Zubir Ahmed MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 12 Feb 2026 · Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments · Hansard source

  More

  This Government take our responsibilities seriously in providing an effective 21st-century primary-care NHS, free at the point of care. That is why when we came into power we ensured that the pharmacy sector had the largest uplift of any part of the NHS in the past two years—£3.1 billion. To support primary care further, we ensured that GPs who could not find employment found it under this Labour Government. It is only this Government that can modernise the NHS, make it free at the point of care and ensure that it is a high-quality service going forward.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Gentleman will know—or should know—the current remuneration method was agreed in conjunction with the sector. The adjustment was agreed with the sector’s representative body, Community Pharmacy England. Advance notice of the change was provided to those contractors by letter and in an article published by the NHS Business Services Authority in May 2025. In addition, Community Pharmacy England knows that, should this be a priority issue for it to negotiate in the next contract, we will take that on board and use it as an option. There are of course always extenuating circumstances, such as IT not working. Officials have reassured me that, following discussions with Community Pharmacy England, we have introduced specific provisions in the drug tariff that will allow pharmacy contractors to receive payment for claims that were delayed due to IT issues outside of its control. I can appreciate why the hon. Gentleman wants to expand the remit of the urgent question across primary care—well, let me tell him. I know he had neck surgery recently; I did not realise they put a brass neck in him as well when they did it. He knows what kind of NHS decline and decay over which he and his Government presided over the past 15 years: primary care where people are left wandering around asking for GPs, and the Conservatives left GPs on the scrapheap, unemployed. This Government ensured, when they came into office, that—

• 12 Feb 2026 · Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right: we need to unblock some of the referral pipelines between GPs and pharmacies. We are absolutely clear in our instructions to the system that pharmacies are an integral and growing component of primary care provision, and that premise underlies all our discussions with pharmacies and GPs.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments · Hansard source

  More

  I can assure the hon. Lady of our commitment to an effective primary care system up and down the country, in both rural and coastal communities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Care, whose portfolio includes pharmacy, takes his responsibilities seriously and is exploring all avenues to ensure equity of access and funding, including through the Carr-Hill formula. The hon. Lady asks what mitigations can be employed to ensure that payments are made in extraordinary circumstances. I can assure her that I have had those discussions with my officials this morning, and they reassured me that there will be a degree of flexibility, particularly in circumstances outwith the control of individual pharmacies.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments · Hansard source

  More

  I am reminded that Liberal Democrat Front Benchers always welcome funding for the NHS, but can never explain where the money should come from. I have already mentioned the record funding that we are putting into pharmacy. I have reiterated that there is ministerial engagement with the pharmacy sector—not just through the Minister with responsibility for pharmacy, but through me, as Minister with responsibility for health innovation. Our relationship with the pharmacy sector is in a good place, and we continue to develop it.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments · Hansard source

  More

  As I have stated, we have given pharmacies a record £3.1 billion settlement. We absolutely endorse the need for pharmacies to do more in our communities. We are enabling pharmacists up and down the country to expand their repertoire, and we are ensuring that Pharmacy First remuneration is a dynamic process, month on month, that reflects the activity that each pharmacy is doing.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments · Hansard source

  More

  I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s wise counsel. He will know that I have regular meetings with my counterparts in the devolved nations. I am well aware of some of the remuneration schemes in Northern Ireland, and I am following them with interest.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Independent prescribers are a key and expanding part of our workforce, providing a sustainable primary care service. I am very happy for the Minister for Care to write to him with the exact funding plans for the next financial year.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to take the traditional Department of Health and Social Care urgent question before recess—I would not miss it for the world. Since coming into office, we have reversed the decade of cuts to community pharmacy with the biggest uplift for the sector in years and frozen prescription charges to help our constituents with the cost of living, and women can now get the morning-after pill free of charge across the country. Earlier this week, I spoke to the National Pharmacy Association’s winter reception to pay tribute to its members for their work and to assure them that I have their back, as does the Minister for Care. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) raises the important issue of payments made via Pharmacy First. As he knows, pharmacy contractors receive a monthly fixed payment if they meet certain requirements. We agreed to reduce the claim window, in conjunction with Community Pharmacy England, as part of our deal for 2025-26 to introduce a new Pharmacy First fixed first payment of £500. That has supported a broader range of pharmacies and has meant that more pharmacies have become eligible for payments. We are in discussions with Community Pharmacy England to consider where improvements to the claiming process can be made, address concerns raised by contractors and aim for a more consistent approach to remuneration. We will also consult with Community Pharmacy England shortly on the contractual framework for next year. There are issues relating to contractors being suspended from providing Pharmacy First that are for separate consideration. When concerns are raised, NHS England can suspend individual contractors from providing the service pending a full investigation. There are a number of reasons why that might be necessary, but the measures are there, first and foremost, as the House will appreciate, to protect patient safety. I am a clinician, as is the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, and I am sure that he will agree that patient safety should be at the forefront of everything we do. Finally, funding for the core community pharmacy contractual framework has been increased to over £3 billion—the largest uplift of any part of the NHS in the last two years. As part of this year’s contractual framework, we have agreed to keep the current cost control mechanism linked to Pharmacy First that we inherited from the previous Government to ensure that the money is spent within that envelope. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for adumbrating how 14 years of Tory Government have led to significant decay in the provision of primary care services in some of our communities. He is right to mention dispensing doctors, who are a vital part of the mixture in hard-to-reach and coastal communities. I had many meetings with them prior to my appointment, and my colleague the Minister for Care will continue to meet them to ensure that they continue to be part of the mix of care provision in those communities.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, while the Conservatives left GPs on the scrapheap, this Government ensured—

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his remarks. At the risk of turning this into some sort of medical journal club—I will move on quite swiftly, Madam Deputy Speaker—let me point out that the association is based on retrospective data, and we all know that we have to be a little bit cautious with retrospective data. As for the question of research, I can assure the right hon. Member that we are committed to spending more of the £2 billion NIHR budget on rare cancer research, some of which is ringfenced. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about rural areas. In the workforce plan, we are committed to ensuring—

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  Sacking people is above my pay grade, so I will revert to the Secretary of State’s opinion on that, but my hon. Friend can certainly be reassured that we will hold them accountable, just as she will hold me accountable. She might give me the sack at this rate, so I had better be careful. We are grateful for the continued campaigning on rare cancers. We look forward to working further with partners to deliver improvements in outcomes for brain cancer patients, and we know that the improvements promised through this plan rely on good research. That research has already begun, with over £25 million invested in the NIHR brain tumour research consortium, which aims to transform outcomes for adults and children —and their families—who are living with brain tumours, ultimately reducing the number of lives lost to cancer. Furthermore, we are partnering with Cancer Research UK to provide £3 million to co-fund the CRUK brain tumour centres of excellence. This will ensure that we accelerate the move from foundational research to delivering innovative treatments for patients. These investments have the potential to shift the dial and the UK’s position as a leading location for brain tumour treatment research. As reaffirmed in the national cancer plan, this Government are proud to support the Rare Cancers Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, which passed its Second Reading in the other place last month. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and other hon. Members for their support and their moving contributions to the debates on the Bill. This important legislation will make it easier for researchers to connect with patients living with rare cancers, including brain tumours; streamline recruitment into clinical trials; and ensure that our regulatory system delivers for patients. As set out in our 10-year health plan, we will ensure that the UK is a global leader in clinical research. This Bill will accelerate the clinical trials needed to deliver the most effective cutting-edge treatments and the highest-quality care for patients facing a rare cancer diagnosis. I look forward to seeing it progress towards Royal Assent. I once again thank hon. Members for giving me the chance to set out our plans on rare cancers. I hope I have reassured them that we are determined to improve survival rates for patients, and ensuring that everyone has access to the highest-quality care and the highest-quality research. The national cancer plan embodies these ambitions and sets out how we will achieve them. Through our significant research investments and our support of the private Member’s Bill on rare cancers, in 2026 we will begin to shift the dial on outcomes for brain tumour patients.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  Certainly.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for all her advocacy on behalf of all her constituents, but particularly Amani’s family. This is a story with which I am very familiar, and I can reassure my hon. Friend that I am committed to ensuring that medical research is properly funded so that, indeed, it is not the duty of bereaved parents or parents to raise the money.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and that is why NIHR funding has been specifically allocated. One of the tests for a grant is the diversity of the population it will serve. We recognise the challenges presented by brain tumours. By publishing regular performance data at a more granular level and adding diagnosis in emergency settings to our basket of early diagnosis metrics, we are committed to moving the dial on these issues. For all patients diagnosed with rare cancers, we will prioritise access to specialist treatment and multidisciplinary teams to ensure that they benefit from the best of evidence-based care. We will work with charities to support rare cancer patients, and to ensure that they have access to the right information to manage their cancer care. We wish to be held accountable on these commitments and to drive forward progress for rare cancer patients, and we will therefore appoint a national clinical lead for rare cancers, who will provide independent arbitration. The actions I have listed make up just a small part of our plan. It will turn cancer, which is one of the country’s biggest killers, into a treatable chronic condition. We have developed our plans with patients, charities, families and clinicians, and have heard from many Members today. We are grateful for the continued campaigning on rare cancers and brain tumours.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), and the hon. Members for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) for supporting this important debate. I would like to take a few moments to acknowledge the contributions of all hon. Members across this House—from personal experience, I know how hard it is to talk about these issues when people close to your family are lost to brain tumours. They include my aunt, who was instrumental in my pursuing a career in medicine. She passed away in 1997, only four months after a diagnosis of glioblastoma. The hon. Member for Witney asked about consent in relation to tumour tissue research, which is a really important and pertinent topic. I am very happy to go away and consult with the Human Tissue Authority regarding the facility we have at the moment, which is quite sizeable, for securing consent to research on tissue from living persons and deceased persons. As a transplant surgeon, I am relatively au fait with some of the consent issues that can arise in using tissue from deceased persons, and I am always very happy to encourage consideration of those issues wherever possible. The hon. Member rightly challenged us to improve our architecture for digital consent. We continue to do so through our “analogue to digital” platform, on which the 10-year health plan is based, not only for care but for research. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) and the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for their thought-provoking contributions to this debate, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who talked so passionately about these issues. I thank him once again for bringing forward his private Member’s Bill, which will do so much to move the dial on research, not only on brain tumours but on rare cancers more generally. He had a specific ask about visa costs for talent coming from elsewhere in the world, and I assure him that we are looking seriously into these issues. Only today, I was chairing a session of the Life Sciences Council, where we talked about the global talent fund. That is pertinent to the discussions that my hon. Friend is having, and I am happy to put the council in touch with him to further those discussions regarding how we attract the brightest and the best to our country to advance the cause of life sciences generally, as well as the cause of researching rare cancers. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) talked more specifically about referral targets. I can reassure him that we are totally committed as a Government to hitting those national standards on 62-day waits. He challenged us to go to 100%. I caution him that although 85% is possible, 100% is not, usually for clinical reasons. There may be genuine clinical reasons why patients cannot access treatment within 62 days in terms of planning and specialist access. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about diagnostics. That issue is close to my heart, and I reassure him that through the continued opening of community diagnostic centres up and down the country and £2 billion of funding, I am determined to ensure that diagnostics is improved and available closer to home wherever possible. The hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) talked about her friend being diagnosed with a brain tumour in A&E. As someone who was a young casualty officer many years ago, that resonated strongly with me. The A&E department is the last place where any tumour should be diagnosed, but I remember it happening far too frequently as a young casualty officer. One litmus test of the success of our cancer plan will be that much fewer of those diagnoses will be undertaken in an unplanned fashion in A&Es up and down our country. I am always grateful for the learned remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). I always feel like I learn so much from him. In fact, I learned so much tonight that I might add his contribution to my portfolio of continuing professional development when I submit myself back to the General Medical Council to extend my licence. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always raises thought-provoking issues about four-nation working. I assure him that I continually and frequently discuss many matters pertaining to the health of our four nations with the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland. I can also reassure him of our UK-wide commitment to the life sciences sector plan and life sciences project. On that note, it was my great pleasure to meet academics from Queen’s University Belfast in this place only a few months ago, where I reaffirmed my commitment as life sciences Minister to the life sciences sector plan being a true four-nation project. That of course includes Northern Ireland, and I know from my own academic interests that much expertise resides in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) talked about benign tumours not being forgotten, and she is absolutely right. Those of us from a medical background know that it is a spectrum between benign and malignant tumours. Many benign tumours can evolve into malignant tumours, and they must be captured by plans such as the national cancer plan. She challenged me about publishing regular outcomes from the national cancer plan, and I can certainly commit to that. Those can be scrutinised in the normal way by the Health and Social Care Committee. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) talked about screening. She will know, as I do, that screening is important when it is evidence-based and where the benefits outweigh the harms. Screening is never harm-free, so it is important to ensure we are calculating these things based on expert evidence. Neither she nor I are experts in screening, so we always defer to the UK National Screening Committee and its deliberations and opinions on these matters. The shadow Minister asked me about the workforce plan. I can assure her that that is in play and will be published shortly, in the spring or very early summer. She asked how that might interact with diagnostic capacity, and I can assure her that we are working at great speed to ramp up diagnostic capacity through the funding envelope that I mentioned. She will know that it is important, when we plan both for workforce and diagnostic capacity, to take account of AI moving at a rapid pace. We have already been able to eliminate one radiologist from breast cancer diagnoses, and it is entirely possible that we will be able to have a similar impact with technology on the rates of other cancers and, for example, lung cancer diagnostics. It is important that, as we work through the workforce plan, we take account of what the future will look like in that context. When we came to the topic of the potential association between traumatic brain injury and brain tumours and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket intervened on the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the medical man in me could not help himself. I looked at PubMed quickly to check whether there was indeed an association, and I picked out a paper that may be of interest to the medical people in this place. Following 24 years’ worth of data from Mass General Brigham hospital, with 75,000 patients on each arm looked at retrospectively, there would seem to be a mild association between severe traumatic brain injury and the diagnosis of malignant brain tumours.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I am hearing my hon. Friend’s call to action loud and clear. I can report to her that—this is in addition to the other ongoing clinical trials in the area of brain tumour and glioma research—in October 2025, RECURRENT-GB opened for recruitment. This is a new UK multi-centre randomised controlled trial, supported by nearly £2 million of NIHR funding, which will explore, for instance, whether surgery can improve the quality of life for patients with glioblastoma when the glioblastoma comes back after treatment. I know that my hon. Friend will hold our feet to the fire when it comes to recruitment and the money being used appropriately, and I am delighted to continue working with her in that regard. Since this Government took office, over 213,000 more people are getting a cancer diagnosis on time, over 36,000 more people are starting treatment on time, and rates of early diagnosis are hitting record highs. Despite these vital signs of recovery, we know that our NHS is still failing far too many cancer patients and their families, as Members from across the House have highlighted this evening. We know that brain tumours remain one of the hardest cancers to treat, and it remains a challenging and underserved area of research. Last week, the Government published our national cancer plan. We now have a blueprint to shift the dial on rare and challenging cancers, underpinned by three key targets. First, we aim to save 330,000 more lives by 2035 by ensuring that three in every four people diagnosed in 2035 will be cancer-free or living well with cancer five years after diagnosis. Secondly, we will achieve the three cancer performance targets, which I mentioned earlier, by the end of March 2029. Finally, we will improve the quality of life for people living with cancer. Rare and less common cancers are a priority for the Government, and this is the first ever cancer plan with a whole chapter dedicated to rare cancers. We aim to be in the top quartile of European countries for 14 rare cancers, including brain tumours, where we currently rank 22nd out of 24. We will pull every lever available to drive improvements for these cancer types. We know that one of the most effective ways to improve survival from cancer, including brain cancer, is to catch it and treat it early, so we have committed to reducing the number of rare cancers diagnosed in emergency settings, including brain tumours, which cannot be staged like other cancers and have therefore not been previously captured by early diagnosis measures.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful for the opportunity to open the debate on these regulations, which were laid before Parliament on 16 December 2025 and are due to come into force on 1 April 2026. The purpose of the regulations is to amend the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 and the Medical Devices (Northern Ireland Protocol) Regulations 2021 to update their fee structure. They do that by introducing a new medical devices registration fee, which provides additional funding for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s strengthened post-market surveillance of medical devices. From 1 April 2026, the new annual fee will apportion the MHRA’s PMS costs more fairly across the sector and will replace the current per-application fee, which is insufficient to cover the costs of the post-market surveillance we wish to see in future. In 2026-27, the fee will be part-subsidised by the Department of Health and Social Care, with the intention that, subject to further ministerial and parliamentary approval, we will move to a fully cost-recovering annual fee model from 2027-28. As to why the regulations are necessary in a modern MHRA regulatory framework, PMS refers to the work that the MHRA does to collect, review and act on safety and performance issues relating to medical devices on the market. The independent medicines and medical devices safety review highlighted the need for a higher-quality medical devices PMS framework. The Medical Devices (Post-market Surveillance Requirements) (Amendment) (Great Britain) Regulations 2024, which came into force on 16 June 2025, were a key part of the wider reforms developed in response to the recommendations in that review. The 2024 regulations strengthen the medical devices safety and surveillance framework, improve patient safety and support the MHRA’s more risk-proportionate and innovation-friendly approach to regulation. However, they are also estimated to increase PMS workload by 60% to 70%, at an annual cost of around £17 million, so finding a sustainable funding model is vital. Historically, the PMS of MHRA devices has been funded mainly by subsidy from the Department of Health and Social Care, and partly by the current per-application fee model. Subsidising ongoing regulatory activity through general taxation is not the MHRA’s usual approach to fees and services. The usual approach is based on His Majesty’s Treasury’s “Managing Public Money” guidance, which states that fees should be set on a full cost-recovery basis. Therefore, the regulations reduce subsidy by introducing a direct annual registration fee, so that those who benefit from access to the market fund the regulatory activity that underpins it. On the intended operation of the regulations in practice, the new annual fee apportions the overall cost of the MHRA’s PMS activities by using the global medical device nomenclature system, which is a globally recognised system for naming and classifying medical devices. It is hierarchical, with broader groupings at higher levels and more granular entries at lower levels—for example, level 2 is a “category” and level 5 is an individual GMDN “term”. Medical devices are registered with the MHRA using a GMDN code. Prior to placing devices on the market for use, the MHRA hosts a register of them called the device online registration system, or DORS—I am sorry, Ms Jardine, it is another acronym. The register is a valuable resource to monitor devices in circulation and to know when there are concerns about their uses. The proposed fee will be calculated using information from DORS; in practice, the MHRA will charge based on the number of chargeable GMDN level 2 categories that the manufacturer’s registrations fall into. It is important to note that if a manufacturer has multiple devices in the level 2 category, they will be charged only once a year for that category. As the GMDN system is already in use for device registration, this approach also limits the administrative burden because fees can be calculated from existing data, rather than requiring additional information from the manufacturer, and is therefore less onerous. The MHRA consulted widely on the fee as part of its last statutory fees uplift and updated its approach based on stakeholder feedback. The consultation ran for two months, from August to October 2024, and was widely promoted and was supported by a small and medium-sized enterprise webinar. The annual fee proposed in the consultation was £210 per GMDN level 5 term, using the most granular, fifth level of the GMDN structure. Most respondents did not support the proposal: 72% were opposed, 18% had no opinion and 10% supported it. Their concerns focused on the introduction of a new annual cost at short notice and the risk of a disproportionate impact on SMEs and areas that attract more GMDN registrations, such as in vitro diagnostics and—something that is close to my heart—surgical instruments. In response to feedback, several changes were made. The MHRA set up a confidential, trusted advisory group of industry representatives to discuss the approach and seek further advice on implementation. That was welcomed by the members and provided useful feedback and assurance. The fee is being rolled out in a phased way to give the sector time to adapt and respond to its needs. The costs have been fully subsidised in 2025-26, and this instrument introduces a part-subsidised annual fee from 2026-27, with the intention to move to a fully cost-recovering annual fee model from 2027-28, subject, as I have said, to further ministerial review and parliamentary approval. The fee was remodelled to be charged at GMDN category level 2, rather than level 5, which is a higher, more general level, which will result in the costs being more equitably spread. Overall, the MHRA estimates that, crucially, 56% of manufacturers will pay only £300 a year, and that 82% of manufacturers will pay no more than £900 a year. Crucially, SMEs are more likely to pay only £300 a year, as they are likely to have a more limited range of products compared with larger companies. To add further context, the medical technology sector generated £48 billion of turnover in 2023-24 and the total post-market surveillance cost was £17 million, representing 0.035% of total revenue. That is a good example of how consultation feedback and stakeholder engagement can be used to improve a proposal, in this case by modifying the fee structure to be more equitable and proportionate. I recognise that manufacturers will always prefer to avoid additional costs, but I am satisfied that moving to a fair and, crucially, more predictable cost recovery approach to fund ongoing PMS is the right thing to do and that the changes made help to address the key concerns raised. Finally, the MHRA has been working to help the wider medical technology sector to prepare for this change. The phased roll-out has given the sector time to adjust and get ready. The MHRA has published guidance explaining the new fee—how it will be calculated, what account holders need to do to ensure that their registration data is accurate, and how and when the payment needs to be made. The MHRA is improving the functionality of its DORS system so that account holders can see their chargeable GMDN categories, helping them to understand and check what they will be charged for in advance, to give them additional certainty. This new functionality will be ready for 1 April 2026. In the meantime, the MHRA has emailed all manufacturers directly with an estimated fee based on their registrations of November 2025. In summary, these regulations introduce a necessary and fair annual registration fee from 1 April 2026 to help to fund the MHRA’s strengthened PMS ambitions, as well as its regulatory ambitions to make this country the world leader in life sciences and the medical technology sector. The approach has been improved in response to consultation feedback and is being introduced in a phased way to give maximum time to the sector to adapt, while ensuring that the MHRA has the resources it needs to protect patients and maintain confidence in our growing market. For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to write to the hon. Lady to give her a fuller answer. She knows that procurement in different parts of the NHS rightly reflects local clinical practices, although there are overarching national frameworks for buying such products. Innovation lends itself to the fact that, over time, patients will want to choose and move on to newer forms of devices that treat their conditions in line with the latest clinical evidence. I am very happy to write to her more extensively on obsolescence and her other questions. I would like to address some points made on the following topics: the impact on SMEs; the impact on market attractiveness more extensively; GMDN suitability and transparency; clarity on costs; and the evaluation of value for money. I also want to make some points regarding Northern Ireland. On SMEs, as the Opposition spokesperson highlighted, I recognise that new regulatory costs can be felt more sharply by smaller firms, and the MHRA has listened carefully. That is why the fee has been designed to spread costs more equitably across the sector, and the majority will pay only £300 per year. Following consultation feedback, charging is based on the number of GMDN level 2 categories that a manufacturer’s registered device falls into, rather than the much more granular level 5. That matters for SMEs because they are more likely to have closely related product variants that may attract multiple level 5 terms, but sit more generally within a single level 2 category. Under this approach, multiple products in one level 2 category are therefore charged once per year, reducing the need for repeat charges on minor product variations. The MHRA estimates that around 56% of manufacturers will pay a single unit fee of £300 a year, and SMEs are most likely to fall into that group, because they typically have a narrower product range than the larger companies. The MHRA is not offering waivers or special SME rates. The charge is designed to be proportionate, and any waiver would simply shift costs elsewhere. The intention is to keep the charge predictable and proportionate, and to phase it in. Finally, SMEs stand to benefit from a stronger PMS framework, leading to earlier identification of issues, fewer surprises and a more risk-proportionate and predictable regulatory approach that supports responsible innovation. I must make it clear that we are not asking for more money: we are simply changing the MHRA’s regulatory framework to put it on a more sustainable footing so that in the future it is less reliant on the taxpayer and, therefore, more pro-innovation, more pro-market and better able to have a healthier commercial relationship with new and established companies. On innovation and UK attractiveness, a robust PMS framework is not a brake on innovation—far from it. It helps to make the market more predictable and investable, as per my conversations over the last couple of weeks with major and smaller biotech industry firms. In developing this instrument, we have ensured that the Secretary of State must have regard to three considerations set out in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021: safety, availability, and the attractiveness of the whole of the United Kingdom as a place to research, develop, manufacture and, crucially, supply medical devices. This fee supports safety by ensuring the MHRA has sustainable funding for strengthened PMS, so that risks can be identified and acted on sooner. It supports availability by underpinning a stable and predictable system of oversight that helps to maintain continued safe access to effective devices.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The anticipation would be that post-market surveillance will continue if devices are still used in a clinical setting. PMS supports UK attractiveness by strengthening confidence in the market for patients, clinicians and investors, and by resourcing a more risk-proportionate, innovation-friendly approach to regulation, including making better use of real-world evidence and enabling more flexible and efficient regulatory burdens over time. A stronger PMS framework will also reduce uncertainty for innovators by enabling earlier proportionate action and helping to avoid sudden escalations that can disrupt plans or supply. By improving real-world evidence and post-market detail, it will also strengthen confidence in the UK as a place to generate evidence, invest and bring new devices to patients. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, asked questions about global medical device nomenclature as the basis for apportioning costs. GMDN is internationally recognised for naming and grouping medical devices and is already used for UK device registration through the DORS, since 2018. Using GMDN categories means that the fee can be calculated from information that manufacturers already provide, making it less onerous, rather than creating a new system for reporting requirements purely for charging purposes. That helps to minimise the administrative burden across the sector, including for SMEs. Category-based charging is also a practical and broadly proportionate proxy for the breadth of devices and types a manufacturer places on the market and, therefore, the likely level of PMS activity. It avoids a per-device approach and the complexity and burden of trying to calculate an actual PMS cost for each manufacturer. On transparency, the MHRA is improving DORS, so as of 1 April account holders can see the chargeable GMDN level 2 categories linked to their registrations. Ahead of the go-live, MHRA has written directly to all manufacturers with their estimated fees so that they can check in advance their registration data and plan their budgets accordingly. On clarity of costs, the consultation proposed an annual fee of £210 per GMDN term at level 5. The feedback was clear that that would be disproportionate, because level 5 is more granular in some areas than in others, exposing SMEs and manufacturers of devices such as in vitro diagnostics and surgical instruments to higher costs. In response, the MHRA redesigned the fee, so its charging is based now on the GMDN level 2 category, which is much broader, and consistent across product ranges. The unit price is higher because there are fewer level 2 categories than level 5, so the amount to recover is spread across fewer units, and the cost base has been updated to reflect inflation since the consultation. The fee is also being introduced with a phased approach to give manufacturers time to adapt. The PMS has been fully subsidised by the DHSC in the year 2025-26, and this instrument introduces a part-subsidised annual fee model by 2026-27. The intention is to move to a fully cost recovery annual fee from 2027-28, once the new arrangements are embedded and a full impact assessment can be prepared. On value for money and evaluation, the main objective of strengthening post-market surveillance is to improve health outcomes by increasing the quality and quantity of safety and performance data, and reducing the time from identifying a risk to making a corrective action. That supports patient safety and continued access to safe, effective devices and enables a more risk-proportionate, pro-innovation approach to regulation by strengthening the evidence base and supporting earlier proportionate action where needed.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Lady knows, doctors are able, in certain circumstances, to prescribe unlicensed treatments to their patients if they feel it is a proportionate act to take. It is not something that is in guidelines or routinely recommended, but is at times at the discretion of individual clinicians. Clearly, that would be a peripheral activity, and something that could be looked at by local governance processes; but I am confident that these regulations strengthen the current post-market surveillance, so we are moving to a place of greater safety for the totality of the system. The fee funds around 102 staff working across key areas, including medical device safety and surveillance yellow cards, software and diagnostics, and compliance and safety data. Roughly three quarters of these posts are existing roles, previously funded through the DHSC subsidy, with around one quarter being new posts that the MHRA expects to fill by the end of March 2026. Performance will be monitored through indicators such as the volume and quality of vigilance reporting, field safety corrective action and trend reporting, signal detection, and timeliness from the initial signal through to alerts and the corrective action being applied. The MHRA is committed to strengthening its internal metrics and producing new KPIs to track performance. These will be reviewed through the biennial fees uplift process to ensure that costs remain efficient and proportionate, and to avoid over or under-recovery. I turn briefly to Northern Ireland. As hon. Members know, the regulatory position is different from that of Great Britain: under the Windsor framework, the EU devices regulations apply in Northern Ireland. This means that devices placed on the NI market must meet relevant EU requirements. The European Commission has recently announced that EUDAMED registration will become mandatory by May 2026. EUDAMED is the European Commission’s database that collects and stores data about devices on the EU and NI market. It is free for users, as it is funded centrally by the European Commission. In practice, that means that manufacturers, or their representatives, of devices—other than those that are custom-made—that are placing them on the EU or NI markets must register their devices on EUDAMED from 28 May 2026. Out of a desire to avoid duplicative obligations, we are taking forward a separate piece of regulation that will mean that on 28 May 2026, devices other than custom-made ones, placed on the NI market will need to be registered with EUDAMED and will no longer need to be registered with MHRA, so the fee will not apply. Under EU regulations, custom-made devices are excluded from EUDAMED. They will still need to be registered with the MHRA, and will incur the fee. Taken together, these regulations put the funding of the strengthened PMS on a clearer, more sustainable footing, so that those who benefit from access to the UK market contribute fairly to the ongoing regulatory work that supports their access. The fee has been redesigned in response to consultation feedback, is being phased in to give the sector time to adapt, and uses existing registration data to keep the administrative burden on business low. Ultimately, this is about maintaining confidence in the safety and performance of medical devices, supporting continued access, and ensuring that the MHRA has the capacity to act quickly and proportionately if issues arise. I am happy to write to hon. Members if there any detailed points that I have not addressed; I have taken on board the comments of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and I am happy to write to her and the Committee. For those reasons, I invite the Committee to support these regulations for the sake of patient safety and our commercial environment, and I commend them to the Committee. Question put.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I turn first to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. Like me, she is a scholar of medicine, and she practiced in the NHS throughout all 14 years of the last Government. She will know, possibly at first hand, that the MHRA as a regulatory body has not been fit for purpose for a long time. It has lagged behind the inventions and innovations now available to patients, particularly in medical technology. She will also know it is this Government who are placing the MHRA at the service of patients by being bold in our reforming agenda and our leadership in regulating medical technology. The proof point of that reform is our consultation with trusted groups, including trade associations such as the Association of British HealthTech Industries, the British In Vitro Diagnostics Association and the British Dental Association, all of which were consulted extensively over the course of these regulatory proposals, and with which I engage on a regular basis to garner their support, so that at every step of the way our life sciences sector plan is facilitated by our regulatory institutions and authorities. Indeed, the MHRA was present last week in front of a number of innovative biotechnology companies, whose message was loud and clear: they view the UK’s regulatory framework as first in class, innovative and forward-thinking, and they therefore see investing in our country as an attractive proposition. On the impact assessment, I assure the Opposition spokesperson and the hon. Member for Winchester that we are not avoiding an impact assessment. In fact, we are supporting industry with a phased approach to fees, and we are open to an ongoing consultation and dialogue as this fee structure comes into place next year and the year after. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester is a learned Member of this House, and I entirely take on board his comments regarding insulin pumps. Wherever possible, in the discussions that I have had with my officials and the MHRA, we have said that this fee structure should include the totality of a device, rather than its component parts. I am very happy to take his comments back to my officials, so that we can make sure that he and his constituents are satisfied that there are no unintended consequences in that regard. I thank all Members for their contributions, and thank you, Ms Jardine.

• 20 Jan 2026 · ADHD Diagnosis · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have a lot of things in my purview, but prisons are not one of them. However, his point is well made. We expect that such sub-groups would be investigated and interrogated during the prevalence review. I do have only two minutes, Ms Vaz, so I will move on quickly and not test your patience. In the longer term, we recognise the need to understand the factors behind the rising demand for services. We recognise that ADHD and autism frequently co-occur, which is why it will be important for the prevalence review to look at the conditions holistically as well as individually. I acknowledge the impact that delays in accessing assessments and diagnosis are having on people, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central for tabling this important and timely debate. I hope that the actions I have set out today, including the prevalence review and how it will dovetail with other reviews and other Departments, will provide some reassurance to my hon. Friend and other colleagues that we are taking these matters extremely seriously, and with a parity of esteem with any physical health condition or issue. I hope that all hon. Members’ constituents start to feel that progress very soon.

• 20 Jan 2026 · ADHD Diagnosis · Hansard source

  More

  I have met the chair of the taskforce: we discussed the outcomes, and the need—as the hon. Member mentioned in his remarks—for work on those outcomes to dovetail with the prevalence review. I think that would be the most appropriate way to provide a holistic response. We, of course, respect the findings of the report, which is an excellent scientific piece of work looking at the data underpinning the diagnoses.