Written questions by Bool.

If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of reducing VAT rate on hair and beauty salons.

VAT is a broad-based tax on consumption, and the 20 per cent standard rate applies to most goods and services. VAT is also the UK’s second largest tax, forecast to raise £180 billion in 2025/26. Tax breaks reduce the revenue available for vital public services and must represent value for money for the taxpayer. Exceptions to the standard rate have always been limited and balanced against affordability considerations.

What assessment she has made of the potential merits of introducing a statutory cap on levels of migration.

This Government recognises and values the contribution that legal migration makes to the UK.This Government is clear that net migration must come down from the record highs that were reached under the previous government.Under the previous Government, between 2019 and 2024, net migration almost quadrupled, heavily driven by a big increase in overseas recruitment.This Government is clear that net migration must come down and whilst we will always benefit from international skills and talent, immigration must not be used as an alternative to tackling skills shortages and labour market failures here in the UK. The work to restore order to our immigration system is already underway, and we will be setting out our approach in detail in the upcoming Immigration White Paper.

Communities and Local Government, whether her Department plans to take steps to monitor the adequacy of the professional indemnity insurance required for architects; and what steps her Department is taking to help support consumers with consumer recourse.

It is important for all architects to maintain appropriate financial protection against liability so that clients and building users have a route to redress in the event of a negligence claim. The independent regulator, the Architects Registration Board (ARB), has set expectations for architects to hold adequate insurance arrangements. MHCLG is supportive of the ARB’s work on this topic and has no plans to implement a monitoring regime for architects’ professional indemnity insurance at the moment.

Communities and Local Government, what steps her Department takes to monitor the response times of complaints made against registered architects to the Architects Registration Board.

The Architects Registration Board (ARB) is an independent regulator. As the sponsoring department, MHCLG regularly engages with the ARB to stay abreast of its activities. This includes consideration of performance figures, which the ARB publishes quarterly, and any potential risks regarding compliance with its statutory responsibilities. However, MHCLG has no role in the oversight of individual cases or ARB’s operational decisions, to maintain ARB’s regulatory independence.

What assessment he has made of the potential merits of ring-fencing funding for ADHD services.

The Department has not made an assessment of the potential merits of ring-fencing funding for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) services. It is the responsibility of integrated care boards (ICBs) to make appropriate provision to meet the health and care needs of their local population, including those with ADHD, in line with relevant National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. My Rt. Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, recently announced a series of reforms to the National Health Service operating model to move power from the health centre to local leaders. In keeping with these reforms, we are giving systems greater control and flexibility over how funding is deployed to best meet the needs of their local population.NHS England has established the ADHD taskforce which is working to bring together those with lived experience with experts from the NHS, education, charity, and justice sectors. The taskforce is working to get a better understanding of the challenges affecting those with ADHD, including timely and equitable access to services and support, with the final report expected in summer 2025.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of proposed changes to the NHS Payment Scheme on waiting times for ADHD assessments.

As required by law, NHS England has assessed the impact of the proposed NHS Payment Scheme. This is available at the following link:https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/25-26-NHSPS-Consultation-notice-C-impact-assessment.pdfThis impact assessment includes consideration of the impact on patient choice, as well as an assessment of the impact on patients, in line with NHS England’s public sector equality duty.Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) patients will continue to benefit from the Right to Choose their provider at the point of referral. None of the proposed changes to the NHS Payment Scheme included in the consultation would change this.Local integrated care boards (ICBs) are responsible for planning service provision in their local area, including for ADHD assessments. In doing so, ICBs should take account of waiting lists, considering how local funding can be deployed to best meet the needs of their local population.The consultation on the proposed NHS Payment Scheme closed on 28 February 2025. The outcome of the consultation will be published shortly once all responses received have been fully considered and any decisions made about the final Payment Scheme.

What steps his Department is taking to ensure NHS England engages directly with ADHD (a) charities and (b) clinicians before finalising the NHS Payment Scheme structure.

NHS England is following standard procedure in its consultation on the NHS Payment Scheme. NHS England consults on changes to the payment scheme each year, as it is required to by law. While the legal requirement is just for NHS England to consult commissioners and providers, it does accept responses from other interested parties and members of the general public.The statutory consultation period of 28 days ended on 28 February 2025. The outcome of the consultation will be published shortly once all responses received have been fully considered and any decisions made about the final Payment Scheme.

What steps his Department is taking to help prevent regional variations in ADHD (a) assessment and (b) treatment times.

It is the responsibility of integrated care boards (ICBs) in England to make available appropriate provision to meet the health and care needs of their local population, including assessments and treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), in line with relevant National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines.NHS England has established the ADHD taskforce which is working to bring together those with lived experience with experts from the National Health Service, education, charity, and justice sectors. The taskforce is working to get a better understanding of the challenges affecting those with ADHD, including timely and equitable access to services and support. The final report is expected in the summer, which will make recommendations about how to address the challenges faced by those affected by ADHD.There is, at present, no single, established dataset that can be used to monitor waiting times for assessment for, or treatment of, ADHD either nationally or for individual organisations or geographies in England. Although the data requested is not held centrally, relevant information may be held locally by individual NHS trusts or commissioners.In conjunction with the taskforce, NHS England has carried out detailed work to develop an ADHD data improvement plan to inform future service planning. NHS England has also conducted detailed work to understand the provider and commissioning landscape, capturing examples from ICBs who are trialling innovative ways of delivering ADHD services. NHS England is using this information to support systems to tackle ADHD waiting lists and provide support to address people’s needs.

Whether his Department is taking steps to (a) prevent Integrated Care Boards from deprioritising ADHD assessments due to funding limits and (b) ensure that patients’ rights are upheld if funding limits are reached.

Local integrated care boards (ICBs) are responsible for planning service provision in their local area, including for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) assessments. In doing so, ICBs should take account of waiting lists, considering how local funding can be deployed to best meet the needs of their local population.Patients will continue to have the right to choose their provider as set out in legislation. The proposed NHS Payment Scheme does not and cannot change this.The Government is committed to patients having the right to choose their provider when referred to consultant-led treatment, or to a mental health professional, for their first appointment as an outpatient. Further information on the choices available for patients can be found on the NHS Choice framework available at the following link:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nhs-choice-frameworkThe consultation on the proposed NHS Payment Scheme closed on 28 February 2025. The outcome of the consultation will be published shortly once all responses received have been fully considered and any decisions made about the final Payment Scheme.NHS England has established an ADHD taskforce which is working to bring together those with lived experience with experts from the National Health Service, education, charity, and justice sectors. The taskforce is working to get a better understanding of the challenges affecting those with ADHD, including timely and equitable access to services and support, with the final report expected in summer 2025.

What guidance her Department has issued on the use of Shared Parental Leave by teachers in maintained schools to extend their paid leave entitlement by returning to work during school holidays; and if she will make an estimate of the average cost of this practice on the budgets of affected schools.

The Department for Business and Trade is responsible for the overall policy on shared parental leave, but how it applies in schools specifically is covered by the Burgundy Book, a national agreement negotiated with employers by the six teachers’ organisations. Further information can be found on the Local Government Association website.The department has no authority or responsibility for the Burgundy Book and, therefore, we are unable to provide any further information on this matter.

Food and Rural Affairs, if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of implementing a permanent personal imports policy for travellers entering the UK from the EU in the context of African swine fever.

Preventing an outbreak of African swine fever in the UK is one of Defra’s key biosecurity priorities. The department keeps policy on personal imports under constant review and works closely with the devolved Governments on contingency planning and preventing an incursion from possibly infected goods. We have already strengthened controls on personal imports of pork and pork products from the EU through the measures we introduced in September last year. We are working to develop a long-term policy on personal imports of products of animal origin and animal by-products, taking account of international examples.

If his Department will review the medicines and treatment appraisal system to assess its readiness for evaluating cell and gene-based blood cancer treatments.

The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is the independent body responsible for developing authoritative, evidence-based recommendations for the National Health Service on whether new medicines represent a clinically and cost-effective use of resources.The NICE has evaluated and been able to recommend a number of CAR-T therapies, a type of cell therapy for the treatment of blood cancers, that are now available to NHS patients.The NICE is responsible for the methods and processes it uses to develop its recommendations and concluded a comprehensive review of the methods and processes it uses for health technology evaluation in January 2022. The NICE carried out the review through extensive engagement with stakeholders, including Department officials. The NICE introduced a number of changes that make its methods fairer, faster, and more consistent, and appropriate to the evaluation of emerging new technologies, such as cell and gene therapies.The NICE is monitoring the impact of the changes following the methods review and has committed to considering modular updates to its methods and processes in the future.

What steps he plans to take to ensure that the NHS has the (a) ability and (b) resource to roll out (i) CAR-T therapies and (ii) other Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products for blood cancer.

The National Health Service in England is required to fund medicines and treatments recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as a clinically and cost-effective use of NHS resources. NHS England has undertaken considerable activity to support NICE-recommended CAR-T therapies which are currently commissioned and those that may be available in the future.There are 3 CAR-T products currently available for four types of blood cancer which have treated over 1,500 people to date: these products were made available via the Cancer Drugs Fund which provides early access to promising new cancer medicines. Two additional CAR-T products are currently being evaluated by NICE.NHS England uses horizon scanning to see what is coming and has a dedicated team to support the adoption of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) that are recommended by NICE into the NHS. The team works with a variety of internal and external stakeholders to ensure timely patient access to ATMPs that are on the NICE technology appraisal and highly specialised technology workplan. NHS England regularly engages with clinicians who provide CAR-T therapy in order to ensure that there is sufficient capacity within the service to deliver this.

What comparative assessment his Department has made of blood cancer outcomes in (a) the UK and (b) international comparator countries for the four most common cancers.

The Department has not undertaken a formal assessment of blood cancer outcomes in the United Kingdom and international comparators for the four most common cancers. As noted by Lord Darzi’s independent investigation into the National Health Service, the rate of improvement for cancer survival slowed substantially during the 2010s. While survival rates have improved more quickly than many peer countries, they have done so from a low base. This means that the UK is still behind the Nordic countries for all major cancers.Cancer death rates in the UK have fallen by more than a fifth between 1990 and 2011 and are predicted to drop by a further 17% between 2010 and 2030.It is a priority for the Government to support the NHS in catching cancer, including blood cancers, as early as possible, to treat these diseases faster and more effectively, and thereby improve outcomes.The National Cancer Plan will include further details on how we will improve outcomes for cancer patients, including those with blood cancer. We are now in discussions about what form that plan should take, and what its relationship to the 10-Year Health Plan and the Government’s wider Health Mission should be and will provide updates in due course.

Communities and Local Government, if she will make an assessment of the potential merits of allowing water reed to be used as an alternative to thatching straw for protected thatched roofs.

My Department has no plans to make an assessment of the potential merits of allowing water reed as an alternative thatching material for historic buildings.Any works to demolish any part of a listed building or to alter or extend it in a way that affects its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest require listed building consent. It is for local planning authorities to decide whether to grant listed building consent depending on the particular circumstances of each case.

What assessment she has made of the potential merits of excluding military compensation from income calculation when determining eligibility for (a) Universal Credit and (b) sickness benefits.

War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Payments are not taken into account in Universal Credit. Guaranteed Income Payments, Service Attributable Pensions and service-attributable, non-taxable Service Invalidity Pensions are also not taken into account. New Style Employment Support Allowance (ESA) disregards any guaranteed income scheme payable under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. In the legacy income-related benefits, e.g. income-related ESA, there is a statutory £10 weekly disregard. However, Local Authorities have discretionary powers fully to disregard ‘war pension’ income in the assessment of Housing Benefit.

Food and Rural Affairs, what steps the Environment Agency took to communicate to operators that RPS248 would be withdrawn.

A Regulatory Position Statement explains when the Environment Agency will not take enforcement action for not complying with a legal requirement. In July 2021 RPS 248 was published. The RPS was time limited and written to enable the use of shredded waste carpet whilst industry and regulators did further work on understanding the environmental risks. RPS withdrawal was always a potential outcome from this work. In advance of RPS248 being withdrawn, the Environment Agency sent a briefing note to industry explaining the reasoning behind the planned withdrawal. The briefing was sent to Carpet Recycling UK (who had a working group on waste carpet in equestrian surfaces) and to companies notifying that they were using the RPS. A notification under the RPS was a critical requirement of the RPS. Some companies not notifying under RPS248 subsequently contacted the Environment Agency for further information and the briefing note was shared on request. The RPS was subsequently withdrawn in January 2024, as the RPS posed an unacceptable risk to the environment and the future liabilities of end users. Industry must now meet the legal requirement for an environmental permit for the use of shredded waste carpet in equestrian surfacing.

Food and Rural Affairs, what steps he is taking with the Environment Agency to prevent companies from importing waste carpet from the EU.

Waste is a commodity, and there is a legitimate global market for secondary materials. The transfrontier shipment of waste, including waste carpet, is subject to strict controls that are set out in the UK’s legislation. All waste shipments from the EU to the UK must comply with these controls. The Environment Agency (EA) is England’s competent authority and conducts compliance activities on an intelligence led, risk-based approach to ensure that imports of waste to England are in compliance with the legislative controls. The EA welcome any information regarding possible illegal movements via their incident reporting system or via Crimestoppers.

Food and Rural Affairs, what discussions he has had with the Environment Agency on the adequacy of the length of the notice period for the withdrawal of the regulatory position statement entitled Using shredded waste carpet in equestrian surfacing, RPS248.

There have been no discussions with the Environment Agency about the adequacy of the length of the notice period for the withdrawal of the regulatory position statement entitled Using shredded waste carpet in equestrian surfacing RPS248.

Food and Rural Affairs, if he will hold discussions with the Environment Agency on the potential merits of providing financial support to businesses with the cost of the removal of unusable stock, in the context of the withdrawal of the regulatory guidance statement entitled Using shredded waste carpet in equestrian surfacing, RPS248.

We currently have no plans to discuss the potential merits of paying compensation to businesses affected by the withdrawal of the regulatory position statement entitled Using shredded waste carpet in equestrian surfacing. Withdrawing the RPS means that using shredded waste carpets for equestrian surfacing is not prohibited, but a waste management permit is needed instead. There is no mechanism to compensate businesses affected by the withdrawal of a regulatory position.