Written questions by McMurdock.

What the backlog is for EU Settlement Scheme applications and reviews.

Processing times for the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) are available on EU Settlement Scheme: current estimated processing times for applications - GOV.UK The latest published data on EUSS applications is contained within the ‘Immigration System Statistics Quarterly Release’ The most recent statistics relate to the year ending 30 September 2025. A total of 8,662,309 EUSS applications had been submitted, and 8,550,572 applications had been concluded. This equates to 98.7% of all EUSS applications submitted by the end of September 2025 having been concluded.The information requested for administrative reviews made against EUSS application decisions is not currently available from published statistics and the relevant data could only be collated and verified for the purpose of answering this question at disproportionate cost.

Communities and Local Government, whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential impact of deferring local elections on the number of candidates standing for future elections in those areas.

We have not made such an assessment. It is only right that we listen to councils who are expressing concerns about their capacity to deliver a smooth and safe transition to new councils, alongside running resource-intensive elections to councils who may be shortly abolished. The Secretary of State has asked councils to set out their views on the postponement of their local elections and is minded to only make an Order to postpone elections for one year for those councils who raise capacity concerns. Previous governments have postponed local elections in areas contemplating and undergoing local government reorganisation to allow councils to focus their time and energy on the process.

Innovation and Technology, how many cyber-attacks he estimates have been conducted against One Login in the past three years.

The Government does not routinely comment on operational security matters.

What representations he has received from (a) Thurrock, (b) Basildon, (c) Essex County Council and (d) other south Essex councils requesting financial support to improve the strategic road network in (i) South Basildon and East Thurrock constituency and (ii) Essex.

Essex County Council, Colchester City Council, Chelmsford City Council, Braintree District Council, Tendring District Council, Maldon District Council and Brentwood Borough Council wrote to the Secretary of State about the benefits of the A12 (Chelmsford to A120) widening scheme, and the role it could potentially have played in any future upgrade of the A120 from Braintree to Marks Tey. However, as announced on 8 July 2025, this Government inherited a series of commitments that could not be afforded, therefore the Secretary of State had to take the difficult decision not to progress the A12 widening scheme. The Department will continue to work with National Highways and relevant partners to explore potential small-scale interventions that could address issues on the A12 to support housing growth.

What proportion of payments under Private Finance Initiative contracts in the last financial year related to (a) capital repayment, (b) interest and (c) service charges.

The Government’s preferred financing model for any type of infrastructure project is the one that offers the best value for money. Proposals are appraised on a case-by-case basis using the Green Book. Public sector contracting authorities directly manage Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts and are responsible for monitoring and managing their respective contracts to ensure value for money. Since 2020, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), formerly Infrastructure and Projects Authority, has provided advice and training directly to contracting authorities to support them in navigating issues relating to PFI projects (operational and expiry-related). PFI payments are made by “unitary charge”, which are not broken down by underlying cost drivers. Therefore, the proportion of payments that are (a) capital repayment, (b) interest and (c) service charges is not readily available, nor is data on costs which have arisen because of inflation and indexing. Data on PFI and PF2 projects can be found at the following weblink: PFI and PF2 projects: 2024 Summary Data - GOV.UK

What plans his Department has to improve cyber security infrastructure.

Cyber attacks against the UK are increasing in scale and impact. The National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) categorises cyber incidents that have a substantial impact on the national security, the economy, or critical infrastructure as ‘nationally significant incidents’. In the 12 months to August 2023, 62 nationally significant incidents were recorded. This increased to 89 in 2024, and further rose to 204 in 2025. NCSC’s Annual Review provides further information on cyber incidents and trends. On improving the cyber security of national infrastructure, I refer to my answer for UIN 906730, debated on 4 December 2025. The Government is committed to strengthening cyber security across the UK. The recently introduced Cyber Security and Resilience Bill will strengthen the UK’s cyber defences and ensure that critical infrastructure and the digital services on which companies rely are secure.

Communities and Local Government, what steps the Government is taking to support churches which have been damaged through criminal activity.

All forms of racial and religious discrimination are completely unacceptable, including that directed at Christians and Christian places of worship. Churches occupy a valuable position in society through their access to citizens, their role within local communities and their good relationships with other faith groups and this Government is committed to protecting individuals' right to practise their religion freely at their chosen place of worship, and to making our streets and communities safer. The Government has extended the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme for 2025/26, which gives grants towards VAT paid on repairs and renovations to the nation's listed sites of worship across the UK, which includes churches. Churches are also eligible for funded protective security measures through the Places of Worship Protective Security Scheme. This scheme offers physical security enhancements, such as CCTV, intruder alarms and secure perimeter fencing. Crimes against churches can already be recorded as hate crimes. Any religiously aggravated criminal damage is an offence under section 30 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, carrying a higher maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. An offence is considered religiously aggravated, if at or around the time of committing the offence, the offender demonstrates hostility towards a religious group, therefore, including any crimes against churches.

Whether her Department had discussions with the University of Essex prior to its announcement to close its Southend Campus.

The Office for Students (OfS), as regulator of the English higher education (HE) sector, is working with the University of Essex to ensure plans are in place to protect students and maintain learning continuity following the Southend campus closure. There is further work to be done by the OfS and the University to support students less able to move to other campuses. The department is monitoring the situation and is aware of concerns about local students’ access to HE provision. HE providers are responsible for managing their own finances and we expect them to take appropriate and necessary decisions to ensure their long-term sustainability. As we stated in the Post-16 education and skills white paper, we expect to see more consolidation and formal collaboration in the sector. This will help institutions be stronger and more financially sustainable, and provision might expand in areas currently under-served. As HE providers are independent, the government is not involved in workforce matters in the same way that it is in other education sectors. ​While the government understands that HE providers must make difficult business decisions to safeguard their financial sustainability, we encourage providers to work with their staff and with trade unions to develop sustainable models that retain talent and expertise and provide stability for the workforce and the institution. All efficiency measures taken by the sector should provide a better long-term future for staff, students and the country. The government welcomes international students who meet the requirements to study in the UK. Indeed, UK HE providers received an estimated £12.1 billion in tuition fee income from international students in the 2023/24 academic year, which supported the provision of places for domestic students as well as research and development. However, the OfS has identified reliance on international student fee income as a risk to HE providers’ sustainability. It has been clear that some providers may need to change their business models to protect their financial health, as a response to this risk and others.

Communities and Local Government, what representations he has received from Southend Council regarding the preferred restructuring of Essex councils.

Basildon Borough Council, Castle Point Council, Essex County Council, Rochford Council, Southend-on-Sea Council and Thurrock Council, together with 9 other councils in Essex, submitted four proposals for unitary local government in Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock.Southend-on-Sea City Council, Chelmsford City Council, Basildon Borough Council, Brentwood Borough Council, Castle Point Borough Council, Colchester City Council, Harlow District Council, Maldon District Council, Tendring District Council and Uttlesford District Council proposed 5 unitary councils.Essex County Council, Braintree District Council and Epping Forest District Council proposed 3 unitary councils.Rochford District Council proposed 4 unitary councils.Thurrock Council proposed a different 4 unitary councils.The 15 principal councils collectively wrote to the department to state that whilst there was no consensus on one proposal, there was collective agreement that regardless of the final decision, all partners are committed to working together to ensure that whichever model is selected is delivered in the best possible way.The 15 principal councils in the area were invited to respond to the statutory consultation on the four proposals, which closed on 11 January. The House will be updated in due course on the outcome of the consultation.

Communities and Local Government, with refence to his Department's oral statement of 18 December 2025 on Local Government Reorganisation, Official Report col 1130, whether he expects election officials to be made redundant if elections are cancelled in May 2026.

The majority of 2026 council elections are unaffected by local government reorganisation and are going ahead. While staffing decisions are for individual councils who employ electoral services staff, if the Government decides to postpone any elections it does not expect election officials to be made redundant as a result. These officials have responsibilities beyond running elections, including maintaining the electoral register and supporting other council related duties throughout the year.

Communities and Local Government, with reference to his Department's oral statement of 18 December 2025 on Local Government Reorganisation, whether he plans to cancel May 2026 elections where council leaders have not responded to his Department's letter.

Local government reorganisation is complex and we have listened to councils telling us about the constraints they are operating within, and the work that reorganisation introduces on top of existing challenges. On 18 December I invited councils undergoing local government reorganisation with local elections in May 2026 to set out their views on the postponement of their local election and if they consider this could release essential capacity to deliver local government reorganisation. Councils are in the best position to judge the impact of potential postponements on their area and in the spirit of devolution and trusting local leaders, this government will listen to them. They have been asked to make any request for a postponement explicit, as this will of course be relevant in deciding whether postponement is necessary for a particular council. If a Council does not make an explicit request or provide clear views and evidence in respect of their judgment on capacity, then the Secretary of State will take that into account and consider relevant evidence – but it will clearly make the decision making process more difficult and the Secretary of State will be less likely to decide to delay, given the locally-led approach taken. The Secretary of State is only minded to make an Order to postpone elections for one year for those councils who raise capacity concerns. It is ultimately up to councils how or whether they respond. We have been transparent about this process and will consider all the representations we receive. The Secretary of State will consider the position of each council individually, weighing up the evidence received. The deadline for responses is 15 January and after this the Secretary of State will decide whether to make an Order to change the year of council elections and the House will be updated.

Communities and Local Government, with reference to the letter from the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness to Leaders of councils with elections in May 2026 where proposals for reorganisation have been submitted and decisions not yet taken, dated 18 December 2025, whether he consulted the Electoral Commission before his Department wrote to council leaders asking if they wanted their elections in May 2026 to be cancelled.

On 18 December councils undergoing local government reorganisation were invited to set out their views on the postponement of their local election and if they consider this could release essential capacity to deliver local government reorganisation. As is standard for decisions of this nature, the Secretary of State had discussions with relevant colleagues in Government. We will consider all the representations we receive, including any from the Electoral Commission. Nine local elections in 2025 were postponed and the rationale for that decision has been set out to the House, including in the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the Order that changed the year of elections.

Communities and Local Government, with reference to his Department's oral statement of 18 December 2025 on Local Government Reorganisation, whether Essex County Council will be permitted to express an opinion on the cancellation of lower tier authorities such as Basildon.

Local government reorganisation is complex and we have listened to councils telling us about the constraints they are operating within, and the work that reorganisation introduces on top of existing challenges. On 18 December I invited councils undergoing local government reorganisation with local elections in May 2026 to set out their views on the postponement of their local election and if they consider this could release essential capacity to deliver local government reorganisation. Councils are in the best position to judge the impact of potential postponements on their area and in the spirit of devolution and trusting local leaders, this government will listen to them. They have been asked to make any request for a postponement explicit, as this will of course be relevant in deciding whether postponement is necessary for a particular council. If a Council does not make an explicit request or provide clear views and evidence in respect of their judgment on capacity, then the Secretary of State will take that into account and consider relevant evidence – but it will clearly make the decision making process more difficult and the Secretary of State will be less likely to decide to delay, given the locally-led approach taken. The Secretary of State is only minded to make an Order to postpone elections for one year for those councils who raise capacity concerns. It is ultimately up to councils how or whether they respond. We have been transparent about this process and will consider all the representations we receive. The Secretary of State will consider the position of each council individually, weighing up the evidence received. The deadline for responses is 15 January and after this the Secretary of State will decide whether to make an Order to change the year of council elections and the House will be updated.

Communities and Local Government, with refence to his Department's oral statement of 18 December 2025 on Local Government Reorganisation, Official Report col 1130, whether any discussions were had by his Department prior to the cancellation of the 2025 local elections on cancelling the 2026 local elections as well.

On 18 December councils undergoing local government reorganisation were invited to set out their views on the postponement of their local election and if they consider this could release essential capacity to deliver local government reorganisation. As is standard for decisions of this nature, the Secretary of State had discussions with relevant colleagues in Government. We will consider all the representations we receive, including any from the Electoral Commission. Nine local elections in 2025 were postponed and the rationale for that decision has been set out to the House, including in the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the Order that changed the year of elections.

Communities and Local Government, what representations he has received from Basildon Council regarding the preferred restructuring of Essex councils.

Basildon Borough Council, Castle Point Council, Essex County Council, Rochford Council, Southend-on-Sea Council and Thurrock Council, together with 9 other councils in Essex, submitted four proposals for unitary local government in Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock.Southend-on-Sea City Council, Chelmsford City Council, Basildon Borough Council, Brentwood Borough Council, Castle Point Borough Council, Colchester City Council, Harlow District Council, Maldon District Council, Tendring District Council and Uttlesford District Council proposed 5 unitary councils.Essex County Council, Braintree District Council and Epping Forest District Council proposed 3 unitary councils.Rochford District Council proposed 4 unitary councils.Thurrock Council proposed a different 4 unitary councils.The 15 principal councils collectively wrote to the department to state that whilst there was no consensus on one proposal, there was collective agreement that regardless of the final decision, all partners are committed to working together to ensure that whichever model is selected is delivered in the best possible way.The 15 principal councils in the area were invited to respond to the statutory consultation on the four proposals, which closed on 11 January. The House will be updated in due course on the outcome of the consultation.

Communities and Local Government, with refence to his Department's oral statement of 18 December 2025 on Local Government Reorganisation, Official Report col 1130, at what time and date did he make the decision to ask local councils if they wanted to cancel their 2026 local elections.

On 18 December councils undergoing local government reorganisation were invited to set out their views on the postponement of their local election and if they consider this could release essential capacity to deliver local government reorganisation. As is standard for decisions of this nature, the Secretary of State had discussions with relevant colleagues in Government. We will consider all the representations we receive, including any from the Electoral Commission. Nine local elections in 2025 were postponed and the rationale for that decision has been set out to the House, including in the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the Order that changed the year of elections.

Communities and Local Government, with refence to his Department's oral statement of 18 December 2025 on Local Government Reorganisation, Official Report col 1130, what communications he has received from Basildon Council regarding the cancellation of the May 2026 (a) local elections and (b) mayoral election.

On 18 December 2025 I invited Basildon Borough Council, Essex County Council and Thurrock Council and other councils undergoing local government reorganisation to set out their views on the postponement of their local election and if they consider this could release essential capacity to deliver local government reorganisation. We have been transparent about this process and will consider all the representations we receive, including any from members of the public. The deadline for responses is 15 January and after this the Secretary of State will decide whether to make an Order to change the year of council elections and the House will be updated. Minister Fahnbulleh also announced on 5 December 2025 that we are minded to hold the inaugural mayoral elections in Greater Essex in May 2028 so that the reorganisation process is complete before a Mayor is elected for Greater Essex. This is because I believe devolution works best when it is built on strong foundations so, moving forward, we want to aim for strong unitary structures being in place before areas access mayoral devolution. To ensure the benefits of devolution are not delayed, we will still establish the Greater Essex Mayoral Strategic Authority and lay the necessary statutory instrument to do so as soon as possible in 2026, subject to council consent. My colleague Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, spoke to leaders in Greater Essex following the announcement of funding and next steps for the devolution agreements that are being developed through the Devolution Priority Programme. The Department has continued to engage closely with them since the announcement, jointly discussing the benefits devolution will bring to these areas.

Communities and Local Government, with reference to his Department's oral statement of 18 December 2025 on Local Government Reorganisation, whether borough and district councils will be permitted to provide opinions on the cancellation of elections for upper-tier authorities.

Local government reorganisation is complex and we have listened to councils telling us about the constraints they are operating within, and the work that reorganisation introduces on top of existing challenges. On 18 December I invited councils undergoing local government reorganisation with local elections in May 2026 to set out their views on the postponement of their local election and if they consider this could release essential capacity to deliver local government reorganisation. Councils are in the best position to judge the impact of potential postponements on their area and in the spirit of devolution and trusting local leaders, this government will listen to them. They have been asked to make any request for a postponement explicit, as this will of course be relevant in deciding whether postponement is necessary for a particular council. If a Council does not make an explicit request or provide clear views and evidence in respect of their judgment on capacity, then the Secretary of State will take that into account and consider relevant evidence – but it will clearly make the decision making process more difficult and the Secretary of State will be less likely to decide to delay, given the locally-led approach taken. The Secretary of State is only minded to make an Order to postpone elections for one year for those councils who raise capacity concerns. It is ultimately up to councils how or whether they respond. We have been transparent about this process and will consider all the representations we receive. The Secretary of State will consider the position of each council individually, weighing up the evidence received. The deadline for responses is 15 January and after this the Secretary of State will decide whether to make an Order to change the year of council elections and the House will be updated.

Communities and Local Government, with refence to his Department's oral statement of 18 December 2025 on Local Government Reorganisation, Official Report col 1130, what safeguards his Department has in place to verify that requests for cancellations of elections are due to resourcing issues.

Local government reorganisation is complex and we have listened to councils telling us about the constraints they are operating within, and the work that reorganisation introduces on top of existing challenges. On 18 December I invited councils undergoing local government reorganisation with local elections in May 2026 to set out their views on the postponement of their local election and if they consider this could release essential capacity to deliver local government reorganisation. Councils are in the best position to judge the impact of potential postponements on their area and in the spirit of devolution and trusting local leaders, this government will listen to them. They have been asked to make any request for a postponement explicit, as this will of course be relevant in deciding whether postponement is necessary for a particular council. If a Council does not make an explicit request or provide clear views and evidence in respect of their judgment on capacity, then the Secretary of State will take that into account and consider relevant evidence – but it will clearly make the decision making process more difficult and the Secretary of State will be less likely to decide to delay, given the locally-led approach taken. The Secretary of State is only minded to make an Order to postpone elections for one year for those councils who raise capacity concerns. It is ultimately up to councils how or whether they respond. We have been transparent about this process and will consider all the representations we receive. The Secretary of State will consider the position of each council individually, weighing up the evidence received. The deadline for responses is 15 January and after this the Secretary of State will decide whether to make an Order to change the year of council elections and the House will be updated.

Communities and Local Government, whether he has received requests from councils in Essex requesting compensation for preparations made for the 2026 Mayoral Election for Greater Essex.

I spoke to leaders in Greater Essex following the announcement of funding and next steps for the devolution agreements that are being developed through the Devolution Priority Programme. The Department has continued to engage closely with them since the announcement, jointly discussing the benefits devolution will bring to these areas. As the Government confirmed to Parliament on 4 December, we remain committed to the long-term funding offer to all DPP areas, providing £1 million mayoral capacity funding for all areas for financial year 25/26, and a minimum of £3million over the following three financial years, subject to the establishment of the Mayoral Strategic Authorities. Government will also provide each area with a proportion of their investment funds to ensure they can start delivering on key local priorities and deliver the benefits of devolution on the ground, ahead of the mayors taking office.