Written questions by Braverman.

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.

What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the whistleblowing framework in protecting people who report wrongdoing in public bodies.

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 she plans to strengthen whistleblowing protections for teachers who raise concerns about safeguarding, political indoctrination or unlawful gender‑related practices in schools.

School and trust leaders are responsible for making decisions about staff in school and should follow employment law when carrying out their duties.The laws protecting whistleblowers also apply to teachers. Details of who can be a whistleblower, and what complaints fall under whistleblowing laws can be found in the ’Whistle blowing for employees’ guidance here: https://www.gov.uk/whistleblowing.Personal grievances, for example bullying, harassment and discrimination, are not covered by whistleblowing law, unless the particular case is in the public interest, and should instead be raised through a school’s grievance process.The government has introduced a new measure, through the Employment Rights Act 2025, that will address the misuse of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) by employers. The government will consult on the conditions under which NDAs can still be validly.

What steps he is taking to ensure that civil servants who raise concerns about (a) misconduct, (b) political bias and (c) breaches of impartiality are protected from retaliation.

There are well established whistleblowing processes in place across government. Individual government departments are responsible for determining and setting their whistleblowing arrangements and procedures. In addition, the Civil Service Commission is an independent body that can hear and determine concerns by civil servants that relate to the Civil Service Code, where it has already been raised formally under the Code with the relevant Department. To ensure external reporting remains accessible, the Government regularly reviews the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014, which lists designated individuals and bodies, such as the National Audit Office, to whom a worker can make a whistleblowing disclosure. The National Audit Office made four recommendations in the report following its investigation into whistleblowing in the Civil Service and the Public Accounts Committee made five recommendations in its subsequent report. The Cabinet Office has addressed these points and the recommendations have been completed. Neither report recommended setting up an independent external reporting mechanism. It is the Government’s position that an independent external reporting mechanism would be duplicative. The full text of the reports are available online. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/investigation-whistleblowing-civil-service.pdfhttps://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmpubacc/457/report.html

What steps she is taking to support university (a) staff and (b) students who raise concerns about breaches of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.

This government is absolutely committed to freedom of speech and academic freedom. ​We commenced provisions from the Higher Education (HE) (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 on 1 August 2025 including strengthened provider duties to secure and promote the importance of free speech and academic freedom, and a requirement to put in place effective free speech codes of practice. The Office for Students’ Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom continues to work with the HE sector to offer advice and share best practice, so providers themselves are more effectively protecting free speech and academic freedom.Our commitment to the complaints scheme was clearly set out last year: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-future-of-the-higher-education-freedom-of-speech-act-2023. Students can continue to report their free speech complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of internal whistleblowing channels within the Civil Service; and whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of introducing an independent external reporting mechanism.

There are well established whistleblowing processes in place across government. Individual government departments are responsible for determining and setting their whistleblowing arrangements and procedures. In addition, the Civil Service Commission is an independent body that can hear and determine concerns by civil servants that relate to the Civil Service Code, where it has already been raised formally under the Code with the relevant Department. To ensure external reporting remains accessible, the Government regularly reviews the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014, which lists designated individuals and bodies, such as the National Audit Office, to whom a worker can make a whistleblowing disclosure. The National Audit Office made four recommendations in the report following its investigation into whistleblowing in the Civil Service and the Public Accounts Committee made five recommendations in its subsequent report. The Cabinet Office has addressed these points and the recommendations have been completed. Neither report recommended setting up an independent external reporting mechanism. It is the Government’s position that an independent external reporting mechanism would be duplicative. The full text of the reports are available online. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/investigation-whistleblowing-civil-service.pdfhttps://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmpubacc/457/report.html

How many whistleblowing complaints relating to (a) free speech, (b) academic freedom and (c) political discrimination have been reported to her Department since 2020.

This government is absolutely committed to freedom of speech and academic freedom. Under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, the department is not the prescribed person for whistleblowing concerns in higher education (HE) and does not receive whistleblowing complaints related to HE.

How many whistleblowing complaints were submitted by civil servants in each of the last five years.

The table below provides the total number of Whistleblowing cases raised to Civil Service organisations who responded to annual Whistleblowing (Raising a Concern) data commission. Commission yearTotal number of cases2024 - 20254432023 - 20244462022 - 20233882021 - 20223112020 - 2021245

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of working conditions for self‑employed couriers in the parcel delivery sector, including training standards, pay rates, and safeguarding obligations.

All businesses must comply with relevant laws and employers must comply with their legal obligations to ensure that their workforce receive the rights and protections to which they are entitled. Ofcom, the independent regulator for postal services, does not regulate the employment models of parcel delivery companies. Many employment rights, including the National Minimum and Living Wage do not apply to self-employed individuals. While the government recognises self-employed arrangements can provide valued flexibility, we also recognise concerns regarding exploitation of the current employment status framework and will consult on addressing these.

How many illegal working investigations have been opened into parcel delivery firms in each of the last five years; and how many resulted in (a) civil penalties and (b) prosecutions.

The Home Office does not hold data on illegal working investigations at the level of detail requested. For civil penalties, illegal working enforcement activity is recorded by employment sector, not by specific sub sectors such as parcel delivery firms. For prosecution, criminal investigations relating to illegal working will be recorded in line with the primary offence under investigation, such as possession of a counterfeit identity document, or assisting unlawful immigration. As a result, we are unable to provide figures on the number of investigations opened into parcel delivery firms or the outcomes in terms of civil penalties or prosecutions.Any relevant activity would be captured under the broader business sectors of Warehousing, Distribution and Delivery or the primary offence under investigation.A breakdown of activity by sector is available in the Home Office publication which can be accessed at: Illegal working and enforcement activity to the end of December 2025: by illegal working sector - GOV.UK

Whether she has assessed the potential impact of courier networks using sub‑accounts within courier networks on trends in the level of people working illegally.

The Home Office has assessed the potential impact of courier networks using sub-accounts and the links to illegal working. We do not disclose operational detail as it would compromise our operational activity.

Whether her Department has received reports of (a) under‑18s, (b) individuals without a driving licence and (c) individuals without valid immigration status being engaged as couriers by (i) Evri and (ii) its subcontractors.

All employers are required to undertake right to work checks on any prospective employee to confirm their legal status. Clamping down on illegal working is a critical part of this government’s work to restore fairness, order and control within the immigration and asylum system. This includes measures in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act to ensure companies who utilise flexible worker models, as seen in the warehouse and delivery sector, are required to conduct right to work checks to prevent illegal working when they contract workers to provide services under their company name. This will include agency workers or self-employed individuals working in the gig economy. These new legislative measures will restrict the ability of employers to take advantage of illegal workers and encourage businesses to provide work opportunities to only those permitted to work in the UK. It will provide parity across industries and will set a level playing field for businesses to uphold their responsibilities to prevent illegal working in the UK. A consultation on how to implement these measures has been conducted, the response to which will be published in due course. In addition to the extended right to work scheme, and as already announced, digital right to work checks will be mandatory by the end of Parliament, making them easier and cheaper for businesses to do.