Question follow-through · 70219
Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps he is taking to support the future employment of people undergoing physicians associate and anaesthesia associate training, following the publication of The Leng Review.
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Department of Health and Social Care
- Tabled
- 22 Jul 2025
- Target answer date
- 1 Sept 2025
- Answer
- 1 Sept 2025 · 41 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots · 15 Jul 2026
- Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 · 15 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
22 Jul 2025
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps he is taking to support the future employment of people undergoing physicians associate and anaesthesia associate training, following the publication of The Leng Review.
1 Sept 2025
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
1 Sept 2025
Answer published
The principal question of the Leng Review was to assess whether the roles of physician associate and anaesthesia associate, now to be known as physician assistants and physician assistants in anaesthesia, are safe and effective. The review’s findings were...
Official data retrieved 28 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.