Zubir Ahmed MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I totally agree with my hon. Friend. That is partly a reflection of the underfunding of aspects of the NHS over the past decade and a half. As she well knows, our party supports the NHS, and we have funded it with £26 billion of additional funding. That will clearly take time to filter through to the services that require the most. The Government are also driving forward improvements for disabled people through our wider reforms to health and social care. The recently published neighbourhood health framework aims to improve health and care outcomes, and reduce inequalities through more convenient, personalised and joined-up care. It includes a focus on improving the diagnosis and treatment of people with long-term conditions, so that they feel more in control of their care. In July 2025, the Government announced that we will develop a new plan for disability, setting out a clear vision to break down barriers to opportunity for disabled people. We are making more than £4.6 billion of additional funding available for adult social care in 2028-29 compared with 2025-26, to support the sector and make the improvements that we all crave. We have also established the better care fund, a framework for ICBs and local authorities to make joint plans and pool budgets to deliver better, joined-up holistic care. This financial year, ICBs and local authorities plan to spend £440 million on assistive technology and equipment such as wheelchairs. We also continue to invest in support for home adaptations to enable independent living, with £723 million confirmed for the disabled facilities grant this year. The disabled facilities grant budget across 2025-26 and 2026-27 is £150 million more than the total budget across the previous two years, representing an 11% increase that exceeds inflation. The independent commission into adult social care, chaired by Baroness Louise Casey, is building consensus on the medium and long-term reforms required to create a social care system that is fit for the future, with the phase 1 report due this year. I recognise the profound impact that delays in wheelchair provision are having on the quality of life of hon. Members’ constituents, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for highlighting that today. He had a number of asks of me, to which I hope I have responded. I am cognisant of the work he has done and the personal attention he gives to these matters, and I offer him a meeting with Department officials in my office to go through them in greater detail. My officials will be in touch to arrange that. I hope that the work, reforms and modernisation I have set out address the questions he has raised. I assure hon. Members that we take this issue extremely seriously, and remain committed to improving the lives of disabled people up and down our 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.

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

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I think I will answer his point shortly; in the interests of time, we have to be careful about interventions. We live in a fast-paced technological world, and that means that we always look to the next possible provider to provide value for money, so it is right that there are break clauses in the contract to allow evaluations to take place. I can reassure all hon. Members that, as a clinician and a Minister, my north star is always patient safety and quality, and of course value for money. If, at the point of the break clause, we evaluate and find that there are other providers that can do the job better, then of course that needs to be looked at and reflected upon. More generally, as the Minister for Health Innovation, Patient Safety and Life Sciences, I would not be doing my job properly if I did not try to champion British business at every opportunity or to champion British small and medium-sized enterprises to become British plcs. I hope hon. Members will take that as read. The contract has extension provisions and will be reviewed in line with standard contract management processes. We will decide later this year whether to extend it. NHS England will be transparent about the process and the evidence used, as we have been throughout our regular performance reviews for this contract and the FDP. On digital sovereignty, our priority is to give patients the care they need. As Members will no doubt understand, for some essential IT services, it is simply not possible to develop in-house solutions, as we seek the best from the market. I reflect on my own practice in Glasgow, in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East seems to think has found a panacea of publicly delivered technology. I can tell him that when I walk into that hospital, I login through Microsoft Windows. Then I open a programme built by a North American tech company to order test results. Then I open another programme built by a North American tech company to look at the results of those tests. Finally, if I want to check X-rays, I open a fourth programme built by a North American technology company to evaluate CT scans, MRI scans and X-rays.

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

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate and for his and other hon. Members’ contributions to it. Of course, we should also welcome the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) to his place in his first debate on the Front Bench. We have heard a lot about concerns and insights and interpretations about the NHS’s technological architecture. Some would have us think that the FDP is synonymous with just one company. It is not. The FDP is fundamentally an NHS construct. It consists of multiple contracts awarded to a number of consortia, including Palantir, Accenture, PwC, Carnall Farrar and the North of England Care System Support. [ Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 1WC.] (Correction) Each of those have different responsibilities to make sure that there is training, health expertise and security in the FDP. Ultimately, the FDP is a federation of local trusts and ICBs within NHS England, each with their own version of the FDP and their own abilities to decide which information they put there on the basis of their own service needs and governance arrangements. Although there should be scrutiny of Palantir and of any contract, we should also provide clarity about what the FDP is delivering for the NHS. It is my duty to make sure that the FDP is improving patient and clinical experience and improving patient outcomes. Making the best use of data generated by the NHS and social care is essential to transforming services, improving outcomes for patients and making sure that we use resources in the best manner possible. Lord Darzi’s independent investigation into the NHS found that, despite huge volumes of data, fundamentally: “The last decade was a missed opportunity to prepare the NHS” to use the latest technologies. The FDP is part of an infrastructure—it is not the infrastructure or the only infrastructure—to resolve that gap. It is improving efficiency and generating savings across the health service worth up to £2.4 billion, according to independent estimates. Those independent estimates are being further bolstered by a commissioned study by Imperial College that will look at the economic impact of the FDP. [ Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 2WC.] (Correction) It is an important tool for us being able to make the NHS fit for the future on clinical efficiency, transparency of data and outcomes for patients up and down the country. Before I go into more detail about what the FDP does, it is important that I say what it does not do. For instance, it is not synonymous with the single patient record, the NHS app or—necessarily—with linking primary care data with secondary care data.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is always knowledgeable about these matters and she tempts me to egress across the confines of my departmental portfolio. I am happy to cite her recommendations in my correspondence with colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade when I try and set up a meeting for my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett. The role of employers generally cannot be understated. As the suicide prevention strategy clearly sets out, by improving support practices and conversations employers can and do save lives from suicide. Almost three quarters of people who take their own lives are not in contact with NHS mental health services. That points to the importance of public and private sector organisations—well beyond the confines of what we see as the traditional NHS—that are well placed to reach those vulnerable people most at risk. Workplaces provide the perfect opportunity to signpost people to the support they need. Employers should support practices and conversations that help to prevent suicides—for example, by having employment assistance programmes, line manager training and support networks in place for employees. Every employee should feel supported, and every employer should ensure that support is known of and available to their staff. As has been highlighted, we know that some sectors are disproportionately affected by suicide. For example, suicide rates in construction are four times higher than in other business sectors. The Construction Leadership Council’s mental health project has focused, through the lens of prevention, on identifying the primary root mental health causes impacting construction workers. The project, in partnership with Mates in Mind and the University of Warwick, held a series of regional focus groups with on-the-ground workers and identified those causes as including late payments, a lack of stable work, and workers having to travel and stay far away from family and loved ones. The Department for Business and Trade consulted on those issues and received around 3,000 responses. An action plan, together with a joint code of practice setting out how employers across the sector can provide a more supportive environment to address and prevent those issues specifically, will be published this summer. With suicide prevention, we often talk about the importance of meeting people where they are. Ensuring that people are supported by their workplaces is one valuable way of doing that, and the Government are committed to finding more opportunities to ensure that every person requiring support can access it readily. For example, my counterpart Baroness Merron, alongside co-chairs Money and Mental Health, convened senior stakeholders from financial services to discuss the role they could play in supporting people at risk—both their customers and their employees. I understand there was a great appetite in the room to take further action on this matter, and Baroness Merron is working closely with officials to progress this work at pace. I encourage all workplaces and employers to familiarise themselves, and align their work practices, with the Government’s suicide prevention strategy and to consider how they can best support their staff. I would also encourage them to consider drawing on the BSI standards as an exemplar tool to help embed suicide prevention in working practices. Finally, as the BSI standard highlights, the importance of community, both inside and outside the workplace, cannot be overstated. That is why so many of the Government’s ambitions surrounding suicide prevention, and indeed wider prevention, hold community at their core. With our 10-year health plan, we are shifting care and support from traditional institutions into the community, and our focus is more firmly on prevention. Through the new community-based mental health centres that are being piloted, people and families can receive care and treatment when they need it, in their community, 24 hours a day, and in a much calmer environment than one finds in traditional A&E departments.

• 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.

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

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for securing this important debate and for her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents. As the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) highlighted, I was here at this Dispatch Box not so long ago responding to him on the same topic. We all recognise the profound importance of ensuring dignity, safety and high quality standards of care for people during life and after they die. Bereaved families place immense trust in funeral directors to guide and support us through one of the most difficult and distressing times of our lives and to ensure that our loved ones are laid to rest with the utmost respect. They rightly expect that high standards, professional conduct and appropriate oversight are firmly in place. However, these deeply troubling cases, including the appalling events in the constituencies of the hon. Member for Gosport and of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), demonstrate that his trust cannot always be assumed. Although these cases are rare, they have revealed serious weaknesses in our system, as the hon. Member for Gosport has adumbrated this evening. Unacceptable and distressing incidents, such as bodies being stored or treated in ways that cause deep anguish, were able to occur. In some instances, the police lacked the powers they needed to act. In the case of Elkin and Bell, the two funeral directors in the hon. Lady’s constituency, charges included intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance, the common law offence of preventing the lawful and decent burial of a body, and carrying on a business with intent to defraud creditors or another fraudulent purpose. The Ministry of Justice is actively exploring options to strengthen criminal law protections for the deceased, including the potential for new offences as outlined in the Law Commission’s 14th programme of work. This work will identify gaps in the current law and whether new offences are needed to address behaviours that fail to treat a deceased person with dignity and respect. I am pleased to say that we have already taken steps to strengthen and improve standards to safeguard the security and dignity of the deceased. My Department is responsible for co-ordinating the Government’s response to phase 2 of the Fuller inquiry. In December 2025, the Government published our interim update, outlining the progress made against the 75 recommendations. Of those, 11 have been accepted in full, 43 are accepted in principle and 21 remain under consideration. The 11 recommendations accepted in full cover standards, data and operating procedures in the wider health sector. Highlights include the Human Tissue Authority’s publication of updated guidance on 1 December to ensure that adverse incidents in the anatomy sector are recorded, and NHS England’s agreement to introduce data collection on conveying deceased patients in ambulances for the first time in 2026-27. Since I was last here at the Dispatch Box responding to the hon. Member for North Dorset, the Human Tissue Authority has also issued universal and generic best practice guidance for those responsible for the care and dignity of the deceased, including organisations not formally regulated by the HTA. That point is particularly pertinent in relation to the hon. Member for Gosport’s comments about the increasing number of direct cremations. In addition, the HTA has begun reviewing its codes of practice. That process will continue into 2026-27. The review may lead to changes to the current guidance in light of the Fuller inquiry recommendations, and it will help us to consider whether the codes could be applied and used by other settings. Before turning to the discussion about the options to strengthen and improve standards to safeguard the security and dignity of the deceased, I want to remind the House how we got here. Following the unspeakable crimes committed by David Fuller, the last Government established an independent inquiry, sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care, to investigate how a member of staff was able to carry out such unlawful and abhorrent acts in hospital mortuaries, and how those actions went unnoticed. I must make it clear that crimes such as David Fuller’s are extremely rare. However, that will come as little consolation to the families involved. At this point I extend my deepest sympathies to those families, who continue to bear the weight of suffering, and for whom it must be particularly triggering when debates such as this are held in the Chamber. Phase 1 of the inquiry focused on the crimes that Fuller committed in the mortuaries at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust. The phase 1 report, published in November 2023, identified failures of management, governance and regulation, as well as a lack of curiosity, which enabled Fuller to continue his repeat offending. It set out 16 recommendations for the trust and one for local councils. In February 2024, the trust published an assurance statement on the implementation of the recommendations from the report. Kent and East Sussex county councils reviewed the position and confirmed that their contracts with the trust required compliance with licensing and regulatory standards to ensure that the deceased were treated with dignity and respect. On 15 July 2025, the inquiry panel published its final phase 2 report, which dealt with the care of the deceased in both hospital and non-hospital settings. It acknowledged that arrangements for the care of deceased people are complex and often interconnected. It clearly identified multiple organisations, with different governance and operating models, spread across a large number of sectors. It focused on whether procedures and practices in hospital and non-hospital settings, including the funeral sector, were doing enough to safeguard the security of the deceased, and it considered the role of regulators. The overall recommendation of the inquiry’s chair, Sir Jonathan Michael, was for the Government to introduce an independent statutory regulatory regime to protect the security and dignity of people after death in all settings where deceased individuals are cared for, regardless of the institution, including funeral directors. Eleven of the phase 2 recommendations relate to the introduction of statutory regulation, including regulation of the funeral sector. They remain under consideration. Through the Fuller inquiry recommendations programme board, established in July last year, work continues apace with the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to assess options for Government intervention to improve standards of care for the deceased in the funeral sector, and, as such, to respond to the recommendations.

• 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.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Draft Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. In response to the covid-19 pandemic, multiple temporary amendments were made to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 in autumn 2020 to enable the roll-out of the covid-19 and influenza vaccination programmes. Those amendments were extended in 2022 and 2024 following public consultation, and are due to lapse on 1 April 2026. This instrument will retain several provisions within those regulations as permanent legislation and expand them to other vaccines. It is designed to build on the benefits that the amendments have provided to date, as well as the wider lessons learned during the pandemic and in recent polio and measles, mumps and rubella vaccine catch-up programmes. It will support the safe supply, distribution and administration of a wider group of vaccines, helping the ongoing development of a vaccination system that is fit for the future. I will briefly set out what each of the regulations does. Paragraphs (1) and (2) of regulation 3A enable trained healthcare professionals, or staff under the supervision of trained healthcare professionals, to conduct the final stage of assembly and preparation of covid-19 vaccines, without additional marketing authorisations or a manufacturer’s licence being required. That enabled the bulk assembly of covid-19 vaccines during the pandemic. Given the more targeted approach of recent covid-19 vaccination campaigns, this instrument allows the provisions in paragraphs (1) and (2) of regulation 3A to lapse from 1 April this year. Paragraphs (3) and (4) of regulation 3A permit holders of a wholesale dealer’s licence who do not hold a manufacturer’s licence to re-label covid-19 vaccines to reflect changes in shelf life resulting from product thawing. This instrument retains those provisions as permanent legislation, and expands them to include any vaccine against any infectious disease. That will enable a more efficient use of the capable vaccinator workforce, and will support further flexibilities in our supply chain. Regulation 19 allows covid-19 and influenza vaccines to be moved between different NHS service providers at the end of the supply chain, without the need for a wholesale dealer’s licence. This instrument retains those provisions as permanent legislation, and expands them to include any vaccine against any infectious disease, with relevant safeguards to regulate its use. That will ensure that vaccines can be rapidly deployed in exceptional circumstances in response to public health needs. Regulation 247A enables the use of an extended workforce who are legally and safely able to administer covid-19 or influenza vaccines without the input of a prescriber, using an approved protocol. This instrument allows regulation 247A to lapse from 1 April 2026, and introduces a new, permanent provision—regulation 235A —to continue the use of an extended vaccinator workforce through the introduction of a vaccine group direction. That will support the use of an extended workforce to administer any vaccine against any infectious disease where directed by a national body, and will ensure that the UK has the necessary agility and flexibility in its workforce to deliver those vaccinations. Regulation 233 enables persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business to deliver covid-19 and influenza vaccination services off their registered premises, under a patient group direction. This instrument expands that provision to include any vaccine against an infectious disease. Additionally, to enable those services to continue after paragraphs (1) and (2) of regulation 3 lapse from 1 April this year, this instrument amends regulation 3 to enable pharmacists to prepare or assemble medicines for a patient in the course of their treatment without a manufacturer’s licence. That will ensure that community pharmacies can deliver vaccination services off their registered premises, enabling them to deliver targeted outreach programmes. Schedule 17 introduced a category of occupational health vaccinators, who are permitted under the written directions of a doctor to administer covid-19 and influenza vaccines as part of an NHS or local authority occupational health scheme. This instrument amends the list of professionals able to deliver OHS vaccinations, aligning it with the professionals able to supply medicines under a patient group direction. In addition, it expands the scope of schedule 17 to cover any vaccination or immunisation offered as part of an OHS. Those changes will improve access to vaccines for staff within and beyond the health and social care sector, protecting them in the vital roles that they do. In developing this statutory instrument, from 5 September to 28 November 2025, the Government conducted a public consultation on our proposals, hosted by the Department of Health and Social Care for England, Wales and Scotland, and jointly with the Department of Health for Northern Ireland, as medicines regulation is a transferred matter in Northern Ireland, and a reserved matter in Scotland and Wales. The consultation received 218 responses, from organisations and individuals sharing professional and personal views, the majority of which were supportive of the proposals. We received many positive comments about how the flexibilities within the regulations have helped to increase access and efficiency across the system, while effectively utilising the workforce that came into place to deliver covid-19 and influenza vaccinations following the covid-19 pandemic. The consultation posed 15 questions on the technical aspects of the regulations, and we saw broad agreement on each of those proposals. Given the technical nature of the questions and the limited time the Committee has to discuss this instrument, I will not provide an immediate analysis of each response here; however, the published Government response can be accessed on the gov.uk website. This instrument builds on the successes of the large-scale vaccination programmes during the covid-19 pandemic to support patient safety, improve access to and availability of vaccines, and ensure that the vaccine system continues to innovate. The changes will implement improvements that will help to facilitate the shift from “sickness to prevention”, as described in the Government’s 10-year health plan, helping to restore trust in vaccinations and ultimately increasing vaccine uptake. Regulations 3 and 8 will enable community pharmacies to play a bigger role in prevention by expanding their role in vaccine delivery and enabling targeted outreach in areas where health inequalities remain pervasive, and where evidence indicates that doing so is clinically appropriate and value for money. The changes will support the delivery of commitments on vaccination and immunisation frameworks in Scotland and Wales, and an instrument will be laid in the Northern Ireland Assembly in parallel to these regulations, to deliver changes to the vaccination system across the United Kingdom. To conclude, the instrument makes changes that will permanently support the safe supply, distribution and administration of a wider range of vaccines, and the proposals were supported by the majority of respondents to our consultation. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee, and hope that hon. Members will support them.

• 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—

• 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—

• 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

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing what is, by all acknowledgement, an important debate on ADHD. I thank other hon. Members for their valuable contributions today, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Warrington South (Sarah Hall), and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for sharing personal experience that has been invaluable to this House. In this debate, we have heard moving testimonies and I want to thank all hon. Members who have shared personal and family experiences. I personally express my welcome and my deepest sympathies to Christine and Richard, the parents of Matthew Lock. I thank them for being in the Public Gallery for this debate, and thank them for all the invaluable work that they have done with the Department and with NHS England to raise awareness of the issues surrounding ADHD and suicide through the charity that they set up in Matthew’s memory. We have learned, through this debate, the intersection between ADHD, other mental health conditions and suicide risk. Every suicide is a profound tragedy that leaves families, friends and communities devastated. That is why, in addition to our approach to ADHD, mental health and autism, we are committed to delivering the suicide prevention strategy for England, which aims to address the risk factors contributing to suicide to ensure that fewer lives are lost. We will work across Government to improve support to those who are suffering, and those who have been bereaved by suicide. We know that people with ADHD have co-occurring neurodevelopmental conditions. We must not only intervene early but assess people with suspected neurodevelopmental conditions—about which I will say more later—and ensure that, following diagnosis, people have the right support to meet their needs, including their mental health needs. The Government have already taken significant steps to stabilise and improve NHS mental health services but, of course, there is so much more to do. Transforming the system always takes time but we are committed to delivering a new approach to mental health. The 10-year health plan sets out the ambitious reform that we wish to undertake to make the system fit for the future. In line with that, we will go further to ensure that NHS mental health services deliver the care that people deserve and rightly expect. The publication of the “Staying safe from suicide” guidance in 2025 means that all mental health practitioners must now follow the latest advice in understanding and managing suicide. Associated training is now available to all NHS and non-NHS mental health staff. Following the tragic loss of their son Matthew, Richard and Christine have been keen to ensure that other families are made aware of the increased risks of addiction and suicide that are associated with ADHD. NHS England has worked closely with Richard and Christine to revise content on the nhs.uk website, and has included separate, tailored content on ADHD for adults, children and young people. The website also specifically highlights the increased risks of suicide and addiction in those with ADHD, it signposts anyone who might be struggling to find urgent help and support, and has updated wording to reflect lived and clinical experience. I extend my thanks again to Richard and Christine for all their input to that work. I invite them into the Department to meet me alongside my colleague, the mental health Minister, to see how we can go further faster. We know that too many patients are facing long waits to access services including ADHD assessments and support. I know that such issues are affecting our constituents up and down the country, as has been reflected in this debate, and I understand the devastating impact that that has on individuals and families. Lord Darzi’s report laid bare the growth in demand for ADHD assessments nationally. That has been so significant in recent years that it risks completely overwhelming the resource available. I thank everyone who has taken part in sharing evidence for Lord Darzi’s report, and with the subsequent ADHD taskforce established by NHS England. We know, from the taskforce’s report, that there are quality concerns with assessments. There has been rapid growth in remote assessments and in use of the independent sector. We are urgently looking into those concerns. That is why work is currently underway to improve ADHD services in both the short and long term to meet the needs of those waiting for an assessment, or those needing treatment for a diagnosis.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and I start by sincerely thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for securing this debate. I also welcome Mike and his family to the Public Gallery, and pay tribute to Mike for all his efforts. My hon. Friend raises an important issue that can affect so many people—all people perhaps, at some point—about ensuring that when someone is diagnosed with a terminal illness, they can receive the mental and emotional support that they need in the place that they need it. We want to be a society where every person receives high-quality, compassionate and personalised care from diagnosis through to the end of life. The Government are determined to shift more healthcare out of hospitals into the community to ensure that patients receive personalised care in the most appropriate setting. Palliative care and end-of-life care services, including those provided by hospices, have a big role to play in that shift. Palliative care services are included in the list of services that an integrated care board must commission, promoting a more consistent national approach and supporting commissioners to prioritise palliative care and end-of-life care. To support that process, NHS England has published statutory guidance stating that ICBs must work to ensure that there is sufficient provision of care services to meet the needs of their local population. It also includes references to mental health, wellbeing and support for those with palliative care and end-of-life care needs. Of course, there are many examples of voluntary initiatives, such as grief or bereavement cafés, or the Good Grief community, which aims to support people at the end of their life and their families through a programme of events and courses, and the provision of resources that often include pre-bereavement advice and support. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West feels passionately about mental health support for those with palliative care and end-of-life care needs, and that he has been supporting Mike’s campaign for improved mental health services and support. I offer him my deep appreciation, as well as a meeting with the Minister for Care and end-of-life care officials, so that we can engage him around the palliative care and end-of-life care modern service framework that was recently announced, which we hope to publish in the spring. The Government are also transforming the current mental health system, ensuring that people get access to the right care at the right time in the right place. That is why we are increasing our investment in mental health support by £688 million in cash terms. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who spoke for the official Opposition, talked about impact assessments. I gently say to him, in the context of this convivial and constructive debate, that when we came into office we had an impact assessment by virtue of the Darzi review, which highlighted in stark terms the difficulties that the NHS in its totality is under after 14 years—the difficulties that we inherited. I also point out that our real-terms investment of £26 billion is an increase to the NHS budget that will translate into, among many other things, a new national cancer plan. That will examine not only the process of getting the best treatments to patients, but improving communication, improving pathways, and instilling better and more bespoke mental wellbeing support into some of those pathways.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) for raising this important topic. Having known him for the last 14 months, I know how passionately he feels about the national health service in his area, particularly the mental health service provision in his area. His constituents can be rightly proud of his doughty advocacy on their behalf. My hon. Friend spoke about his constituent’s campaign to improve support for autistic people following his very difficult experiences during the covid-19 pandemic. I also place on the record my commendation of Ivan for his tireless work to ensure that autistic people will receive the right form of support. We have heard today of the challenges that autistic people faced during the pandemic. It is important that we learn from those experiences and ensure we do better in future. In 2020, the Department of Health and Social Care commissioned research into the impact of the pandemic on autistic people and their families. The report, published in May ’21, made several key recommendations that chime with the issues my hon. Friend so eloquently raised today. It included findings about access to education for autistic children during lockdown; lack of respite and support for family members and carers; the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of autistic people and the challenges they face accessing healthcare in the round; and, as highlighted in this debate, the need for clear communication and transparency of decision making to help autistic people to follow advice and guidance appropriately. I want to provide reassurance that the Government remain committed to learning the lessons from the pandemic, to help us to prepare better in future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich alluded to, the Government have acknowledged the disproportionate impact that the pandemic had on vulnerable groups in the United Kingdom. Module 1 of the UK covid-19 inquiry was published in July last year and focused on the UK’s resilience and preparedness for the pandemic. The Government’s response, published in January this year, sets out the changes we have made to ensure that we reduce the potential unequal impacts of events on particular groups or individuals in any future pandemics. However, as my hon. Friend also highlighted, we recognise that there is a lot of further work to do to ensure that the impact of inequalities and vulnerabilities in pandemic decision making is fully anticipated and planned for. The inquiry recently published module 2 of its report, focusing on UK decision making and political governance. The report highlights that considerable numbers of people suffered from the social, economic and cultural consequences of steps taken to combat the pandemic, such as lockdown, including the impacts of social isolation, loneliness and declining mental health, and of course the chopping and changing of advice—which was sometimes necessary, but perhaps, on reflection, sometimes unnecessary. Module 10 of the inquiry is focusing on the impact of the pandemic on society in more detail and will carefully consider the findings in due course. It is clearly critical that the UK is prepared for a future pandemic, and that is rightly a top priority for the Government. The Department’s new strategic approach to pandemic preparedness continues to recognise the disproportionate and unintended impacts that pandemics can have on vulnerable people and groups. The Department is therefore committed to publishing a new pandemic preparedness strategy, which will be published next year and will show how the unequal impacts of pandemics on social health and healthcare are considered in all areas of preparedness and response. As my hon. Friend also alluded to, we have recently concluded participation in Exercise Pegasus, the largest ever simulation of a pandemic in UK history. Exercise Pegasus gives us an opportunity to examine our preparedness, capabilities and response arrangements, and we will continue to learn as we plan for phase 4 of the exercise in 2026. The Government have committed to communicating the findings and lessons, and a post-exercise report will be delivered in due course. I recognise the concerns raised about accessible communications during the pandemic, and hear loudly my hon. Friend’s reflections. The UK Health Security Agency was established in 2021 and is responsible for preventing, preparing and responding to infectious diseases and other environmental hazards. The UKHSA collaborates closely with the voluntary and community sector, including organisations working with and representing autistic people. That close collaboration has allowed it to gain rapid feedback from those organisations regarding the efficacy of communication and guidance materials so that they can be adapted as required, in real time, to communicate with all members of our society and not just some. More broadly, the Government recognise the importance of accessible communications and have published guidance on that for all Government Departments. Within health and social care, all NHS organisations and publicly funded social care providers are expected to meet the accessible information standard, which details the approach to supporting the information and communication needs of people with disability, impairment or sensory loss. NHS England published a revised standard in June this year to ensure that the communication needs of people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss are met within health and care provision. We are also taking steps in the health and care system to improve the accessibility of services for autistic people more broadly. For example, there is work underway in NHS England to make sure that staff in health settings know that they need to make reasonable adjustments for people. That includes the introduction of a reasonable adjustment digital flag, which enables the recording of key information about a citizen or a patient, including that a person is autistic, and the reasonable adjustment needs to ensure support can be tailored appropriately.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Ageing and End-of-life Care · Hansard source

  More

  I am very concerned to hear what my hon. Friend has reported to the House. Clearly, coercion is unacceptable in all forms. Safeguarding is taken very seriously by the national health service and by the Department of Health and Social Care, and as the Minister with responsibility for patient safety, I am very happy to look into that further and to take it up with him after the debate. As set out in the 10-year health plan, we are going to shift more care out of hospitals and into communities, and make care more personalised. If there is anywhere where that is most important it is palliative care and end-of-life care. Palliative care and end-of-life care, including hospices, have a big role to play in that shift, and they were highlighted in the 10-year plan as an integral component of neighbourhood health teams. In England, integrated care boards are responsible for the commissioning of palliative care and end-of-life care to meet the needs of the local population. To support ICBs in this duty, NHS England has produced statutory guidance. That includes the need for 24/7 access to palliative care and advice, and a palliative care and end-of-life care dashboard that brings together all relevant data in one place. The dashboard helps commissioners understand the palliative care needs of the local population. Of course, the majority of palliative care and end-of-life care is provided by NHS staff and NHS services, and that has benefited from the record funding in the NHS that the Chancellor delivered in the last Budget. I will not be able to address all the points made by the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), as he was in a typically verbose mood, but if he wills the ends, he must will the means, and if he does not agree with the means, he must present his thesis as to the alternative model of funding that he wishes to see. Otherwise, it is a case of cutting services. However, we recognise the vital part that voluntary sector organisations, including hospices, play in providing support to people at the end of their lives and to their loved ones. In recognition of that, £100 million of capital funding has been made available to hospices in England to ensure that they have the best physical environment for caring. That includes helping hospices to provide the best end-of-life care to patients and their families in a supportive and dignified environment. It includes funding to deliver IT systems and provide refurbishments and facilities for patients and visitors, so that they can see their family members at the end of their lives in a dignified environment—much more than just a lick of paint.

• 28 Oct 2025 · World Stroke Day · Hansard source

  More

  What I mean by “universal” is indeed 24/7. As the hon. Member well knows, there are always challenges in delivering stroke care and heart attack care to rural communities. She, as a clinician, knows that we try our best, through the ambulance service and other forms of repatriation, to try to make sure there is equitable access wherever we can achieve it. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow again for her kind words about the very small part that I played in her husband’s diagnosis. I am glad that he continues to do so well. I want to pay tribute to some of the charities involved in this space, because they have been instrumental in the innovation in stroke care over the past 20 to 30 years. I thank the Stroke Association, Different Strokes and Chest, Heart and Stroke Scotland for the incredible work that they do, including in my own constituency. As the fourth largest cause of death for adults, stroke has a devastating impact on patients, families and the wider community. About one third of people who suffer a stroke will be left with some form of long-term disability. This is an important inequalities issue, as has already been discussed in this debate. Cardiovascular disease hits hardest in the most deprived parts of our country, including in parts of my own constituency, where people are more likely to smoke and less likely to have access to decent food and open green spaces. This Government were elected on a manifesto to tackle the biggest killers, including cardiovascular disease, and our health mission is committed to reducing deaths from heart disease and strokes by a quarter in the next 10 years. I want to set out our reforms to the NHS, especially those which are part of our 10-year health plan, which will drive down rates of disease while helping people to live well for longer. Many Members in this Chamber are familiar with our three shifts: moving more care into the community, advancing the cause of digital health, and prioritising prevention over treatment. On prevention, as much as I love my job as a surgeon I am still rooting for the public health Minister to put me out of business. She is taking forward strong preventive measures in her brief, through our Tobacco and Vapes Bill and by beefing up the NHS health check, which is England’s flagship cardiovascular prevention programme. That programme helps to target the abnormalities common to heart disease, to stroke, sometimes to diabetes and to kidney disease, and in many cases even to dementia through behavioural and clinical interventions. Each year, the programme engages 1.3 million people, preventing around 500 heart attacks or strokes. To improve access and engagement, we are developing the NHS health check online so that people can use it at home. That is being piloted by three local authorities until December. We have already begun trialling more than 130,000 lifesaving heart health checks in the workspace—in offices, shop floors and commercial areas—all across the country. That will also help to reduce the risk of stroke. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about community pharmacy. Community pharmacy can and will continue to provide free blood pressure check services for anyone over the age of 40. On rehabilitation, the stroke quality improvement for rehabilitation programme has increased the percentage of patients discharged from hospital to community stroke services from just under 66% when this Government took office to almost 70%. There is much more to be done, of course, but I believe that we are moving in the right direction. As hon. Members are aware, the NHS fell behind in the last 14 years—certainly behind the private sector—in using digital technology. That was an appalling inequity, so let me come to our shift from analogue to digital. Half of all people who experience a stroke in England are now recovering thanks to revolutionary scanners that mean patients can avoid the risk of serious disability. The world-first technology that is coming online will analyse CT scans of stroke patients arriving in hospital, identifying them within 60 seconds. That means that the average time between a patient arriving at a hospital and starting life-saving and life-changing treatment is shortened from 140 minutes to only 79, resulting in less disability and a greater quality of life. I am pleased to update the House that since the roll-out last summer, the tool has been used to interpret the brain scans of more than 60,000 patients. This Government believe that working people have the right to expect the same level of rehabilitative services as the wealthy. That is why we are so gladdened by the new state-of-the-art rehab gym hub at Montagu hospital in Doncaster, which is a perfect example of the best of the NHS that we wish to bring to the rest of the NHS. The suite relies on robotic therapies, which are otherwise provided only in private healthcare. The machines combine robotics with gamified, interactive activities to enhance both physical and cognitive recovery following a stroke—an example of what the seamless integration of physiotherapy and investment in digital health can achieve for stroke patients. We are also forging partnerships with medtech companies to deliver the next generation of healthcare for patients. Reneural, which has partnered with Hillingdon Hospitals NHS foundation trust, is bringing virtual reality stroke rehabilitation to patients, and enabling therapists to remotely deliver and monitor stroke rehabilitation. Our shift from analogue to digital is supporting both in-hospital and community-based therapy, and, in many ways, allowing equality between rural and urban communities. I am not saying that everything is perfect—far from it—or that there will not be bumps along the way. However, in a few short months, we have improved the outcomes of more than 60,000 patients, which is a testament to the actions of this Government. Through focus, and by delivering on the promises of digital and bringing the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS, we can, and we will, do better for stroke patients and their loved ones.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Regulation and Inspection of Funeral Services · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for bringing forward this debate and for the manner in which he has done so, with just the right blend of humour and seriousness. In the spirit of humour, I thank him for his invitation to go into business with him as a funeral director. I think I must decline that invitation, on the basis that as a practising surgeon, it might raise some issues of conflict in my practice. It really is an honour to respond to the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government. I completely understand his strength of feeling on this issue, and from all the contributions made by hon. Members from across this House, I know that he is not alone. Many colleagues and their constituents have written to the Government, rightly appalled by recent scandals that have shone a spotlight on the current arrangements and lack of regulation in the funeral sector. Many hon. Members’ constituents have conducted themselves with great dignity at a time when that dignity was not afforded to their dearly departed loved ones. People deserve dignity in death, and families deserve the comfort of knowing that their loved ones have been safely laid to rest. All of us know, or will come to know, bereavement. Everyone deals with grief in different ways, but for many people, funerals can be comforting as well as cathartic—an occasion to lay a loved one’s remains to rest and celebrate the gift of their life. On these occasions, we put our trust in the commitment and professionalism of a funeral director. We trust them to not only support us through one of the most difficult and distressing times in our life, but treat our loved ones laid to rest with the utmost respect. Every deceased person deserves at least as much dignity in death as they had in life, and to receive the highest standard of care from those entrusted with looking after them. It is important to remember that, as the hon. Member for North Dorset mentioned, the vast majority of funeral directors operate with professionalism and integrity. As he has noted, though, there have recently been a number of distressing incidents in which the conduct of a small number of funeral directors and those involved in dealing with the deceased have fallen far, far short of the standards that we, as a respectable society, can tolerate. Before I turn to the recommendations of phase 2 of the independent inquiry into the issues raised by the David Fuller case, I want to remind the House of the background to that case. As colleagues may remember, the unspeakable crimes of David Fuller took place in a hospital while he was a maintenance supervisor, first at Kent and Sussex hospital and later at Tunbridge Wells hospital. He was arrested in December 2020 for the 1987 murders of two women, Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce. When police searched his house, they found images and videos of him committing unspeakable offences on a large number of deceased women and girls in hospital mortuary settings between 2005 and 2020. In 2021, the previous Government established an independent inquiry to investigate how a member of staff was able to carry out such evil and unlawful acts at mortuaries in those hospitals, going unnoticed. Crimes such as these are rare, but that will come as little consolation to the victims. We owe it to the victims and their families to learn the lessons from the Fuller inquiry and to do everything we can to prevent other families from going through similar heartbreak. I take this opportunity to thank Sir Jonathan Michael and his whole inquiry team for their work. This is the first time that the security and dignity of people after death has been considered within all settings and on a major scale in England. Turning to the inquiry findings, phase 1 of the inquiry focused on the crimes that Fuller committed in those mortuaries in Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells. The report, published in 2023, identified failures of management, governance and regulation and a lack of curiosity, enabling Fuller’s crimes to be repeated time and again. As a result of incidents in the funeral sector, the inquiry was asked by the previous Administration, as the hon. Member for North Dorset has already alluded to, to expedite its examination of the funeral sector. On 15 October 2024, the inquiry published an interim report recommending regulation of that sector. On 15 July, the inquiry published its phase 2 final report, which looked at the care of the deceased in both hospital and, importantly, non-hospital settings. The report made 75 detailed recommendations in total, with the majority focusing on access, dignity, security and wider processes and procedures to protect deceased individuals. A smaller number of recommendations focused on independent hospitals, medical education, hospices, ambulance services, care homes, the funeral sector and, of course, faith organisations, making specific recommendations to improve the care of the deceased. The inquiry’s overarching recommendation is that statutory regulation should be in place to protect the security and dignity of people after death, whichever setting or institution they are in. Sir Jonathan specifically recommended the introduction of an independent statutory regulatory regime for funeral directors. There are currently specific issues in Hull, which are subject to court proceedings that have not completed, so I will not comment on them specifically, except to say that I am grateful for the support and work of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who is sitting next to me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). I pay tribute to the Hessle Road community and to Tristan and Claire, constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, for how they have campaigned. They have been dignified and campaigning so hard after the distressing incidents relating to their grandmother. The Government have committed to providing an interim update before the end of this year, followed by a full response in summer 2026. I acknowledge the challenge of the hon. Member for North Dorset that multiple trade bodies are willing to step up and work with the Government to find a workable framework that meets the needs of the mid-21st century, not the mid-19th. The recommendations from phase 1 of the inquiry relating to the trust where Fuller committed his horrendous crimes sit largely within the remit of my Department. The trust set out its progress in February 2024 and has implemented all the inquiry’s recommendations. The phase 2 recommendations are more complex, and do not solely sit with the Department of Health and Social Care, as the levers of action sit across Government. The recommendations focus on service-level improvements and wider regulation, including of the funeral sector, as has been touched upon in today’s debate. Those need a co-ordinated and urgent approach across Departments to determine which recommendations should be prioritised by which Department. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance of a collaborative, cross-departmental approach to get this right soon for the deceased and their loved ones. The hon. Gentleman has put forward many proposals and challenges, including changing the Human Tissue Act 2004, which can be cumbersome. He has also put forward suggestions on the use of local government services to regulate the funeral sector, and I will make sure that the relevant Minister writes to him regarding the feasibility of that. He has similarly put forward proposals to use the Financial Conduct Authority to stop rogue funeral directors operating and exploiting vulnerable groups. It will be my pleasure to ask my colleagues in the Treasury to write to him regarding the feasibility of such interventions. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important debate forward this evening and for the views expressed by Members across this House as the Government continue to consider our response to the Fuller inquiry, including the issue of regulation. This House has my assurance that we will continue to try to work at pace and cross-departmentally to bring dignity to the deceased. 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.