Every parliamentary written question tabled by Bob Blackman this session, with the full answer and department. Back to the MP page.
Showing 81–100 of 258 · this parliament
How many referrals Immigration Enforcement has received from (i) local authorities and (ii) police forces regarding rough sleeping by non-UK nationals.
The information requested is not centrally held and could only be collected and verified for the purpose of answering this question at disproportionate cost.
How many non-UK nationals have been removed from the UK following a decision under paragraphs SUI 26.1 or SUI 26.2 of Part Suitability of the Immigration Rules.
This information could only be collected and verified for the purpose of answering this question at disproportionate cost.
What the nationality breakdown was of people subject to decisions under paragraphs SUI 26.1 and SUI 26.2 of the Part Suitability of the Immigration Rules in each year since 1 December 2020.
This information could only be collected and verified for the purpose of answering this question at disproportionate cost.
How many non-UK nationals have had their permission to stay refused or cancelled under paragraphs SUI 26.1 and SUI 26.2 of Part Suitability of the Immigration Rules on the grounds of rough sleeping.
This information could only be collected and verified for the purpose of answering this question at disproportionate cost.
What estimate she made of the cost to her Department of implementing the digital ID scheme since September 2024.
Costs in this Spending Review period will be met within the existing Spending Review settlement.
What steps he has taken to ensure that people who have brought forward cases relating to the unsafe prescription of sodium valproate are not denied access to justice due to their (a) cases being complex and (b) disability.
NHS Resolution (NHSR) is the body that manages clinical negligence and other claims against the National Health Service in England, and a full list of their clinical schemes can be found at the following link:https://resolution.nhs.uk/services/claims-management/clinical-schemes/NHSR has published in their most recent Annual Report and Accounts, for 2024/25, that they offer simplified processes for vaginal mesh claims and sodium valproate claims to be reported to them by unrepresented claimants. They refer to these simplified processes as gateways. Further details can be found on page 41 of their NHS Resolution Annual report and accounts 2024/25, at the following link:https://resolution.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/NHS-Resolution-ARA-24-25_ACCESSIBLE.pdf
What discussions he has had with his international counterparts on the relevance of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to individuals harmed by sodium valproate.
My Rt Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, has not had specific discussions with international counterparts regarding the relevance of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to individuals harmed by sodium valproate. Our focus remains on improving the safety of sodium valproate, so it is not used for women or girls of childbearing potential unless a pregnancy prevention plan is in place and other treatments are ineffective or not tolerated. The Government is also carefully considering the recommendations made by the Patient Safety Commissioner in The Hughes Report, which sets out options for redress for those harmed by valproate.
What information his Department holds on the withdrawal of legal aid certificates in litigation cases relating to harm caused by sodium valproate; and whether people involved in such cases were aware of the availability of Exceptional Case Funding.
Legal aid was granted in respect of a multi-party action product liability dispute under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 against Sanofi, the manufacturers of Epilim, a sodium valproate containing medication. The availability of legal aid in connection with this matter was subject to a means and merits test. Legal aid funding was subsequently withdrawn on the basis that the case no longer met the merits test because the prospects of success in the case were assessed as being poor. This determination was subject to an appeal before the Special Cases Review Panel, a panel consisting of independent lawyers, in October 2010. When determining whether legal aid should be withdrawn all relevant factors were taken into account. The assessment of long-term care needs following a withdrawal of legal aid is not a process that is part of the legal aid scheme and there is no statutory provision which requires or envisions this happening. At the material time the Legal Services Commission (LSC), an executive non-departmental public body of the Ministry of Justice, was responsible for the operational administration of the legal aid scheme. Decisions about funding in individual cases were made independently in accordance with the statutory framework in place. At the relevant time this would have included the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the Funding Code Criteria and Guidance. Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) would not have been available for this matter as the case was in scope of legal aid under the Access to Justice Act 1999. In 2013, the LSC was replaced by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice, created by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Under LASPO, the scope of civil legal services funded under legal aid was significantly reduced. ECF as provided for under s.10 LASPO allows legal aid to be granted in respect of cases which fall outside the scope of civil legal aid services where it can be shown that, without legal aid, there would be a breach or a risk of a breach of the individual’s human rights or assimilated enforceable EU rights. However, as with in-scope legal aid eligibility is subject to a financial eligibility test and a legal merits test, including where appropriate, the prospect of success test. The nature and availability of ECF is published on GOV.UK and the LAA publishes detailed guidance on how to apply for ECF Legal aid: apply for exceptional case funding - GOV.UK. All solicitors have an obligation in accordance with professional body rules to advise clients about funding options available including legal aid whether provided as in-scope funding or ECF. The independence of decision making in individual cases under LASPO was preserved by the creation of the statutory role of the Director of Legal Aid Casework. The Lord Chancellor may not issue directions or guidance in relation to an individual case. It is this separation that enables the LAA to make decisions without influence from the Ministry of Justice or from Ministers. This is an important part of the legal aid system and ensuring access to justice. All applications for legal aid, whether in-scope or ECF, are considered on a case-by-case basis against the statutory framework and any applicable general guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor. Legal aid will be granted in all cases where the appropriate eligibility criteria are met.
Whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of making Exceptional Case Funding available to women and families on their legal cases relating to harm caused by sodium valproate.
Legal aid was granted in respect of a multi-party action product liability dispute under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 against Sanofi, the manufacturers of Epilim, a sodium valproate containing medication. The availability of legal aid in connection with this matter was subject to a means and merits test. Legal aid funding was subsequently withdrawn on the basis that the case no longer met the merits test because the prospects of success in the case were assessed as being poor. This determination was subject to an appeal before the Special Cases Review Panel, a panel consisting of independent lawyers, in October 2010. When determining whether legal aid should be withdrawn all relevant factors were taken into account. The assessment of long-term care needs following a withdrawal of legal aid is not a process that is part of the legal aid scheme and there is no statutory provision which requires or envisions this happening. At the material time the Legal Services Commission (LSC), an executive non-departmental public body of the Ministry of Justice, was responsible for the operational administration of the legal aid scheme. Decisions about funding in individual cases were made independently in accordance with the statutory framework in place. At the relevant time this would have included the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the Funding Code Criteria and Guidance. Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) would not have been available for this matter as the case was in scope of legal aid under the Access to Justice Act 1999. In 2013, the LSC was replaced by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice, created by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Under LASPO, the scope of civil legal services funded under legal aid was significantly reduced. ECF as provided for under s.10 LASPO allows legal aid to be granted in respect of cases which fall outside the scope of civil legal aid services where it can be shown that, without legal aid, there would be a breach or a risk of a breach of the individual’s human rights or assimilated enforceable EU rights. However, as with in-scope legal aid eligibility is subject to a financial eligibility test and a legal merits test, including where appropriate, the prospect of success test. The nature and availability of ECF is published on GOV.UK and the LAA publishes detailed guidance on how to apply for ECF Legal aid: apply for exceptional case funding - GOV.UK. All solicitors have an obligation in accordance with professional body rules to advise clients about funding options available including legal aid whether provided as in-scope funding or ECF. The independence of decision making in individual cases under LASPO was preserved by the creation of the statutory role of the Director of Legal Aid Casework. The Lord Chancellor may not issue directions or guidance in relation to an individual case. It is this separation that enables the LAA to make decisions without influence from the Ministry of Justice or from Ministers. This is an important part of the legal aid system and ensuring access to justice. All applications for legal aid, whether in-scope or ECF, are considered on a case-by-case basis against the statutory framework and any applicable general guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor. Legal aid will be granted in all cases where the appropriate eligibility criteria are met.
What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the withdrawal of legal aid in cases involving sodium valproate on the long-term care needs on people who have brought such cases forward.
Legal aid was granted in respect of a multi-party action product liability dispute under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 against Sanofi, the manufacturers of Epilim, a sodium valproate containing medication. The availability of legal aid in connection with this matter was subject to a means and merits test. Legal aid funding was subsequently withdrawn on the basis that the case no longer met the merits test because the prospects of success in the case were assessed as being poor. This determination was subject to an appeal before the Special Cases Review Panel, a panel consisting of independent lawyers, in October 2010. When determining whether legal aid should be withdrawn all relevant factors were taken into account. The assessment of long-term care needs following a withdrawal of legal aid is not a process that is part of the legal aid scheme and there is no statutory provision which requires or envisions this happening. At the material time the Legal Services Commission (LSC), an executive non-departmental public body of the Ministry of Justice, was responsible for the operational administration of the legal aid scheme. Decisions about funding in individual cases were made independently in accordance with the statutory framework in place. At the relevant time this would have included the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the Funding Code Criteria and Guidance. Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) would not have been available for this matter as the case was in scope of legal aid under the Access to Justice Act 1999. In 2013, the LSC was replaced by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice, created by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Under LASPO, the scope of civil legal services funded under legal aid was significantly reduced. ECF as provided for under s.10 LASPO allows legal aid to be granted in respect of cases which fall outside the scope of civil legal aid services where it can be shown that, without legal aid, there would be a breach or a risk of a breach of the individual’s human rights or assimilated enforceable EU rights. However, as with in-scope legal aid eligibility is subject to a financial eligibility test and a legal merits test, including where appropriate, the prospect of success test. The nature and availability of ECF is published on GOV.UK and the LAA publishes detailed guidance on how to apply for ECF Legal aid: apply for exceptional case funding - GOV.UK. All solicitors have an obligation in accordance with professional body rules to advise clients about funding options available including legal aid whether provided as in-scope funding or ECF. The independence of decision making in individual cases under LASPO was preserved by the creation of the statutory role of the Director of Legal Aid Casework. The Lord Chancellor may not issue directions or guidance in relation to an individual case. It is this separation that enables the LAA to make decisions without influence from the Ministry of Justice or from Ministers. This is an important part of the legal aid system and ensuring access to justice. All applications for legal aid, whether in-scope or ECF, are considered on a case-by-case basis against the statutory framework and any applicable general guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor. Legal aid will be granted in all cases where the appropriate eligibility criteria are met.
What steps he has taken to reduce the level of incorrect Personal Independence Payment decisions for people with disabilities resulting from sodium valproate.
It is our aim to make the right decision as early as possible in the claim journey. To support this, we have made improvements to our decision-making processes to help ensure people get the support they are entitled to without needing to appeal. This includes giving Decision Makers additional time to proactively contact customers if they think additional evidence may support the claim.
What assessment he has made of the adequacy of payments received by unpaid carers for people harmed by sodium valproate.
People in Great Britain who provide unpaid care of 35 hours a week or more can receive financial support from the benefit system through Universal Credit (UC) or Pension Credit (PC). Carer’s Allowance (CA) is also available to those in England and Wales. UC and PC are means-tested and include additional amounts for carers worth around £2,400 a year. CA is not means-tested and is worth around £4,300 a year.Payments to the unpaid carer are linked to the extra costs disability benefit received by the person with care needs. This is most commonly the Daily Living Component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP), the middle or highest rate Care Component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Attendance Allowance (AA), or the equivalent rates of Child Disability Payment, Adult Disability Payment, Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance or Pension Age Disability Payment in Scotland. Receipt of PIP, DLA or AA is based on functional ability, rather than the health condition or disability itself. Individuals can be affected in different ways by the same condition, and so the outcome of a PIP claim from somebody harmed by sodium valproate would depend on individual circumstances. The amount of the carer additions in UC and PC, and the rate of CA, do not depend on the reason that the extra costs disability benefit is in payment.
Whether Personal Independence Payment assessors receive specialist training on disabilities caused by sodium valproate.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is committed to ensuring that individuals with disabilities caused by sodium valproate receive high-quality, objective, and accurate assessments. Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessments are functional assessments designed to evaluate how an individual’s health conditions or impairments affect their ability to carry out daily living activities and mobility. Health professionals (HPs) conducting these assessments are trained specialists in disability analysis, focusing on understanding the functional impact of a claimant’s condition rather than its clinical diagnosis. DWP does not require HPs to be specialists in the specific medical conditions or impairments of those they assess. Additionally, HPs have access to Condition Insight Reports and Continuing Professional Development guides. These resources offer detailed clinical and functional information on a range of conditions, including disabilities cause by sodium valproate such as, Fetal Valproate Spectrum Disorder (FVSD), to support HPs in delivering informed assessments.
Whether disabled young carers in families affected by sodium valproate-related harm are being (a) identified and (b) supported within the education system.
We know that families with children with disabilities, including those affected by sodium valproate harm and where the children may be caring for other family members, are crying out for change.The department’s upcoming full Schools White Paper will build on the work we have already done to create a system that is rooted in inclusion, where children receive high-quality support early on and can thrive at their local school. This work includes the new standards on inclusion introduced by Ofsted in their new education inspection framework last November, and we are pleased to note that the needs of pupils with disabilities and those who are young carers are fully recognised in the inspection toolkit for the new framework.Schools are also required to identify and record all pupils who are young carers on the school census regardless of the reason they may be providing care for family members.
What steps he is taking with the Minister for the Cabinet Office to help tackle the harm caused by sodium valproate to (a) women with epilepsy and (b) their families.
Everyone who has been harmed from sodium valproate has our deepest sympathies.Action has been taken to minimise the risk associated with valproate to women with epilepsy, and their families. This includes the valproate Pregnancy Prevention Programme, which ensures that women and girls taking valproate understand the potential risks should they become pregnant, are using effective contraception, and are regularly monitored. Further measures introduced in 2024 mean valproate must not be started in new patients, either male or female, younger than 55 years old, unless two specialists independently consider and document that there is no other effective or tolerated treatment, or there are compelling reasons that the reproductive risks do not apply.The Government is also carefully considering the Patient Safety Commissioner’s recommendations made in The Hughes Report, which includes proposed approaches to redress for those harmed by sodium valproate. This work requires coordinated input from several departments, and we will provide a further update in due course.
What assessment he has made of the potential merits of providing financial compensation to people harmed by sodium valproate by using the same compensation process as for thalidomide survivors.
The Department’s consideration of the Hughes Report’s recommendations for redress for those harmed by sodium valproate will include comparison with the compensation process for thalidomide survivors. However, this is a complex, cross-Government policy area involving multiple organisations. This work requires coordinated input from several departments, and we will provide a further update in due course.I met with the Patient Safety Commissioner in December 2025, to discuss progress following the Hughes Report and made clear that the Department’s expectation of continued, proactive engagement with the Patient Safety Commissioner and key stakeholders.
What data NHS England holds on emergency admissions, emergency care and levels of unmet need among individuals harmed by sodium valproate.
The requested data is not centrally held. NHS England does not hold data on admissions or attendances that specifically identifies individuals harmed by sodium valproate.
What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of trends in the number of foreign nationals claiming Universal Credit.
Universal Credit is primarily reserved for people settled in the UK, and the Government has announced plans to increase the standard time most migrants have to wait before they can achieve settlement, from five to 10 years. This change will support the downward trend of Universal Credit claimants who are foreign nationals.
What steps his Department has taken since 2020 to implement the IMMDS Review recommendations on redress for those harmed by sodium valproate; and if he will publish a timetable for delivery.
The previous administration accepted seven of the nine recommendations of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, whether in full, in part, or in principle, including issuing an unreserved apology on behalf of the healthcare system, appointing Dr Henrietta Hughes as the first Patient Safety Commissioner for England, and establishing nine specialist mesh centres now operating across the country.This is a complex, cross Government policy area involving multiple organisations. As set out in the Hughes Report, the Government is carefully considering the Patient Safety Commissioner’s recommendations, including the proposed approaches to redress for those harmed by sodium valproate. This work requires coordinated input from several departments, and we will provide a further update in due course.I met with the Patient Safety Commissioner in December 2025, to review progress on the Hughes Report and made clear that the Department’s expectation of continued, proactive engagement with the Patient Safety Commissioner and key stakeholders.
What assessment his Department has made of the feasibility of establishing a dedicated, no-fault compensation scheme for individuals harmed by sodium valproate exposure, in the context of the recommendations of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review (2020).
The Department has not yet undertaken an assessment of the feasibility of establishing a dedicated, no-fault compensation scheme for individuals harmed by sodium valproate exposure, in the context of the recommendations of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review (IMMDS).The previous administration accepted seven of the nine recommendations of the IMMDS Review, whether in full, in part, or in principle, including issuing an unreserved apology on behalf of the healthcare system, appointing Dr Henrietta Hughes as the first Patient Safety Commissioner for England, and establishing nine specialist mesh centres now operating across the country.This is a complex, cross-Government policy area involving multiple organisations. As set out in the Hughes Report, the Government is carefully considering the Patient Safety Commissioner’s recommendations, including the proposed approaches to redress for those harmed by sodium valproate. This work requires coordinated input from several departments, and we will provide a further update in due course.I met with the Patient Safety Commissioner in December 2025, to discuss progress following the Hughes Report and made clear that the Department’s expectation of continued, proactive engagement with the Patient Safety Commissioner and key stakeholders.