Written questions by McMurdock.

What assessment she has made of the impact of High Income Child Benefit Charge on labour supply including decisions to (a) accept pay increases, (b) increase working hours and (c) return to work.

The High Income Child Benefit Charge is currently the best way to manage Child Benefit expenditure. By withdrawing Child Benefit from high-income families, it helps to ensure the sustainability of the public finances and protect our vital public services. As with all tax policy, the government will keep this under review.

What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of current school food standards in improving children’s nutritional outcomes.

The School Food Standards set the mandatory nutritional framework for food and drink provided in state‑funded schools in England. They are designed to ensure children receive the energy and nutrients they need during the school day, while giving schools flexibility to design menus that work for their pupils and local circumstances.Since the School Food Standards were introduced in 2015, evidence on sugar, fibre and childhood obesity has changed significantly and childhood obesity prevalence has increased. We are committed to raising the healthiest generation ever, so we are consulting on proposed updates to the School Food Standards in England to ensure that all food served at school, including at breakfast and lunch, better reflects current nutritional guidance and supports children’s health, wellbeing and learning. Details of the consultation are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/school-food-standards-updating-the-legislative-framework.

Media and Sport, what assessment she has made of the risk that increased regulatory checks will drive consumers to unregulated gambling markets.

The Government remains committed to supporting the Gambling Commission in their implementation of key measures in the 2023 white paper, including the introduction of Financial Risk Assessments (FRAs), which have been piloted by the Gambling Commission. The white paper recognised the “chilling effect” that asking customers for bank documents can have. This is why it set out an alternative approach to assessing financial risk which would be considerably more frictionless. The vast majority of customers will not experience friction or be asked to provide documents, should FRAs be implemented as intended by the Gambling Commission.The Gambling Commission has recently published an updated blog on its pilot findings and plans to publish the pilot data results upon its decision on implementation, as is standard practice. The pilot adheres to General Data Protection Rules with approval from the Steering Committee on Reciprocity, a cross industry forum made up of credit industry representatives.The threat posed by illegal gambling does not mean we should avoid sensible controls on licensed operators. However as stated in the White Paper, the threat of movement to the illegal market does exist. This is why we have launched the Illegal Gambling Taskforce; are working to give the Gambling Commission increased powers to support disruption and enforcement activity; and are providing £26 million of funding to the Gambling Commission over 3 years to increase their disruption activity.

Media and Sport, with reference to her Department’s press release entitled Government to unlock philanthropic investment into England’s most disadvantaged communities, published on 13 April 2026, what steps she is taking to help support local authorities in Essex to engage with the Our Place to Give initiative.

The 'Our Place to Give' plan, published on 13 April 2026, sets out actions the Government will take to increase philanthropic investment across England. It specifically targets regional disparities, as data indicates London currently receives over a third of all funding from the largest philanthropic foundations and four times the value of Gift Aid donations compared to the UK average.Departmental assessments identified several barriers preventing high-net-worth individuals from increasing their charitable giving. These include:difficulty in identifying and developing relationships with local organisations, particularly in deprived areas;limited access to information regarding the specific impact of donations;lack of integration of philanthropy into wealth planning; andchallenges effectively partnering with the Government. The plan responds to these barriers. We will convene a network of regional philanthropic ambassadors to broker better links between donors and communities, establish a working group to improve philanthropic wealth advice and have developed a toolkit for Members of Parliament to help them convene local giving opportunities.Regarding Essex, the Essex Community Foundation remains a vital partner, having awarded over £3.8 million to local causes last year. While specific trends for Essex show a strong foundation of local giving, the Department is taking steps to ensure all high-deprivation areas in the county benefit from the new national framework. Our £1 million Community of Practice support programme will be open to organisations across Essex. This funding aims to help local organisations share expertise, attract new investment, and create sustainable growth.The Department plans to monitor the outcomes of 'Our Place to Give' as part of its wider work through the Office for the Impact Economy. We will provide initial updates on the progress of the plan and the allocation of the Community of Practice funding by Summer 2026.

What the current average processing time is for probate applications; and how that compares to each of the last five years.

The Ministry of Justice publish regular data on probate timeliness and open caseload in our quarterly family court statistics bulletin: Family Court Statistics Quarterly - GOV.UK.HM Courts & Tribunals Service has invested in more staff in 2026, alongside system, process improvements and a programme of upskilling to improve the processing time for applications and maintain the low level of outstanding caseload.

What assessment he has made of the (a) financial and (b) emotional impact of probate delays on bereaved families.

The Government recognises that probate applications are made at a difficult and emotional time for bereaved families and it is important that the service is delivered as efficiently as possible.HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has significantly improved processing times, with most applications now processed within published service standards. While some cases take longer, this is often due to the complexity of the estate or where further information is required from personal representatives.There are no current plans to introduce a general compensation scheme for delays. HMCTS keeps performance continually under review and has an established complaints process to consider any concerns on a case-by-case basis.

Whether her Department collects data on storage costs incurred by businesses as a result of delays in Border Force inspections.

HMG takes a risk-based and intelligence-led approach to customs enforcement. HMRC understands the importance of consumers receiving their consignments on time and has robust procedures to help maintain the flow, whilst ensuring risks are managed. Documentary checks are the most frequent and least disruptive type of check and are often resolved within 2 hours. Clearance may take longer for physical checks, which occur less often.There are many agencies that operate at the border (including Border Force) and many reasons why goods may need to be physically examined. Whilst delays will always be kept to a minimum, should an importer believe their goods have been subject to unnecessary delay, Gov.uk publishes details of its complaint procedures. Complaints will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

What steps she is taking to support small and medium-sized enterprises affected by delays in the release of legally imported goods.

HMG takes a risk-based and intelligence-led approach to customs enforcement. HMRC understands the importance of consumers receiving their consignments on time and has robust procedures to help maintain the flow, whilst ensuring risks are managed. Documentary checks are the most frequent and least disruptive type of check and are often resolved within 2 hours. Clearance may take longer for physical checks, which occur less often.There are many agencies that operate at the border (including Border Force) and many reasons why goods may need to be physically examined. Whilst delays will always be kept to a minimum, should an importer believe their goods have been subject to unnecessary delay, Gov.uk publishes details of its complaint procedures. Complaints will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Whether recourse is available to businesses where delays in inspection result in significant financial loss.

HMG takes a risk-based and intelligence-led approach to customs enforcement. HMRC understands the importance of consumers receiving their consignments on time and has robust procedures to help maintain the flow, whilst ensuring risks are managed. Documentary checks are the most frequent and least disruptive type of check and are often resolved within 2 hours. Clearance may take longer for physical checks, which occur less often.There are many agencies that operate at the border (including Border Force) and many reasons why goods may need to be physically examined. Whilst delays will always be kept to a minimum, should an importer believe their goods have been subject to unnecessary delay, Gov.uk publishes details of its complaint procedures. Complaints will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Whether she has had discussions with the Student Loans Company on its approval of funding for courses later deemed ineligible.

As part of the department’s wider work to protect public money in higher education, we take swift and proportionate action to identify fraud and error in the student finance system.We work closely with the Student Loans Company (SLC) to ensure student finance is delivered in line with statutory eligibility requirements and funding rules set by Ministers. Where courses are found to be ineligible, the department actively engages with the SLC to implement the appropriate actions in accordance with established processes.The government recognises the importance of minimising disruption to students where errors in funding eligibility occur and will carefully consider the impact on affected students.

Whether she plans to introduce transitional protections for students already enrolled on courses affected by changes to funding eligibility.

As part of the department’s wider work to protect public money in higher education, we take swift and proportionate action to identify fraud and error in the student finance system.We work closely with the Student Loans Company (SLC) to ensure student finance is delivered in line with statutory eligibility requirements and funding rules set by Ministers. Where courses are found to be ineligible, the department actively engages with the SLC to implement the appropriate actions in accordance with established processes.The government recognises the importance of minimising disruption to students where errors in funding eligibility occur and will carefully consider the impact on affected students.

What mechanisms are in place for importers to escalate cases where delays risk significant commercial loss.

HMG takes a risk-based and intelligence-led approach to customs enforcement. HMRC understands the importance of consumers receiving their consignments on time and has robust procedures to help maintain the flow, whilst ensuring risks are managed. Documentary checks are the most frequent and least disruptive type of check and are often resolved within 2 hours. Clearance may take longer for physical checks, which occur less often.There are many agencies that operate at the border (including Border Force) and many reasons why goods may need to be physically examined. Whilst delays will always be kept to a minimum, should an importer believe their goods have been subject to unnecessary delay, Gov.uk publishes details of its complaint procedures. Complaints will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

What assessment she has made of the potential impact of delays in container inspections on importers, including (a) storage charges and (b) sales.

HMG takes a risk-based and intelligence-led approach to customs enforcement. HMRC understands the importance of consumers receiving their consignments on time and has robust procedures to help maintain the flow, whilst ensuring risks are managed. Documentary checks are the most frequent and least disruptive type of check and are often resolved within 2 hours. Clearance may take longer for physical checks, which occur less often.There are many agencies that operate at the border (including Border Force) and many reasons why goods may need to be physically examined. Whilst delays will always be kept to a minimum, should an importer believe their goods have been subject to unnecessary delay, Gov.uk publishes details of its complaint procedures. Complaints will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

What contingency plans are in place to help tackle surges in inspection demand at ports.

Border Force operates a risk‑based approach to container security, focusing resources on identifying and intervening against higher‑risk movements of goods rather than physically inspecting all shipping containers entering the UK.The Home Office does not hold centrally aggregated or routinely collated data on:the number or proportion of shipping containers physically inspected;the duration of container examinations or their impact on port processing times; orBorder Force staffing levels specifically dedicated to container examinations.It is therefore not possible to provide figures for the last three years on inspections, inspection times, staffing, or breach rates.Border Force uses a range of risk‑based targeting systems to identify containers for intervention. The primary system for risking shipping containers is the Advanced Freight Targeting Capability – Shipping Containers (AFTC‑SC) platform. This capability is supported by intelligence and information from across government, including law‑enforcement partners, international partners, and other relevant government and commercial sources.Container screening is supported by non‑intrusive inspection technology, including high‑energy X‑ray imaging. Where containers are selected for further examination, Border Force officers may also deploy specialist capabilities, including detector dogs and technical detection equipment.Border Force works closely with port operators and partner agencies to ensure that security interventions are delivered effectively while minimising disruption to legitimate trade. The Department keeps its approach under regular review to ensure that it remains proportionate and effective. The effectiveness of this intelligence‑led approach is reflected in publicly reported Border Force enforcement outcomes.

How many containers are awaiting inspection at London Gateway Port.

Border Force operates a risk‑based approach to container security, focusing resources on identifying and intervening against higher‑risk movements of goods rather than physically inspecting all shipping containers entering the UK.The Home Office does not hold centrally aggregated or routinely collated data on:the number or proportion of shipping containers physically inspected;the duration of container examinations or their impact on port processing times; orBorder Force staffing levels specifically dedicated to container examinations.It is therefore not possible to provide figures for the last three years on inspections, inspection times, staffing, or breach rates.Border Force uses a range of risk‑based targeting systems to identify containers for intervention. The primary system for risking shipping containers is the Advanced Freight Targeting Capability – Shipping Containers (AFTC‑SC) platform. This capability is supported by intelligence and information from across government, including law‑enforcement partners, international partners, and other relevant government and commercial sources.Container screening is supported by non‑intrusive inspection technology, including high‑energy X‑ray imaging. Where containers are selected for further examination, Border Force officers may also deploy specialist capabilities, including detector dogs and technical detection equipment.Border Force works closely with port operators and partner agencies to ensure that security interventions are delivered effectively while minimising disruption to legitimate trade. The Department keeps its approach under regular review to ensure that it remains proportionate and effective. The effectiveness of this intelligence‑led approach is reflected in publicly reported Border Force enforcement outcomes.

How containers awaiting inspection are prioritised, including whether perishable or time-sensitive goods are given priority.

Border Force operates a risk‑based approach to container security, focusing resources on identifying and intervening against higher‑risk movements of goods rather than physically inspecting all shipping containers entering the UK.The Home Office does not hold centrally aggregated or routinely collated data on:the number or proportion of shipping containers physically inspected;the duration of container examinations or their impact on port processing times; orBorder Force staffing levels specifically dedicated to container examinations.It is therefore not possible to provide figures for the last three years on inspections, inspection times, staffing, or breach rates.Border Force uses a range of risk‑based targeting systems to identify containers for intervention. The primary system for risking shipping containers is the Advanced Freight Targeting Capability – Shipping Containers (AFTC‑SC) platform. This capability is supported by intelligence and information from across government, including law‑enforcement partners, international partners, and other relevant government and commercial sources.Container screening is supported by non‑intrusive inspection technology, including high‑energy X‑ray imaging. Where containers are selected for further examination, Border Force officers may also deploy specialist capabilities, including detector dogs and technical detection equipment.Border Force works closely with port operators and partner agencies to ensure that security interventions are delivered effectively while minimising disruption to legitimate trade. The Department keeps its approach under regular review to ensure that it remains proportionate and effective. The effectiveness of this intelligence‑led approach is reflected in publicly reported Border Force enforcement outcomes.

What the average waiting time is for a container inspection at London Gateway Port.

Border Force operates a risk‑based approach to container security, focusing resources on identifying and intervening against higher‑risk movements of goods rather than physically inspecting all shipping containers entering the UK.The Home Office does not hold centrally aggregated or routinely collated data on:the number or proportion of shipping containers physically inspected;the duration of container examinations or their impact on port processing times; orBorder Force staffing levels specifically dedicated to container examinations.It is therefore not possible to provide figures for the last three years on inspections, inspection times, staffing, or breach rates.Border Force uses a range of risk‑based targeting systems to identify containers for intervention. The primary system for risking shipping containers is the Advanced Freight Targeting Capability – Shipping Containers (AFTC‑SC) platform. This capability is supported by intelligence and information from across government, including law‑enforcement partners, international partners, and other relevant government and commercial sources.Container screening is supported by non‑intrusive inspection technology, including high‑energy X‑ray imaging. Where containers are selected for further examination, Border Force officers may also deploy specialist capabilities, including detector dogs and technical detection equipment.Border Force works closely with port operators and partner agencies to ensure that security interventions are delivered effectively while minimising disruption to legitimate trade. The Department keeps its approach under regular review to ensure that it remains proportionate and effective. The effectiveness of this intelligence‑led approach is reflected in publicly reported Border Force enforcement outcomes.

Whether her Department plans to increase the proportion of containers inspected.

Border Force operates a risk‑based approach to container security, focusing resources on identifying and intervening against higher‑risk movements of goods rather than physically inspecting all shipping containers entering the UK.The Home Office does not hold centrally aggregated or routinely collated data on:the number or proportion of shipping containers physically inspected;the duration of container examinations or their impact on port processing times; orBorder Force staffing levels specifically dedicated to container examinations.It is therefore not possible to provide figures for the last three years on inspections, inspection times, staffing, or breach rates.Border Force uses a range of risk‑based targeting systems to identify containers for intervention. The primary system for risking shipping containers is the Advanced Freight Targeting Capability – Shipping Containers (AFTC‑SC) platform. This capability is supported by intelligence and information from across government, including law‑enforcement partners, international partners, and other relevant government and commercial sources.Container screening is supported by non‑intrusive inspection technology, including high‑energy X‑ray imaging. Where containers are selected for further examination, Border Force officers may also deploy specialist capabilities, including detector dogs and technical detection equipment.Border Force works closely with port operators and partner agencies to ensure that security interventions are delivered effectively while minimising disruption to legitimate trade. The Department keeps its approach under regular review to ensure that it remains proportionate and effective. The effectiveness of this intelligence‑led approach is reflected in publicly reported Border Force enforcement outcomes.

What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of risk-based targeting in identifying non-compliant or high-risk shipments.

Border Force operates a risk‑based approach to container security, focusing resources on identifying and intervening against higher‑risk movements of goods rather than physically inspecting all shipping containers entering the UK.The Home Office does not hold centrally aggregated or routinely collated data on:the number or proportion of shipping containers physically inspected;the duration of container examinations or their impact on port processing times; orBorder Force staffing levels specifically dedicated to container examinations.It is therefore not possible to provide figures for the last three years on inspections, inspection times, staffing, or breach rates.Border Force uses a range of risk‑based targeting systems to identify containers for intervention. The primary system for risking shipping containers is the Advanced Freight Targeting Capability – Shipping Containers (AFTC‑SC) platform. This capability is supported by intelligence and information from across government, including law‑enforcement partners, international partners, and other relevant government and commercial sources.Container screening is supported by non‑intrusive inspection technology, including high‑energy X‑ray imaging. Where containers are selected for further examination, Border Force officers may also deploy specialist capabilities, including detector dogs and technical detection equipment.Border Force works closely with port operators and partner agencies to ensure that security interventions are delivered effectively while minimising disruption to legitimate trade. The Department keeps its approach under regular review to ensure that it remains proportionate and effective. The effectiveness of this intelligence‑led approach is reflected in publicly reported Border Force enforcement outcomes.

What information is provided to importers on the expected timeframe for inspection of their containers.

Border Force operates a risk‑based approach to container security, focusing resources on identifying and intervening against higher‑risk movements of goods rather than physically inspecting all shipping containers entering the UK.The Home Office does not hold centrally aggregated or routinely collated data on:the number or proportion of shipping containers physically inspected;the duration of container examinations or their impact on port processing times; orBorder Force staffing levels specifically dedicated to container examinations.It is therefore not possible to provide figures for the last three years on inspections, inspection times, staffing, or breach rates.Border Force uses a range of risk‑based targeting systems to identify containers for intervention. The primary system for risking shipping containers is the Advanced Freight Targeting Capability – Shipping Containers (AFTC‑SC) platform. This capability is supported by intelligence and information from across government, including law‑enforcement partners, international partners, and other relevant government and commercial sources.Container screening is supported by non‑intrusive inspection technology, including high‑energy X‑ray imaging. Where containers are selected for further examination, Border Force officers may also deploy specialist capabilities, including detector dogs and technical detection equipment.Border Force works closely with port operators and partner agencies to ensure that security interventions are delivered effectively while minimising disruption to legitimate trade. The Department keeps its approach under regular review to ensure that it remains proportionate and effective. The effectiveness of this intelligence‑led approach is reflected in publicly reported Border Force enforcement outcomes.