, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1132, what assessment he has made of regional variation in diagnostic practice, referral thresholds and waiting times for autism and ADHD assessments; whether the Independent Review will examine the extent to which inconsistent clinical pathways drive disparities in outcomes; and what steps he plans to take to ensure that adults, young people and children in every Integrated Care Board area receive timely, consistent and clinically robust diagnostic assessment and ongoing support.
The Department has not made an assessment. We have commissioned an independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism. The review will look to understand the similarities and difference between mental health conditions, ADHD, and autism. It will look at prevalence, early intervention and treatment, and the current challenges facing clinical services. This will include exploring the factors that have contributed to the increase in prevalence and inequalities in access and outcomes. It will also examine the extent to which diagnosis, medicalisation, and treatment improve outcomes for individuals. This will include exploring the evidence around clinical practice and the risks and benefits of medicalisation.The review will appoint an Advisory Working Group which involves a multidisciplinary group of leading academics, clinicians, epidemiological experts, charities, and people with lived experience to directly shape the recommendations and scrutinise the evidence.The chairs will provide a short report within six months setting out conclusions and recommendations for responding to the rising need, both within the Government and across the health system and wider public services.As this is an independent review, it is therefore for the Chair and vice-chairs to explore and consider topics and themes relevant to the terms of reference. It would not be appropriate for the Department to comment or influence further on specific topics, findings, and recommendations. The Government will consider any recommendations and respond accordingly.
What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the potential impact of the salary sacrifice pension scheme changes announced in the Autumn Budget 2025 on the value of occupational pension funds.
A Tax Information and Impact Note (TIIN) was published alongside the introduction of the Bill containing the changes to pensions salary sacrifice. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) set out in their November 2025 Economic and Fiscal Outlook that they do not expect a material impact on savings behaviour as a result of Budget 2025 tax changes. The government supports all individuals to save into pensions through a generous system of income tax and NICs reliefs worth over £70 billion a year.
With reference to the Written Statement entitled Consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1129, what assessment she has made of the safeguards required to ensure that the use of facial recognition and similar biometric technologies by law enforcement remains proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed; what steps she plans to take to ensure that the legal framework maintains public confidence in the protection of individual rights, privacy and data security; and whether she intends to publish an impact assessment on the potential implications for civil liberties as part of the consultation process.
The Government recognises the importance of ensuring the use of facial recognition and similar biometric technologies by law enforcement remains proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed. The consultation launched on 4 December seeks views on whether seriousness of harm should be a factor to decide how and when law enforcement organisations can acquire, retain, and use biometrics, facial recognition, and similar technology. The consultation also asks for views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing ‘seriousness’ of harm and for which purposes should law enforcement organisations be allowed to use these technologies.We do not intend to publish an impact assessment specifically on the potential implications for civil liberties as part of the consultation process. However, alongside the consultation we have published an equalities impact assessment which makes clear the Government’s commitment to building public trust by highlighting the specific legal frameworks that will be put in place and the statutory bodies for oversight, which will apply to everyone in England and Wales.We recognise that to maintain public confidence we must ensure individual rights, privacy and data security are protected. We believe that the use of biometric and inferential technology should always be demonstrably ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’ to the objective being sought. Furthermore, a clear and consistent justification for interference with people’s rights is required. Threshold setting and decision making needs to be attributed to, and shared appropriately between, Parliament, Ministers, independent oversight bodies, and law enforcement organisations. The consultation seeks views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing interference with privacy so as to ensure the legal framework reflects the views of the public.When using facial recognition technology, police forces must comply with existing legislation including the Human Rights Act 1998, Equality Act 2010, Data Protection Act 2018, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as well as their own published policies. For live facial recognition, police forces must also follow the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Live Facial Recognition.Oversight of police practice regarding deployment of facial recognition and related technologies is currently provided by regulators and public bodies, including the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, HMICFRS, Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The courts system also plays a vital role in ensuring the law is upheld.The Government recognises the importance of independent scrutiny to ensure operational consistency across forces under new framework. That is why the consultation explained the government’s proposal to create a single regulatory and oversight body to oversee law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies.The Government envisage giving this body the necessary powers to provide assurance that law enforcement use of biometric technologies is legal, responsible, and necessary. These powers could include setting standards to assure scientific validity, issuing codes of practice and investigating instances where a technology has been misused, hacked or accessed without authorisation.
With reference to the Written Statement entitled Mental Health Conditions, Autism and ADHD Prevalence and Support, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1132, what assessment his Department has made of the factors contributing to the reported increase in the prevalence of mental health conditions, autism and ADHD over the past decade; what analysis he has undertaken to differentiate between changes in underlying incidence, improved public awareness, altered diagnostic practice and broader social determinants; and whether he will publish a cross-government strategy setting out how Departments intend to respond to rising prevalence and associated demand on public services.
The Department has not made an assessment. We have commissioned an independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism. The review will look to understand the similarities and difference between mental health conditions, ADHD, and autism. It will look at prevalence, early intervention and treatment, and the current challenges facing clinical services. This will include exploring the factors that have contributed to the increase in prevalence and inequalities in access and outcomes. It will also examine the extent to which diagnosis, medicalisation, and treatment improve outcomes for individuals. This will include exploring the evidence around clinical practice and the risks and benefits of medicalisation.The review will appoint an Advisory Working Group which involves a multidisciplinary group of leading academics, clinicians, epidemiological experts, charities, and people with lived experience to directly shape the recommendations and scrutinise the evidence.The chairs will provide a short report within six months setting out conclusions and recommendations for responding to the rising need, both within the Government and across the health system and wider public services.As this is an independent review, it is therefore for the Chair and vice-chairs to explore and consider topics and themes relevant to the terms of reference. It would not be appropriate for the Department to comment or influence further on specific topics, findings, and recommendations. The Government will consider any recommendations and respond accordingly.
With reference to the Written Statement entitled Mental Health Conditions, Autism and ADHD Prevalence and Support, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1132, what criteria will be used to appoint members to the Advisory Working Group, how individuals with lived experience will be involved in the development and scrutiny of the Review’s findings, and what steps he plans to take to ensure that any recommendations accepted by the Government are implemented uniformly across Integrated Care Boards and local authorities, with transparent reporting and measurable outcomes.
The Chair and vice-chairs of the independent review into the prevalence of and support for mental health conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism will appoint an Advisory Working Group which involves a multidisciplinary group of leading academics, clinicians, epidemiological experts, charities, and people with lived experience to directly shape the recommendations and scrutinise the evidence. As the review is independent it is for the chairs to determine the process for engaging.The Government has begun to address fundamental problems in National Health Service mental health services and will progress towards a new approach for mental health in 2026. As part of this we are radically enhancing transparency of mental health providers with consequences for poor performance. New league tables are driving improvement in the quality and safety of care, rewarding improvement and success. We are tackling unacceptable failures in care quality through stronger accountability and enhanced support.
What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the financial impact of future welfare spending on the economy.
We inherited from the previous administration a welfare system that forced too many people out of work and on to long-term benefits, while leaving millions of children in poverty. We have begun to address that through reforms to universal credit, increased employment support, more help for children in poverty and, now, a youth guarantee to offer work and training to young people who are unemployed.
Communities and Local Government, what support is available to West Midlands local authorities to bring forward brownfield sites under the proposed changes to the planning system.
I refer the Rt Hon. Member to the answer given to Question UIN 91369 on 27 November 2025.
How many face-to-face assessments for benefit claimants have taken place since 1 January 2024.
While this information is not currently published by the department, we will be sharing this data in a future statistical release.