Written questions by Braverman.

What formal mechanisms exist for survivors of sexual assault in the Armed Forces to provide feedback on their experience of the investigative and welfare support systems, and how this feedback is used to inform policy.

The Defence Serious Crime Command (DSCC) has a Professional Standards Department where people can raise complaints/concerns in respect of the DSCC and Victim Witness Care Unit. The Service Police Complaints Commissioner also provides oversight of the Service Police complaints process to raise standards in Service policing, and secure trust and confidence in the Service Police complaints system.

Food and Rural Affairs, whether she has had discussions with OFWAT regarding the accessibility of its public contact channels; and what steps are being taken to ensure that members of the public receive timely responses to enquiries.

Customers can contact Ofwat by phone, post, email and via the website. Ofwat’s Customer Enquiries and Disputes (CED) team has worked hard over the past year to improve the timeliness of responses to customers which was impacted by increased contacts to Ofwat last year.

Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the level of administrative and financial processes that small businesses are required to follow by the non‑household water retail market; and whether she plans to reform that market to help reduce those processes for small businesses.

We ensure the water retail market is operating effectively and acting as a vehicle to support economic growth and reduce burdens for businesses.

Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of MOSL’s administrative overheads on levels of investment in water infrastructure; and whether she has considered changes to ensure that increased funding is directed to frontline services.

Market Operator Services Ltd (MOSL) is the not-for-profit operator of the non-household (business) retail water market. MOSL is funded through market operator charges levied on retailers and wholesalers, rather than through customer bills or capital investment allowances. MOSL costs have no bearing on the levels of investment that Ofwat permits water companies to make in infrastructure. MOSL is a relatively small organisation in the context of the wider water sector. For 2025-2026, MOSL's annual budget of expenditure is £13.7m, which will be funded through Market Operator (MO) charges. These costs represent a very small proportion of overall expenditure in the water sector; by way of comparison industry total expenditure in the next regulatory period is anticipated to around £20 billion per year. Decisions on infrastructure investment are driven by Ofwat's price review process and water companies' statutory obligations.

Food and Rural Affairs, for what reason small businesses are prohibited from purchasing water and wastewater services directly from local water companies; and whether she plans to review this restriction.

Businesses, charities and public sector organisations are free to choose their water retailer for water or sewerage services. Advice for customers on choosing their retailer can be found on Ofwat’s website.

Food and Rural Affairs, whether she has made an assessment of the effectiveness of transparency of pricing information provided by non‑household water retailer; and what steps she is taking to ensure that small businesses can access clear, complete and comparable quotations for water and wastewater services.

The water retail market enables businesses, charities and public sector organisations in England to choose their retailer. This market can help to deliver lower bills and lead to improved services. If customers are not satisfied with the service they receive, they are free to switch to alternative retailers. The water retail market is closely regulated and there are measures in place to protect customers. The Customer Protection Code of Practice states that information provided to non-household customers shall be in clear and plain language, complete, accurate and not misleading. Ofwat also set limits on the price customers pay if they have not switched or renegotiated a new deal, to prevent them losing out.

What assessment he has made of the operational independence of the Defence Serious Crime Command from the military chain of command, and what steps he is taking to ensure that investigations into sexual assault are free from command influence.

The Defence Serious Crime Command became operational on 5 December 2022 and since its inception has been independent of the single Service Chains of Command to protect its operational investigative independence. Under Clause 12 of the Armed Forces Bill 2026 we are introducing a Service Policing Protocol which will formally set out expectations, obligations and roles of all parties in respect of the investigation of criminal offences within Defence in a way that has not previously been articulated. It will improve clarity for everyone in Defence who interact with all Service Police and helps build confidence and transparency as the Service Justice System continues to modernise.This will also give Service Policing a level of equivalence with civilian practice and will accompany the expansion of a policing governance structure within Defence. A protocol loosely modelled on the civilian equivalent (as issued under s79 of the Police Reform and Social responsibility Act 2011) is appropriate and an effective method of achieving the aim.Currently under s113 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (AFA 06), Commanding Officers have a duty to report any suspected Schedule 2 offences (this includes sexual assault) to the Service Police. Clause 17 of the Armed Forces Bill 2026 expands the current duty on Commanding Officers under s113 of AFA 06, to also include persons not within their own Chain of Command.

Whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of introducing a mandatory national screening programme for prostate cancer to help improve early detection and reduce mortality.

On 28 November 2025, the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) opened a 12-week public consultation on a draft recommendation to offer targeted screening for prostate cancer in men with variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, every two years from the age of 45 to 61 years old. This consultation has now closed, and the committee is considering the responses.We welcome the UK NSC’s consideration of the evidence and robust consultation process. We expect the UK NSC to make a final recommendation soon. My Rt Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, will then consider the advice, make a decision, and determine the next steps.

Whether his Department has issued guidance to integrated care boards on local commissioning in the context of patients’ legal right to choose under the NHS Choice Framework.

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. Patients’ right to choose is set out in legislation and integrated care boards remain responsible for ensuring their own processes comply with the Right to Choose, including clinical appropriateness, eligibility criteria, and qualifying contract requirements. NHS England has issued national Patient Choice Guidance, available at the following link: https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/patient-choice-guidance/ This sets out an overview of the choices available to patients and the rules that underpin those rights. The guidance explains how commissioners can meet their statutory duties in relation to patient choice, supports greater consistency in the application of those rights across the National Health Service, and describes how NHS England manages enquiries and complaints relating to patient choice. NHS England has also published, as part of its Enforcement Guidance, further material explaining how it exercises its enforcement powers in relation to patient choice. 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-framework

What steps he is taking to reduce NHS waiting times for ADHD assessments; and what role he expects the independent sector capacity to have in meeting demand.

The Government has recognised that, nationally in England, demand for assessments for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has grown significantly in recent years and that people are experiencing severe delays accessing such assessments. The Government’s 10-Year Health Plan for England will make the National Health Service fit for the future, recognising the need for early intervention and support.It is the responsibility of integrated care boards (ICBs) in England to make appropriate provision to meet the health and care needs of their local population, including providing access to ADHD assessment and treatment, in line with relevant National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines.The independent sector provides important service capacity within ADHD services. We are committed to ensuring patients have equitable access to safe, effective, and high-quality services, irrespective of their service provider. Patients being referred for consultant-led elective care, or to a mental health professional, have the right to be treated by any clinically appropriate provider who holds a contract for the provision of NHS services.This includes the independent sector, which holds contracts with ICBs across the country to deliver services for the NHS. By working with the independent sector, we are making sure patients have greater choice in their local areas.NHS England established an ADHD taskforce which brought together those with lived experience with experts from the NHS, education, charity, and justice sectors to get a better understanding of the challenges affecting those with ADHD, including in accessing timely and equitable access to services and support. My Rt Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, announced on 4 December 2025 the launch of an Independent Review into Prevalence and Support for Mental Health Conditions, ADHD and Autism. This independent review will inform our approach to enabling people with ADHD and autistic people to have the right support in place to enable them to live well in their communities.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Integrated Care Boards placing (a) activity caps and (b) other restrictions on NHS Right to Choose ADHD providers on patient (i) access, (ii) waiting times and (iii) clinical risk.

No specific assessment has been made on the potential impact of integrated care boards (ICBs) placing activity caps and other restrictions on NHS Right to Choose ADHD providers on patient access, waiting times or clinical risk.Patients have a legal Right to Choose their provider when referred for NHS-funded eligible care. ICBs are responsible for ensuring that their processes comply with the legal Right to Choose.NHS England issued advice to systems on ADHD service delivery and prioritisation on 7 October 2025. This advice includes guidance on managing service provisions, reviewing waiting lists and providing patient support. The advice is available at the following link:https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/adhd-service-delivery-and-prioritisation-advice-to-systems/

If she will take steps to reduce the time taken for consignments accompanied by valid Export Control Joint Unit licences to clear the border.

In May 2025 HMRC published a research report which explored the impact of border checks with around 35 traders and intermediaries. Businesses reported that moving goods across the border was generally a smooth process. The report found that documentary checks are the most frequent and least disruptive, and are often resolved within 2 hours. Clearance may take longer for strategic exports or for physical checks, which occur less often. HMRC is committed to reducing export delays while meeting international obligations. HMRC provides clear guidance and direct support to help businesses navigate export controls, whilst applying risk-based checks to minimise disruption for legitimate trade. HMRC works closely with Border Force and industry partners to improve processes, introducing digital solutions, and offer training and self-assessment tools to support compliance. The Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) offers a service for exporters who wish to check whether there are concerns about the consignee or end-user of the goods. Traders may wish to consider using this service before the goods are shipped.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the time taken for exports on specialist engineering and manufacturing firms reliant on timely international shipments.

The Government seeks to drive up economic growth by extending UK exports. Our export control system seeks to enable responsible and legitimate international trade in military equipment and technology, and in dual-use items. We aim to conclude 70% of standard individual export licence applications within 20 working days and 99% within 60 working days.In some cases, however, we have to balance the desire for speed with the need for careful and thorough consideration of the application. Some decisions can therefore take longer, especially for destinations or end uses which involve more complex or finely balanced assessments.

What support his Department provides to UK firearms‑related manufacturing businesses to ensure that legitimate exports are processed in a timely manner.

The Government seeks to drive up economic growth by extending UK exports. Our export control system seeks to enable responsible and legitimate international trade in military equipment and technology, and in dual-use items. We aim to conclude 70% of standard individual export licence applications within 20 working days and 99% within 60 working days.In some cases, however, we have to balance the desire for speed with the need for careful and thorough consideration of the application. Some decisions can therefore take longer, especially for destinations or end uses which involve more complex or finely balanced assessments.

Whether her Department has made an assessment of the potential impact of the time taken for export inspections on UK exporters, international competitiveness, customer confidence and business survival.

In May 2025 HMRC published a research report which explored the impact of border checks with around 35 traders and intermediaries. Businesses reported that moving goods across the border was generally a smooth process. The report found that documentary checks are the most frequent and least disruptive, and are often resolved within 2 hours. Clearance may take longer for strategic exports or for physical checks, which occur less often. HMRC is committed to reducing export delays while meeting international obligations. HMRC provides clear guidance and direct support to help businesses navigate export controls, whilst applying risk-based checks to minimise disruption for legitimate trade. HMRC works closely with Border Force and industry partners to improve processes, introducing digital solutions, and offer training and self-assessment tools to support compliance. The Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) offers a service for exporters who wish to check whether there are concerns about the consignee or end-user of the goods. Traders may wish to consider using this service before the goods are shipped.

What the average processing time is for export consignments subject to additional checks by HMRC and Border Force; and what steps her Department is taking to reduce backlogs for compliant exporters.

In May 2025 HMRC published a research report which explored the impact of border checks with around 35 traders and intermediaries. Businesses reported that moving goods across the border was generally a smooth process. The report found that documentary checks are the most frequent and least disruptive, and are often resolved within 2 hours. Clearance may take longer for strategic exports or for physical checks, which occur less often. HMRC is committed to reducing export delays while meeting international obligations. HMRC provides clear guidance and direct support to help businesses navigate export controls, whilst applying risk-based checks to minimise disruption for legitimate trade. HMRC works closely with Border Force and industry partners to improve processes, introducing digital solutions, and offer training and self-assessment tools to support compliance. The Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) offers a service for exporters who wish to check whether there are concerns about the consignee or end-user of the goods. Traders may wish to consider using this service before the goods are shipped.

What steps his Department is taking to ensure that whistleblowers are not subject to (a) disciplinary action, (b) dismissal and (c) blacklisting after raising concerns in the public interest.

Workers in Great Britain – including those in the public sector – are protected from detriment (adverse treatment) and, if they are employees, dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 if they ‘blow the whistle’ on wrongdoing and certain conditions are met. This is known as making a protected disclosure.For a worker to receive protection they must reasonably believe that the disclosure is in the public interest and relates to one or more types of wrongdoing listed in the Act. A worker must also make the disclosure through the proper channels, one of which is to a ‘prescribed person’ listed in the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014. Many prescribed persons are regulators, which can investigate and take enforcement action in relation to wrongdoing.The Government has acknowledged concerns expressed by some parliamentarians and stakeholders that the whistleblowing framework may not be operating as effectively as it should be. That is why it recently committed in the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2025 to explore opportunities for reform.

What steps he is taking to ensure that regulators correctly investigate whistleblowing disclosures.

Workers in Great Britain – including those in the public sector – are protected from detriment (adverse treatment) and, if they are employees, dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 if they ‘blow the whistle’ on wrongdoing and certain conditions are met. This is known as making a protected disclosure.For a worker to receive protection they must reasonably believe that the disclosure is in the public interest and relates to one or more types of wrongdoing listed in the Act. A worker must also make the disclosure through the proper channels, one of which is to a ‘prescribed person’ listed in the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014. Many prescribed persons are regulators, which can investigate and take enforcement action in relation to wrongdoing.The Government has acknowledged concerns expressed by some parliamentarians and stakeholders that the whistleblowing framework may not be operating as effectively as it should be. That is why it recently committed in the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2025 to explore opportunities for reform.

Whether he has made an assessment of the adequacy of regulatory oversight of whistleblowing complaints in the public sector.

Workers in Great Britain – including those in the public sector – are protected from detriment (adverse treatment) and, if they are employees, dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 if they ‘blow the whistle’ on wrongdoing and certain conditions are met. This is known as making a protected disclosure.For a worker to receive protection they must reasonably believe that the disclosure is in the public interest and relates to one or more types of wrongdoing listed in the Act. A worker must also make the disclosure through the proper channels, one of which is to a ‘prescribed person’ listed in the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014. Many prescribed persons are regulators, which can investigate and take enforcement action in relation to wrongdoing.The Government has acknowledged concerns expressed by some parliamentarians and stakeholders that the whistleblowing framework may not be operating as effectively as it should be. That is why it recently committed in the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2025 to explore opportunities for reform.

Whether his Department plans to bring forward proposals to strengthen statutory protections for whistleblowers.

Workers in Great Britain – including those in the public sector – are protected from detriment (adverse treatment) and, if they are employees, dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 if they ‘blow the whistle’ on wrongdoing and certain conditions are met. This is known as making a protected disclosure.For a worker to receive protection they must reasonably believe that the disclosure is in the public interest and relates to one or more types of wrongdoing listed in the Act. A worker must also make the disclosure through the proper channels, one of which is to a ‘prescribed person’ listed in the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014. Many prescribed persons are regulators, which can investigate and take enforcement action in relation to wrongdoing.The Government has acknowledged concerns expressed by some parliamentarians and stakeholders that the whistleblowing framework may not be operating as effectively as it should be. That is why it recently committed in the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2025 to explore opportunities for reform.