Written questions by Perteghella.

What estimate his department has made of the comparative lifetime cost of (a) real bearskin caps and (b) identified synthetic alternatives.

The current cost of a bearskin cap is £2,460 including VAT. Whilst the longevity of caps varies depending on how they are maintained, this can be up to and in excess of 20 years. The Department has not yet identified a synthetic alternative that meets the standards required to provide an effective replacement for bearskin ceremonial caps. However, the Ministry of Defence remains committed to finding a synthetic alternative and continues to welcome submissions of test results, from a testing house accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, on synthetic alternatives that meet our criteria for a suitable, affordable and sustainable alternative to bearskin caps.

If his department will provide a timetable for reviewing the continued use of real bearskin in military ceremonial uniforms.

The current cost of a bearskin cap is £2,460 including VAT. Whilst the longevity of caps varies depending on how they are maintained, this can be up to and in excess of 20 years. The Department has not yet identified a synthetic alternative that meets the standards required to provide an effective replacement for bearskin ceremonial caps. However, the Ministry of Defence remains committed to finding a synthetic alternative and continues to welcome submissions of test results, from a testing house accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, on synthetic alternatives that meet our criteria for a suitable, affordable and sustainable alternative to bearskin caps.

What avenues of redress are available to family members who believe there has been maladministration in the handling of a deputyship case.

Family members who believe there has been maladministration in the handling of a deputyship case have several avenues of redress.The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) is responsible for supervising deputies and will investigate concerns raised about a deputy’s conduct or the way they are carrying out their duties. These investigations are undertaken to ensure that the deputy is acting in the best interests of the person lacking capacity and fulfilling their responsibilities in line with the authority set out in their court order.Separately, the OPG’s internal complaints process allows individuals to challenge the OPG’s own administrative handling of a case. Once internal processes are complete, if a customer remains unhappy, concerns may be referred to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman via a Member of Parliament.Where an issue relates to a judicial decision, such as the making or discharging of a deputyship order, this must be addressed through the Court of Protection. Complaints about the professional standards of a deputy may also be taken to the relevant regulatory body.

What steps the he is taking to help ensure transparency in Court of Protection proceedings while safeguarding the privacy of vulnerable individuals.

We do not hold data on the average costs incurred by individuals subject to professional deputy orders.The Court of Protection sets strict rules about what deputies can charge, which are governed by specific practice directions and rules. Practice Direction 19B (PRACTICE DIRECTION 19B – FIXED COSTS AND DEPUTY REMUNERATION IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION) sets out the responsibilities of deputies in ensuring costs are justified, reasonable, and in P’s best interests. The Practice Direction provides a schedule of fees (fixed costs) that deputies, either solicitors or public authority officeholders, can charge when they have been authorised to act for P.If professional deputies choose not to take fixed costs, they can have their costs assessed by the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO). The Office of the Public Guardian and the Senior Courts Costs Office have produced guidance to ensure costs charged to vulnerable individuals’ estates are reasonable, proportionate, and fully justified as well as maintaining public confidence through transparency, accountability, and consistent standards: Professional Deputy Costs - GOV.UKCourt of Protection proceedings involve personal, sensitive matters and enable decisions made in the best interests of the person who lacks the mental capacity to make those decisions themselves. A transparency order in the Court of Protection restricts the publication and communication of information from proceedings. They support the principle of open justice by allowing court of protection hearings to be heard in public whilst protecting the privacy of vulnerable individuals.

What estimate has been made of the average costs incurred by individuals subject to professional deputyship orders in the last five years.

We do not hold data on the average costs incurred by individuals subject to professional deputy orders.The Court of Protection sets strict rules about what deputies can charge, which are governed by specific practice directions and rules. Practice Direction 19B (PRACTICE DIRECTION 19B – FIXED COSTS AND DEPUTY REMUNERATION IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION) sets out the responsibilities of deputies in ensuring costs are justified, reasonable, and in P’s best interests. The Practice Direction provides a schedule of fees (fixed costs) that deputies, either solicitors or public authority officeholders, can charge when they have been authorised to act for P.If professional deputies choose not to take fixed costs, they can have their costs assessed by the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO). The Office of the Public Guardian and the Senior Courts Costs Office have produced guidance to ensure costs charged to vulnerable individuals’ estates are reasonable, proportionate, and fully justified as well as maintaining public confidence through transparency, accountability, and consistent standards: Professional Deputy Costs - GOV.UKCourt of Protection proceedings involve personal, sensitive matters and enable decisions made in the best interests of the person who lacks the mental capacity to make those decisions themselves. A transparency order in the Court of Protection restricts the publication and communication of information from proceedings. They support the principle of open justice by allowing court of protection hearings to be heard in public whilst protecting the privacy of vulnerable individuals.

Whether his Department plans to introduce a national standard for providing (a) full and (b) timely responses to complaints made within healthcare settings across England.

The Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009 set out in law the minimum standards National Health Service organisations must adhere to in respect of their complaint handling arrangements. This includes the need to investigate complaints speedily and efficiently and keep the complainant informed during the investigation. The response must include, amongst other things, an explanation of how the complaint has been considered and the conclusions reached.We have committed in the 10-Year Health Plan to reform the NHS complaints process and set clear standards for both the timeliness and the quality of responses to complaints. We expect this to be within the portfolio of the new National Director for Patient Experience, for which recruitment will soon be underway.

What recent assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of trends in the level of the use of (i) physical restraint and (ii) isolation practices in schools; what steps her Department is taking to reduce the use of these practices; and when updated guidance for schools and parents will be published on this matter.

The government recognises that the use of restrictive interventions, such as physical restraint and seclusion, can have a significant and long-lasting effect on the pupils, staff members and parents involved, as well as other class members.For this reason, we have recently updated the restrictive interventions, and the use of reasonable force in schools guidance. This aims to support schools to proactively minimise the need to use such interventions through early support, prevention and de-escalation strategies.​The ‘Behaviour in schools’ guidance outlines expectations around the use of removal from the classroom which some schools refer to as isolation. Schools should ensure that removal for any pupil is for the minimum amount of time necessary, and that removal is used consistently, proportionately, and in a way that supports the pupil’s reintegration into the classroom.The guidance makes clear to schools that they should collect, review and analyse data internally to assess the use of restrictive interventions and removal, so that improvements to these practices can be identified.As outlined in the Schools White Paper, we will spread best practice through refreshed resources to support schools to deliver calm, caring and inclusive environments.

What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of HMRC’s approach to dealing with disguised remuneration schemes.

This government recognised that concerns continued to be raised about the loan charge and that some felt strongly that it had not been handled appropriately. The Government therefore commissioned an independent review of the loan charge to bring the matter to a close for those affected, ensure fairness for all taxpayers and ensure that appropriate support is in place for those subject to the loan charge. The Government accepted the review’s conclusion that the loan charge was an extraordinary piece of Government policy which necessitated an exceptional response, and is now legislating a new settlement opportunity that will assist those who have not yet settled to do so. To encourage more people to settle, the Government will write off the first £5,000 of liabilities in addition to the proposals put forward by Ray McCann. As a result, most individuals could see reductions of at least 50% in their outstanding loan charge liabilities, and an estimated 30% of individuals could have these liabilities written off entirely. The Government’s response to the review represents a fair and proportionate attempt to provide a route to resolution for those who have not yet settled with HMRC. In turn, this requires those individuals to now come forward and engage with HMRC in good faith. Tax avoidance deprives the Exchequer of funds needed to deliver vital public services and it is right that resources are targeted to stop this. There are no plans to apply the review’s recommendations beyond those individuals and employers with outstanding liabilities that were the focus of the review. At the Budget, the Government announced action to tackle tax avoidance by umbrella companies, where most disguised remuneration now takes place. The Government is introducing legislation, effective from April 2026, to make recruitment agencies using umbrella companies legally responsible for accounting for PAYE on workers’ pay. Where there is no agency in the supply chain, this responsibility will fall to the end client.The Government is also introducing new powers in Finance Bill 2025/26 to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance and the other professionals who market or enable tax avoidance schemes. These new powers will go further and include more criminal sanctions. This shows the Government’s clear determination to close in on the few remaining promoters by strengthening deterrents and introducing significant additional consequences for promoters who continue promoting tax avoidance schemes. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has brought into charge more than £4 billion from its work tackling disguised remuneration.

What assessment she has made of the value-for-money to the taxpayer of the Loan Charge.

This government recognised that concerns continued to be raised about the loan charge and that some felt strongly that it had not been handled appropriately. The Government therefore commissioned an independent review of the loan charge to bring the matter to a close for those affected, ensure fairness for all taxpayers and ensure that appropriate support is in place for those subject to the loan charge. The Government accepted the review’s conclusion that the loan charge was an extraordinary piece of Government policy which necessitated an exceptional response, and is now legislating a new settlement opportunity that will assist those who have not yet settled to do so. To encourage more people to settle, the Government will write off the first £5,000 of liabilities in addition to the proposals put forward by Ray McCann. As a result, most individuals could see reductions of at least 50% in their outstanding loan charge liabilities, and an estimated 30% of individuals could have these liabilities written off entirely. The Government’s response to the review represents a fair and proportionate attempt to provide a route to resolution for those who have not yet settled with HMRC. In turn, this requires those individuals to now come forward and engage with HMRC in good faith. Tax avoidance deprives the Exchequer of funds needed to deliver vital public services and it is right that resources are targeted to stop this. There are no plans to apply the review’s recommendations beyond those individuals and employers with outstanding liabilities that were the focus of the review. At the Budget, the Government announced action to tackle tax avoidance by umbrella companies, where most disguised remuneration now takes place. The Government is introducing legislation, effective from April 2026, to make recruitment agencies using umbrella companies legally responsible for accounting for PAYE on workers’ pay. Where there is no agency in the supply chain, this responsibility will fall to the end client.The Government is also introducing new powers in Finance Bill 2025/26 to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance and the other professionals who market or enable tax avoidance schemes. These new powers will go further and include more criminal sanctions. This shows the Government’s clear determination to close in on the few remaining promoters by strengthening deterrents and introducing significant additional consequences for promoters who continue promoting tax avoidance schemes. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has brought into charge more than £4 billion from its work tackling disguised remuneration.

If she will offer the same settlement terms that will be provided in the settlement opportunity resulting from the implementation of the McCann Review to those that have already settled with HMRC.

This government recognised that concerns continued to be raised about the loan charge and that some felt strongly that it had not been handled appropriately. The Government therefore commissioned an independent review of the loan charge to bring the matter to a close for those affected, ensure fairness for all taxpayers and ensure that appropriate support is in place for those subject to the loan charge. The Government accepted the review’s conclusion that the loan charge was an extraordinary piece of Government policy which necessitated an exceptional response, and is now legislating a new settlement opportunity that will assist those who have not yet settled to do so. To encourage more people to settle, the Government will write off the first £5,000 of liabilities in addition to the proposals put forward by Ray McCann. As a result, most individuals could see reductions of at least 50% in their outstanding loan charge liabilities, and an estimated 30% of individuals could have these liabilities written off entirely. The Government’s response to the review represents a fair and proportionate attempt to provide a route to resolution for those who have not yet settled with HMRC. In turn, this requires those individuals to now come forward and engage with HMRC in good faith. Tax avoidance deprives the Exchequer of funds needed to deliver vital public services and it is right that resources are targeted to stop this. There are no plans to apply the review’s recommendations beyond those individuals and employers with outstanding liabilities that were the focus of the review. At the Budget, the Government announced action to tackle tax avoidance by umbrella companies, where most disguised remuneration now takes place. The Government is introducing legislation, effective from April 2026, to make recruitment agencies using umbrella companies legally responsible for accounting for PAYE on workers’ pay. Where there is no agency in the supply chain, this responsibility will fall to the end client.The Government is also introducing new powers in Finance Bill 2025/26 to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance and the other professionals who market or enable tax avoidance schemes. These new powers will go further and include more criminal sanctions. This shows the Government’s clear determination to close in on the few remaining promoters by strengthening deterrents and introducing significant additional consequences for promoters who continue promoting tax avoidance schemes. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has brought into charge more than £4 billion from its work tackling disguised remuneration.

Food and Rural Affairs, whether her Department has provided guidance to Local Authorities on the forthcoming changes to Simpler Recycling for households.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase on 25 April 2025, PQ UIN 47856.

Food and Rural Affairs, what guidance is available to musicians to ensure compliance with CITES Appendix I and II species rules when travelling for performances.

Guidance to assist touring musicians in complying with CITES requirements is available at www.gov.uk/guidance/cites-imports-and-exports. Specific queries can be directed to the APHA CITES team Wildlife Licensing mailbox (wildlife.licensing@apha.gov.uk) or by calling the APHA enquiries line (03000 200 301). UK CITES Authorities also hold regular forums for CITES stakeholders including music industry representatives and unions, to provide them with support and guidance on sector-specific queries.

Whether the Government plans to extend free school milk provision in 2026 to the additional 500,000 children newly eligible for free school meals.

I refer the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to the answer of 2 February 2026 to Question 108822.

Food and Rural Affairs, whether the Government plans to review the operation of Musical Instrument Certificates for touring musicians following recent feedback from the sector.

The Government recently undertook a public consultation on potential reforms to the UK CITES regulatory framework and the music industry’s feedback was considered in detail as part of the Government’s response. There are currently no further plans to review the operation of Musical Instrument Certificates. The rules governing the use of Musical Instrument Certificates are set internationally under CITES and the UK will continue to advocate for rules to be updated as appropriate to reflect the needs of touring musicians.

Food and Rural Affairs, what recent assessment she has made of the potential impact of CITES regulations on musicians travelling internationally with instruments containing protected materials.

No recent assessment has been made of the potential impact of CITES regulations on musicians travelling internationally with instruments containing protected materials. However, Defra and its agencies regularly engage with representatives of the music sector on the implementation of CITES requirements.

What the average response time is for repairing Category 1 road defects; and what steps her Department is taking to ensure compliance with (i) statutory and (ii) recommended repair times.

The Department does not collect or hold data on local authority response times for repairing Category 1 defects nor are there any statutory or recommended repair times.Local highway authorities are responsible for maintaining their networks under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980. The Act leaves maintenance standards, including when and how quickly to respond Category 1 repairs, to each authority’s judgement. The Code of Practice for Well Managed Highway Infrastructure advocates a risk-based approach and for authorities to take into account local conditions, traffic volumes and safety considerations when making decisions on maintenance programmes and repairs.The Government has confirmed a record investment of £7.3 billion for local highways maintenance over the next four years, with a portion linked to demonstrating best practice.The Department has also introduced a new rating system for local highway authorities. Under this system, all local highway authorities in England received a red, amber or green rating based on road condition, spending and use of best practice. The system encourages preventative maintenance and helps the Department target support, which is being offered to help councils improve their ratings and road conditions.

What mechanisms are in place to hold local highway authorities accountable when roads are left unrepaired for extended periods despite being reported as hazardous.

Under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 local highway authorities themselves are responsible for maintaining their network and for the delivery of maintenance works. The Act does not set out specific standards of maintenance, as it is for each individual local highway authority to assess which parts of its network need repair and what standards should be applied, based upon their local knowledge and circumstances. Local authorities are accountable to the public for these decisions, as they are democratically elected bodies.

Food and Rural Affairs, if her Department will introduce a ban on the importation of foie gras into the UK during this Parliament.

The Government shares the British public's high regard for animal welfare and has made clear that the production of foie gras from ducks or geese using force feeding raises serious welfare concerns. Foie gras production using force feeding has been banned in the UK for nearly 20 years as it is not compatible with our animal welfare legislation. Defra is continuing to consider the evidence and options in relation to foie gras.

Food and Rural Affairs, when she plans to publish a timetable for introducing a ban on the import of foie gras.

The Government shares the British public's high regard for animal welfare and has made clear that the production of foie gras from ducks or geese using force feeding raises serious welfare concerns. Foie gras production using force feeding has been banned in the UK for nearly 20 years as it is not compatible with our animal welfare legislation. Defra is continuing to consider the evidence and options in relation to foie gras.

For what reason assisted conception services are excluded from the exemption from NHS charges for people in the UK under (a) the Homes for Ukraine and (b) Ukraine Permission to Extend visa schemes.

Assisted conception services often require long-term treatment, lasting months or years, which does not align with the short-term nature of all visas that are covered by the Immigration Health Surcharge, including the Homes for Ukraine and Ukraine Permission Extension Schemes. There are currently no plans to amend the NHS (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2015.