Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what targeted guidance is available to medically vulnerable people who cannot safely reduce their heating use.
Answered by Sharon Hodgson - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government’s fuel poverty strategy seeks to ensure households are supported to achieve warm homes at an affordable cost. The UK Health Security Agency has produced guidance for the public on how to keep warm and well at home, which is available at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/keep-warm-keep-well-leaflet-gives-advice-on-staying-healthy-in-cold-weather
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has produced guidance to reduce the health risks associated with cold homes, which is available at the following link: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng6
The audiences for this include people who may have health problems related to living in a cold home, as well as their families and carers.
Financial support schemes are also available to help some vulnerable groups with their energy bills, including the Warm Home Discount and the Cold Weather Payment. People may also be able to access support to pay energy bills from their local council through the Crisis and Resilience Fund.
Vulnerable individuals can also join their energy supplier’s Priority Services Register, through which they can receive extra advice and support.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps her Department is taking to ensure that GOV.UK websites provide accessible digital services.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
GOV.UK is run by the Government Digital Service (GDS) which is part of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
The Department for Transport follows the GDS GOV.UK design system accessibility guidelines when drafting and building its GOV.UK content and digital services.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s processes for drivers with medical conditions; and what assessment she has made of the potential merits of introducing an online system for submitting medical information or tracking applications.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
In the interests of road safety, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) must be satisfied that the required medical standards for driving are met before a licence is issued. The DVLA’s processes are designed to ensure that licensing decisions are informed by appropriate medical evidence, while enabling individuals to continue driving where it is safe to do so.
The DVLA aims to process all applications as quickly as possible. However, some medical cases take longer because the DVLA often needs information from third parties, including doctors or other healthcare professionals, before a licensing decision can be made.
The DVLA has seen sustained growth in the volume and complexity of medical licence applications, increasing waiting times for some customers. To improve its services, the DVLA has introduced a new casework system and launched a new medical services portal, so the majority of customers can now apply online through the DVLA’s driver and vehicles account. In time, this will also allow customers to track their applications in a way they have not been able to previously. Details on how to sign up for an account can be found at www.gov.uk/driver-vehicles-account.
These enhancements alongside the recruitment of additional staff to deal with these applications and answer telephone calls, will deliver real improvements in services and turnaround times for customers.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of levels in the availability of (a) anti-aircraft artillery, (b) electronic warfare, (c) low-cost interceptors and (d) other off-the-shelf mobile air defence systems.
Answered by Luke Pollard - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
The availability of air and missile defence capabilities is kept under continual review as part of Defence’s assessment of threats and the readiness of the Armed Forces. Readiness is directed through the Armed Forces Plan, in which the Chief of the Defence Staff directs Military Command Chiefs to hold a range of force elements at varying levels of readiness, aligned with the NATO Force Model, sovereign defence requirements, and our ability to respond to crisis. This readiness is assessed against the sum of Availability, Capability, and Sustainment.
The Strategic Defence Review announced up to £1 billion of investment during this Parliament in Integrated Air and Missile Defence, with an early focus on improving command and control and sensor capabilities to ensure more effective integration and use of available effectors. The Defence Investment Plan will further shape the sequencing and prioritisation of future investment, informed by the evolving threat picture.
As is longstanding policy, the Department does not comment in detail on the availability or readiness levels of specific capabilities where doing so could prejudice operational security.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, when his Department last reviewed the income thresholds for the Healthy Start scheme, and whether it will conduct an updated review given concerns that thresholds have not been revised for nearly a decade and may no longer reflect current economic conditions faced by low income working families.
Answered by Sharon Hodgson - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government has taken action to strengthen support through Healthy Start. From April 2026, an increase to the weekly payments has been implemented, which means pregnant women and children aged under four years old and over one years old each receive £4.65 every week, and children under one years old each receive £9.30.
The income-related eligibility criteria for the Healthy Start scheme are not set as standalone cash thresholds. Eligibility is linked to receipt of certain income-related benefits, including Universal Credit, which act as passporting mechanisms to ensure support is targeted at families on the lowest incomes. Eligibility criteria for the scheme are kept under continuous review.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether the Department has assessed the potential merits of extending Healthy Start eligibility to include working parents in receipt of Statutory Paternity Pay.
Answered by Sharon Hodgson - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Healthy Start Scheme was introduced in 2006 to encourage a healthy diet for pregnant women, babies, and young children under four years old from very low-income households. The Department has not undertaken a specific assessment of extending Healthy Start eligibility to include working parents in receipt of Statutory Paternity Pay. This is because Statutory Paternity Pay is not a means tested benefit and is available to individuals in work, including those on higher incomes.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether she has had recent discussions with the Religious Education Council’s Task and Finish Group on the development of the proposed Programmes of Study for a potential National Curriculum for Religious Education; and what the (a) criteria and (b) process was for selecting members of the (i) Task and Finish Group and (ii) any expert advisory groups.
Answered by Georgia Gould - Minister of State (Education)
My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education has met Vanessa Ogden, chair of the independent sector led group, along with some members of the group. She welcomes the independent work being undertaken to develop a draft religious education curriculum.
The department was not responsible for selecting its members or for determining the criteria or processes used to select members of the group or any associated expert advisory groups. As such, decisions on membership were a matter for the sector-led group and were intended to ensure a breadth of expertise and representation from across the religious education sector.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many patients have been affected by the recall of certain Boston Scientific CRT-P pacemakers (a) nationally and (b) within Somerset; what assessment has been made of the potential impact of this on NHS resources; and who is responsible for covering the costs of device replacement and associated care.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is closely monitoring the Boston Scientific Accolade Field Safety Corrective Action (FSCA) to ensure it progresses safely.
The FSCA affects 13,969 pacemaker patients at 153 sites in the United Kingdom, who have an increased risk of their pacemaker switching to “Safety Mode”. This represents approximately 14% of UK Accolade Pacemakers.
The Department is aware of two deaths associated with this malfunction, both of which occurred outside the UK, and resulted from injuries sustained from fainting following a malfunction.
Risk mitigation advice includes evaluation of patient devices and revision surgery for those with four years or less longevity remaining. While some devices may need earlier replacement than would have been expected, the risk to patients is low and affected patients are being reviewed locally by expert clinical teams, often as part of routine follow-up processes.
Musgrove Park Hospital’s pacing service, which includes the fitting of pacemakers, has been minimally affected, less than five patients, by the recall of the Boston Scientific CRT‑P pacemakers.
In most cases, the trust uses alternative pacemaker products, including Biotronik and Abbott devices. As a result, the recall has had minimal impact on services and patient care, but MHRA will continue to keep this under review.
The commissioning of pacemaker devices does not fall under the direct commissioning remit of NHS England. Given the benefits of trying to achieve a nationally coordinated response, NHS England worked with professional bodies and NHS Supply Chain to encourage an equitable approach from Boston Scientific relating to both additional device costs and the impact of additional activity.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the recall of certain Boston Scientific CRT-P pacemakers on NHS services; and what steps are being taken to support affected patients and recover associated costs.
Answered by Zubir Ahmed
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is closely monitoring the Boston Scientific Accolade Field Safety Corrective Action (FSCA) to ensure it progresses safely.
The FSCA affects 13,969 pacemaker patients at 153 sites in the United Kingdom, who have an increased risk of their pacemaker switching to “Safety Mode”. This represents approximately 14% of UK Accolade Pacemakers.
The Department is aware of two deaths associated with this malfunction, both of which occurred outside the UK, and resulted from injuries sustained from fainting following a malfunction.
Risk mitigation advice includes evaluation of patient devices and revision surgery for those with four years or less longevity remaining. While some devices may need earlier replacement than would have been expected, the risk to patients is low and affected patients are being reviewed locally by expert clinical teams, often as part of routine follow-up processes.
Musgrove Park Hospital’s pacing service, which includes the fitting of pacemakers, has been minimally affected, less than five patients, by the recall of the Boston Scientific CRT‑P pacemakers.
In most cases, the trust uses alternative pacemaker products, including Biotronik and Abbott devices. As a result, the recall has had minimal impact on services and patient care, but MHRA will continue to keep this under review.
The commissioning of pacemaker devices does not fall under the direct commissioning remit of NHS England. Given the benefits of trying to achieve a nationally coordinated response, NHS England worked with professional bodies and NHS Supply Chain to encourage an equitable approach from Boston Scientific relating to both additional device costs and the impact of additional activity.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero:
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of proposed changes to energy infrastructure planning application fees on (a) network operator costs and (b) consumer bills.
Answered by Michael Shanks - Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
The Government has proposed a fully cost-reflective charging regime for its energy infrastructure planning application fees, in order to place this function on a sustainable footing for the future as application volumes increase. The Government is currently assessing the responses to the public consultation that ran from 16 December 2025 to 1 February 2026, which included specific questions on cost impacts.
This assessment will pay particular regard to the evidence provided by respondents on network operator costs and impacts on bills.