(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of disability equipment.
I am grateful to the Speaker’s Office, which oversees the ballot that leads to the selection of debate topics. I am truly very pleased to have secured this debate to provide us all with the opportunity to shine a light on the issues that many people across the country are facing in accessing disability equipment.
I particularly welcome Milana Hadji-Touma, who is representing herself and a number of others today; I thank her for attending. I also thank the 653 people who have shared their experiences and provided moving testimonials, which have been invaluable in my preparation for this debate. I appreciate the time and energy that has gone into each response, and I reiterate my thanks and appreciation for all those who contributed.
I want to begin by offering some quotes from the responses, including some from my constituents:
“My daughter had to wait two years for her wheelchair.”
“I wouldn’t be able to function without my stairlift, my powered wheelchair and my crutches.”
“It is about my safety, my dignity and my ability to live independently.”
“I use a shower chair and a toilet frame which might seem small items but they have transformed my day to day safety and confidence.”
“With the correct equipment, I was able to complete a master's degree at a top university, become a teacher, learn to drive, hand cycle across eleven countries and live a full and rich life.”
Around 25% of the UK population are disabled, so access to disability equipment is essential. It alleviates everyday struggles and allows thousands of people to live safe and independent lives, which boosts personal confidence and mental wellbeing. Whether it is wheelchairs, living aids or home-adaptation items like grab rails, the devices offer numerous and powerful benefits, transforming lives so that the activities of daily life become more manageable, both for those dealing with disabling conditions and for those who provide care, including family members, friends and care workers.
Those benefits were echoed throughout my survey. One respondent stated:
“My disability equipment is my entire life”,
while another reported:
“It simplifies tasks, turns impossible activities into manageable ones with the right support, eases physical pain, reduces moments of embarrassment or vulnerability, and—most importantly—fosters greater independence and less dependence on others.”
Despite the benefits, 64% of respondents revealed that waiting times for disability equipment were longer than expected. As I said, one person reported that their daughter waited for a wheelchair for nearly two years, while one of my constituents highlighted the issues that arise from delayed equipment provision, stating:
“Without proper assessment and provision, disabled people can be left living in environments that actively worsen their health or place them at risk of injury.”
The testimonies I have shared show that there is a growing belief that the system to provide disability equipment is becoming increasingly unsustainable. With complaints about waiting times, quality of equipment and poor communication around access, it is no surprise that over 650 people responded to my survey in the space of four days. In addition, hundreds more people gave testimonies to inform the latest report from the all-party parliamentary group for access to disability equipment, published last October. Among stories of frustration and disappointment, the report revealed that 63% of carers and 55% of equipment users felt that services were getting worse.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. I agree with absolutely everything he has said. He talks about the problem with access to equipment; I know of one case, which is representative of many that come across my desk, that concerns the inability to hand back equipment after use. A constituent contacted me whose mother had died after two years of home care. She had a hospital bed, three commodes, an orthopaedic chair and a walking frame. The NHS provider had gone into receivership and there was no method whatsoever for her to hand back the equipment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are compounding the problems for people getting equipment by not reusing the stuff that is already out there?
Seamus Logan
I do agree. Indeed, that problem causes a massive cost to the taxpayer as well.
It is no surprise that 74% of equipment providers were aware of patients experiencing delayed hospital discharge due to unavailable community equipment. The APPG’s report recommended and called for the implementation of a national strategy to ensure the cohesive and comprehensive delivery, monitoring and financing of disability equipment.
Complaints about the current system and provision of equipment have been reported by various other organisations, including the UK charity for young wheelchair users, Whizz Kidz, which described wheelchair services as “underfunded, inaccessible, and fractured.” In June 2025, it was reported that Citizens Advice receives a new complaint about faulty aids every hour.
My own pedigree in this area goes back many years—in fact, to 1996, when I first joined a health and personal social services commissioning organisation, under the leadership of my great friends Mary Wilmont and Kevin Keenan, both former directors of social services in Northern Ireland. We examined in great detail the wheelchair services for people who were deaf or blind, hard of hearing or visually impaired. One report stands out in my memory—not because I authored it, but because it was a simple idea to address the challenges facing people in getting to a hospital appointment. We called it “Getting There”. That was 30 years ago.
Although this Government need to “get there”, the challenges in the existing system are more profound. In England and Wales, the provision of equipment is currently run by the NHS and local authorities, which are primarily responsible for facilitating care needs assessments and subsequently approving and providing equipment. As a result, available equipment, the length of waiting times and the quality of adaptations are increasingly becoming a postcode lottery.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the patchwork system to which he referred is, through delay and dysfunction, denying many disabled people the independence they deserve? A 56-year-old constituent of mine in Somerset with a progressive muscle wasting condition has been left effectively housebound and in severe pain for months while trying to obtain essential wheelchair adaptations. May I appeal to the Minister’s extensive good will and ask him to look at that case?
Seamus Logan
I agree with the hon. Member, and that highlights the need for a national strategy and a review of the current organisational arrangements.
Age UK has noted that, due to a lack of national guidelines on timelines, long waiting lists are common, partly due to shortages in that noble profession, occupational therapists. To mitigate the situation, multiple organisations have been set up with the sole purpose of supporting those in need of disability equipment in the face of a failing system. They include Back Up, a UK-wide charity that works with people affected by spinal cord injury and provides vital wheelchair skills training. The Motability Foundation has awarded £36.4 million in grants to customers of its Motability scheme to help them access adequate and good-quality equipment, as many people have resorted to self-funding permanent or temporary equipment. The foundation has also conducted an economic assessment of wheelchair provision in England and recommended that greater integration across services is needed to prevent variation in the quality of provision.
In Scotland, the handling of disability equipment and adaptations is carried out by integrated authorities—united bodies in which local authorities and NHS services work together to provide more cohesive and community-focused health and social care planning. To guide those bodies, the Scottish Government agreed a memorandum of understanding some years ago, setting out a standardised approach for the provision of equipment to maintain consistency across all local councils. During engagement with voluntary organisations in this field, I was told that the Scottish approach is paying dividends. I recommend to the Minister that a similar approach should be considered for implementation in England and Wales, because the system needs change now.
Thousands of people across the UK are sick, sore and tired of being unheard after countless complaints. When will their voices be taken seriously? Greater national leadership is urgently needed to put an end to the insecure and uncertain system in which someone’s ability to obtain necessary life-supporting equipment is based on where they live rather than their need. Everyone has a right to access disability equipment and live a safe and independent life. The pressure is on the UK Government to step up and redesign the system, and respond to the many calls to establish a national strategy.
A consolidated approach holds the potential to improve oversight, reduce waiting times and ensure consistent and reliable access to disability equipment for everyone, no matter where they might live, so let me pose just one simple question to the Minister: in responding to the debate, will he please set out the reasons why he would not agree to take forward a national strategy in this area?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. Six Back Benchers want to speak in the debate, so I suggest about five minutes each as a guideline.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups for access to disability equipment and for wheelchair users. It is also well known that one of my children has cerebral palsy and uses a wide range of equipment, from a wheelchair to postural seating for eating and for bathing and so on, so I have become a bit of an expert in some of these matters over the years. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing the debate. There will be a separate debate later this year, through the Backbench Business Committee, on wheelchair provision, which I will be sponsoring.
On the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), the collapse of NRS Healthcare last summer has caused real issues across the country. My Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency borders Kent and I know that there have been issues there, as there have been for other local authorities, and I have been working with organisations to try to reduce them. However, recycling continues to be an issue, and it is addressed in the recommendations of the APPG’s report.
As chair of the APPG for access to disability equipment, I am delighted to contribute to this debate, and I pay tribute to Newlife, the charity for disabled children, and the British Healthcare Trades Association for their dedication and hard work in advocating for users of disability equipment. As has been said, our first report, “Barriers to Accessing Lifesaving Disability Equipment”, was published in October. The report resulted from our inquiry—our first inquiry, in fact—into the systemic barriers that prevent millions of disabled children and adults across the UK from accessing the medical and community equipment that they need to live safely and independently.
I want to highlight some of the evidence that we heard. We found that 71% of people feel that the system providing hoists, grab rails and other essential medical equipment is not currently meeting their needs, and our first key recommendation was the implementation of a national strategy. Currently, there is no cohesive national strategy for community equipment and care provision, which has resulted in inconsistent experiences across the country. The APPG recommended that a national strategy should be overseen by a Minister, who would ensure that a national directive is issued to local authorities to clarify whose responsibility it is to provide equipment. That would ensure consistency and reduce confusion.
The APPG heard evidence that the system responsible for delivering essential community equipment is fragmented, inconsistent and too often failing the people it exists to support. Responsibility is split between local authorities and integrated care boards, but in practice that joint responsibility—I know this at first hand—frequently leads to unclear accountability, variation in provision and what many families and professionals describe as a postcode lottery. Often, delays are such that families order equipment and then wait a year or two, by which time it is obsolete. We heard that in the feedback we received for the report.
The report highlighted the consistently long waits for assessments and equipment, which worsen conditions and increase costs. In fact, 74% of professionals and equipment providers said that they are aware of patients who have experienced delayed hospital discharge because essential equipment was unavailable at home. Not only do those delays increase the financial strain on the NHS and pressures on hospital beds and staff time, but they slow down elective care and place further strain on the social care system.
One of the report’s key recommendations is to implement a co-ordinated national plan that includes clear targets, workforce investment and the streamlining of processes to reduce delays and prevent unnecessary hospital stays. Maximum service timeframes should be aligned with the wheelchair service standard of 18 weeks to ensure consistent, accountable delivery. Equipment providers from across the country said that every authority works differently, with little alignment between local areas and very limited national oversight of how services are delivered. Our inquiry found that 33% of equipment users are still waiting to receive approved equipment, with one in five waiting more than two months. That highlights the real consequences these failures have for the people who rely on the support. Despite the scale and importance of this sector, there is no single Minister with clear responsibility for ensuring that services are working effectively for patients.
It is clear that the system needs change, and I would be grateful if the Minister would consider the APPG’s recommendations to introduce a national strategy for community equipment and wheelchair services in order to eliminate the postcode lottery in provision and provide proper national oversight and monitoring of services, and to introduce of a co-ordinated national plan to reduce delays in the provision of community equipment. The APPG will be meeting on 26 March, and the Minister and all other Members will be welcome, if they can find time in their busy diaries, to join us.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate.
Disabilities impact the lives of many people in the south-west of England, with older people some of the most affected. Age UK says that disabilities affect 40% of people over 60 but 75% of people over 80, and they are a particularly pressing concern for people in mid and east Devon, where a third of residents are aged 65-plus. Hearing loss is one such disability. It is all too common among older people and has some serious consequences. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People and SignHealth report how people with hearing impairments are less able to take advantage of other health treatments. Access to healthcare is obviously necessary for older people, and any obstacle is a great concern.
Devon’s provision of hearing aids faced a major shake-up last year, when Chime Social Enterprise, which had been praised by its users, stopped providing NHS audiology services in Devon. Chime had provided rechargeable hearing aids, along with drop-in clinics for emergency repairs, based out of community hospitals. Since Chime’s departure, there has been frustration about the provision. A constituent in Honiton whose ears were damaged when he was doing national service with the Royal Artillery, wrote of being redirected endlessly to different bodies for a simple hearing aid repair. A constituent from Seaton told me that models offered by the new providers are “shoddy”. He has already had two hearing aids become unusable because the tubes slip out of the rubber mould. That would have been a simple £60 replacement with Chime, but now, he wrote, he wonders whether the
“next stage is a conch shell”.
I wish to draw particular attention to the case of Mary Dickinson. I met Mary last year at a remembrance service in Sidmouth. She is aged 92. She was an NHS nurse for most of her life and to this day volunteers at Sidmouth Hospice at Home. For those acts of service, she was awarded a lifetime achievement award by the British Red Cross. Mary, like many others, was provided by Chime with rechargeable hearing aids, which worked very well. She has paraesthesia and arthritis in both hands, so the idea that she should now be able to replace the batteries in her hearing aids is really quite wild. She said that if I wanted to obtain batteries for hearing aids, the best place I could look would be down the side of her settee, because there are many down there.
The NHS stated that it cannot offer Mary the rechargeable hearing aids any more, despite them being the only ones that she can use at the age of 92. Mary is a pensioner with no savings, yet she was told that her only solution, if she was adamant that she wanted rechargeable hearing aids, was to buy them herself. Given that she is in receipt of only a small pension she appealed to the NHS board, but without success. Scrivens, the new provider in Devon, has likewise refused to offer her the rechargeable hearing aids. If Mary is sat with somebody in the course of her work at Hospice at Home, she wants to be able to hear them speak and to be able to speak with them, much as she has done with patients throughout her life. If NHS Devon in particular, and the NHS more broadly, wants to ensure that everyone has access to disability provision such as hearing aids, it must really ensure that the equipment it provides is appropriate each and every time.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I want to speak about three things in this debate, which was helpfully secured by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan).
The first has already been dealt with but requires some amplification: the system is not working as well as it should. The figures that we heard quoted about access to wheelchairs, for example, are stark and surprising. In researching for the debate, I was surprised that, according to figures from NHS England—and we heard it again from the hon. Member—70% of wheelchair users wait more than three months for their chair, 30% wait more than six months, and 15% more than 12 months. Those are pretty astounding figures.
I say to the Minister: do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If those people could be provided with some help—perhaps not the chair ideally suited to their needs but something that assisted them—through a recycling scheme, I am sure that they would feel that the authorities were at least making an effort. If someone is sitting at home, hearing nothing and getting nothing, they must get increasingly frustrated. Let us be more creative in how we improve those numbers. Recycling equipment has to be at the heart of that. It is not a perfect solution, because equipment often has to be tailored to the specific requirements of the individual concerned, but it might help.
The second point I want to raise is about housing. There are real problems with adapted housing, with the obligation on developers to build enough adapted houses, and with local authorities facing up to their responsibilities. I know that you are a great expert in this field, Mr Betts—a greater expert than me—but I would like to go back to the days when adapted housing was built for the elderly, the infirm and the disabled, perhaps with a resident warden who would take personal care in their interests and be available night and day for their needs. I am talking not about a distant individual obtained by means of a telephone or—heaven forbid—online, but about someone with hands-on knowledge of local residents. That existed in our lifetimes, and it does not exist now in any significant shape or form. Let us think again about best practice from past times in respect of housing, and create some obligations on local authorities and private developers to build a sufficient number of adapted homes.
It is not just me; various reports have indicated the need. Analysis published in January 2026 by the Office for Equality and Opportunity, “Disabled people’s lived experience of housing in the UK: an evidence review”, stated that there are specific requirements or financial provision to provide suitable housing, but that the physical design of adaptations needs more understanding of individual needs, and that too often adaptations were not focused on the quality of life, wellbeing or independence of the person living there. Let us do more, and better, in respect of housing.
My final point—I said I was only going to make three—is perhaps something that others will not raise, or certainly have not so far: the way that the provision of all kinds of other services can support disabled people. For example, various organisations that represent the blind and partially sighted have reported that flat bank cards have been a huge disadvantage to partially sighted people. Access to cash is actually quite important, because coins, which can be felt and are tactile, are important for small transactions. These small things make a huge difference to people’s lives. We need to think more laterally, and give considerably more thought to such small ways in which we as a Parliament, and the Minister as part of a Government, can make a huge difference to disabled people in all our constituencies.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate, which is timely because I want to highlight the case of a constituent and ask the Minister to work collaboratively with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to intervene urgently in what has become a deeply troubling example of administrative failure in the DWP’s Access to Work scheme.
My constituent lives with cerebral palsy and ME. She wants to do exactly what Government policy encourages people to do: work, contribute and maintain her independence. To do that, she requires a wheelchair through the Access to Work programme—an essential piece of equipment that enables her to remain in employment. My constituent has done everything asked of her ever since her first application in July 2024. Her assessment was completed, quotes for a suitable chair were submitted and the case had progressed to the point of an award. Then, the system failed her. In September 2025, her case manager informed her that he was retiring, and that the case had been passed to a colleague, who would contact her. That contact never came.
Despite my constituent’s repeated attempts to follow up, no one in the Access to Work scheme took ownership of the case or progressed the order. Instead, months later, she was told that her case had been closed due to “no contact” since July, which was demonstrably untrue. When my office intervened, the Department acknowledged the issue, and stated that it would contact my constituent within 10 working days. That deadline then passed. When she attempted to chase the matter herself, she spent nearly an hour on hold, only to be told that the manager was unavailable. What is perhaps most concerning is the reason now being given: the Department would prefer my constituent to submit a completely new application for the wheelchair, rather than reopen the existing case, purely because reopening it would affect its management information.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Last year saw the first fall in Access to Work approvals in more than a decade, including a 16% drop in approvals for aids and equipment, despite the alleged surge in disability claims overall. That suggests that, behind the scenes, the Government have instructed the DWP to get tougher on approval criteria, but without announcing any formal change to policy in public. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a strange way to go about improving employment prospects for the disabled?
Alison Bennett
My hon. Friend makes an important and interesting point, and I very much want to get underneath the detail of why that change has happened.
Returning to my constituent’s case, I want to ask the Minister three questions to which I believe my constituent deserves a response; if he is not able to answer them, perhaps he can write and raise these matters with the correct Minister. First, does the Minister agree, as I hope he does, that the case should urgently be reopened? Secondly, does he disagree with the DWP’s apparent position that the integrity of its management information is more important than ensuring that a disabled person has the equipment that they need to work? Thirdly, will he ask his colleagues in the DWP to review the so-called integrity of the Department’s management information, given the serious concern that cases may be closed and replaced with new ones in a way that creates the appearance of efficiency, when the reality for constituents like mine is repeated failure?
At its best, Access to Work is a transformative scheme, but when the system fails and the metrics appear to matter more than the people who the scheme exists to support, confidence is undermined. My constituent is not asking for special treatment; she is simply asking for the Department to finish the job it started. I hope the Minister will help me to swiftly put that right.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is again a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts—it has been a long afternoon for you and for me. We have been here together all this time.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for leading the debate. Debates in Westminster Hall give us a chance to recollect things that we sometimes forget about. The hon. Gentleman bringing this issue forward has, all of a sudden, flooded our minds with examples from the last year of our constituents’ needs.
I hope the Minister will know that I will give a Northern Ireland perspective of where we are, to add flavour to the debate and highlight some of the problems that we have. Provision of disability equipment is of paramount importance to many disabled people across the United Kingdom. When equipment works well, it can significantly improve independence and quality of life. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency has concluded that, according to the 2021 census data, 24.3% of the population of Northern Ireland—almost quarter, or some 463,000 people—had a long-term health condition or disability that limited day-to-day activities. I regularly see those people in my office back home. The hon. Gentleman for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East reminded me of the particular problems that we have.
A significant majority of people will require adaptations and equipment to help support them. It is crucial that they have access to the support that they need. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) mentioned equipment that is unused because someone passes away or they have to go into a home. That includes disabled beds, commodes, walking frames, crutches and sometimes even stairlifts. Stairlifts are there for people to get up to their bed and they might still be workable. If they are compatible and useable, they should be collected. It is not just a problem in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but a problem in mine as well.
I want to make a wee plea for wheelchairs. Many of the people who come into my office have acute, complex and severe disabilities. They need a modern wheelchair. I am not being critical—it is never my form to be so—but the ordinary wheelchair was probably okay years ago when it was just a matter of getting about. Today, for people to have a decent life, they need to have a wheelchair that is compatible, workable and gives them freedom.
I know the Government cannot fund it all, but many people have crowdfunded or have done charity drives to acquire those wheelchairs. I am going to age myself with this example, but when I was younger my first pair of glasses were what they called the Milky Bar Kid glasses; they were the round ones, and I can well remember them. We progressed on from that and, to be fair to the Government, they will keep that progress going. People deserve to have a quality of glasses that they are happy with and can relax with, and the same applies for wheelchairs.
My office is contacted weekly, or even daily now, by constituents who are awaiting occupational therapist assessments to adapt their homes to their needs. Most recently, people have been waiting for up to a year for assessments, and for further years for works to be carried out. I am sure that it is the same on the mainland, including in Scotland.
We dealt with a recent case where a constituent’s occupational therapist had done the assessment and said that her bathroom was in no way suitable for her needs. To make it accessible, they needed to take the bath out, put a shower in, put a stool in the shower and make the doors wide enough—I am not smarter than anybody else, but I am involved with these cases regularly, so I understand fairly quickly what people need.
The lady is in pain daily and is struggling to do the bare minimum, from showering to using the toilet. After two years, she heard from her contractors last Friday—this is a fresh story—who agreed the plans, got things measured up and said that they would see her the next week. They were due back at 8 am yesterday to commence the work, but they never showed up. I understand that making adaptations for disabilities is not always a profitable job for contractors, but if they commit to something, they should turn up and do it, for goodness’ sake. I am not one to blame anyone, as issues arise and priorities shift, but there must be a level of accountability for the completion of works.
Furthermore, we must take the extra step to ensure that in businesses and work places, adaptations for those who are disabled are prioritised. For example, businesses across the United Kingdom have automatic doors for people who are disabled and in wheelchairs. They are not just a convenience but a vital accessibility feature that ensures that all customers, including those with disabilities, can enter and navigate premises safely and independently. That is just a small point, but it is one that I have noticed, as have Members across this Chamber, I am sure. Automatic doors support people using wheelchairs or mobility aids, as well as parents with pushchairs, and they create a more inclusive environment that meets both legal accessibility standards and modern expectations of equal access.
These are all things we should talk about, but it is all well and good for us to talk about it. I understand the issues; we are here not to criticise the Minister or the Government, but to try to find a constructive and helpful way forward. More often than not, funding is the critical issue. I would gently suggest that the Government need to ensure that physical support can be accessed, and the reasons for the delays must be tackled at their root cause. I believe that the UK Government, and the Minister, will collaborate closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to tackle backlogs for assessments for disability equipment by co-ordinating funding, and by streamlining procurement, which is also important—if the Government buy 10,000 disability beds to distribute across all the United Kingdom, there must be a better way of doing that procurement. Again, I am trying to be helpful with that. I am sure that they will also share best practices.
I thank you again, Mr Betts, for your patience and for your chairship—you have done incredibly well.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
We now move on to the Front Benchers. The Liberal Democrat and Opposition spokespeople will have five minutes, and the Minister will have 10. There is a bit of flexibility on that time, so we can be a little more generous if required.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate. I also thank you for your chairmanship today, Mr Betts.
There are fantastic organisations in Epsom and Ewell that support my disabled constituents, including Mid Surrey Mencap, which I met last year. Its work is profound, but without the right equipment, organisations can only do so much. A lack of equipment often leaves people reliant on family members to manually help them with essential tasks, including going to the toilet and washing. From grab rails to shower seats, equipment can mean the difference between dependence and independence.
The report on this issue from the APPG for access to disability equipment revealed that staff shortages, supply chain delays and inconsistent local authority processes cause widespread delays to equipment provision. It is clear that we need structural change, and the NHS reform Bill provides an opportunity to deliver a co-ordinated, national approach on disability equipment. Will the Minister commit to using that legislation to deliver this?
It is widely recognised that access to wheelchairs varies significantly across the country, and demand is skyrocketing. In September 2025, the charity Whizz Kidz was forced to close its wheelchair waiting list for the first time in its 35-year history because of high demand. Moreover, the average wait time between being discharged from hospital after life-altering injuries and being assessed for a wheelchair is 10 months. Although the Liberal Democrats welcome NHS England’s wheelchair quality framework, I am concerned that with ICBs facing cuts and reorganisation, a framework may not have the impact necessary to deliver change.
What makes matters worse is that equipment wastage in the NHS is huge, and we only need to go to the local tip to see it. In July, I wrote to the Minister for Secondary Care following concerns from a constituent about NHS equipment wastage. In her response, she highlighted the Design for Life road map, which includes a framework for decontamination infrastructure across NHS trusts to enable the safe sterilisation and reuse of medical equipment. I find it shocking that disabled people are waiting months or even years for equipment, while other patients are forced to throw away useful equipment that could be reused once they have recovered. Will the Minister confirm how much equipment has been diverted from waste since the road map was published over a year ago?
The debate has reinforced a simple but vital truth: everyone deserves to live independently and with dignity. After the Conservatives left social care in disarray, the Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring that people with disabilities have access to suitable housing, meaningful employment and the opportunity to enjoy the activities that make life fulfilling. I ask the Minister to make the simple commitment that specialised services and disabled equipment will no longer be treated as an afterthought but as an essential part of enabling people to live full and independent lives, and to work if they can do so, and that more equipment is reused.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is lovely to see such a thoughtful, thought-provoking debate, with cross-party unity on the question of how we can better support our constituents who are suffering. It could be with a stairlift, a shower, a home aid or an adaption. When I was a GP, I saw what difference that can make to people. More recently, I visited Mounts & More in Stoke Golding, a company of specialists who support wheelchair users. Margaret and her family started Mounts & More in Market Bosworth in 1996; it fits mounting systems, such as for augmentative and alternative communication, to wheelchairs. The company’s best example is of Professor Stephen Hawking—it fitted the specialist holding position for such equipment. It also drives innovation and the small business side of things that we so long for in the UK.
I am keen to dive straight into some of the questions asked, as time is short, but before I do so, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for being so succinct in his well thought out speech. He is a rare parliamentarian in that he had only a single question for the Minister. I congratulate him on that. He raised a significant point about strategy. The Government say they do not have a plan to bring forward an equipment strategy, and they tend to point towards the ICBs as the commissioners on this.
There is going to be some difficulty, though, if the ICBs are cutting their staff by 50%. I do agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who asked whether there is an opportunity to look at what can be done in the forthcoming health Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister would set out whether this is a consideration when it comes to dealing with support for people with disabilities.
I have another question for the Minister on the disabled facilities grant. The Government have done a review, which is welcome, and recently published their look at the issue. As more and more people become infirm—the good news is that they are living longer, the bad news that they have more disabilities—the need will go up. It is not clear from the information that has been published just how that will be monitored. How will we ensure that the funding is going to the right place and working? There is a calculator on the website that says how it will be redistributed, but I point out that clarity on accountability will be hugely important. I would welcome input from the Minister on what that will look like.
Sir John Hayes
On that specific point, the Government have said that that additional money for the grant will provide about 5,000 additional home adaptations. It would be really useful if the Minister, when he responds, could describe how local authorities will access that funding, how those 5,000 adaptations will be distributed across the kingdom and what kind of adaptations we are talking about. Are we talking about adaptations to new build houses or long-standing traditional houses in the private or public sectors? A bit more detail on that would be very welcome.
Dr Evans
My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. This is part of the problem in how we get different parts of the system to work together to get a full understanding of the situation; that is most important for those who are affected, but also for the commissioners who are trying to make the decisions on where the equipment goes. I hope the Minister has heard that and will be able to work it into his response.
I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), the chair of the APPG, raise the very important issue of the insolvency of NRS Healthcare. For those who do not know, NRS Healthcare accounts for about 40% of coverage, covering 15 million people and 21 local authorities across the country. Its insolvency showed a weakness in the way we deliver our supply.
I wrote to the Government back in the summer to try to find out what was being done and what lessons had been learnt. I received a generic response early on in August, saying that things are being kept under review. It stated:
“The Department continues to monitor the situation closely and will support LAs to learn lessons and consider the implications for future resilience in this market.”
I followed up very quickly and wrote back in September to ask more questions, but unfortunately I have not as yet received a response. I have with me a copy of the letter that was sent asking questions, particularly about what lessons have been learnt in this case and, more importantly, what is being done to implement more resilience in the supply chain. I would be grateful if the Minister could take a look.
If such a thing were to happen again, given the stark economic situation we are facing, which I appreciate is outside the scope of this debate, it would have knock-on effects for some of the most vulnerable in our society. I would be grateful if the Government would set out exactly what they are doing to make sure the supply chain is secure.
Finally, I want to raise concerns about the better care fund. The Government have been clear in the 10-year health plan about their promise to reform the fund, which has been very useful in bringing pooling together. However, we have already noticed that NHS England has already reduced the amount of additional voluntary funding it was putting in by £388 million. The example given by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) goes to the heart of the question: looking from the top down, how do we make sure these things are all integrated? How do we understand what ICBs, councils, the NHS and charities are doing through their provision?
I would be grateful if the Government could set out where they see that better care funding fitting in and when we will actually see the outcome of the changes they propose. It appears that there have been delays in the national neighbourhood health service guidance and delays in the better care fund. Without that structure and without joining it all together, it is very difficult for those scrutinising the system and, more importantly, those working in and using the system to understand exactly what to expect and when. I would be grateful if the Minister would be kind enough to set that out.
I thank Members for their thoughtful contributions today, because, at the end of the day it is really important to shine a spotlight on those constituents who suffer the most and get on with it the most. They are the most pragmatic, fantastic people, and their support is paramount.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Minister, it would be helpful if you could allow a couple of minutes at the end for the mover to respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
Mr Betts, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing the debate, as well as all Members who contributed.
We, of course, want disabled people to access and experience healthcare services on an equitable footing and to have a healthcare service that is responsive to their needs. That includes making sure that they have the right equipment at the right time to maintain independence for as long as possible, whether that means wheelchairs, mobility aids or other assistive technologies.
We recognise the profound impact that delays in receiving disability equipment have on people’s quality of life, and I will set out the action that the Government are taking. Before I do so, however, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the points raised by the hon. Members for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), particularly the cases they raised. I will certainly ensure that I take a personal interest in the case described by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead and that the relevant DWP Minister also has an opportunity to address that particularly harrowing case.
The Liberal Democrat Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), asked for an update on the Design for Life statistics on recycling and reusing, and I will get my officials to get back to her on that.
We are committed to ensuring that disabled people have access to the services and support that they need. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), asked about our NHS reforms and whether that might be an opportunity to think about better end-to-end commissioning and strategising on the topic. I can assure him that those conversations are being had both in the context of disability and, with regard to special educational needs and disabilities, in the Department for Education. There are a number of topics that, if we are honest with ourselves, have been often neglected in the last couple of decades and have a material impact on the quality of life for disabled people, sometimes for want of very simple changes to practice and, potentially, legislation, so I am very happy to take that on board with the Bill team.
The reforms that we are taking forward in the health and social care space will hopefully help us to achieve what I have outlined. The 10-year health plan specifically identifies disabled people as a priority group for the development of neighbourhood healthcare, offering more holistic and ongoing support. We are making £4.6 billion of additional funding available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with ’25-26, to support the sector in making some of those improvements. In July ’25, the Government announced that they would develop a new plan for disability, setting out a clear vision to break down barriers to opportunity for disabled people. That of course aligns with every Department having a Minister responsible for disability. We meet regularly to discuss challenges, particularly some of the ones highlighted during this debate, which often do not fit neatly into one Department’s purview.
As hon. Members will be aware, health and social care are largely devolved across the UK. I will talk mainly about England, but of course I am the representative of a Scottish constituency, like the hon. Member who opened the debate, and he will understand if I just mention that we are committed, through the Barnett formula, to funding the NHS in Scotland, as we are doing in England; there is a £9.1 billion real-terms uplift in the Scottish budget over the period of the spending review.
In England, integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning services to meet the health needs of their local population, and responsibility for providing community equipment to disabled people typically falls at the moment, as has been outlined, to local authorities. They have a statutory duty to make arrangements for the provision of community equipment to disabled people in their area. That equipment can be free for the recipient if the person is assessed as having eligible needs. Types of support include equipment to enable people to live more independently, such as grab rails, walking aids and wheelchairs for short-term use. Responsibility for managing the market for these services rests with local authorities.
For people with long-term, complex mobility needs, support is provided by the national health service, based on assessed need. That may involve the provision of specialist equipment adapted to the specific needs of the individual, and can include both powered and manual wheelchairs.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
As someone who, growing up, spent a long time on children’s wards at the Royal London hospital and the Royal National orthopaedic hospital and relied on disability equipment, I know that often this service provision is very patchy. Whizz Kidz has described the system as “underfunded, inaccessible, and fractured” and I have also heard that from constituents in Beckenham and Penge. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the Government should look at how we can ensure that high standards are common right across the country on this?
Dr Ahmed
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He always channels personal experience in such a productive way and he is a credit to this House in the way he conducts himself. I remember his maiden speech with great fondness in that regard. I do agree, and I will come later in my speech to how we can maintain quality more persistently across the whole system.
Access to temporary wheelchair provision to support hospital discharge is also determined locally by ICBs. We recognise that elements of the NHS—despite it being on the road to recovery—are functioning below par and that many people are waiting too long to access equipment such as wheelchairs. During the pandemic, some wheelchair services experienced lower referral rates, which led to a surge in referrals post pandemic. Because of that, providers not only reduced their services but now, of course, face a backlog of referrals. That has meant unacceptable waiting times for both adults and—sadly—children, and those have fluctuated as services work to recover.
However, action is being taken to address waiting times in England. In October 2025, we published the NHS medium-term planning framework, requiring all ICBs and community health services to actively manage and reduce waits above 18 weeks and to develop a plan to eliminate all 52-week waits. The community health services situation report will be used to monitor ICB performance against waiting-time targets in 2026-27, and it currently monitors waiting times for children, young people and adults under
“Wheelchair, orthotics, prosthetics and equipment”.
These targets will guide the system to reduce the longest waits first.
Sir John Hayes
Have the Government made any assessment of the return and reuse of equipment? That is not always possible, as I said earlier, but it would be an incredibly powerful message to send to many of those people who have waited so long, and, I think, a very straightforward thing to do. If that assessment has not been made, will the Minister commit today to making such an assessment? That would be a positive outcome from this debate.
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and to those who raised this matter earlier in the debate. It does trouble me deeply that we have a situation in which equipment is going unused when there is that need in another part of the system. I actually feel that quite acutely. Hon. Members may know that I am a vascular surgeon; at times, unfortunately, some of my job involves having to amputate people’s limbs for end-stage vascular disease. I see for myself that transition from someone being able-bodied to needing assistance, and, where that assistance is not available, the impact that has, especially when people know there is this lack of productive exchange of equipment in the system highlighted by hon. Members today. I am therefore very happy to take the issue forward with my officials to see what can be done further to marry the demand and the supply together in the country.
Regarding wheelchair provision, NHS England has developed policy guidance and legislation to support ICBs to commission effective, efficient and personalised wheelchair services. I again nod to the remarks from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East on making sure we get better, more efficient and personalised service provision.
In April 2025, NHS England published the wheelchair quality framework, developed in collaboration with the NHS England national wheelchair advisory group. The framework is designed to assist ICBs and NHS wheelchair service providers in delivering high-quality provision that offers improved access, outcomes and experience. NHS England introduced personal wheelchair budgets, including legal rights, in 2019, providing a clear framework for ICBs to commission personalised wheelchair services that are outcomes-focused and integrated. Those budgets give people greater choice over the wheelchairs that they are provided with. Additionally, the model service specification for wheelchairs sets out that wheelchair assessments should take place in the most suitable environment based on the needs of that individual.
NHS England is aware, as am I, that several complaints have been made about the quality of services commissioned by some ICBs. NHS England is working through the appropriate regional teams to gain intelligence from those ICBs on quality concerns and contracting arrangements, to fully understand the issues being raised.
Dr Ahmed
Well, I have not got time. I will write more fully regarding his correspondence. I am genuinely disappointed, if it is true, that he has not been responded to since September.
In addition, the 10-year plan makes a commitment to reviewing the complaints regulations. NHS England and the Department are developing those together to achieve better accountability. The Government are also taking wider action to support disabled people through the 10-year health plan. On neighbourhood health, the neighbourhood health service will support disabled people to have choice and control over their care. That includes increasing the uptake of personal health budgets, which provide individuals with that greater choice and control over how their health is assessed and their wellbeing needs are met.
One aim is to have a neighbourhood health centre in each community, bringing the NHS, local authority and voluntary sectors together to create a holistic offer that meets people’s needs in the place that they are. We expect these services to be designed in a way that reflects the specific needs of disabled people, with a focus on personalised, co-ordinated care. I particularly think that this is an opportunity, as we move care from hospital to the community, to address some of the concerns raised in the debate today.
On social care, the Government are also driving forward improvements for disabled people. We are enabling people to have more choice and control over their care—through greater use of direct payments, for example. We are also expanding care options to boost independent living at home and have recently confirmed £723 million for the disabled facilities grant in 2026-27. The total DFG budget across 2025-26 and 2026-27 is £150 million more than the total budget across the previous two years. That represents an 11% increase and will support more disabled people to get the vital home adaptations that they might need.
The Better Care Fund, which took effect in April 2025, is a framework for ICBs and local authorities to make joint plans and pool budgets to deliver better joined-up care. That can include the provision of assistive technology and equipment, such as wheelchairs. This financial year, ICBs and local authorities plan to spend £440 million on assistive technology and equipment, and we have introduced care technology standards to help them to choose the right support. In addition, as we move from hospital to community, commissioners can, if they wish, think about better co-commissioning, transcending traditional boundaries between local authorities, social care and the NHS.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for securing this important debate and I want to respond to a question he asked. Whether we call it a strategy or a framework, there is a real opportunity at this time of change in the NHS—including the development of a national quality board at NHS England, which will come into the Department of Health and Social Care once NHS England is abolished —to genuinely think about how we define “quality” for disabled people and about the equipment and the spaces that they use. Again, I will be very happy to discuss that with my colleagues in charge of the quality board. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with specifics that we can perhaps tease out after this debate today.
We recognise the life-changing impact that having timely access to suitable disability equipment can have on the lives of disabled people across the United Kingdom, in every nation. The Government are dedicated to ensuring that all disabled people have access to the services and support that they need to live a fulfilling life; the presence of disability Ministers in each Department is certainly progress in that regard. Our work to reform health and social care, alongside the new plan for disability, will also help us to achieve that.
Seamus Logan
The breadth of the debate today has demonstrated that an hour is simply not enough to deal with this topic. As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said, housing and domestic adaptations are a topic all on their own, as is access to work under the DWP. There is also transport to consider; we could have spoken about transport issues for hours.
I am disappointed by the number of Members present for the debate, but of course it has been a very busy day so it is perfectly understandable. However, I encourage colleagues who are present, especially the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, to try to raise this topic with the Backbench Business Committee so that we can get this whole discussion into the main Chamber in future.
I particularly thank the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), as well as all Members who have contributed to the debate today, especially the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), and the Minister himself. It has been a very busy day for the Government—even a difficult day, at times—so I appreciate his time and the passion with which he spoke about this topic. He genuinely wants to see improvement in this area. If the July 2025 new plan for disability can bring forward a framework, strategy or improvement, we would all very much endorse that.
Finally, I thank the Chamber engagement team. We sometimes take them for granted, but they are responsible for helping parliamentarians such as myself to bring informed debates to the main Chamber and Westminster Hall. I thank them very sincerely. With that, I will close.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the provision of disability equipment.