Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the proposal to require prior approval introduced by the Black Country Integrated Care Board for ADHD and autism assessments; and what steps they are taking to ensure that such schemes do not infringe upon the statutory right to choose established in the NHS Constitution, particularly where referrals to independent providers are being paused or restricted.

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

It is the responsibility of integrated care boards (ICBs) in England to make appropriate provision to meet the health and care needs of their local population, including providing access to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism assessments, in line with relevant National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines.

NHS England issued advice to systems on ADHD service delivery and prioritisation on 7 October 2025. This advice includes guidance on managing service provisions, reviewing waiting lists and providing patient support. The advice can be found on NHS England’s website.

The Medium-Term Planning Framework, published 24 October, was explicit that ICBs and providers are expected to optimise existing resources to reduce long waits for ADHD and autism assessments and improve the quality of assessments by implementing existing and new guidance, as published.

The NHS Black Country ICB has a prior-approval process to make sure referrals meet clinical criteria and that providers meet required quality and governance standards. This applies to all Right to Choose providers offering ADHD and autism assessments. This does not affect patient choice, as people will still be able to choose their preferred provider when their general practitioner makes a referral.

Patients already have the legal right to choose the provider and team who will provide their elective care in certain cases. These rights extend to any provider in England who holds a contract with an ICB, or NHS England, for the service/s the patient requires, as per the NHS Choice Framework. This includes independent sector providers. ADHD services are already in scope of this legislation.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of activity management plans on the financial viability of independent providers of ADHD and autism services; and whether they plan to review the national system of spending controls to prevent Integrated Care Boards from pausing referrals to providers who have reached their contracted capacity but have the clinical capacity to treat more patients.

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

It is the responsibility of integrated care boards (ICBs) in England to make appropriate provision to meet the health and care needs of their local population, including providing access to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) assessment and treatment, in line with relevant National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines.

Patients already have the legal right to choose the provider and team who will provide their elective care in certain cases. These rights extend to any provider in England who holds a contract with an ICB, or NHS England, for the service/s the patient requires, as per the NHS Choice Framework. This includes independent sector providers. ADHD services are already in scope of this legislation.

The Medium-Term Planning Framework, published 24 October, was explicit that ICBs and providers are expected to optimise existing resources to reduce long waits for ADHD assessments and improve the quality of assessments by implementing existing and new guidance, as published.

The NHS Standard Contract, used for the commissioning of all non-primary National Health Service healthcare services in England, includes provision for an indicative activity plan to be agreed between providers and commissioners for each contract year.

This plan provides both parties with a useful tool to plan for the expected demand, capacity, and expenditure for any service. An indicative activity plan is not binding on either party, but if activity carried out is higher or lower than the plan, then either party can work through an activity management process and agree a binding activity management plan to bring activity back in line with the indicative activity plan.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what guidance they have provided to Integrated Care Boards regarding the definition of exceptional clinical grounds for neurodiversity assessments and weight management treatments; and how they intend to ensure that the prioritisation of maximum health gain does not lead to the exclusion of patients with moderate symptoms who may deteriorate without early intervention.

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

Integrated care boards (ICBs) are legally required to fund and make available medicines recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), including obesity medicines. These are available in specialist weight management services and recently one of these medicines, tirzepatide, under the name Mounjaro, has started to become available in primary care. NHS England has been supporting ICBs with a phased rollout for tirzepatide, prioritising those with the highest clinical need first to manage National Health Service resources and allow time to establish new obesity care pathways. NHS England worked with experts, patient and public representatives, and relevant organisations to develop the prioritisation approach.

Neurodiversity does not exclude patients from clinical assessment, and decisions about treatment are clinically led. NHS England’s interim commissioning guidance to ICBs on tirzepatide states that people with severe mental health conditions, a learning disability, or who are autistic, are at higher risk of cardiometabolic disease and will potentially benefit from weight management support and/or treatment through weight loss therapies. It states that these patients should be actively supported to access treatment, unless there is a clinical reason not to do so.

Where a patient is assessed as likely to benefit from treatment but does not fall within the scope of primary care management, they may be referred by their clinician to specialist services and secondary care to receive more individualised, multidisciplinary support. As part of a holistic assessment, clinicians consider the risk of deterioration and the benefits of earlier intervention when determining the most appropriate care pathway.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hanson of Flint on 4 August (HL9915), which Government department has lead responsibility for the authorisation, oversight and governance of training provided by Durham Constabulary to Bahraini law-enforcement bodies.

Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)

The Home Office is not directly involved in the delivery of training between Durham Constabulary and Bahrain.

Non-operational police assistance is authorised by Section 26 of the Police Act 1996, and administered by the International Police Assistance Service (IPAS). This is a joint National Police Chiefs’ Council and Home Office unit.

Section 26 is only required when England and Wales Police Officers or staff provide international assistance, not for visiting delegations. For any engagement not covered by the statutory requirements of Section 26, an Engagement Notification may voluntarily be completed by a hosting Force.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hanson of Flint on 4 August (HL9915), whether training provided by Durham Constabulary to Bahraini law-enforcement bodies is funded in whole or in part by the government of Bahrain or Bahraini public bodies; and which UK Government department authorises such arrangements.

Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)

The Home Office does not provide funding or direct governance of training provided to Bahrain.

Non-operational police assistance overseas (provided by England and Wales Police Forces) is authorised through S26 of the Police Act 1996 and the Overseas Security and Justice Assistance process.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hanson of Flint on 4 August (HL9915), whether any Government department provides funding for training delivered by Durham Constabulary to Bahraini law-enforcement bodies; and if so, from which departments and funding streams.

Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)

The Home Office does not provide any funding for training delivered by Durham Constabulary to Bahraini law enforcement bodies, and is not aware of funding being provided to Durham Constabulary from any other UK Government Departments.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the UN Committee against Torture’s concluding observations on Bahrain issued on 28 November (CAT/C/BHR/CO/4); and what assessment they have made of the implications of those findings for any UK training or assistance provided to institutions in Bahrain.

Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)

The UK remains committed to supporting reforms in Bahrain. We have noted the observations issued on 28 November, and we continue to encourage all countries to engage constructively with UN mechanisms.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government how much public money has been spent since the start of the 2017–18 financial year on support for Bahrain’s Ministry of Interior Ombudsman; and what was (1) the source of funding, including funding provided through any UK Government department or fund, and (2) the amount spent in each financial year.

Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)

The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) is firmly committed to supporting human rights reforms and strengthening governance worldwide. Programme funding is allocated and deployed in line with this commitment, ensuring that resources are used to promote transparency, accountability, and respect for fundamental rights. The FCDO is mandated to publish programme and project data for all official development assistance (ODA) funded programmes, and aims to be as transparent as possible, whilst not publishing sensitive details that may negatively impact on the security or safety of the programme, our staff and delivery partners and the recipients of the programme. This mandate is not extended to non-ODA programmes. All funding decisions are made in accordance with FCDO's strategic objectives and financial guidelines to deliver maximum impact and value for money.

The majority of UK funding in support of the Bahrain human rights reform agenda has come from the Gulf Strategy Fund (GSF) - and its predecessor the Integrated Activity Fund (IAF) before financial year 2019/20. Further information on the GSF programme is available in the Annual Summaries published on Gov.UK.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government how much public money has been spent since the start of the 2017–18 financial year on support for Bahrain’s National Institution for Human Rights; and what was (1) the source of funding, including funding provided through any UK Government department or fund, and (2) the amount spent in each financial year.

Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)

The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) is firmly committed to supporting human rights reforms and strengthening governance worldwide. Programme funding is allocated and deployed in line with this commitment, ensuring that resources are used to promote transparency, accountability, and respect for fundamental rights. The FCDO is mandated to publish programme and project data for all official development assistance (ODA) funded programmes, and aims to be as transparent as possible, whilst not publishing sensitive details that may negatively impact on the security or safety of the programme, our staff and delivery partners and the recipients of the programme. This mandate is not extended to non-ODA programmes. All funding decisions are made in accordance with FCDO's strategic objectives and financial guidelines to deliver maximum impact and value for money.

The majority of UK funding in support of the Bahrain human rights reform agenda has come from the Gulf Strategy Fund (GSF) - and its predecessor the Integrated Activity Fund (IAF) before financial year 2019/20. Further information on the GSF programme is available in the Annual Summaries published on Gov.UK.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government how much public money has been spent since the start of the 2017–18 financial year on support for Bahrain’s Special Investigations Unit; and what was (1) the source of funding, including funding provided through any UK Government department or fund, and (2) the amount spent in each financial year.

Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)

The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) is firmly committed to supporting human rights reforms and strengthening governance worldwide. Programme funding is allocated and deployed in line with this commitment, ensuring that resources are used to promote transparency, accountability, and respect for fundamental rights. The FCDO is mandated to publish programme and project data for all official development assistance (ODA) funded programmes, and aims to be as transparent as possible, whilst not publishing sensitive details that may negatively impact on the security or safety of the programme, our staff and delivery partners and the recipients of the programme. This mandate is not extended to non-ODA programmes. All funding decisions are made in accordance with FCDO's strategic objectives and financial guidelines to deliver maximum impact and value for money.

The majority of UK funding in support of the Bahrain human rights reform agenda has come from the Gulf Strategy Fund (GSF) - and its predecessor the Integrated Activity Fund (IAF) before financial year 2019/20. Further information on the GSF programme is available in the Annual Summaries published on Gov.UK.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government how much public money has been spent since the start of the 2017–18 financial year on support for Bahrain’s Ministry of Interior; and what was (1) the source of funding, including funding provided through any UK Government department or fund, and (2) the amount spent in each financial year.

Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)

The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) is firmly committed to supporting human rights reforms and strengthening governance worldwide. Programme funding is allocated and deployed in line with this commitment, ensuring that resources are used to promote transparency, accountability, and respect for fundamental rights. The FCDO is mandated to publish programme and project data for all official development assistance (ODA) funded programmes, and aims to be as transparent as possible, whilst not publishing sensitive details that may negatively impact on the security or safety of the programme, our staff and delivery partners and the recipients of the programme. This mandate is not extended to non-ODA programmes. All funding decisions are made in accordance with FCDO's strategic objectives and financial guidelines to deliver maximum impact and value for money.

The majority of UK funding in support of the Bahrain human rights reform agenda has come from the Gulf Strategy Fund (GSF) - and its predecessor the Integrated Activity Fund (IAF) before financial year 2019/20. Further information on the GSF programme is available in the Annual Summaries published on Gov.UK.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government how much public money has been spent since the start of the 2017–18 financial year on support for Bahrain’s Prisoners' and Detainees' Rights Commission; and what was (1) the source of funding, including funding provided through any UK Government department or fund, and (2) the amount spent in each financial year.

Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)

The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) is firmly committed to supporting human rights reforms and strengthening governance worldwide. Programme funding is allocated and deployed in line with this commitment, ensuring that resources are used to promote transparency, accountability, and respect for fundamental rights. The FCDO is mandated to publish programme and project data for all official development assistance (ODA) funded programmes, and aims to be as transparent as possible, whilst not publishing sensitive details that may negatively impact on the security or safety of the programme, our staff and delivery partners and the recipients of the programme. This mandate is not extended to non-ODA programmes. All funding decisions are made in accordance with FCDO's strategic objectives and financial guidelines to deliver maximum impact and value for money.

The majority of UK funding in support of the Bahrain human rights reform agenda has come from the Gulf Strategy Fund (GSF) - and its predecessor the Integrated Activity Fund (IAF) before financial year 2019/20. Further information on the GSF programme is available in the Annual Summaries published on Gov.UK.

Found: When responding to the question from the Noble Lord, Lord Scriven, regarding the assessment the Government