Written questions by Morton.

What assessment she has made of the adequacy of current counter-extremism programmes; and whether she plans to introduce further measures to tackle extremist activity and protect public safety.

This Government takes extremism seriously and we are committed to ensuring we have the required tools and powers needed to address this issue.Efforts to counter extremism span a broad range of Government and law enforcement activity and we must persist in our efforts to challenge extremist narratives, disrupt the activity of radicalising groups, and directly tackle the causes of radicalisation.We are progressing activity to challenge extremist narratives including working to ensure dangerous overseas hate preachers and extremists are unable to enter the UK to spread their divisive rhetoric.The Prevent programme plays a fundamental role in protecting the public from the threat of terrorism and remains a vital tool for early intervention. Prevent is continuously improving to ensure it has the capabilities it needs to reduce terrorism risk.In December 2024, the Government created a dedicated permanent oversight function, the Independent Prevent Commissioner, to provide continuous independent scrutiny of Prevent legislation, policy and delivery to maximise Prevent’s effectiveness.The interim Independent Prevent Commissioner, Lord Anderson, published his ‘Lessons for Prevent’ in July 2025 identifying past failings and where further improvements are required.The Home Office has also commissioned an independent evaluation of Channel, Prevent’s multi-agency early intervention programme, to assess whether it is effective at reducing individuals’ susceptibility to radicalisation. The evaluation is expected to report findings in 2026.Finally, the Desistance and Disengagement Programme, which helps to manage the risk of individuals who have already been involved in terrorism or terrorism related activity, has been independently evaluated. The majority of recommendations from that evaluation have already been implemented.As set out in its manifesto, this Government is committed to redoubling efforts to counter extremism and adapting to this evolving threat, including online, to stop people being radicalised and drawn towards hateful ideologies.

With reference to the Written Statement of 8 December 2025 on Support for Young People, HCWS1137, and the ambition to support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships, what modelling his Department has done of employer demand for 16–24-year-old apprentices in each region; what steps he is taking to ensure the new funding does not displace existing apprenticeship opportunities; and whether he will publish the evidence base underpinning the expansion of foundation apprenticeships into lower-wage sectors such as retail and hospitality.

From the next academic year, the government will fully fund apprenticeship training for all eligible people aged under 25 at non-levy paying employers, essentially small and medium sized enterprises. Currently, this only happens for apprentices aged 16-21 and apprentices aged 22-24 who have an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) or have been, or are, in local authority care. This change will make it easier for those employers, who take on a high proportion of young apprentices, to engage with apprenticeships by cutting costs and reducing bureaucracy for both them and their training providers. It is backed by the additional £725m of funding for the Growth and Skills Levy announced at the Autumn Budget. As apprenticeships are jobs with training, uptake is subject to employer demand and also learners choosing to undertake apprenticeships. The department encourages both through its facilitation of the Apprenticeship Ambassador Network which operates across all English regions. The network has around 2,500 volunteers, comprising employers and apprentices, who support small businesses to recruit and retain apprentices, and to go into schools and colleges to promote the benefits of apprenticeships for young people. To support our ambition of 50,000 more young people undertaking apprenticeships, we are also expanding foundation apprenticeships into sectors that traditionally recruit young people such as hospitality and retail. As we develop and implement the reformed Growth and Skills offer, including the rollout of foundation apprenticeships, the government engages regularly with employers and their representative organisations. The department also works closely with Skills England to identify sectors where there is employer demand for foundation apprenticeships and where foundation apprenticeships will be suitable and have clear progression routes.

With reference to the Written Statement of 8 December 2025 on Support for Young People, HCWS1137, what steps he is taking to ensure that expanded Sector-based Work Academy Programmes in West Midlands growth sectors such as logistics, automotive, retail and health lead to genuine employment progression; and if he will publish West Midlands-specific data on completion rates and subsequent job offers.

DWP’s Sector-based Work Academy Programmes (SWAPs) – which offer training, work experience and a job interview to DWP customers seeking work – help employers with immediate and future employment needs by upskilling benefit claimants to fill local job vacancies. Jobcentres work with local employers and training providers to establish SWAPs in a wide range of sectors including logistics, automotive, retail and health. As evidenced by the SWAP Impact Assessment (Sector-based Work Academy Programme: A Quantitative Impact Assessment - GOV.UK), SWAPs have been proven to increase the time participants spend in employment. The positive impact of SWAPs on employment outcomes is consistent across all regions including West Midlands. From April 2026, the Youth Guarantee will increase the number of SWAPs available so that more jobseekers, particularly young people, can take advantage of the employment support offered. We publish data on SWAP starts and outcomes on a quarterly basis. This includes the number of starts broken down by Local Authority, by Region and by Sector. Outcomes data was published for the first time this year and shows the proportion of SWAP starts with earnings at 6 and 9 months, by month of start, and the average monthly earnings at 6 and 9 months for those with earnings in that period, by month of start. The latest publication can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sector-based-work-academy-programmes-swaps-management-information-april-2021-to-september-2025. The next release is due to be published in January 2026.

What the planned timeline is for the full transition of responsibilities from Network Rail to Great British Railways as set out in the Railways Bill.

Network Rail and its functions will become a foundational part of Great British Railways (GBR) as it is stood up, which we are aiming to be around 12 months after the Railways Bill receives Royal Assent. The detailed GBR design process is underway, considering how all functions in Network Rail, DfT Operator, publicly-owned train operating companies (TOC) and parts of the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) should transfer to GBR.

What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the Railways Bill on service reliability of rail routes (a) connecting Birmingham and Walsall and (b) the rest of the West Midlands.

The Railways Bill includes the introduction of Great British Railways (GBR) which will be a new public company responsible for providing the single point of leadership our railways sorely need, squarely accountable to its passengers for the service it delivers. This will help prioritise service reliability throughout the country, including Birmingham and Walsall, as well as the rest of the West Midlands.

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of rail freight capacity through the West Midlands corridor.

The West Midlands Combined Authority have commissioned economists to conduct an independent prioritisation exercise called the ‘Rosewell Review’ which will produce a portfolio-level prospectus setting out major investment opportunities that will support delivery of the West Midlands Growth Plan, Local Transport Plan and wider strategic priorities. The outputs of this are expected in January 2026.

Communities and Local Government, what plans he has to review the performance and efficiency of the planning appeals process under forthcoming reforms.

The Planning Inspectorate's Strategic Plan commits the Agency to removing all casework backlogs and meeting all Ministerial targets, including those on relating to planning appeals, by 2027. The Inspectorate regularly publishes updates on its performance.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of how planning reforms will affect public consultation and community engagement in planning decisions in the West Midlands.

Local planning authorities are required to undertake a formal period of public consultation, prior to deciding a planning application. The proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that the government is currently consulting on will not affect this requirement.

With reference to the Written Statement entitled Consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1129, what assessment her Department has made of current police practice regarding the deployment of facial recognition and related technologies; how operational consistency across police forces will be ensured under the proposed new framework; and what plans she has to strengthen oversight mechanisms, including independent scrutiny, to guarantee that law enforcement agencies use these technologies only within clearly defined legal parameters and with transparent accountability.

The Government recognises the importance of ensuring the use of facial recognition and similar biometric technologies by law enforcement remains proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed. The consultation launched on 4 December seeks views on whether seriousness of harm should be a factor to decide how and when law enforcement organisations can acquire, retain, and use biometrics, facial recognition, and similar technology. The consultation also asks for views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing ‘seriousness’ of harm and for which purposes should law enforcement organisations be allowed to use these technologies.We do not intend to publish an impact assessment specifically on the potential implications for civil liberties as part of the consultation process. However, alongside the consultation we have published an equalities impact assessment which makes clear the Government’s commitment to building public trust by highlighting the specific legal frameworks that will be put in place and the statutory bodies for oversight, which will apply to everyone in England and Wales.We recognise that to maintain public confidence we must ensure individual rights, privacy and data security are protected. We believe that the use of biometric and inferential technology should always be demonstrably ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’ to the objective being sought. Furthermore, a clear and consistent justification for interference with people’s rights is required. Threshold setting and decision making needs to be attributed to, and shared appropriately between, Parliament, Ministers, independent oversight bodies, and law enforcement organisations. The consultation seeks views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing interference with privacy so as to ensure the legal framework reflects the views of the public.When using facial recognition technology, police forces must comply with existing legislation including the Human Rights Act 1998, Equality Act 2010, Data Protection Act 2018, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as well as their own published policies. For live facial recognition, police forces must also follow the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Live Facial Recognition.Oversight of police practice regarding deployment of facial recognition and related technologies is currently provided by regulators and public bodies, including the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, HMICFRS, Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The courts system also plays a vital role in ensuring the law is upheld.The Government recognises the importance of independent scrutiny to ensure operational consistency across forces under new framework. That is why the consultation explained the government’s proposal to create a single regulatory and oversight body to oversee law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies.The Government envisage giving this body the necessary powers to provide assurance that law enforcement use of biometric technologies is legal, responsible, and necessary. These powers could include setting standards to assure scientific validity, issuing codes of practice and investigating instances where a technology has been misused, hacked or accessed without authorisation.

What assessment he has made of trends in the level of youth unemployment in the West Midlands.

The information requested is published and available at:https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/default.asp Guidance for users can be found at:https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/home/newuser.aspThe estimated unemployment levels can be found by selecting “Query data” on the NOMIS home page and selecting “Annual Population Survey/Labour Force Survey” and then “annual population survey (Dec 2004 to Jun 2025)” in the lists of data sources. The Geography will need to be set for the relevant region (West Midlands) from the menu, and the Variable set to “Unemployment rate - aged 16-24”.

With reference to the Written Statement entitled Criminal Court Reform, published on 2 December 2025, HCWS1123, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of expanding judge-only trials to a wider class of offences, including fraud cases and triable-either-way cases involving likely sentences of up to three years, on the right to a fair trial and jury participation in the justice system; and what safeguards he intends to put in place to ensure transparency, accountability and public confidence in verdicts reached without a jury.

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial.As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates and only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants, or anyone involved in the justice system.The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court framework, following the same process and procedures. Safeguards will be in place, including the existing appeals procedure, and judges in the ‘swift courts’ will be required to provide reasoned judgments when delivering decisions to convict or acquit. An impact assessment will accompany our legislative measures, as is usual practice.

With reference to the Written Statement entitled Criminal Court Reform, published on 2 December 2025, HCWS1123, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of removing the option for defendants to elect for trial by jury in certain triable-either-way cases on (a) the constitutional role of juries, (b) defendants’ right to a fair trial and (c) public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial.As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates and only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants, or anyone involved in the justice system.The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court framework, following the same process and procedures. Safeguards will be in place, including the existing appeals procedure, and judges in the ‘swift courts’ will be required to provide reasoned judgments when delivering decisions to convict or acquit. An impact assessment will accompany our legislative measures, as is usual practice.

With reference to the Written Statement entitled Mental Health Conditions, Autism and ADHD Prevalence and Support, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1132, what assessment he has made of regional variation in diagnostic practice, referral thresholds and waiting times for autism and ADHD assessments; whether the Independent Review will examine the extent to which inconsistent clinical pathways drive disparities in outcomes; and what steps he plans to take to ensure that adults, young people and children in every Integrated Care Board area receive timely, consistent and clinically robust diagnostic assessment and ongoing support.

The Department has not made an assessment. We have commissioned an independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism. The review will look to understand the similarities and difference between mental health conditions, ADHD, and autism. It will look at prevalence, early intervention and treatment, and the current challenges facing clinical services. This will include exploring the factors that have contributed to the increase in prevalence and inequalities in access and outcomes. It will also examine the extent to which diagnosis, medicalisation, and treatment improve outcomes for individuals. This will include exploring the evidence around clinical practice and the risks and benefits of medicalisation.The review will appoint an Advisory Working Group which involves a multidisciplinary group of leading academics, clinicians, epidemiological experts, charities, and people with lived experience to directly shape the recommendations and scrutinise the evidence.The chairs will provide a short report within six months setting out conclusions and recommendations for responding to the rising need, both within the Government and across the health system and wider public services.As this is an independent review, it is therefore for the Chair and vice-chairs to explore and consider topics and themes relevant to the terms of reference. It would not be appropriate for the Department to comment or influence further on specific topics, findings, and recommendations. The Government will consider any recommendations and respond accordingly.

With reference to the Written Statement entitled Mental Health Conditions, Autism and ADHD Prevalence and Support, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1132, what assessment his Department has made of the wider financial and operational impact on local authorities, schools, criminal justice agencies and employers arising from the increased prevalence of mental health conditions, autism and ADHD; and whether the Independent Review will produce recommendations for cross-government funding mechanisms or reforms to ensure that pressure on non-NHS services does not undermine the sustainability of local support and early-intervention provision.

The Department has not made an assessment. We have commissioned an independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism. The review will look to understand the similarities and difference between mental health conditions, ADHD, and autism. It will look at prevalence, early intervention and treatment, and the current challenges facing clinical services. This will include exploring the factors that have contributed to the increase in prevalence and inequalities in access and outcomes. It will also examine the extent to which diagnosis, medicalisation, and treatment improve outcomes for individuals. This will include exploring the evidence around clinical practice and the risks and benefits of medicalisation.The review will appoint an Advisory Working Group which involves a multidisciplinary group of leading academics, clinicians, epidemiological experts, charities, and people with lived experience to directly shape the recommendations and scrutinise the evidence.The chairs will provide a short report within six months setting out conclusions and recommendations for responding to the rising need, both within the Government and across the health system and wider public services.As this is an independent review, it is therefore for the Chair and vice-chairs to explore and consider topics and themes relevant to the terms of reference. It would not be appropriate for the Department to comment or influence further on specific topics, findings, and recommendations. The Government will consider any recommendations and respond accordingly.

What assessment he has made of trends in the level of unemployment in the West Midlands.

The information requested is published and available at:https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/default.asp Guidance for users can be found at:https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/home/newuser.aspThe estimated unemployment levels can be found by selecting “Query data” on the NOMIS home page and selecting “Annual Population Survey/Labour Force Survey” and then “labour force survey – national and regional – headline indicators (seasonally adjusted) (May 1992 to Sep 2025)” in the lists of data sources. The Geography will need to be set for the relevant region (West Midlands) from the menu. The economic activity Variable needs to be set to “Total unemployed” (16 and over). The rate also needs to be selected in the ‘people/rate’ section.

With reference to the Written Statement entitled Mental Health Conditions, Autism and ADHD Prevalence and Support, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1132, what assessment his Department has made of the factors contributing to the reported increase in the prevalence of mental health conditions, autism and ADHD over the past decade; what analysis he has undertaken to differentiate between changes in underlying incidence, improved public awareness, altered diagnostic practice and broader social determinants; and whether he will publish a cross-government strategy setting out how Departments intend to respond to rising prevalence and associated demand on public services.

The Department has not made an assessment. We have commissioned an independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism. The review will look to understand the similarities and difference between mental health conditions, ADHD, and autism. It will look at prevalence, early intervention and treatment, and the current challenges facing clinical services. This will include exploring the factors that have contributed to the increase in prevalence and inequalities in access and outcomes. It will also examine the extent to which diagnosis, medicalisation, and treatment improve outcomes for individuals. This will include exploring the evidence around clinical practice and the risks and benefits of medicalisation.The review will appoint an Advisory Working Group which involves a multidisciplinary group of leading academics, clinicians, epidemiological experts, charities, and people with lived experience to directly shape the recommendations and scrutinise the evidence.The chairs will provide a short report within six months setting out conclusions and recommendations for responding to the rising need, both within the Government and across the health system and wider public services.As this is an independent review, it is therefore for the Chair and vice-chairs to explore and consider topics and themes relevant to the terms of reference. It would not be appropriate for the Department to comment or influence further on specific topics, findings, and recommendations. The Government will consider any recommendations and respond accordingly.

What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the potential impact of the salary sacrifice pension scheme changes announced in the Autumn Budget 2025 on the value of occupational pension funds.

A Tax Information and Impact Note (TIIN) was published alongside the introduction of the Bill containing the changes to pensions salary sacrifice. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) set out in their November 2025 Economic and Fiscal Outlook that they do not expect a material impact on savings behaviour as a result of Budget 2025 tax changes. The government supports all individuals to save into pensions through a generous system of income tax and NICs reliefs worth over £70 billion a year.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of his Department's planning reform proposals on the continued protection of green spaces and environmentally sensitive sites in the West Midlands.

Green spaces and environmentally sensitive sites continue to receive protection in national planning policy. The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that open space should not be built on unless there is clear evidence it is no longer required; equivalent or better provision is secured in a suitable location; or development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use. It also makes clear that planning decisions should conserve and enhance sites of biodiversity value and that local plans should safeguard local wildlife rich habitats and designated sites of importance for biodiversity. In addition, the designation of land as Local Green Space allows communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them.

With reference to the Written Statement entitled Consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1129, what assessment she has made of the safeguards required to ensure that the use of facial recognition and similar biometric technologies by law enforcement remains proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed; what steps she plans to take to ensure that the legal framework maintains public confidence in the protection of individual rights, privacy and data security; and whether she intends to publish an impact assessment on the potential implications for civil liberties as part of the consultation process.

The Government recognises the importance of ensuring the use of facial recognition and similar biometric technologies by law enforcement remains proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed. The consultation launched on 4 December seeks views on whether seriousness of harm should be a factor to decide how and when law enforcement organisations can acquire, retain, and use biometrics, facial recognition, and similar technology. The consultation also asks for views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing ‘seriousness’ of harm and for which purposes should law enforcement organisations be allowed to use these technologies.We do not intend to publish an impact assessment specifically on the potential implications for civil liberties as part of the consultation process. However, alongside the consultation we have published an equalities impact assessment which makes clear the Government’s commitment to building public trust by highlighting the specific legal frameworks that will be put in place and the statutory bodies for oversight, which will apply to everyone in England and Wales.We recognise that to maintain public confidence we must ensure individual rights, privacy and data security are protected. We believe that the use of biometric and inferential technology should always be demonstrably ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’ to the objective being sought. Furthermore, a clear and consistent justification for interference with people’s rights is required. Threshold setting and decision making needs to be attributed to, and shared appropriately between, Parliament, Ministers, independent oversight bodies, and law enforcement organisations. The consultation seeks views on what factors are relevant to consider when assessing interference with privacy so as to ensure the legal framework reflects the views of the public.When using facial recognition technology, police forces must comply with existing legislation including the Human Rights Act 1998, Equality Act 2010, Data Protection Act 2018, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as well as their own published policies. For live facial recognition, police forces must also follow the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Live Facial Recognition.Oversight of police practice regarding deployment of facial recognition and related technologies is currently provided by regulators and public bodies, including the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, HMICFRS, Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The courts system also plays a vital role in ensuring the law is upheld.The Government recognises the importance of independent scrutiny to ensure operational consistency across forces under new framework. That is why the consultation explained the government’s proposal to create a single regulatory and oversight body to oversee law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies.The Government envisage giving this body the necessary powers to provide assurance that law enforcement use of biometric technologies is legal, responsible, and necessary. These powers could include setting standards to assure scientific validity, issuing codes of practice and investigating instances where a technology has been misused, hacked or accessed without authorisation.

With reference to the Written Statement entitled Mental Health Conditions, Autism and ADHD Prevalence and Support, published on 4 December 2025, HCWS1132, what criteria will be used to appoint members to the Advisory Working Group, how individuals with lived experience will be involved in the development and scrutiny of the Review’s findings, and what steps he plans to take to ensure that any recommendations accepted by the Government are implemented uniformly across Integrated Care Boards and local authorities, with transparent reporting and measurable outcomes.

The Chair and vice-chairs of the independent review into the prevalence of and support for mental health conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism will appoint an Advisory Working Group which involves a multidisciplinary group of leading academics, clinicians, epidemiological experts, charities, and people with lived experience to directly shape the recommendations and scrutinise the evidence. As the review is independent it is for the chairs to determine the process for engaging.The Government has begun to address fundamental problems in National Health Service mental health services and will progress towards a new approach for mental health in 2026. As part of this we are radically enhancing transparency of mental health providers with consequences for poor performance. New league tables are driving improvement in the quality and safety of care, rewarding improvement and success. We are tackling unacceptable failures in care quality through stronger accountability and enhanced support.