Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government how the modelling being considered by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is informing their assessment of the affordability and cost-effectiveness of expanding shingles vaccination to adults aged 80 years and over; and what timeframe they anticipate for a decision on implementing this advice.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The phased roll-out of the shingles vaccination programme down to age 60 is being implemented in line with the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) and was agreed as a means of maximising population benefit and cost-effectiveness, whilst taking account of National Health Service delivery capacity. Shingles vaccination uptake is closely monitored at national and commissioning region levels.

With regards to the JCVI's advice to expand the programme to adults aged 80 years and over, I refer the Noble Baroness to the answer provided in the House of Commons on 30 June in response to Question 3226, which, for ease of reference, is reproduced below.

The Government is considering the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s advice on shingles vaccinations, examining factors including clinical benefits, affordability and cost effectiveness.

No decision has yet been taken on any expansion of the existing shingles vaccination programme to include adults aged 80 years old or over.

For any routine vaccination programme which the Government decides to implement, efforts to introduce or expand the programme are determined by factors including availability of supply, contractual arrangement on supply, affordability, workforce capacity and impact on other programmes.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the potential impact of the phased rollout of shingles vaccination for adults aged 60 years and over on health inequalities, including differences in access and uptake across socioeconomic and geographic groups.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The phased roll-out of the shingles vaccination programme down to age 60 is being implemented in line with the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) and was agreed as a means of maximising population benefit and cost-effectiveness, whilst taking account of National Health Service delivery capacity. Shingles vaccination uptake is closely monitored at national and commissioning region levels.

With regards to the JCVI's advice to expand the programme to adults aged 80 years and over, I refer the Noble Baroness to the answer provided in the House of Commons on 30 June in response to Question 3226, which, for ease of reference, is reproduced below.

The Government is considering the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s advice on shingles vaccinations, examining factors including clinical benefits, affordability and cost effectiveness.

No decision has yet been taken on any expansion of the existing shingles vaccination programme to include adults aged 80 years old or over.

For any routine vaccination programme which the Government decides to implement, efforts to introduce or expand the programme are determined by factors including availability of supply, contractual arrangement on supply, affordability, workforce capacity and impact on other programmes.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the level of UK funding required for the International Peace Fund for Israelis and Palestinians to operate at the scale necessary to support Israeli and Palestinian civil society and contribute meaningfully to a just and lasting peace.

Answered by Lord Wood of Anfield - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)

The UK, Australia and Canada have each committed £1 million to launch the International Peace Fund. Once operational, the Fund will seek to bring on other donors and scale up efforts. The Fund will complement diplomatic and humanitarian efforts by investing in the social and civic foundations needed for a sustainable peace and by working with partners to mobilise wider international support. We have been clear that a negotiated two-state solution is the only viable route to a just and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to ensure that the UK's contribution to the International Peace Fund for Israelis and Palestinians is commensurate with the scale of the conflict and reflects the UK's ambition to play a leading international role in advancing a just and lasting peace.

Answered by Lord Wood of Anfield - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)

The UK, Australia and Canada have each committed £1 million to launch the International Peace Fund. Once operational, the Fund will seek to bring on other donors and scale up efforts. The Fund will complement diplomatic and humanitarian efforts by investing in the social and civic foundations needed for a sustainable peace and by working with partners to mobilise wider international support. We have been clear that a negotiated two-state solution is the only viable route to a just and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Question to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Vallance of Balham on 16 December 2025 (HL12581), whether they have an updated timeline for the publication of Research England’s Strategic Institutional Research Funding review.

Answered by Lord Leong - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade)

Strategic Institutional Research Funding (SIRF) Review remains ongoing. As outlined in the UKRI Strategy, the review is assessing the effectiveness of Research England’s block grant funding and allocation mechanisms. Any resulting changes to SIRF allocations will be implemented by the end of the Spending Review period.

Rather than a final publication, outputs will be published as they are finalised. Research England plans to publish the Transparency Programme pilot findings, the SIRF Impact Evaluation and the Condition of the Research Estate reports by December 2026 and will continue to work with stakeholders on future elements including a SIRF evaluation report.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask His Majesty's Government what powers they are considering devolving to local authorities.

Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

Local authorities are central to the Government's ambitions for economic growth, public service reform and stronger communities.

As set out in the Government's Rewiring the State Cabinet Statement (here), we are committed to shifting power from central government to local leaders and communities, including through ensuring that powers, functions and resources are exercised at the level most appropriate to achieving better outcomes for people and places.

The Government has also committed to increasing the proportion of business rates retained by local government. Further detail on our approach to devolution and the distribution of responsibilities across different levels of government will be set out in a forthcoming White Paper.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the survival rates for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis by deprivation quintile.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The requested information is not centrally held by the Department and could only be obtained for the purposes of answering this question at disproportionate cost.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of Principle 4 of NHS England's commercial framework for new medicines upon the availability of commercial flexibilities for multi-indication medicines.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

No formal assessment has been made. The next consultation on NHS England’s Commercial Framework, currently planned for 2026/27, will seek views on commercial options including indication-specific pricing.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether the next review of NHS England's commercial framework for new medicines will consult on changes to the process for securing indication-specific pricing agreements for multi-indication medicines.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

No formal assessment has been made. The next consultation on NHS England’s Commercial Framework, currently planned for 2026/27, will seek views on commercial options including indication-specific pricing.

Question to the HM Treasury:

To ask His Majesty's Government what consideration they have given to devolving the power of setting business rates to Northern Ireland as part of the government's devolution agenda.

Answered by Lord Pitt-Watson - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)

Non-domestic rates are already devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly by the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the additional administrative capacity required by local government to take on any new tax powers.

Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The government works closely with local government to identify the capacity implications of devolved powers. This includes the Overnight Visitor Levy where Strategic Authorities will be the tax authority responsible for the administration of the levy. Government will work closely with Strategic Authorities interested in using the power and will assess any financial implications in due course.

At the Local Government Finance Settlement, we confirmed a total of £99.6m of funding over the Spending Review period to support existing eligible Strategic Authorities’ staffing and administrative costs, and central corporate functions. Government will also set out further detail on support for MSA capacity and capability later this year building on the Rewiring the State Cabinet statement.

Question to the HM Treasury:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the merits of introducing public country by country reporting to tackle profit shifting by large multinational corporations.

Answered by Lord Pitt-Watson - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)

The UK has led the way on international tax reforms to ensure that large multinational enterprises pay their fair share of tax on profits arising from their UK activities. This includes fully implementing the actions agreed through the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project, and being at the forefront of development and implementation of the Global Minimum Corporate Tax. These reforms have strengthened the international tax framework and reduced opportunities for multinational groups to shift profits artificially. The UK already requires multinational groups to provide country-by-country reports to HMRC, publishes aggregated country-level data, has public reporting requirements in certain sectors and robust wider reporting requirements. The Government believes that any action on public country-by-country reporting should be coordinated internationally to ensure a consistent and comprehensive approach and to minimise the risk of competitive distortions.

Question to the HM Treasury:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the merits of replacing business rates with a land value tax.

Answered by Lord Pitt-Watson - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)

The Government is committed to creating a fairer business rates system over the course of this Parliament that protects the high street, supports investment, and is fit for the 21st century.

The Call for Evidence on business rates and investment, published at Budget 2025, built on the findings of the Transforming Business Rates Discussion Paper and asked stakeholders for more detailed evidence on how the business rates system influences investment decisions. The Government are carefully considering representations received, and a Government response to the Call for Evidence will be published in due course.

Question to the HM Treasury:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the merits of replacing council tax with a proportional property tax.

Answered by Lord Pitt-Watson - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)

The Government keeps all tax policy under review and any changes are set out at fiscal events.

Council Tax is a vital source of income for Local Authorities, which the OBR forecasts to raise c. £50.9 billion across England in 2025-26. It ensures households contribute to the cost of local services, including those who rent.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government which body will be accountable for assessing variation in waiting times for specialist interstitial lung disease centres between integrated care boards and between regions in England; and when that assessment will be made.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Government is committed to returning to the National Health Service constitutional standard that 92% of patients wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to consultant-led treatment.

The NHS Oversight Framework 2026/27 provides a consistent basis for identifying performance concerns and determining where organisations may require support or intervention. The NHS Medium Term Planning Framework also ensures that there is public accountability for performance.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of fragmented care pathways on outcomes for patients with interstitial lung disease, including in relation to avoidable disease progression and premature mortality.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Every three years, all National Clinical Audits, including the National Respiratory Audit Programme, go through a process to decide whether they will be recommissioned, which includes determining any variation of the clinical areas covered. Any representations to expand the current programme will be considered as part of that process.

Commissioning responsibility for interstitial lung disease (ILD) has been delegated to integrated care boards to facilitate joined up care and the better configuration of services to meet local needs. The current national service specification describes the standards required of clinical teams to support patients physically and emotionally with the diagnosis and management of people with ILD. The Specialised Respiratory Clinical Reference Group is looking to update the national service specification during 2027/28, including a commissioning plan to support local implementation.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of psychological support available to patients with interstitial lung disease.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Every three years, all National Clinical Audits, including the National Respiratory Audit Programme, go through a process to decide whether they will be recommissioned, which includes determining any variation of the clinical areas covered. Any representations to expand the current programme will be considered as part of that process.

Commissioning responsibility for interstitial lung disease (ILD) has been delegated to integrated care boards to facilitate joined up care and the better configuration of services to meet local needs. The current national service specification describes the standards required of clinical teams to support patients physically and emotionally with the diagnosis and management of people with ILD. The Specialised Respiratory Clinical Reference Group is looking to update the national service specification during 2027/28, including a commissioning plan to support local implementation.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to expand the National Respiratory Audit Programme to include interstitial lung disease.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Every three years, all National Clinical Audits, including the National Respiratory Audit Programme, go through a process to decide whether they will be recommissioned, which includes determining any variation of the clinical areas covered. Any representations to expand the current programme will be considered as part of that process.

Commissioning responsibility for interstitial lung disease (ILD) has been delegated to integrated care boards to facilitate joined up care and the better configuration of services to meet local needs. The current national service specification describes the standards required of clinical teams to support patients physically and emotionally with the diagnosis and management of people with ILD. The Specialised Respiratory Clinical Reference Group is looking to update the national service specification during 2027/28, including a commissioning plan to support local implementation.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to consult on changes to the process for securing indication-specific pricing agreements for multi-indication medicines in the next review of NHS England's Commercial Framework for New Medicines.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Principle 4 of NHS England’s Commercial Framework for New Medicines says that complex confidential commercial deals should normally only be considered for medicines that offer value at, or below, the lower end of the standard National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold, or any other relevant threshold. This helps ensure these flexibilities are used for new treatments that offer good value, and helps protect the National Health Service from paying more than it should.

For medicines used to treat more than one condition, NHS England prefers a single price where possible. This is simpler for NHS payments and helps secure the best overall value for the NHS. However, the NHS in England can and does use indication-specific pricing where it is appropriate. The principles for using this approach were included in the first consultation on the framework in 2024, and are set out in the current NHS Commercial Framework for New Medicines.

As part of the 2024 voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth, NHS England agreed to hold two consultations on updates to the NHS Commercial Framework for New Medicines. The second consultation is expected to begin later in 2026.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of whether principle 4 of NHS England's Commercial Framework for New Medicines affects the availability of commercial flexibilities for multi-indication medicines.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Principle 4 of NHS England’s Commercial Framework for New Medicines says that complex confidential commercial deals should normally only be considered for medicines that offer value at, or below, the lower end of the standard National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold, or any other relevant threshold. This helps ensure these flexibilities are used for new treatments that offer good value, and helps protect the National Health Service from paying more than it should.

For medicines used to treat more than one condition, NHS England prefers a single price where possible. This is simpler for NHS payments and helps secure the best overall value for the NHS. However, the NHS in England can and does use indication-specific pricing where it is appropriate. The principles for using this approach were included in the first consultation on the framework in 2024, and are set out in the current NHS Commercial Framework for New Medicines.

As part of the 2024 voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth, NHS England agreed to hold two consultations on updates to the NHS Commercial Framework for New Medicines. The second consultation is expected to begin later in 2026.

Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to seek an international agreement on prohibiting the development of super-intelligent AI.

Answered by Baroness Twycross - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)

The Government takes seriously the potential risks from increasingly capable AI systems, including the possibility of systems behaving in unintended or unforeseen ways. Our priority is to ensure that the British people are protected as these technologies develop.We will follow the evidence and take whatever proportionate action is necessary where serious risks emerge.

The UK works with bilateral and multilateral partners to advance secure, trustworthy, and responsible AI across countries, built on a shared understanding of capabilities and risks, including through the International AI Safety Report and the International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science, which the UK is currently Coordinator of and which met recently in Seoul to discuss best practice in AI evaluations.

Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government what plans, if any, they have to prohibit the development of super-intelligent AI.

Answered by Baroness Twycross - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)

The Government takes seriously the potential risks from increasingly capable AI systems, including the possibility of systems behaving in unintended or unforeseen ways. Our priority is to ensure that the British people are protected as these technologies develop.We will follow the evidence and take whatever proportionate action is necessary where serious risks emerge.

The UK works with bilateral and multilateral partners to advance secure, trustworthy, and responsible AI across countries, built on a shared understanding of capabilities and risks, including through the International AI Safety Report and the International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science, which the UK is currently Coordinator of and which met recently in Seoul to discuss best practice in AI evaluations.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of interruptions to flights from several airports in the UK on 8 September due to issues with national air traffic control services.

Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)

The Government apologises to passengers across the United Kingdom who faced significant disruption as a result of the issues that impacted NATS’ operation on 8 September, resulting in delays and cancellations for a large number of passengers, as well as the disruption that it has caused for industry. Let us be clear that disruption of this kind is absolutely unacceptable.

Department for Transport officials worked closely with NATS, airports and airlines throughout the incident and recovery period to monitor impacts and provide support where necessary. The Department also provided night flight alleviations, where required, to assist airports in recovering operations.

The Secretary of State asked NATS to provide a report by Wednesday 16 September setting out the cause of the incident and the actions taken in response and has also asked the CAA to conduct an independent review into this matter immediately. The Department will continue to work closely with NATS and the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure the root cause is fully understood, lessons are identified, and appropriate steps are taken to minimise the risk of similar disruption occurring in future.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to reduce prescribing restrictions and ensure consistent access to appropriate emollients for patients living with atopic dermatitis.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Specifically on atopic dermatitis, and the prescribing of appropriate emollients, the relevant doctor or healthcare professional is responsible for working with their patient and deciding on the best course of treatment. Prescribers take account of appropriate national guidance on clinical effectiveness, as well as the local commissioning decisions of their respective integrated care boards when making decisions. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) also publishes a range of guidance on atopic dermatitis and other skin conditions for commissioners and healthcare professionals, with recommendations for diagnosis and referral, which are available at the NICE website.

On dermatology care in general, waiting times, and the proposal for a national service framework, I refer the Noble Baroness to the answer that I provided her on 13 January in response to Question HL13259, which, for ease of reference, is reproduced below:

Modern service frameworks will define an aspirational, long-term outcome goal for a major condition and will then identify the best evidenced interventions and the support for delivery. The Government will consider clinical specialities for future waves of modern service frameworks, including allergy, dermatology, which includes chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and immunology. The criteria for determining other conditions for future modern service frameworks will be based on disease burden, care variation, economic impact, and where there is potential for rapid and significant improvements in the quality of care and productivity.

The Department recognises the potential benefits of virtual clinics in improving access to specialist care for conditions like CSU. A central part of our 10-Year Health Plan is moving care closer to home, and we recognise that we need to do this while retaining access to specialist support. Trusts should provide the infrastructure and resources to facilitate virtual consultations, but this should not replace face-to-face care where it is more appropriate, dependent on clinical need, or preferred by individual patients.

NHS England’s service specification for specialised dermatology services for adults and children is designed to reduce regional disparities in care for CSU by setting consistent national standards for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. The specification ensures that all patients, regardless of location, have access to evidence-based interventions and specialist expertise, including advanced therapies where clinically appropriate. The specification addresses historical variations in service provision and supports equitable access across integrated care systems. This approach helps to improve outcomes for patients with CSU and ensures a more uniform level of care throughout England.

Additionally, NHS England’s Getting It Right First Time programme is working to improve capacity and waiting times through its established Further Faster programme. This programme brings together hospital trust clinicians and operational teams with the challenge of collectively going ‘further and faster’ to transform patient pathways, reduce unnecessary follow-up outpatient appointments, and improve access and waiting times for patients.

A Further Faster handbook for dermatology has been produced, to share best practice and support National Health Service dermatology teams to reduce the number of Did Not Attend appointments, reduce unnecessary follow ups and, where appropriate, reduce the number of outpatient appointments by booking patients straight to tests, helping to free up capacity for patients in need of specialist dermatology services.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to implement a new NHS England and Department of Health and Social Care-led national service framework for dermatology.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Specifically on atopic dermatitis, and the prescribing of appropriate emollients, the relevant doctor or healthcare professional is responsible for working with their patient and deciding on the best course of treatment. Prescribers take account of appropriate national guidance on clinical effectiveness, as well as the local commissioning decisions of their respective integrated care boards when making decisions. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) also publishes a range of guidance on atopic dermatitis and other skin conditions for commissioners and healthcare professionals, with recommendations for diagnosis and referral, which are available at the NICE website.

On dermatology care in general, waiting times, and the proposal for a national service framework, I refer the Noble Baroness to the answer that I provided her on 13 January in response to Question HL13259, which, for ease of reference, is reproduced below:

Modern service frameworks will define an aspirational, long-term outcome goal for a major condition and will then identify the best evidenced interventions and the support for delivery. The Government will consider clinical specialities for future waves of modern service frameworks, including allergy, dermatology, which includes chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and immunology. The criteria for determining other conditions for future modern service frameworks will be based on disease burden, care variation, economic impact, and where there is potential for rapid and significant improvements in the quality of care and productivity.

The Department recognises the potential benefits of virtual clinics in improving access to specialist care for conditions like CSU. A central part of our 10-Year Health Plan is moving care closer to home, and we recognise that we need to do this while retaining access to specialist support. Trusts should provide the infrastructure and resources to facilitate virtual consultations, but this should not replace face-to-face care where it is more appropriate, dependent on clinical need, or preferred by individual patients.

NHS England’s service specification for specialised dermatology services for adults and children is designed to reduce regional disparities in care for CSU by setting consistent national standards for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. The specification ensures that all patients, regardless of location, have access to evidence-based interventions and specialist expertise, including advanced therapies where clinically appropriate. The specification addresses historical variations in service provision and supports equitable access across integrated care systems. This approach helps to improve outcomes for patients with CSU and ensures a more uniform level of care throughout England.

Additionally, NHS England’s Getting It Right First Time programme is working to improve capacity and waiting times through its established Further Faster programme. This programme brings together hospital trust clinicians and operational teams with the challenge of collectively going ‘further and faster’ to transform patient pathways, reduce unnecessary follow-up outpatient appointments, and improve access and waiting times for patients.

A Further Faster handbook for dermatology has been produced, to share best practice and support National Health Service dermatology teams to reduce the number of Did Not Attend appointments, reduce unnecessary follow ups and, where appropriate, reduce the number of outpatient appointments by booking patients straight to tests, helping to free up capacity for patients in need of specialist dermatology services.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to support more dermatology care being delivered in community settings, where clinically appropriate.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Specifically on atopic dermatitis, and the prescribing of appropriate emollients, the relevant doctor or healthcare professional is responsible for working with their patient and deciding on the best course of treatment. Prescribers take account of appropriate national guidance on clinical effectiveness, as well as the local commissioning decisions of their respective integrated care boards when making decisions. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) also publishes a range of guidance on atopic dermatitis and other skin conditions for commissioners and healthcare professionals, with recommendations for diagnosis and referral, which are available at the NICE website.

On dermatology care in general, waiting times, and the proposal for a national service framework, I refer the Noble Baroness to the answer that I provided her on 13 January in response to Question HL13259, which, for ease of reference, is reproduced below:

Modern service frameworks will define an aspirational, long-term outcome goal for a major condition and will then identify the best evidenced interventions and the support for delivery. The Government will consider clinical specialities for future waves of modern service frameworks, including allergy, dermatology, which includes chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and immunology. The criteria for determining other conditions for future modern service frameworks will be based on disease burden, care variation, economic impact, and where there is potential for rapid and significant improvements in the quality of care and productivity.

The Department recognises the potential benefits of virtual clinics in improving access to specialist care for conditions like CSU. A central part of our 10-Year Health Plan is moving care closer to home, and we recognise that we need to do this while retaining access to specialist support. Trusts should provide the infrastructure and resources to facilitate virtual consultations, but this should not replace face-to-face care where it is more appropriate, dependent on clinical need, or preferred by individual patients.

NHS England’s service specification for specialised dermatology services for adults and children is designed to reduce regional disparities in care for CSU by setting consistent national standards for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. The specification ensures that all patients, regardless of location, have access to evidence-based interventions and specialist expertise, including advanced therapies where clinically appropriate. The specification addresses historical variations in service provision and supports equitable access across integrated care systems. This approach helps to improve outcomes for patients with CSU and ensures a more uniform level of care throughout England.

Additionally, NHS England’s Getting It Right First Time programme is working to improve capacity and waiting times through its established Further Faster programme. This programme brings together hospital trust clinicians and operational teams with the challenge of collectively going ‘further and faster’ to transform patient pathways, reduce unnecessary follow-up outpatient appointments, and improve access and waiting times for patients.

A Further Faster handbook for dermatology has been produced, to share best practice and support National Health Service dermatology teams to reduce the number of Did Not Attend appointments, reduce unnecessary follow ups and, where appropriate, reduce the number of outpatient appointments by booking patients straight to tests, helping to free up capacity for patients in need of specialist dermatology services.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of waiting times for people with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis to access specialist dermatology care.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Specifically on atopic dermatitis, and the prescribing of appropriate emollients, the relevant doctor or healthcare professional is responsible for working with their patient and deciding on the best course of treatment. Prescribers take account of appropriate national guidance on clinical effectiveness, as well as the local commissioning decisions of their respective integrated care boards when making decisions. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) also publishes a range of guidance on atopic dermatitis and other skin conditions for commissioners and healthcare professionals, with recommendations for diagnosis and referral, which are available at the NICE website.

On dermatology care in general, waiting times, and the proposal for a national service framework, I refer the Noble Baroness to the answer that I provided her on 13 January in response to Question HL13259, which, for ease of reference, is reproduced below:

Modern service frameworks will define an aspirational, long-term outcome goal for a major condition and will then identify the best evidenced interventions and the support for delivery. The Government will consider clinical specialities for future waves of modern service frameworks, including allergy, dermatology, which includes chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and immunology. The criteria for determining other conditions for future modern service frameworks will be based on disease burden, care variation, economic impact, and where there is potential for rapid and significant improvements in the quality of care and productivity.

The Department recognises the potential benefits of virtual clinics in improving access to specialist care for conditions like CSU. A central part of our 10-Year Health Plan is moving care closer to home, and we recognise that we need to do this while retaining access to specialist support. Trusts should provide the infrastructure and resources to facilitate virtual consultations, but this should not replace face-to-face care where it is more appropriate, dependent on clinical need, or preferred by individual patients.

NHS England’s service specification for specialised dermatology services for adults and children is designed to reduce regional disparities in care for CSU by setting consistent national standards for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. The specification ensures that all patients, regardless of location, have access to evidence-based interventions and specialist expertise, including advanced therapies where clinically appropriate. The specification addresses historical variations in service provision and supports equitable access across integrated care systems. This approach helps to improve outcomes for patients with CSU and ensures a more uniform level of care throughout England.

Additionally, NHS England’s Getting It Right First Time programme is working to improve capacity and waiting times through its established Further Faster programme. This programme brings together hospital trust clinicians and operational teams with the challenge of collectively going ‘further and faster’ to transform patient pathways, reduce unnecessary follow-up outpatient appointments, and improve access and waiting times for patients.

A Further Faster handbook for dermatology has been produced, to share best practice and support National Health Service dermatology teams to reduce the number of Did Not Attend appointments, reduce unnecessary follow ups and, where appropriate, reduce the number of outpatient appointments by booking patients straight to tests, helping to free up capacity for patients in need of specialist dermatology services.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to improve the diagnosis and treatment of atopic dermatitis in primary care.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Specifically on atopic dermatitis, and the prescribing of appropriate emollients, the relevant doctor or healthcare professional is responsible for working with their patient and deciding on the best course of treatment. Prescribers take account of appropriate national guidance on clinical effectiveness, as well as the local commissioning decisions of their respective integrated care boards when making decisions. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) also publishes a range of guidance on atopic dermatitis and other skin conditions for commissioners and healthcare professionals, with recommendations for diagnosis and referral, which are available at the NICE website.

On dermatology care in general, waiting times, and the proposal for a national service framework, I refer the Noble Baroness to the answer that I provided her on 13 January in response to Question HL13259, which, for ease of reference, is reproduced below:

Modern service frameworks will define an aspirational, long-term outcome goal for a major condition and will then identify the best evidenced interventions and the support for delivery. The Government will consider clinical specialities for future waves of modern service frameworks, including allergy, dermatology, which includes chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and immunology. The criteria for determining other conditions for future modern service frameworks will be based on disease burden, care variation, economic impact, and where there is potential for rapid and significant improvements in the quality of care and productivity.

The Department recognises the potential benefits of virtual clinics in improving access to specialist care for conditions like CSU. A central part of our 10-Year Health Plan is moving care closer to home, and we recognise that we need to do this while retaining access to specialist support. Trusts should provide the infrastructure and resources to facilitate virtual consultations, but this should not replace face-to-face care where it is more appropriate, dependent on clinical need, or preferred by individual patients.

NHS England’s service specification for specialised dermatology services for adults and children is designed to reduce regional disparities in care for CSU by setting consistent national standards for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. The specification ensures that all patients, regardless of location, have access to evidence-based interventions and specialist expertise, including advanced therapies where clinically appropriate. The specification addresses historical variations in service provision and supports equitable access across integrated care systems. This approach helps to improve outcomes for patients with CSU and ensures a more uniform level of care throughout England.

Additionally, NHS England’s Getting It Right First Time programme is working to improve capacity and waiting times through its established Further Faster programme. This programme brings together hospital trust clinicians and operational teams with the challenge of collectively going ‘further and faster’ to transform patient pathways, reduce unnecessary follow-up outpatient appointments, and improve access and waiting times for patients.

A Further Faster handbook for dermatology has been produced, to share best practice and support National Health Service dermatology teams to reduce the number of Did Not Attend appointments, reduce unnecessary follow ups and, where appropriate, reduce the number of outpatient appointments by booking patients straight to tests, helping to free up capacity for patients in need of specialist dermatology services.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of delayed diagnosis and delayed escalation of care for people with atopic dermatitis, particularly on sleep, education, employment and mental health.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

Specifically on atopic dermatitis, and the prescribing of appropriate emollients, the relevant doctor or healthcare professional is responsible for working with their patient and deciding on the best course of treatment. Prescribers take account of appropriate national guidance on clinical effectiveness, as well as the local commissioning decisions of their respective integrated care boards when making decisions. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) also publishes a range of guidance on atopic dermatitis and other skin conditions for commissioners and healthcare professionals, with recommendations for diagnosis and referral, which are available at the NICE website.

On dermatology care in general, waiting times, and the proposal for a national service framework, I refer the Noble Baroness to the answer that I provided her on 13 January in response to Question HL13259, which, for ease of reference, is reproduced below:

Modern service frameworks will define an aspirational, long-term outcome goal for a major condition and will then identify the best evidenced interventions and the support for delivery. The Government will consider clinical specialities for future waves of modern service frameworks, including allergy, dermatology, which includes chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and immunology. The criteria for determining other conditions for future modern service frameworks will be based on disease burden, care variation, economic impact, and where there is potential for rapid and significant improvements in the quality of care and productivity.

The Department recognises the potential benefits of virtual clinics in improving access to specialist care for conditions like CSU. A central part of our 10-Year Health Plan is moving care closer to home, and we recognise that we need to do this while retaining access to specialist support. Trusts should provide the infrastructure and resources to facilitate virtual consultations, but this should not replace face-to-face care where it is more appropriate, dependent on clinical need, or preferred by individual patients.

NHS England’s service specification for specialised dermatology services for adults and children is designed to reduce regional disparities in care for CSU by setting consistent national standards for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. The specification ensures that all patients, regardless of location, have access to evidence-based interventions and specialist expertise, including advanced therapies where clinically appropriate. The specification addresses historical variations in service provision and supports equitable access across integrated care systems. This approach helps to improve outcomes for patients with CSU and ensures a more uniform level of care throughout England.

Additionally, NHS England’s Getting It Right First Time programme is working to improve capacity and waiting times through its established Further Faster programme. This programme brings together hospital trust clinicians and operational teams with the challenge of collectively going ‘further and faster’ to transform patient pathways, reduce unnecessary follow-up outpatient appointments, and improve access and waiting times for patients.

A Further Faster handbook for dermatology has been produced, to share best practice and support National Health Service dermatology teams to reduce the number of Did Not Attend appointments, reduce unnecessary follow ups and, where appropriate, reduce the number of outpatient appointments by booking patients straight to tests, helping to free up capacity for patients in need of specialist dermatology services.

Found: Freeman of Steventon Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Baroness Nye Lord Randall of Uxbridge Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Found: ; Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard; Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee; Baroness Ludford; Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Found: Q113 Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick: Thank you, Jim, for your evidence thus far.

Found: ; Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard; Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee; Baroness Ludford; Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Found: ; Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard; Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee; Baroness Ludford; Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Found: Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Baroness Goudie Baroness Ludford Baroness O’Loan Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick