Written questions by McDonald.

Whether she plans to establish a target for increased employment outcomes from the employment support package set out in the Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper, published on 18 March 2025.

The government has set a long-term ambition to achieve an 80% employment rate, which would be the equivalent of over two million more people in work. In April 2025 we also published new Get Britain Working outcome metrics, including intermediate objectives to reduce health-related economic inactivity and to reduce the disability employment rate gap. The investment and reforms proposed in the Pathways to Work Green Paper, alongside our investment in Connect to Work and in new local trailblazers announced before the Green Paper, will make a significant difference to employment opportunities for disabled people and those with health conditions, and to making progress against these measures.

If she will publish the number of outstanding electronic monitoring visits in need of completion by Serco in each of the past 12 months.

Releasing information on financial penalties would prejudice, or would likely prejudice, Serco Group Limited’s commercial interests.To provide the number of outstanding monitoring visits in need of completion by Serco in each of the past 12 months would be of disproportionate cost.While the backlog of outstanding visits has been significantly reduced, Serco’s overall performance remains below acceptable levels. We continue to hold them to account for that and will not hesitate to impose further financial penalties where necessary.The performance requirements are detailed within the Key Performance Indicators in the Field and Monitoring Service contract, and these are available on Contracts Finders under Schedule 3 of the contract: Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS) - Contracts Finder. Whilst we acknowledge that performance has been unacceptable, the Ministry of Justice continues to hold Serco to account for poor performance and we are overseeing service improvements.During the procurement of the Field and Monitoring Service contract, all suppliers were required to provide details of their safeguarding processes, and these were assessed as part of the evaluation process. The contract outlines the ongoing audit rights that allow the Ministry of Justice to review all processes. There is an annual assurance test completed by the contract management team to ensure that what suppliers have outlined is being adhered to, and the next assurance is scheduled to be carried out in July 2025.The Field and Monitoring Service contract is already published and is available on Contracts Finder: Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS) - Contracts Finder. Specifically, please refer to the schedules referenced Core Terms and Schedule 3 (Performance).

What steps her Department is taking to review operational practice with Serco to ensure that safeguarding actions for electronic monitoring staff are properly implemented.

Releasing information on financial penalties would prejudice, or would likely prejudice, Serco Group Limited’s commercial interests.To provide the number of outstanding monitoring visits in need of completion by Serco in each of the past 12 months would be of disproportionate cost.While the backlog of outstanding visits has been significantly reduced, Serco’s overall performance remains below acceptable levels. We continue to hold them to account for that and will not hesitate to impose further financial penalties where necessary.The performance requirements are detailed within the Key Performance Indicators in the Field and Monitoring Service contract, and these are available on Contracts Finders under Schedule 3 of the contract: Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS) - Contracts Finder. Whilst we acknowledge that performance has been unacceptable, the Ministry of Justice continues to hold Serco to account for poor performance and we are overseeing service improvements.During the procurement of the Field and Monitoring Service contract, all suppliers were required to provide details of their safeguarding processes, and these were assessed as part of the evaluation process. The contract outlines the ongoing audit rights that allow the Ministry of Justice to review all processes. There is an annual assurance test completed by the contract management team to ensure that what suppliers have outlined is being adhered to, and the next assurance is scheduled to be carried out in July 2025.The Field and Monitoring Service contract is already published and is available on Contracts Finder: Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS) - Contracts Finder. Specifically, please refer to the schedules referenced Core Terms and Schedule 3 (Performance).

What the timeframe is in which Serco much reach minimum performance standards for electronic tag device installation.

Releasing information on financial penalties would prejudice, or would likely prejudice, Serco Group Limited’s commercial interests.To provide the number of outstanding monitoring visits in need of completion by Serco in each of the past 12 months would be of disproportionate cost.While the backlog of outstanding visits has been significantly reduced, Serco’s overall performance remains below acceptable levels. We continue to hold them to account for that and will not hesitate to impose further financial penalties where necessary.The performance requirements are detailed within the Key Performance Indicators in the Field and Monitoring Service contract, and these are available on Contracts Finders under Schedule 3 of the contract: Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS) - Contracts Finder. Whilst we acknowledge that performance has been unacceptable, the Ministry of Justice continues to hold Serco to account for poor performance and we are overseeing service improvements.During the procurement of the Field and Monitoring Service contract, all suppliers were required to provide details of their safeguarding processes, and these were assessed as part of the evaluation process. The contract outlines the ongoing audit rights that allow the Ministry of Justice to review all processes. There is an annual assurance test completed by the contract management team to ensure that what suppliers have outlined is being adhered to, and the next assurance is scheduled to be carried out in July 2025.The Field and Monitoring Service contract is already published and is available on Contracts Finder: Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS) - Contracts Finder. Specifically, please refer to the schedules referenced Core Terms and Schedule 3 (Performance).

If she will publish the contractual terms under which (a) delays and (b) poor performance in Serco's delivery of its electronic monitoring contract would trigger (i) the introduction of a remedial advisor, ((ii) step-In, (iii) consequential losses and (iv) termination rights processes.

Releasing information on financial penalties would prejudice, or would likely prejudice, Serco Group Limited’s commercial interests.To provide the number of outstanding monitoring visits in need of completion by Serco in each of the past 12 months would be of disproportionate cost.While the backlog of outstanding visits has been significantly reduced, Serco’s overall performance remains below acceptable levels. We continue to hold them to account for that and will not hesitate to impose further financial penalties where necessary.The performance requirements are detailed within the Key Performance Indicators in the Field and Monitoring Service contract, and these are available on Contracts Finders under Schedule 3 of the contract: Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS) - Contracts Finder. Whilst we acknowledge that performance has been unacceptable, the Ministry of Justice continues to hold Serco to account for poor performance and we are overseeing service improvements.During the procurement of the Field and Monitoring Service contract, all suppliers were required to provide details of their safeguarding processes, and these were assessed as part of the evaluation process. The contract outlines the ongoing audit rights that allow the Ministry of Justice to review all processes. There is an annual assurance test completed by the contract management team to ensure that what suppliers have outlined is being adhered to, and the next assurance is scheduled to be carried out in July 2025.The Field and Monitoring Service contract is already published and is available on Contracts Finder: Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS) - Contracts Finder. Specifically, please refer to the schedules referenced Core Terms and Schedule 3 (Performance).

If she will publish the financial penalties issued to Serco in relation to unmet targets for electronic monitoring in each of the past 12 months.

Releasing information on financial penalties would prejudice, or would likely prejudice, Serco Group Limited’s commercial interests.To provide the number of outstanding monitoring visits in need of completion by Serco in each of the past 12 months would be of disproportionate cost.While the backlog of outstanding visits has been significantly reduced, Serco’s overall performance remains below acceptable levels. We continue to hold them to account for that and will not hesitate to impose further financial penalties where necessary.The performance requirements are detailed within the Key Performance Indicators in the Field and Monitoring Service contract, and these are available on Contracts Finders under Schedule 3 of the contract: Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS) - Contracts Finder. Whilst we acknowledge that performance has been unacceptable, the Ministry of Justice continues to hold Serco to account for poor performance and we are overseeing service improvements.During the procurement of the Field and Monitoring Service contract, all suppliers were required to provide details of their safeguarding processes, and these were assessed as part of the evaluation process. The contract outlines the ongoing audit rights that allow the Ministry of Justice to review all processes. There is an annual assurance test completed by the contract management team to ensure that what suppliers have outlined is being adhered to, and the next assurance is scheduled to be carried out in July 2025.The Field and Monitoring Service contract is already published and is available on Contracts Finder: Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS) - Contracts Finder. Specifically, please refer to the schedules referenced Core Terms and Schedule 3 (Performance).

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether he plans to seek the opinion of the House of Commons on recognition of the State of Palestine ahead of the UN General Assembly’s High-level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution.

The UK commitment to a two-state solution is unwavering.  We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state at a time that has the most impact in achieving this reality and is most conducive to long-term prospects for peace. We are clear that does not need to be at the end of a process. UK bilateral recognition is the single most important action the UK can take with regard to Palestinian statehood. That is why it is important to get the timing right so that it creates genuine momentum and is not simply a symbolic gesture. We are continuing to engage all partners on advancing a two-state solution and supporting the foundations of Palestinian statehood. Any UK decision to recognise another state is the prerogative of the Crown, acting on the advice of the Government.

What she has had recent discussions with her French counterpart on the potential impact of legislation on seafarer working conditions on ferry routes between the UK and France since 28 June 2024.

On 9 April, the Transport Secretary met with Philippe Tabarot, the French Minister for Transport, where they discussed our shared commitment to seafarer protections and ongoing cooperation. Officials at the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency have been working closely with the French authorities to discuss opportunities for joint working and cooperation.

Which ferry operators have signed up to the voluntary Seafarers Charter published by her Department on 18 July 2023; and what steps she is taking to improve (a) seafarer working conditions and (b) maritime safety.

A number of ferry operators have made commitments to comply with the voluntary Seafarers’ Charter and have provided evidence to the Department for Transport to support their compliance. Officials are assessing the evidence and working with operators to ensure that they meet the required standards. Improving seafarer working conditions is a priority for the department. We have also introduced measures in the Employment Rights Bill to further strengthen workers’ rights at sea. We are delivering on our commitment to a mandatory Seafarers’ Charter by making compliance with regulations on pay, tours of duty, fatigue management and safety training, conditions of port entry. We are also ensuring that we have the necessary powers to uphold our international obligations by implementing amendments to international maritime conventions to which we have signed up, and we are closing the loophole which allowed P&O Ferries to avoid notifying the UK government of collective redundancies on foreign flagged vessels without prosecution. Safety underpins all aspects of maritime activity and is a key Government priority. A Maritime Safety Action Plan was published in 2019 explaining what DfT, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB), our General Lighthouse Authorities and others are doing to support the sector to deliver continuous improvement in performance.

Communities and Local Government, whether the Freeports Security Forum has provided any recommendations to local Freeports to strengthen their local security apparatus.

Freeport areas are subject to the same laws and regulations safeguarding security as the rest of the UK. A Freeport customs site is a secure, enclosed zone within the wider Freeport geography. All Freeport customs sites are required to obtain AEO(S) or equivalent authorisation from HMRC, an international gold standard for safety and security, and remain subject to robust ongoing oversight from HMRC. In addition to this, Freeports are required to put in place arrangements for overseeing relevant security arrangements across their geographies, to ensure effective coordination between relevant bodies and provisions. Given Freeports are subject to the same security regime as the rest of the UK, the purpose of these arrangements is coordination, not duplication. In Spring 2024, these coordination arrangements in all English Freeports were audited by the Freeports Security Forum and recommendations were provided to relevant Freeports, to assist them in achieving best practice on security. The government departments represented on the Freeports Security Forum include Home Office, Border Force, HMRC, the Department for Transport, HMT, the National Crime Agency and Police. There are no plans to publish individual names of attendees on the Security Forum. On 5 March 2025, the government decided not to conduct a further security audit as no new security risks associated with Freeport status, requiring further mitigation above and beyond the application of UK-wide security laws and regulations, had been identified. Risks associated with customs sites continue to be managed directly by central government through HMRC’s robust oversight arrangements. Freeports must share information on local arrangements for coordinating security activity with government upon request and the government reserves the right to audit these as required.

Communities and Local Government, if she will publish the dates on which the Freeports Security Forum met in the last 12 months.

Freeport areas are subject to the same laws and regulations safeguarding security as the rest of the UK. A Freeport customs site is a secure, enclosed zone within the wider Freeport geography. All Freeport customs sites are required to obtain AEO(S) or equivalent authorisation from HMRC, an international gold standard for safety and security, and remain subject to robust ongoing oversight from HMRC. In addition to this, Freeports are required to put in place arrangements for overseeing relevant security arrangements across their geographies, to ensure effective coordination between relevant bodies and provisions. Given Freeports are subject to the same security regime as the rest of the UK, the purpose of these arrangements is coordination, not duplication. In Spring 2024, these coordination arrangements in all English Freeports were audited by the Freeports Security Forum and recommendations were provided to relevant Freeports, to assist them in achieving best practice on security. The government departments represented on the Freeports Security Forum include Home Office, Border Force, HMRC, the Department for Transport, HMT, the National Crime Agency and Police. There are no plans to publish individual names of attendees on the Security Forum. On 5 March 2025, the government decided not to conduct a further security audit as no new security risks associated with Freeport status, requiring further mitigation above and beyond the application of UK-wide security laws and regulations, had been identified. Risks associated with customs sites continue to be managed directly by central government through HMRC’s robust oversight arrangements. Freeports must share information on local arrangements for coordinating security activity with government upon request and the government reserves the right to audit these as required.

Communities and Local Government, if she will make it her policy to publish the attendees at each Freeports Security Forum meeting.

Freeport areas are subject to the same laws and regulations safeguarding security as the rest of the UK. A Freeport customs site is a secure, enclosed zone within the wider Freeport geography. All Freeport customs sites are required to obtain AEO(S) or equivalent authorisation from HMRC, an international gold standard for safety and security, and remain subject to robust ongoing oversight from HMRC. In addition to this, Freeports are required to put in place arrangements for overseeing relevant security arrangements across their geographies, to ensure effective coordination between relevant bodies and provisions. Given Freeports are subject to the same security regime as the rest of the UK, the purpose of these arrangements is coordination, not duplication. In Spring 2024, these coordination arrangements in all English Freeports were audited by the Freeports Security Forum and recommendations were provided to relevant Freeports, to assist them in achieving best practice on security. The government departments represented on the Freeports Security Forum include Home Office, Border Force, HMRC, the Department for Transport, HMT, the National Crime Agency and Police. There are no plans to publish individual names of attendees on the Security Forum. On 5 March 2025, the government decided not to conduct a further security audit as no new security risks associated with Freeport status, requiring further mitigation above and beyond the application of UK-wide security laws and regulations, had been identified. Risks associated with customs sites continue to be managed directly by central government through HMRC’s robust oversight arrangements. Freeports must share information on local arrangements for coordinating security activity with government upon request and the government reserves the right to audit these as required.

Communities and Local Government, if she will publish (a) the date on which each Freeport's Annual Freeport Security Audit was received and (b) the Freeport Security Forum's assessment of each of those audits.

Freeport areas are subject to the same laws and regulations safeguarding security as the rest of the UK. A Freeport customs site is a secure, enclosed zone within the wider Freeport geography. All Freeport customs sites are required to obtain AEO(S) or equivalent authorisation from HMRC, an international gold standard for safety and security, and remain subject to robust ongoing oversight from HMRC. In addition to this, Freeports are required to put in place arrangements for overseeing relevant security arrangements across their geographies, to ensure effective coordination between relevant bodies and provisions. Given Freeports are subject to the same security regime as the rest of the UK, the purpose of these arrangements is coordination, not duplication. In Spring 2024, these coordination arrangements in all English Freeports were audited by the Freeports Security Forum and recommendations were provided to relevant Freeports, to assist them in achieving best practice on security. The government departments represented on the Freeports Security Forum include Home Office, Border Force, HMRC, the Department for Transport, HMT, the National Crime Agency and Police. There are no plans to publish individual names of attendees on the Security Forum. On 5 March 2025, the government decided not to conduct a further security audit as no new security risks associated with Freeport status, requiring further mitigation above and beyond the application of UK-wide security laws and regulations, had been identified. Risks associated with customs sites continue to be managed directly by central government through HMRC’s robust oversight arrangements. Freeports must share information on local arrangements for coordinating security activity with government upon request and the government reserves the right to audit these as required.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment she has made of the capacity of freeport governing bodies to conduct annual security audits.

Freeport areas are subject to the same laws and regulations safeguarding security as the rest of the UK. A Freeport customs site is a secure, enclosed zone within the wider Freeport geography. All Freeport customs sites are required to obtain AEO(S) or equivalent authorisation from HMRC, an international gold standard for safety and security, and remain subject to robust ongoing oversight from HMRC. In addition to this, Freeports are required to put in place arrangements for overseeing relevant security arrangements across their geographies, to ensure effective coordination between relevant bodies and provisions. Given Freeports are subject to the same security regime as the rest of the UK, the purpose of these arrangements is coordination, not duplication. In Spring 2024, these coordination arrangements in all English Freeports were audited by the Freeports Security Forum and recommendations were provided to relevant Freeports, to assist them in achieving best practice on security. The government departments represented on the Freeports Security Forum include Home Office, Border Force, HMRC, the Department for Transport, HMT, the National Crime Agency and Police. There are no plans to publish individual names of attendees on the Security Forum. On 5 March 2025, the government decided not to conduct a further security audit as no new security risks associated with Freeport status, requiring further mitigation above and beyond the application of UK-wide security laws and regulations, had been identified. Risks associated with customs sites continue to be managed directly by central government through HMRC’s robust oversight arrangements. Freeports must share information on local arrangements for coordinating security activity with government upon request and the government reserves the right to audit these as required.

Communities and Local Government, whether her Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of (a) withholding and (b) removing access to Freeport policy benefits where there has been continued (i) non-compliance and (ii) non-delivery without an adequate reason.

Freeport areas are subject to the same laws and regulations safeguarding security as the rest of the UK. A Freeport customs site is a secure, enclosed zone within the wider Freeport geography. All Freeport customs sites are required to obtain AEO(S) or equivalent authorisation from HMRC, an international gold standard for safety and security, and remain subject to robust ongoing oversight from HMRC. In addition to this, Freeports are required to put in place arrangements for overseeing relevant security arrangements across their geographies, to ensure effective coordination between relevant bodies and provisions. Given Freeports are subject to the same security regime as the rest of the UK, the purpose of these arrangements is coordination, not duplication. In Spring 2024, these coordination arrangements in all English Freeports were audited by the Freeports Security Forum and recommendations were provided to relevant Freeports, to assist them in achieving best practice on security. The government departments represented on the Freeports Security Forum include Home Office, Border Force, HMRC, the Department for Transport, HMT, the National Crime Agency and Police. There are no plans to publish individual names of attendees on the Security Forum. On 5 March 2025, the government decided not to conduct a further security audit as no new security risks associated with Freeport status, requiring further mitigation above and beyond the application of UK-wide security laws and regulations, had been identified. Risks associated with customs sites continue to be managed directly by central government through HMRC’s robust oversight arrangements. Freeports must share information on local arrangements for coordinating security activity with government upon request and the government reserves the right to audit these as required.

Communities and Local Government, if she will publish the membership of the Freeports Security Forum.

Freeport areas are subject to the same laws and regulations safeguarding security as the rest of the UK. A Freeport customs site is a secure, enclosed zone within the wider Freeport geography. All Freeport customs sites are required to obtain AEO(S) or equivalent authorisation from HMRC, an international gold standard for safety and security, and remain subject to robust ongoing oversight from HMRC. In addition to this, Freeports are required to put in place arrangements for overseeing relevant security arrangements across their geographies, to ensure effective coordination between relevant bodies and provisions. Given Freeports are subject to the same security regime as the rest of the UK, the purpose of these arrangements is coordination, not duplication. In Spring 2024, these coordination arrangements in all English Freeports were audited by the Freeports Security Forum and recommendations were provided to relevant Freeports, to assist them in achieving best practice on security. The government departments represented on the Freeports Security Forum include Home Office, Border Force, HMRC, the Department for Transport, HMT, the National Crime Agency and Police. There are no plans to publish individual names of attendees on the Security Forum. On 5 March 2025, the government decided not to conduct a further security audit as no new security risks associated with Freeport status, requiring further mitigation above and beyond the application of UK-wide security laws and regulations, had been identified. Risks associated with customs sites continue to be managed directly by central government through HMRC’s robust oversight arrangements. Freeports must share information on local arrangements for coordinating security activity with government upon request and the government reserves the right to audit these as required.

Communities and Local Government, what discussions she has had with each Freeport Governing Body on their engagement with local security stakeholders.

Freeport areas are subject to the same laws and regulations safeguarding security as the rest of the UK. A Freeport customs site is a secure, enclosed zone within the wider Freeport geography. All Freeport customs sites are required to obtain AEO(S) or equivalent authorisation from HMRC, an international gold standard for safety and security, and remain subject to robust ongoing oversight from HMRC. In addition to this, Freeports are required to put in place arrangements for overseeing relevant security arrangements across their geographies, to ensure effective coordination between relevant bodies and provisions. Given Freeports are subject to the same security regime as the rest of the UK, the purpose of these arrangements is coordination, not duplication. In Spring 2024, these coordination arrangements in all English Freeports were audited by the Freeports Security Forum and recommendations were provided to relevant Freeports, to assist them in achieving best practice on security. The government departments represented on the Freeports Security Forum include Home Office, Border Force, HMRC, the Department for Transport, HMT, the National Crime Agency and Police. There are no plans to publish individual names of attendees on the Security Forum. On 5 March 2025, the government decided not to conduct a further security audit as no new security risks associated with Freeport status, requiring further mitigation above and beyond the application of UK-wide security laws and regulations, had been identified. Risks associated with customs sites continue to be managed directly by central government through HMRC’s robust oversight arrangements. Freeports must share information on local arrangements for coordinating security activity with government upon request and the government reserves the right to audit these as required.

Communities and Local Government, whether (a) the Freeports Security Forum and (b) any other government body has intervened where a Freeport has (i) underperformed, (ii) become non-compliant with regulations, (iii) presented a security risk and (iv) could not demonstrate robust stewardship of public money.

Freeport areas are subject to the same laws and regulations safeguarding security as the rest of the UK. A Freeport customs site is a secure, enclosed zone within the wider Freeport geography. All Freeport customs sites are required to obtain AEO(S) or equivalent authorisation from HMRC, an international gold standard for safety and security, and remain subject to robust ongoing oversight from HMRC. In addition to this, Freeports are required to put in place arrangements for overseeing relevant security arrangements across their geographies, to ensure effective coordination between relevant bodies and provisions. Given Freeports are subject to the same security regime as the rest of the UK, the purpose of these arrangements is coordination, not duplication. In Spring 2024, these coordination arrangements in all English Freeports were audited by the Freeports Security Forum and recommendations were provided to relevant Freeports, to assist them in achieving best practice on security. The government departments represented on the Freeports Security Forum include Home Office, Border Force, HMRC, the Department for Transport, HMT, the National Crime Agency and Police. There are no plans to publish individual names of attendees on the Security Forum. On 5 March 2025, the government decided not to conduct a further security audit as no new security risks associated with Freeport status, requiring further mitigation above and beyond the application of UK-wide security laws and regulations, had been identified. Risks associated with customs sites continue to be managed directly by central government through HMRC’s robust oversight arrangements. Freeports must share information on local arrangements for coordinating security activity with government upon request and the government reserves the right to audit these as required.

What steps his Department is taking to increase the number of paramedic prescribers.

The Department remains committed to exploring the extension of medicine responsibilities for non-medical professionals, where it is safe and appropriate to do so. This will support the aim that patients are cared for, and treated by, the most appropriate healthcare professional to meet their needs.Many regulated healthcare professionals have already received extended medicine responsibilities and prescribing rights, and the Department is committed to assessing the impact that these changes have had on patient care. No specific assessment of the impact of the Misuse of Drugs (England, Wales, and Scotland) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulation 2023 has been made so far. The Department is progressing with work to better understand the uptake of current medicine responsibilities, including prescribing responsibilities, for professions such as paramedics.There is a process in place for making changes to prescribing responsibilities to ensure proposals are safe and beneficial for patients. The Department is carefully considering proposals for the extension of such responsibilities to a range of healthcare professionals, and will review outstanding requests as quickly as possible.

Whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of bringing forward legislative proposals to expand prescribing rights for controlled drugs by paramedic prescribers.

The Department remains committed to exploring the extension of medicine responsibilities for non-medical professionals, where it is safe and appropriate to do so. This will support the aim that patients are cared for, and treated by, the most appropriate healthcare professional to meet their needs.Many regulated healthcare professionals have already received extended medicine responsibilities and prescribing rights, and the Department is committed to assessing the impact that these changes have had on patient care. No specific assessment of the impact of the Misuse of Drugs (England, Wales, and Scotland) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulation 2023 has been made so far. The Department is progressing with work to better understand the uptake of current medicine responsibilities, including prescribing responsibilities, for professions such as paramedics.There is a process in place for making changes to prescribing responsibilities to ensure proposals are safe and beneficial for patients. The Department is carefully considering proposals for the extension of such responsibilities to a range of healthcare professionals, and will review outstanding requests as quickly as possible.