Zubir Ahmed MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Jun 2026 · Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. It is also an honour to have the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), respond to this debate. She knows Glasgow well and was generous with her time when she was last in the city, visiting Crookston castle, the Nethercraigs sports complex—which is not a Commonwealth games venue, unfortunately, but perhaps next time—and the Pakistani Street Food café. I believe that she is due in Glasgow South West tomorrow, so it is wonderful that she is responding to the debate. As well as congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing the debate, it is important to thank her, as other Members have done, for her long record championing Glasgow and sport. As the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport in the Scottish Labour Government, she helped to lay the important foundations of what we celebrate today—the ambition, the infrastructure and the belief that Glasgow could stand on the world stage and deliver, all of which was seeded during her tenure as a Minister. The 2014 Commonwealth games showed what Glasgow was capable of. Under a Labour council that understood what sport could do, and what it could unleash for communities, the city welcomed athletes and visitors from across the globe, and by wide consensus, it did not disappoint. The legacy of those games was lasting, not only in the venues and infrastructure but in the civic pride felt by the volunteers and citizens, and by the young people who watched those games and dared to dream to become athletes themselves. In that sense, Glasgow 2026 does not start from scratch; it stands on the shoulders of giants like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West—that is a very special thing indeed. These games are also personal to me and my own Commonwealth story. In 1963, my father came to this country by road from Pakistan, a proud Commonwealth nation. I grew up in the city and was trained as a surgeon by many Commonwealth citizens. I now have the singular honour of being the Member of Parliament for Glasgow South West, perhaps the most diverse constituency in Scotland, and one that has been shaped by its many Commonwealth connections from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and the Caribbean. I am confident that when the athletes from the 74 nations touch down in Glasgow later this year, they will feel at home, with smells and languages quite familiar to them, thanks to the diverse communities that occupy Glasgow. I hope that, in some sense, they will feel at home during their time here, as one Commonwealth family bound by the shared values, histories and stories that we all carry. It is particularly important to emphasise those shared values today, because last night we saw some violence on Buchanan Street in Glasgow, under the watchful eye of the statue of Donald Dewar, the father of our nation. That underlines that Glasgow is not immune to the challenges of social cohesion—or, indeed, prejudice. It is therefore timely to remind ourselves that, as a Commonwealth family, those shared values must come to the fore, and we as Members of this place all have a responsibility to articulate those values in these times of stress and turbulence. When telling the story of the 2026 Commonwealth games and how they came to Glasgow, it is important to re-emphasise that when Victoria withdrew, the games were in danger of fizzling out. In fact, there was even a danger that Commonwealth games as a concept could come to an end. However, Glasgow, the UK Government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stepped forward to ensure that the games can once again be celebrated, and that our Commonwealth family can celebrate, too. Finally, the King’s baton, with which the games will be opened, was handcrafted by GalGael, a social enterprise based in Govan in Glasgow South West, using reclaimed wood from Pollok Country Park. I do not think there is a better symbol of Glasgow than Glasgow timber being handcrafted by Glaswegians and travelling to every part of our Commonwealth ahead of these games. Glasgow has earned this moment, and I am confident that it will make the most of it.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body · Hansard source

  More

  Ultimately, ICBs are responsible for delivering the framework. The Government are held accountable in the manner being seen today, and I have no doubt that in the new structures that we propose there will be further accountability, because in many ways the middleman will be removed and we will have more direct oversight as to what is going on with wheelchair services and other services up and down the country. I take the hon. Member’s point on data as well. I am the Minister responsible for data, health innovation and innovation in general, and I think this moment of restructuring, whether in relation to wheelchair services or other parts of the system, is a moment for us to really get into the 21st century with our capabilities for monitoring data for operational and capacity planning. I am very happy to share with him some of my thoughts about that over a cup of tea later, if he is interested. The community health services situation report will be used to monitor ICB performance against waiting time targets in 2026-27. Those targets will guide systems to reduce the longest waits. In addition, the 10-year plan makes a commitment to reviewing the complaints regulations, and NHSE and the Department of Health and Social Care are developing plans to achieve that. NHS England has developed policy, guidance and legislation to support ICBs to reduce delays and unacceptable regional variation in the quality and provision of wheelchair services. In April 2025 NHS England published the wheelchair quality framework, in collaboration with the wheelchair advisory group, which I understand includes the Wheelchair Alliance and Whizz Kidz, both of which were recognised by hon. Members in the debate today. That framework is designed to assist ICBs and NHS wheelchair service providers in delivering high-quality provision that offers improved access, outcomes and experiences. The framework sets out quality standards relevant to all suppliers and aligns with the Care Quality Commission assessment framework that applies to providers, local authorities and integrated care systems. Those quality standards should be used to develop local service specifications and to benchmark current commissioning and provision. Other measures taken by NHS England include the establishment of a national dataset on wheelchair waiting times to increase transparency and to enable targeted action if improvement is required, and the introduction of the legal right to a personal wheelchair budget in 2019. Personal wheelchair budgets provide a clear framework for ICBs to commission personalised wheelchair services that are outcomes-focused and integrated with other aspects of care.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) on securing this important debate and also on challenging us, born of his lived experience, to make the lives of disabled people better and better lived across our country. We are grateful for his presence in this House and this place, every single day. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he has done to champion this interest more generally in his capacity as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. In recent months wheelchair services have received considerable attention, both within Parliament and more widely. As has been highlighted, last month I participated in a debate on the provision of disability equipment, brought forward by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan). I have been struck by the compelling testimonies shared during those discussions and the ones today, highlighting the profound impact that timely access to appropriate disability equipment can have on people’s lives. This is a matter clearly deserving of much more attention. Since the previous debate on this topic, I have written to the national quality board to request that disabled people and the equipment they use are considered as part of the board’s ongoing work to improve quality and reduce inequality across health and care services. I am pleased to update that the board has confirmed it will take this forward. This Government remain steadfast in their commitment to ensuring that disabled people can access the services and support they need. Through our reforms to health and social care, we are dedicated to delivering meaningful change that will make that vision a reality. Integrated care boards, as has been highlighted, are responsible for commissioning local wheelchair services. Responsibility for providing disability equipment lies with local authorities or the NHS, depending on the person’s needs. For adults and children with long-term complex needs, services are typically provided by NHS wheelchair services. There is a range of NHS wheelchair providers across England, as we have heard. I acknowledge the concerns that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) raises about NRS. My hon. Friend the Minister for Care and I will be having discussions about that, and it would be appropriate to write the hon. Member an urgent letter to update him, as I know that he is genuinely concerned about the topic. ICBs are expected to monitor service provision and effectively manage contracts with their commissioned providers. Although the latest data from NHS England shows a reduction in wheelchair waiting times for adults, I recognise that far too many people of all ages, as we have heard today, experience unacceptable delays for appropriate equipment. The covid pandemic had a significant impact on wheelchair services, from which we are still suffering in terms of supply chain disruption. That has meant that waiting times for both adults and children have fluctuated unnecessarily—well, unacceptably—as services have worked to recover. Those with more complex needs can also experience delays due to the lead-in time for supply of more bespoke equipment. I understand that there have been complaints about the quality of services commissioned by some ICBs. Some of these are being dealt with on an individual basis by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, following escalation by individual patients. As part of its oversight of ICBs, NHS England is also gathering intelligence through regional teams to understand fully the issues being raised. It is important that local commissioners have the discretion to decide how best to meet the needs of their local population, and we are giving systems control and flexibility over how that is done. None the less, the Government are taking action to support local systems in delivering effective wheelchair services. Although there are no plans at the moment to establish a national review body to oversee wheelchair provision, the medium-term planning framework, published in October, requires that from this year all ICBs and community health services should actively manage and reduce waits over 18 weeks and develop a plan to eliminate all 52-week waits. The framework also states that in 2026-27, ICBs are required to “increase community health service capacity”— including wheelchair services— “to meet growth in demand, expected to be approximately 3% nationally per year”.

• 16 Apr 2026 · NHS Federated Data Platform · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will know that no NHS system or pathway can ever work without the confidence of the public, and that needs to be reflected in any evaluations that take place. I have heard my hon. Friend’s concerns loud and clear, as well as those of Members across the House. It is right that we look to maintain the highest standards for our NHS. It is also true that the FDP has a role to play in delivering for the NHS and helping people get the care they need more quickly and efficiently. Those are real outcomes that will improve people’s lives, all through the better use of data. Members on both sides of the House often rightly challenge me to go further, faster on rare diseases, rare tumours and rare cancers. None of that is possible in modern medicine without data, and the analysis of data. Just as I have a responsibility to ensure that we get value for money out of all contracts in the national health service, and that we evaluate them regularly, Members also have a responsibility to be careful not to aggregate different components of the NHS and present them as a monolithic technological solution. The FDP is, and will continue to be, an important component of delivering patient care in the NHS in England. Of course, who contracts with the FDP will be open to question as we go forward and think about future contractual arrangements. It would be disingenuous to suggest that the FDP is somehow the only technological solution or database in the NHS; there are many others that do good work—whether that is the single patient record, the health data research service, the NHS app or clinical systems for NHS primary care providers. We must be careful not to conflate one technology with the next, and in doing so, alarm citizens and patients about what is happening with their data. I can assure Members across the House that in my ministerial service—just as in my 20 years of clinical service—my north star is transparency, patient safety, quality and providing the best care to all patients up and down the country.

• 16 Apr 2026 · NHS Federated Data Platform · Hansard source

  More

  In the interests of time, I will continue. I apologise to my hon. Friend. In the future, our goal is to see a vibrant UK market in digital and technology, which would give the NHS more choices and help to improve standards. Of course, I would be unashamedly pro-British about my ambitions for that mix, because that is the way that we not only serve our NHS but also support economic growth. At the moment, what matters is who controls the data and how that is governed. I appreciate the sensitivities around that, I really do. Rightly for the FDP, this is a matter for the NHS and UK regulators. I have also been asked about vendor lock-in and whether it is possible to remove companies like Palantir from the NHS. The answer is unequivocally yes, it is possible. Of course, it would take time and planning to safely transition from one supplier to another, as it always does in the NHS, when patient safety is the primary concern. At the moment, there are unfortunately only a small number of companies that can do what we genuinely need them to do at the scale that we need them to do it, but the contract has multiple measures built in to allow greater freedom of choice. That includes making sure that the NHS owns the intellectual property for all products and that it is possible to migrate them to other providers. Data security is also at the heart of our health innovation programme. Protecting personal data is at the heart of the FDP and the health innovation strategy. Most importantly, we have separated church and state, in terms of service provision and data security. A separate company, IQVIA, provides the highest standard of privacy-enhancing technology for that data in the FDP, which means that we can remove personal identifiers from the data where they are not required, ensuring that privacy is maintained throughout. NHS England and NHS organisations retain full control as data controllers, including over decisions about how data is used, who can access it and which products are deployed. Palantir does not own the data, the products or the intellectual property, nor can it use the NHS data for its own purposes. The FDP is a secure data environment. Security is built into its design and operation, and it has been through national, technical and cyber-assurance, with external oversight. It should also be understood that the FDP is only for health and care purposes; it cannot be legally used for non-health purposes such as immigration enforcement, as has been promulgated. As Members will expect, my position on the owners and executives of Palantir is very much the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—we are no fan of their politics. However, the FDP, and the principles that underpin it, are critical to the future of the NHS. Palantir operates strictly within a UK-regulated contract where the NHS controls all data, access is tightly governed and information can be used only for agreed purposes that benefit patients. I would expect any member of staff who did not in all conscience feel that they could work with Palantir to raise that with their employer.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This statutory instrument makes an important change. It will amend the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 so that the treatment of disease, disorder or injury—TDDI—is brought within the regulatory scope of the Care Quality Commission. The change will be for TDDI provided in sports grounds and gymnasiums or under temporary arrangements at sporting or cultural events where it is delivered for the benefit of those taking part in or attending those activities. Members will recall the tragic events of 22 May 2017, when the Manchester Arena bombing killed 22 people and injured more than 1,000. The subsequent Manchester Arena inquiry uncovered serious failings, including inadequacies in the provision of healthcare services at the arena. The inquiry noted that those shortcomings may have been present in other venues across the country, in part because of the absence of regulation. A central finding of the inquiry was clear: the Department of Health and Social Care should consider changes to the law to enable the CQC to regulate healthcare delivered at events. The CQC has outlined initial concerns about the quality of care provided at events. It has heard serious allegations where unregulated provision has resulted in harm. The Government are committed to acting on the inquiry’s recommendations and strengthening public safety. I recognise that these changes are overdue, but it was important to consider the impacts carefully, and I am pleased that they have now been laid. This statutory instrument brings TDDI at events into line with hospitals, clinics, ambulances, GP surgeries, community services and care homes, where it is already regulated. That means that a provider delivering TDDI at an event must register with the CQC and comply with the same robust regulatory standards that apply elsewhere in our healthcare system. Some of these providers will already be registered to provide TDDI in other settings, and the process will be quicker for them. There has been some confusion about what TDDI actually is. It includes a wide range of treatments from emergency interventions to ongoing care for long-term conditions. I wish to be clear to Members that TDDI does not include first aid. First aid remains outside the scope of CQC regulation. To support providers to make this transition, they will have significant time to prepare. I can assure everyone involved that there will be a 15-month period in which providers can register and the CQC can process registrations before regulation becomes enforceable. The CQC will consult on guidance and produce supporting materials to help determine whether registration is required. The provision to allow registration will come into force on 7 September 2026. It will not become an offence to provide TDDI as an unregulated provider until 6 December 2027. In developing this policy, the Government have considered a range of options carefully, guided by the Manchester Arena inquiry findings. We concluded that partial removal would risk fragmenting provision, and a threshold based on event size would not reflect risk.

• 14 Apr 2026 · National Suicide Prevention Standard · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this debate on a topic that is especially close to her heart and for her work more generally to promote action on suicide prevention. I am also grateful to hon. Members across the Chamber for their interventions. Every suicide is nothing short of a tragedy. It has lasting and devastating impacts on families, friends and communities. Ensuring that the right care and support are available to someone who may be struggling when and where they need it can make all the difference in saving a life. That is why reducing the numbers of lives lost to suicide is a key priority for this Government, and we are committed to taking forward the suicide prevention strategy for England. The strategy focuses on harnessing efforts across civil society to help identify and support people at risk. Standards such as the one produced by the British Standards Institution play an important role in raising the profile of suicide prevention in England and in supporting employers to play their part. I take this opportunity to congratulate the BSI on 125 years of tireless work, ensuring quality not only in British society, but across the world. The British Standards Institution is the UK’s national standards body—an independent organisation that develops standards that shape and encourage best practice across myriad professional sectors. The Government’s relationship with the BSI is through a memorandum of understanding, primarily to support the UK standards system, rather than to direct or enforce implementation of standards by businesses. Decisions on adoption and implementation remain with individual organisations, although the Government may play a role in encouraging awareness of those standards to support best practice. In November last year, as we heard, the BSI launched a new voluntary standard entitled “Suicide and the Workplace”. That standard was particularly notable, given that it was not just the UK’s but the world’s first national standard supporting suicide prevention efforts in the workplace—a truly commendable achievement. My ministerial counterpart, the Minister with responsibility for mental health and women’s health, Baroness Gillian Merron, was particularly pleased to speak at the launch of that standard. As with other BSI standards, this voluntary British standard is published as guidance; it is designed to support organisations of any size and across all sectors in strengthening their approach to suicide prevention, intervention and bereavement support in the workplace. On uptake, I was pleased to hear that the standard has been well received so far, with more than 11,000 downloads since its publication in November. It is overwhelming to hear that businesses across the country are putting the standard into practice, including Heathrow airport and Inclusion Education, which have publicly adopted it. The standard is advisory and is intended to be integrated into existing organisational policies and health, safety and wellbeing arrangements, and therefore to be flexible. In terms of supporting its implementation, decisions on how to use it rest with individual organisations, but the Government recognise that some employers may choose to use it as a reference point or benchmark alongside their existing workplace mental health and wellbeing policies. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett knows I am not a Department for Business and Trade Minister, but I am committed to making sure that she is linked in with the appropriate Minister in that Department, particularly around her asks on how smaller and medium-sized enterprises can access and implement the standard and overcome the regulatory and financial hurdles to doing so, and I would be delighted to try to organise that meeting for her.

• 14 Apr 2026 · National Suicide Prevention Standard · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is trying to steal the conclusion of my speech, so I will bring it forward. I am always delighted to meet her, and she knows I am happy to contribute to any roundtable that she feels needs my attendance. I can charge my officials with the task of getting that organised. Those community-based mental health centres are co-delivered with primary care specialist services that can be drawn on as required. People can receive psychological therapies, medication and other interventions, while also having access to expertise that can help with wider issues that may be impacting on their wellbeing and recovery, such as issues with housing, employment and peer support. Our suicide prevention support pathfinder programme for middle-aged men will invest up to £3.6 million over three years in areas of England where middle-aged men face the greatest risk of suicide. It will support new ways of embedding effective, tailored support for middle-aged men within their communities and will create clearer, more joined-up pathways into existing local suicide prevention systems. Today’s discussion has without doubt highlighted that suicide prevention truly is everybody’s business. Every person, organisation and service has a role to play. We can all do more to ensure that we are equipped with the skills that can and will save lives. Our suicide prevention strategy sets out a comprehensive, evidence-driven plan to reduce the number of lives lost to suicide across our country. It highlights the important role that employers and organisations can and should play in supporting their staff to get the support they need. Guidance such as the BSI’s “Suicide and the Workplace” standard brings welcome visibility to just how important that role is. I extend my thanks to everyone who contributed to and was involved in the development of the standard. In conclusion, I know how personally painful debates such as this can be, but all hon. Members will know that the impact of these discussions goes well beyond the four walls of our Parliament and into the streets. That awareness is so important, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett for securing this debate. I would be delighted to meet her and to organise the meetings I outlined. Question put and agreed to.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Disability Equipment Provision · Hansard source

  More

  Well, I have not got time. I will write more fully regarding his correspondence. I am genuinely disappointed, if it is true, that he has not been responded to since September. In addition, the 10-year plan makes a commitment to reviewing the complaints regulations. NHS England and the Department are developing those together to achieve better accountability. The Government are also taking wider action to support disabled people through the 10-year health plan. On neighbourhood health, the neighbourhood health service will support disabled people to have choice and control over their care. That includes increasing the uptake of personal health budgets, which provide individuals with that greater choice and control over how their health is assessed and their wellbeing needs are met. One aim is to have a neighbourhood health centre in each community, bringing the NHS, local authority and voluntary sectors together to create a holistic offer that meets people’s needs in the place that they are. We expect these services to be designed in a way that reflects the specific needs of disabled people, with a focus on personalised, co-ordinated care. I particularly think that this is an opportunity, as we move care from hospital to the community, to address some of the concerns raised in the debate today. On social care, the Government are also driving forward improvements for disabled people. We are enabling people to have more choice and control over their care—through greater use of direct payments, for example. We are also expanding care options to boost independent living at home and have recently confirmed £723 million for the disabled facilities grant in 2026-27. The total DFG budget across 2025-26 and 2026-27 is £150 million more than the total budget across the previous two years. That represents an 11% increase and will support more disabled people to get the vital home adaptations that they might need. The Better Care Fund, which took effect in April 2025, is a framework for ICBs and local authorities to make joint plans and pool budgets to deliver better joined-up care. That can include the provision of assistive technology and equipment, such as wheelchairs. This financial year, ICBs and local authorities plan to spend £440 million on assistive technology and equipment, and we have introduced care technology standards to help them to choose the right support. In addition, as we move from hospital to community, commissioners can, if they wish, think about better co-commissioning, transcending traditional boundaries between local authorities, social care and the NHS. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for securing this important debate and I want to respond to a question he asked. Whether we call it a strategy or a framework, there is a real opportunity at this time of change in the NHS—including the development of a national quality board at NHS England, which will come into the Department of Health and Social Care once NHS England is abolished —to genuinely think about how we define “quality” for disabled people and about the equipment and the spaces that they use. Again, I will be very happy to discuss that with my colleagues in charge of the quality board. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with specifics that we can perhaps tease out after this debate today. We recognise the life-changing impact that having timely access to suitable disability equipment can have on the lives of disabled people across the United Kingdom, in every nation. The Government are dedicated to ensuring that all disabled people have access to the services and support that they need to live a fulfilling life; the presence of disability Ministers in each Department is certainly progress in that regard. Our work to reform health and social care, alongside the new plan for disability, will also help us to achieve that.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Funeral Directors: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is clearly reading my speech. I can assure him that meetings had taken place before my appointment as the Minister responsible for the aspects of the regulations relating to the Department of Health and Social Care. I can also confirm that further meetings are taking place, at my instruction, with the relevant Departments—hosted by me in the Department of Health and Social Care—so that we can genuinely move forward. I know that there is consensus across the House that we must move forward, genuinely and expediently, not only in aligning lines of demarcation and responsibility across those Departments, but in genuinely working together and showing leadership on this issue. I shall be happy to keep the hon. Members who are interested updated on those meetings when they take place. This is a complex and sensitive matter that requires careful and thoughtful consideration to safeguard the rights and dignity of those who have died, to support their bereaved families, and to ensure that any measures taken are proportionate, given that we are working with a number of small and medium-sized enterprises. To support this work, I am continuing to discuss progress and next steps with relevant Ministers across Government, as I said in response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). The Government are continuing to consider all options to ensure that high standards are upheld consistently across the funeral sector, and that includes the possibility of introducing suitable and proportionate regulation for funeral directors. As we discuss these options, we are clear about the need for the approach to maintain high standards, protect the dignity of the deceased and support bereaved families, recognising that any additional costs arising from regulation will ultimately fall on them. At the same time, we must consider the impact on the funeral sector itself. The funeral sector comprises 6,500 private businesses across the UK, the vast majority of which serve their communities with compassion and integrity, as we have heard tonight. Some 85% are already members of trade bodies that provide guidance, codes of practice and voluntary inspection schemes. The Government are committed to reducing the administrative burdens of regulation on businesses by 25%, and that will contribute to our approach to regulation in this area.

• 26 Feb 2026 · Eating Disorders Awareness Week · Hansard source

  More

  I can certainly commit to the hon. Lady that mental health spending in real terms will go up every single year. It went up by £688 million in real terms this year. [ Official Report, 16 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 6WC.] (Correction) The good nature of this debate permits me to push back only gently against the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who talked about spending in the NHS, but I do feel I need to push back a little: one of the reasons why that percentage in statistical terms is lower, but the spend in real terms is higher is because we had to spend so much more money—the record £26 billion that was afforded in additional spend by the Chancellor in the Budget—in other parts of the health service to compensate for the decay and decline in the NHS over the last 14 years. But the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) has my commitment to the overall philosophy that mental health spending will increase year on year. As I was saying, eating disorders are serious and complex; over and above skilled professionals, they also require compassion, understanding and collective responsibility. Through the 10-year health plan, we are shifting care closer to home; strengthening early intervention; expanding the workforce where necessary, such as with community mental health workers; improving standards and investing in the community services that make recovery possible. We are also equipping staff with the right training, protecting young people online—while continuing to improve and explore the mechanisms through which we can do that—and working with experts and those with lived experience to ensure that the reform we are choosing to pursue delivers real and lasting change. We know that the policy framework alone is never enough. Change also depends on the voices of campaigners, including many who join us here today, clinicians, families and those who have shared their lived experience. I can assure everyone that their advocacy continues to shape this Government’s approach, and it will continue to do so. To those living with an eating disorder, and to the families supporting them, I want to say this: “You are not invisible. You are not alone.” This Government are committed to building a system that responds with urgency, expertise and compassion. Our task—across this House and beyond it—is to ensure that when someone reaches out for help, the system we create is ready to respond with urgency, expertise and, crucially, hope. I once again thank hon. Members for contributing to this debate and I look forward to continuing this work with colleagues from across the House.

• 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.

• 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.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support · Hansard source

  More

  The mental health investment standard is something that we expect ICBs to meet. I will gently push back on what the hon. Gentleman is saying because, as we have been so succinctly reminded in this debate, investing in mental wellbeing is about more than just headline figures. For instance, we need psychology in oncology, in children’s health, and in other forms of cancer care. The provision of such services is not always recorded in the way that the hon. Gentleman would wish it to be recorded, but there are still formats and sub-types of mental health support. The Government are also keen to press ahead with our 10-year plan, and we are setting out ambitious plans to boost mental health support across the country while delivering the shift from hospital to community. As part of that process, we wish to open around 85 mental health emergency departments, reducing pressure on busy A&E services, which are the last places that people with mental health needs should be, and ensuring that people have the right support they need in a calm, compassionate environment. We will also use new integrated health organisations to break down barriers between services, which I also think is really important in the context of this debate, and to ensure integrated and holistic care, addressing both physical and mental healthcare needs, with more freedom to determine how best to meet the needs of those local populations. That will build on the work that has already begun to bring down waiting lists. As I said, we are investing an extra £688 million this year to transform mental health services. On staffing, I am pleased to say that almost 7,000 extra mental health workers have been recruited since July 2024, against our target of 8,500 by the end of this Parliament. We are also expanding talking therapies, and we have committed to continuing that expansion over the coming years. More adults already benefit from better access to those therapies, and the aim is for over 900,000 people to complete a course of treatment with improved effectiveness and quality of services by March 2029. Anyone who develops a common mental health condition, such as anxiety or depression, in any context, including terminal illness, can self-refer to talking therapies. [ Interruption. ]

• 2 Dec 2025 · Pandemics: Support for People with Autism · Hansard source

  More

  I will have to go back and check that particular sub-group of flagging and get back to my hon. Friend, but I think the point he makes is that, wherever possible, we should be identifying those groups that have specific communication needs, by virtue of either their own personal health or social needs, or the needs of those they are looking after. He makes a very valid point and I will be delighted to write to him with a more detailed response than I can give at the moment. More broadly, I have heard concerns about support for autistic people. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich that we are committed to supporting autistic people, who should have the right support in place, tailored to their individual needs. Our 10-year health plan sets out an ambitious reform agenda to transform the NHS and rightly make it fit for the future. That future must at its core include early intervention and support for autistic people and those with specific needs. We are working with the Department for Education on reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities system, ensuring that joined-up support is available across education and health, including for autistic children and young people. We are also taking steps to improve access to adult social care services for those who need them. To build consensus on plans for a national care service, Baroness Casey is chairing an independent commission to shape the medium and long-term landscape reforms needed, and we have been putting the core foundations in place to facilitate that. That includes strengthening joined-up care between health and social care, so that people experience more integrated, person-centred care, including through the development of neighbourhood health services. I have also heard about the impact of the pandemic on autistic people’s mental health and wellbeing. We know that autistic people are, sadly, disproportionately impacted by mental ill health and face challenges in accessing services in relation to their mental health. We are taking steps to address that, including raising awareness and understanding of autism within health and social care systems. We have been rolling out the Oliver McGowan mandatory training on learning disability and autism to support Care Quality Commission-registered providers to meet their statutory requirements and ensure that their staff receive specific training on learning disability and autism. NHS England has been rolling out additional training services across its mental health services, and has published guidance for mental health services on meeting the needs of autistic adults and guidance on adaptations of NHS talking therapies specifically designed for autistic people. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the House of Lords special inquiry Committee on the Autism Act 2009 published its report and recommendations for Government on 23 November. I understand that his constituent Ivan contributed to the inquiry, and I personally thank him and others for sharing their valuable insights and experiences, despite all the trauma that they have been through. The Government are carefully considering the Committee’s recommendations on the next autism strategy and support for autistic people, and we will respond formally in due course. I end by reiterating my thanks to my hon. Friend and his constituent Ivan. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) and the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for their contributions. Whether through Exercise Pegasus, looking at how we can better co-create guidance with vulnerable groups, using better guidance tailored for specific communities, using digital flags on health records, or indeed better mandatory training, I give my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich this assurance: no longer will disabled people or people with specific or additional needs be treated as an afterthought. They will be at the forefront of our minds when planning future pandemic training and preparedness—and when executing that preparedness, should we be so unfortunate as to suffer another pandemic. He has my assurance, and I am once again grateful to him for securing this debate. Question put and agreed to.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Mental and Physical Health Services · Hansard source

  More

  Too many people are waiting too long for mental health support. Since coming into office, the Government have put mental health support services on the road to recovery. We promised 8,500 more mental health staff by the end of the Parliament, and we have already recruited 6,500 of them. We are introducing the first 24/7 mental health crisis support services through NHS 111, and we have rolled out mental health support to schools and colleges across the country, providing help to 5 million children and young people.

• 30 Oct 2025 · GP Services: Melton and Syston · Hansard source

  More

  That relates to the point made by the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston about section 106 funding. It would definitely be in the spirit of mission-driven government to work collaboratively across Departments—in this case, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—to ensure that, as we build the millions of homes that we wish to in the lifetime of this Parliament, we do not neglect the services required to make those homes happy and fulfilling for the communities who live in them. Timely access to GP appointments is at the heart of a strong and responsive healthcare system. To deliver more appointments, we must have more GPs. That is why, in October 2024, we took decisive action, investing £160 million in the additional roles reimbursement scheme, or ARRS. This targeted funding has enabled the recruitment of over 2,500 new GPs across England, directly increasing appointment availability and improving care for thousands of patients. Our new £102 million primary care utilisation and modernisation fund will create additional clinical space in over 1,000 GP practices. That will enable them to deliver over 8.3 million more appointments, further expanding appointment capacity and enhancing patient care. In our newly published medium-term planning framework, we have also set an ambitious new target for practices to deliver all urgent appointments on the same day, helping to ensure that patients who need urgent care will be prioritised. This Government have invested an additional £1.1 billion in general practice—the largest such investment in over a decade. This 8.9% boost to GP contract funding for 2025-26 surpasses the overall NHS budget growth, marking a generational uplift in funding, and it means that we are beginning to reverse a decade of a dwindling share of NHS resources going to general practice. We are not just investing but reforming contracts, giving GPs streamlined targets, incentivising improved continuity of care for those who would most benefit—usually people with chronic illness—and, crucially, requiring practices to make it possible for patients to go online to request an appointment throughout the duration of core opening hours. That will also free up time for patients who might require an in-person visit or a phone call. I turn to the GP-patient ratio in Melton and Syston. As a result of our investment, primary care networks in Melton and Syston have recruited an additional 64 GPs through the additional roles reimbursement scheme, bringing patients in the right hon. Member’s constituency the care they need. Today, the median number of doctors in general practice per 10,000 registered patients in Melton and Syston is 6.2 full-time equivalents, which is above the England median of 5.6 full-time equivalents. I reassure the House that we are listening to patients in the right hon. Member’s constituency and trying our best to respond to their needs. For the first time, more patients are contacting their GP online than by phone. That is why, from 1 October, we extended access to GP online services throughout core hours—8 am to 6.30 pm—making it easier for patients to reach their practice in their preferred way. That is a huge step in delivering our manifesto commitment to ending the 8 am scramble, which has long been a barrier to care up and down the country. Most importantly, practices already using online systems have gone on to see bigger improvements. If I may talk about London for a moment, one London GP surgery reduced its waits from 14 days to just three, with 95% of patients seen within a week. I turn to digital health, which is transforming access in healthcare in Melton and Syston. Patients can now access their GP through the NHS app. They can use it to book appointments, order prescriptions and even receive rapid online consultations, with AI-supported triage ensuring that urgent cases are prioritised within hours. The GP patient survey shows that in the right hon. Member’s integrated care board area of Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland, the percentage of patients using online GP services has increased from 65% to 73% over the past year. The ICB operates virtual wards as part of its “home first” strategy. It uses secure remote monitoring, which saved 11,000 bed days across Leicestershire in 2024 and enables patients in Melton and Syston to recover safely at home. The Government have approved a spending review settlement that will bring care closer to the community, shift the NHS from sickness to prevention and from analogue to digital, and ensure that the NHS is more people-centred. We will provide additional funding by 2028-29 to bring back the family doctor by training thousands more GPs, delivering millions of appointments more over the spending review period, and building further on the 2,500 GPs already recruited. Patient satisfaction needs to be our guiding star. As a result of all our efforts, 8 million more appointments have been delivered this year compared to last, and it is making a difference to patients’ lives. According to the latest health insights survey, 73.1% of patients reported a good overall experience. That is up from 67.4% in July 2024, and reverses years of patient dissatisfaction. I understand that the development of a new primary care facility in the right hon. Member’s constituency has been a matter of local concern for some time. I am grateful to him for bringing it to the Government’s attention. I have been informed that Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB is working with Melton borough council to explore options to improve access and extend service capacity for Melton residents. I very much take on his suggestion that it could be a location for a health centre under the Secretary of State’s new programme of neighbourhood health centres; I will certainly pass that on to the Secretary of State. The ICB is working with Latham House to increase the ways in which the practice can support local residents. Proposals include a new digital suite at the main site, and an approved redevelopment of a property owned by the practice on Sherrard Street to extend clinical services. The ICB and Melton borough council will continue to meet to discuss progress. The ICB will revisit the scheme’s progression in the fourth quarter of 2026-27 to allow more certainty about developer contribution, the impact of new registrations and staffing availability. Let me talk briefly about industrial action. The Government are firmly committed to supporting general practice, and we want to continue engaging constructively with colleagues in the profession as we shape the future of general practice together. Since coming into office just over a year ago, this Government have made significant strides in supporting general practice, and we are asking our colleagues in general practice not to close the door on patients, but to work with the Government to rebuild the NHS for the benefit of patients in the right hon. Member’s constituency, and indeed the country. In conclusion, everything that this Government have done since the election has been geared towards saving the NHS and giving it back to the people, primarily through the lens of community and largely through general practice. We are placing power back into the hands of patients—where it rightly belongs—because this is their health service and it must work for them. Ensuring that every patient has access to the care they need is not just a priority; it is a guiding star for this Government. The Government are committed to delivering on that promise. I end by associating myself with the remarks of the right hon. Member about the hard-working staff in GP practices up and down our constituencies, and the quality of care that they provide. I know how hard it is to work in difficult circumstances, and it is this Government’s job to make the working lives of those staff easier, more valuable and more fulfilling. I look forward to working constructively with the right hon. Member, to the benefit of patients and citizens up and down Melton and Syston. Question put and agreed to.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking Regulations: NHS · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the comments of the Opposition health spokesperson. Proportionality is the theme of the day when it comes to anything that we implement in the NHS at a global scale. The appropriate training will be provided. As the hon. Lady well knows from her time in government, conversations across Departments, particularly on these issues, are always ongoing. We are always willing and able to flex as we learn and as we feel our way through these regulations. The hon. Lady will recognise their importance and primacy when engaging in supplier contract negotiations, and therefore businesses both small and large can feel confident that, if they follow ethical procurement practices, their business is most welcome in the national health service. I want to end by reminding colleagues that these regulations are not just about what we can do on these isles but what we can do to eliminate modern slavery across the globe. NHS England is one of the biggest buying organisations in the UK. We have a golden opportunity at the moment to leverage its purchasing power to influence supply chains not only in the UK and Europe but right across the world. Today, Parliament can send a clear signal to the world that we will not tolerate human rights abuses and that, if a company wants to do business with the NHS, they must get their house in order. Under this Government, there will be no compromise with the evil of slavery. I ask colleagues from all sides to help us to keep that promise, to back our NHS and its staff and to help us to keep this country’s conscience clean. I commend the regulations to the House. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the draft National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 9 September, be approved.