Draft Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Zubir Ahmed

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 General Committees

[Dr Ahmed]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her support; she is a learned Member of this House, and I know she takes these matters extremely seriously both here and in her own clinical practice.

She raised a technical point on whether the sub-paragraph should include the word “pharmacist”, given the updating of the regulations—I am very happy to explore that further to ensure that the wording is optimal. I also want to reassure her on the point she made about the workforce; training and a governance framework will be set up by the UK Health Security Agency, which will oversee all of this. Whether it is an operating department practitioner or anyone else, there will be a basal level of training that can reassure all Members of this House, whether we are the clinician prescribing the vaccination or the citizen receiving it. This will be overseen very tightly by the UKHSA.

[Dr Johnson]

Before the Minister moves on, can I just ask him why ODPs appear to have been removed from the list?

[Dr Ahmed]

I am not clear on why they have been removed from the list. However, I certainly expect that anyone who is reasonably trained will be able to deliver vaccines in the settings that we have proposed, which include community hospitals and everywhere in between, when we need to think about hard-to-reach communities.

The shadow Minister also asked a question on vaccine group direction versus patient group direction. The primary difference is that the VGD allows for the separation of the decisions to treat and provide consent by a registered healthcare professional, which still need to exist, from the administration of the vaccine, which is then done by a separate individual. That is not possible under a PGD, so it is about separating the roles. However, I reassure her that the consent process in prescriptions is paramount, and she is right that it must continue to be if we want to invite people’s confidence in the vaccination process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Can the Minister confirm that the vaccine group direction—unlike a patient group direction, which ultimately needs to be signed by a clinician—would not need to be signed by a clinician, and can instead be signed by a senior manager either within a company or department?

[Dr Ahmed]

I will clarify that for the shadow Minister, but we are both cognisant of the wider point that clinicians ultimately take responsibility for prescriptions and informed consent of the vaccination process, and that will still continue. Healthcare professionals will still be seeking consent for treatment; the VGD simply means that they can be separate to the person who is then administering the vaccine in practice. There is no suggestion that there will not be clinical oversight or governance of this process—it is quite the opposite. This provision is designed to tighten governance frameworks and make them more transparent.

As I set out at the start of the debate, the proposed amendments aim to support the ongoing development of a vaccination system that is fit for the future. They are designed to build upon the benefits that HMRs have provided to date, as well as wider lessons learned during the pandemic, including recent polio and MMR catch-up programmes. In amending these regulations, the Government are seeking to maintain important safety measures while also increasing the effectiveness of the system’s supply chains and workforce in vaccination programmes.

The science unequivocally tells us that, after clean water, vaccination is the most effective public health intervention for saving lives and promoting good health. It is therefore a solemn duty of this Government to do all we can in this space to support the health system’s ability to deliver vaccines for all those eligible and, in turn, help support vaccine uptake. Given the overall support of the proposals in the consultation, and the ongoing need to support the continued safe and effective supply, distribution and administration of vaccines both now and in future, it is our intention to make permanent the provisions discussed during the debate. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Eating Disorders Awareness Week

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Zubir Ahmed

Thursday 26th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Ahmed]

I wholeheartedly agree. The Government are committed to ending the revolving door for many conditions—this is an exemplar, in many ways—by joining up care and the streams of information that underpin it. One of our main commitments in our 10-year health plan is to have more joined-up care, to move it from sickness to prevention and to move from hospital into community, where that join-up can happen.

This community can thrive only when it is built on a foundation of timely, effective care. That is why we are focused on reforming eating disorder services so that people can access help when they need it, not after their condition has escalated. That approach underpins the new NHS guidance for children and young people’s eating disorder services, published last month, which is clear that care should be timely, joined up and delivered as close to home as possible.

As many here know, demand for mental health support, including eating disorder services, rose sharply during the pandemic, and the rise has been sustained thereafter. Although services remain under significant pressure, as a result of the additional investment there are some green shoots in system capacity and capability to better meet rising demand and reduce the waits that hon. Members have described.

In December 2025, 83.3% of routine referrals to children and young people’s community eating disorder services and 78.8% of urgent referrals started treatment within four weeks and one week respectively. That is a marked improvement in performance, compared with the situation six months earlier. In June last year, only 72.2% of routine referrals and 63.7% of urgent referrals were seen within four weeks and one week respectively. Although those are encouraging signs, I am under no illusion: too many children and young people are still waiting far too long for support. That is exactly why further reform and delivery are needed.

The Government’s long-term approach to mental health reform is set out in the 10-year health plan, which is clear in its direction. It shifts care from hospital to community, from sickness to prevention and, of course, from analogue to digital, which will be so important when it comes to having joined-up care. I assure hon. Members that those shifts are not abstract principles, but practical changes that are already being embedded. I know that they matter deeply for people living with eating disorders, and the families and loved ones who support them.

But I recognise that plans alone do not deliver care. Delivery depends on people and having the right workforce with the right skills in the right places. That is why, on top of the workforce plan that will come to fruition in late spring or early summer, we are investing in the workforce. We are committed to providing an additional 8,500 new mental health professionals across child and adult mental health services, to cutting waiting times and to ensuring that people access treatment and support earlier than ever before.

We are also working to strengthen skills and capability across the system. NHS England has introduced comprehensive training to ensure that staff across mental and physical health services can recognise eating disorders early and respond safely and effectively. That training supports clinicians working not only in the community but in primary and, crucially, acute care settings, where I used to work. I often saw such patients on my acute general surgical receiving ward rounds. The training includes specialist programmes, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ eating disorders credential, expanded access to family-based therapies, cognitive behavioural therapy for eating disorders, and dedicated training on ARFID, which the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) mentioned. That work is about giving staff the skills, confidence and, crucially, clarity they need to deliver safe, high-quality care and reduce some of the avoidable harm that we have discussed today.

I am pleased to say that funding for children and young people’s eating disorder services has increased significantly, from £46.7 million in 2017-18 to an actual spend of £106.3 million in 2024-25. With that extra funding, we have focused on enhancing the capacity of community eating disorder teams across the country, because we know that timely, effective care leads to better outcomes, supports recovery and helps to prevent conditions escalating to the point at which hospital admission becomes inevitable.

When admission is necessary, stronger community care can reduce length of stay when it is safe. We recognise the concerns that in-patient capacity remains under pressure in some parts of our country. There are reports of individuals being discharged at very low body mass due to bed availability, as the hon. Member for Bath highlighted. Discharge decisions must always be about clinical judgment and patient safety, not capacity constraints. NHS England reassures me and continues to work with providers and integrated care boards to ensure that sufficient specialist provision and safe step-down pathways will be in place.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The Minister’s speech is very interesting. He talks about an increase in capacity, much of which will require workforce. I noticed that when he mentioned the workforce plan, he said “spring or early summer”, which is a change from his previous wording, which was always “spring”. Is that a sign that it is being delayed further?

[Dr Ahmed]

As always, the hon. Lady reads too much into my words. I am a Scot, so for me, spring and summer sometimes mean the same thing—and indeed winter. I can reassure her that there was no subtext to that nuance earlier in my speech. We remain committed and are on track to deliver on the workforce plan.

We recognise concerns, of course, and NHS England is addressing them. Prevention must be central to how we respond to eating disorders, particularly for children and young people. That is why we are also providing £13 million to strengthen the role of mental health support teams in schools and colleges through enhancements, so that concerns about disordered eating and body image can be identified and addressed much earlier. Acting sooner improves outcomes, reduces the need for more intensive treatment later and helps to ensure that our young people get the support they need, at the right time.

We are encouraged by the progress being made, but I am under no illusions. I know that sustained improvement depends on clear, consistent expectations for high-quality care across the whole pathway. That is why, alongside the 10-year health plan, we are developing a modern service framework for severe mental illness, which I can reassure the House will include eating disorders, to help to reduce avoidable harm from them and improve outcomes for persons affected by them. However, to get it right, we need expert input across the system, so my noble Friend Baroness Merron, the Minister responsible for mental health, will be hosting a roundtable discussion with eating disorder charities, clinicians and those with lived experience, to ensure that the modern service framework delivers meaningful improvements for people with eating disorders, with lived experience at the heart of it.

We have spoken, rightly, about online safety issues as they intersect with mental illness and eating disorders. As a parent, I of course remain deeply concerned about the widespread availability online of harmful material promoting eating disorders, suicide and self-harm, which can be far too easily accessed by people, including young people, who may be vulnerable. The UK’s Online Safety Act 2023 makes platforms—including social media, search and pornography services—legally responsible for keeping people, especially children, safe online. All providers must mitigate the risks of illegal harm on their services, and all providers of services likely to be accessed by children must take steps to mitigate their risks to children, especially as regards content related to eating disorders.

Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Zubir Ahmed

Wednesday 21st January 2026 General Committees

[Dr Ahmed]

I turn first to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. Like me, she is a scholar of medicine, and she practiced in the NHS throughout all 14 years of the last Government. She will know, possibly at first hand, that the MHRA as a regulatory body has not been fit for purpose for a long time. It has lagged behind the inventions and innovations now available to patients, particularly in medical technology. She will also know it is this Government who are placing the MHRA at the service of patients by being bold in our reforming agenda and our leadership in regulating medical technology.

The proof point of that reform is our consultation with trusted groups, including trade associations such as the Association of British HealthTech Industries, the British In Vitro Diagnostics Association and the British Dental Association, all of which were consulted extensively over the course of these regulatory proposals, and with which I engage on a regular basis to garner their support, so that at every step of the way our life sciences sector plan is facilitated by our regulatory institutions and authorities. Indeed, the MHRA was present last week in front of a number of innovative biotechnology companies, whose message was loud and clear: they view the UK’s regulatory framework as first in class, innovative and forward-thinking, and they therefore see investing in our country as an attractive proposition.

On the impact assessment, I assure the Opposition spokesperson and the hon. Member for Winchester that we are not avoiding an impact assessment. In fact, we are supporting industry with a phased approach to fees, and we are open to an ongoing consultation and dialogue as this fee structure comes into place next year and the year after.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester is a learned Member of this House, and I entirely take on board his comments regarding insulin pumps. Wherever possible, in the discussions that I have had with my officials and the MHRA, we have said that this fee structure should include the totality of a device, rather than its component parts. I am very happy to take his comments back to my officials, so that we can make sure that he and his constituents are satisfied that there are no unintended consequences in that regard. I thank all Members for their contributions, and thank you, Ms Jardine.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister is making a great speech, but he is not answering lots of the questions—I appreciate that he may not have all the answers. Can he commit to answering them by letter? Will he also talk about the possibility of obsolescence? If an item ceases to be registered—he is encouraging people to deregister things that they are no longer selling—can it still be used in the NHS? How would a doctor know whether something had ever been registered in the past and was safe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ahmed]

I am happy to write to the hon. Lady to give her a fuller answer. She knows that procurement in different parts of the NHS rightly reflects local clinical practices, although there are overarching national frameworks for buying such products. Innovation lends itself to the fact that, over time, patients will want to choose and move on to newer forms of devices that treat their conditions in line with the latest clinical evidence. I am very happy to write to her more extensively on obsolescence and her other questions.

I would like to address some points made on the following topics: the impact on SMEs; the impact on market attractiveness more extensively; GMDN suitability and transparency; clarity on costs; and the evaluation of value for money. I also want to make some points regarding Northern Ireland. On SMEs, as the Opposition spokesperson highlighted, I recognise that new regulatory costs can be felt more sharply by smaller firms, and the MHRA has listened carefully. That is why the fee has been designed to spread costs more equitably across the sector, and the majority will pay only £300 per year.

Following consultation feedback, charging is based on the number of GMDN level 2 categories that a manufacturer’s registered device falls into, rather than the much more granular level 5. That matters for SMEs because they are more likely to have closely related product variants that may attract multiple level 5 terms, but sit more generally within a single level 2 category. Under this approach, multiple products in one level 2 category are therefore charged once per year, reducing the need for repeat charges on minor product variations.

The MHRA estimates that around 56% of manufacturers will pay a single unit fee of £300 a year, and SMEs are most likely to fall into that group, because they typically have a narrower product range than the larger companies. The MHRA is not offering waivers or special SME rates. The charge is designed to be proportionate, and any waiver would simply shift costs elsewhere. The intention is to keep the charge predictable and proportionate, and to phase it in.

Finally, SMEs stand to benefit from a stronger PMS framework, leading to earlier identification of issues, fewer surprises and a more risk-proportionate and predictable regulatory approach that supports responsible innovation. I must make it clear that we are not asking for more money: we are simply changing the MHRA’s regulatory framework to put it on a more sustainable footing so that in the future it is less reliant on the taxpayer and, therefore, more pro-innovation, more pro-market and better able to have a healthier commercial relationship with new and established companies.

On innovation and UK attractiveness, a robust PMS framework is not a brake on innovation—far from it. It helps to make the market more predictable and investable, as per my conversations over the last couple of weeks with major and smaller biotech industry firms. In developing this instrument, we have ensured that the Secretary of State must have regard to three considerations set out in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021: safety, availability, and the attractiveness of the whole of the United Kingdom as a place to research, develop, manufacture and, crucially, supply medical devices. This fee supports safety by ensuring the MHRA has sustainable funding for strengthened PMS, so that risks can be identified and acted on sooner. It supports availability by underpinning a stable and predictable system of oversight that helps to maintain continued safe access to effective devices.

[Dr Johnson]

Will this post-market surveillance continue if a device ceases to be registered?

[Dr Ahmed]

The anticipation would be that post-market surveillance will continue if devices are still used in a clinical setting.

PMS supports UK attractiveness by strengthening confidence in the market for patients, clinicians and investors, and by resourcing a more risk-proportionate, innovation-friendly approach to regulation, including making better use of real-world evidence and enabling more flexible and efficient regulatory burdens over time. A stronger PMS framework will also reduce uncertainty for innovators by enabling earlier proportionate action and helping to avoid sudden escalations that can disrupt plans or supply. By improving real-world evidence and post-market detail, it will also strengthen confidence in the UK as a place to generate evidence, invest and bring new devices to patients.

Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, asked questions about global medical device nomenclature as the basis for apportioning costs. GMDN is internationally recognised for naming and grouping medical devices and is already used for UK device registration through the DORS, since 2018. Using GMDN categories means that the fee can be calculated from information that manufacturers already provide, making it less onerous, rather than creating a new system for reporting requirements purely for charging purposes. That helps to minimise the administrative burden across the sector, including for SMEs.

Category-based charging is also a practical and broadly proportionate proxy for the breadth of devices and types a manufacturer places on the market and, therefore, the likely level of PMS activity. It avoids a per-device approach and the complexity and burden of trying to calculate an actual PMS cost for each manufacturer.

On transparency, the MHRA is improving DORS, so as of 1 April account holders can see the chargeable GMDN level 2 categories linked to their registrations. Ahead of the go-live, MHRA has written directly to all manufacturers with their estimated fees so that they can check in advance their registration data and plan their budgets accordingly.

On clarity of costs, the consultation proposed an annual fee of £210 per GMDN term at level 5. The feedback was clear that that would be disproportionate, because level 5 is more granular in some areas than in others, exposing SMEs and manufacturers of devices such as in vitro diagnostics and surgical instruments to higher costs. In response, the MHRA redesigned the fee, so its charging is based now on the GMDN level 2 category, which is much broader, and consistent across product ranges. The unit price is higher because there are fewer level 2 categories than level 5, so the amount to recover is spread across fewer units, and the cost base has been updated to reflect inflation since the consultation.

The fee is also being introduced with a phased approach to give manufacturers time to adapt. The PMS has been fully subsidised by the DHSC in the year 2025-26, and this instrument introduces a part-subsidised annual fee model by 2026-27. The intention is to move to a fully cost recovery annual fee from 2027-28, once the new arrangements are embedded and a full impact assessment can be prepared.

On value for money and evaluation, the main objective of strengthening post-market surveillance is to improve health outcomes by increasing the quality and quantity of safety and performance data, and reducing the time from identifying a risk to making a corrective action. That supports patient safety and continued access to safe, effective devices and enables a more risk-proportionate, pro-innovation approach to regulation by strengthening the evidence base and supporting earlier proportionate action where needed.

[Dr Johnson]

If a device ceases to be registered, can a doctor still use it in the NHS—legally?

[Dr Ahmed]

As the hon. Lady knows, doctors are able, in certain circumstances, to prescribe unlicensed treatments to their patients if they feel it is a proportionate act to take. It is not something that is in guidelines or routinely recommended, but is at times at the discretion of individual clinicians. Clearly, that would be a peripheral activity, and something that could be looked at by local governance processes; but I am confident that these regulations strengthen the current post-market surveillance, so we are moving to a place of greater safety for the totality of the system.

The fee funds around 102 staff working across key areas, including medical device safety and surveillance yellow cards, software and diagnostics, and compliance and safety data. Roughly three quarters of these posts are existing roles, previously funded through the DHSC subsidy, with around one quarter being new posts that the MHRA expects to fill by the end of March 2026. Performance will be monitored through indicators such as the volume and quality of vigilance reporting, field safety corrective action and trend reporting, signal detection, and timeliness from the initial signal through to alerts and the corrective action being applied. The MHRA is committed to strengthening its internal metrics and producing new KPIs to track performance. These will be reviewed through the biennial fees uplift process to ensure that costs remain efficient and proportionate, and to avoid over or under-recovery.

I turn briefly to Northern Ireland. As hon. Members know, the regulatory position is different from that of Great Britain: under the Windsor framework, the EU devices regulations apply in Northern Ireland. This means that devices placed on the NI market must meet relevant EU requirements. The European Commission has recently announced that EUDAMED registration will become mandatory by May 2026. EUDAMED is the European Commission’s database that collects and stores data about devices on the EU and NI market. It is free for users, as it is funded centrally by the European Commission. In practice, that means that manufacturers, or their representatives, of devices—other than those that are custom-made—that are placing them on the EU or NI markets must register their devices on EUDAMED from 28 May 2026.

Out of a desire to avoid duplicative obligations, we are taking forward a separate piece of regulation that will mean that on 28 May 2026, devices other than custom-made ones, placed on the NI market will need to be registered with EUDAMED and will no longer need to be registered with MHRA, so the fee will not apply. Under EU regulations, custom-made devices are excluded from EUDAMED. They will still need to be registered with the MHRA, and will incur the fee.

Taken together, these regulations put the funding of the strengthened PMS on a clearer, more sustainable footing, so that those who benefit from access to the UK market contribute fairly to the ongoing regulatory work that supports their access. The fee has been redesigned in response to consultation feedback, is being phased in to give the sector time to adapt, and uses existing registration data to keep the administrative burden on business low.

Ultimately, this is about maintaining confidence in the safety and performance of medical devices, supporting continued access, and ensuring that the MHRA has the capacity to act quickly and proportionately if issues arise. I am happy to write to hon. Members if there any detailed points that I have not addressed; I have taken on board the comments of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and I am happy to write to her and the Committee. For those reasons, I invite the Committee to support these regulations for the sake of patient safety and our commercial environment, and I commend them to the Committee.

Question put.

World Stroke Day

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Zubir Ahmed

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Ahmed]

My hon. Friend must have read my mind. As I was saying, our plan is only for England. Hon. Friends have already articulated the fact that in Scotland, despite the best efforts of clinicians in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee, there has not been the ability—or the intent from the Scottish Government—to bring forward a proper 24/7 stroke thrombectomy service. That means that the time of day that Scottish patients have a stroke determines the outcome. They are literally being dealt a roulette wheel of care: 20th-century care out of hours and 21st-century care within office hours. It is simply unacceptable, and the UK Government stand ready to assist the Scottish Government in any way, shape or form they require to make sure that access to the highest quality of care is as available to patients in Scotland as it is to those in England.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I am grateful to the Minister for answering the question and talking about universal services being available from next year. Can he confirm whether they will be 24/7 and what he means by “universal”? If someone is living in a rural area, what is the greatest distance or time they should expect to travel to get to their local thrombectomy centre?

[Dr Ahmed]

What I mean by “universal” is indeed 24/7. As the hon. Member well knows, there are always challenges in delivering stroke care and heart attack care to rural communities. She, as a clinician, knows that we try our best, through the ambulance service and other forms of repatriation, to try to make sure there is equitable access wherever we can achieve it.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow again for her kind words about the very small part that I played in her husband’s diagnosis. I am glad that he continues to do so well. I want to pay tribute to some of the charities involved in this space, because they have been instrumental in the innovation in stroke care over the past 20 to 30 years. I thank the Stroke Association, Different Strokes and Chest, Heart and Stroke Scotland for the incredible work that they do, including in my own constituency.

As the fourth largest cause of death for adults, stroke has a devastating impact on patients, families and the wider community. About one third of people who suffer a stroke will be left with some form of long-term disability. This is an important inequalities issue, as has already been discussed in this debate. Cardiovascular disease hits hardest in the most deprived parts of our country, including in parts of my own constituency, where people are more likely to smoke and less likely to have access to decent food and open green spaces. This Government were elected on a manifesto to tackle the biggest killers, including cardiovascular disease, and our health mission is committed to reducing deaths from heart disease and strokes by a quarter in the next 10 years.

I want to set out our reforms to the NHS, especially those which are part of our 10-year health plan, which will drive down rates of disease while helping people to live well for longer. Many Members in this Chamber are familiar with our three shifts: moving more care into the community, advancing the cause of digital health, and prioritising prevention over treatment.

On prevention, as much as I love my job as a surgeon I am still rooting for the public health Minister to put me out of business. She is taking forward strong preventive measures in her brief, through our Tobacco and Vapes Bill and by beefing up the NHS health check, which is England’s flagship cardiovascular prevention programme. That programme helps to target the abnormalities common to heart disease, to stroke, sometimes to diabetes and to kidney disease, and in many cases even to dementia through behavioural and clinical interventions. Each year, the programme engages 1.3 million people, preventing around 500 heart attacks or strokes. To improve access and engagement, we are developing the NHS health check online so that people can use it at home. That is being piloted by three local authorities until December.

We have already begun trialling more than 130,000 lifesaving heart health checks in the workspace—in offices, shop floors and commercial areas—all across the country. That will also help to reduce the risk of stroke. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about community pharmacy. Community pharmacy can and will continue to provide free blood pressure check services for anyone over the age of 40.

On rehabilitation, the stroke quality improvement for rehabilitation programme has increased the percentage of patients discharged from hospital to community stroke services from just under 66% when this Government took office to almost 70%. There is much more to be done, of course, but I believe that we are moving in the right direction.

As hon. Members are aware, the NHS fell behind in the last 14 years—certainly behind the private sector—in using digital technology. That was an appalling inequity, so let me come to our shift from analogue to digital. Half of all people who experience a stroke in England are now recovering thanks to revolutionary scanners that mean patients can avoid the risk of serious disability. The world-first technology that is coming online will analyse CT scans of stroke patients arriving in hospital, identifying them within 60 seconds. That means that the average time between a patient arriving at a hospital and starting life-saving and life-changing treatment is shortened from 140 minutes to only 79, resulting in less disability and a greater quality of life. I am pleased to update the House that since the roll-out last summer, the tool has been used to interpret the brain scans of more than 60,000 patients.

This Government believe that working people have the right to expect the same level of rehabilitative services as the wealthy. That is why we are so gladdened by the new state-of-the-art rehab gym hub at Montagu hospital in Doncaster, which is a perfect example of the best of the NHS that we wish to bring to the rest of the NHS. The suite relies on robotic therapies, which are otherwise provided only in private healthcare. The machines combine robotics with gamified, interactive activities to enhance both physical and cognitive recovery following a stroke—an example of what the seamless integration of physiotherapy and investment in digital health can achieve for stroke patients.

We are also forging partnerships with medtech companies to deliver the next generation of healthcare for patients. Reneural, which has partnered with Hillingdon Hospitals NHS foundation trust, is bringing virtual reality stroke rehabilitation to patients, and enabling therapists to remotely deliver and monitor stroke rehabilitation. Our shift from analogue to digital is supporting both in-hospital and community-based therapy, and, in many ways, allowing equality between rural and urban communities.

I am not saying that everything is perfect—far from it—or that there will not be bumps along the way. However, in a few short months, we have improved the outcomes of more than 60,000 patients, which is a testament to the actions of this Government. Through focus, and by delivering on the promises of digital and bringing the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS, we can, and we will, do better for stroke patients and their loved ones.

Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking Regulations: NHS

Debate between Caroline Johnson and Zubir Ahmed

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the draft National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), for bringing forward the regulations and welcome him to his place at the Dispatch Box.

This important issue goes to the very heart of the values that underpin our national health service. It is a vast organisation—one of the largest in the world—with supply chains that reach across many sectors and many countries. With that scale comes a responsibility to ensure that the products and services we rely on to care for patients are sourced ethically, and that the health service does not, even inadvertently, contribute to exploitation or modern slavery.

As an NHS consultant, I know that the idea that any item used in the care of patients, from surgical gloves to hospital linen, could have been produced through exploitation or forced labour is abhorrent to all of us. These regulations seek to strengthen the NHS’s ability to identify, prevent and address such risks—an ambition that I am sure commands support right across the House. Indeed, this work began under the last Conservative Government. The Health and Care Act 2022 passed new regulations to address the risk of modern slavery in NHS supply chains, and in December 2023 we delivered a review into those risks, supported by NHS England, which examined where the greatest risks lay and how they could be mitigated. Although we welcome the direction of travel, there are, however, some important questions about how the regulations will work in practice and how we will ensure that the regulations deliver what is intended in a fair way.

First, what demands do we expect that the regulations will place on the NHS? They apply to all public bodies procuring goods and services for the NHS in England, including NHS England, hospital trusts and integrated care boards. Will each organisation have to make its own separate risk assessment? Has an estimation been made of the time that that is expected to take? How many people are expected to be required for organisations to fulfil the requirement, and what will be the associated cost? Will any mechanisms be put in place to prevent duplication, for example, where suppliers are already reporting under the Modern Slavery Act 2015?

Secondly, I turn to implementation and support. Regulations are not enough on their own; they must be embedded in practice. What steps will NHS England take to support procurement teams in applying these rules consistently and effectively and in maintaining the same standards across all the public sector bodies that are covered by these regulations? The regulations require NHS England to issue guidance, which is welcome, but how comprehensive will that guidance be? With NHS England being abolished, who will produce it? Will there be accompanying training and practical support for procurement teams to ensure consistency across the system? What will happen to a supplier if they are found to be non-compliant? Will the consequences be decided by NHS England centrally, or by individual trusts or ICBs? Will there be independent oversight to assess progress? With all the churn in NHS England and ICBs and the cuts to their budgets, how will they have the time and space to do that?

Next, I turn to the impact on business. The NHS relies on a wide range of suppliers, many of which are small and medium-sized businesses that bring innovation, flexibility and local expertise. Can the Minister confirm that the new requirements will not place undue burdens on suppliers or deter small businesses from bidding for NHS contracts? We must uphold the highest ethical standards, but we must also avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy that excludes capable businesses from contributing to patient care.

Finally, I turn to the issue of co-ordination across Government. Many NHS goods are sourced internationally from complex and often opaque global supply chains. It is crucial, therefore, that our framework aligns with the broader cross-Government effort to tackle modern slavery, including at the Home Office and the Foreign Office. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined how those links are maintained in practice.

The question of co-ordination is not new. During the passage of the Great British Energy Act 2025, an amendment was introduced in the Lords to stop GB Energy from sourcing panels linked to forced labour. The Government’s initial position was that existing laws already addressed that risk, but later down the road, the Government heeded those calls by introducing their own amendment to block GB Energy from using slavery-linked solar. That episode shows how important it is to have clear and joined-up action across Government when addressing the risks of modern slavery.

The NHS should be a beacon of integrity as well as excellence. Patients and the public rightly expect that the care provided in our hospitals is not, however indirectly, tainted by the exploitation of others. The regulations are a step forward in ensuring that our health service lives up to that ideal. We welcome the intent and the ambition behind the regulations, but we will continue to push to ensure that they work in practice and without unintended consequences.

[Dr Ahmed]

I am grateful for the comments of the Opposition health spokesperson. Proportionality is the theme of the day when it comes to anything that we implement in the NHS at a global scale. The appropriate training will be provided. As the hon. Lady well knows from her time in government, conversations across Departments, particularly on these issues, are always ongoing. We are always willing and able to flex as we learn and as we feel our way through these regulations. The hon. Lady will recognise their importance and primacy when engaging in supplier contract negotiations, and therefore businesses both small and large can feel confident that, if they follow ethical procurement practices, their business is most welcome in the national health service.

I want to end by reminding colleagues that these regulations are not just about what we can do on these isles but what we can do to eliminate modern slavery across the globe. NHS England is one of the biggest buying organisations in the UK. We have a golden opportunity at the moment to leverage its purchasing power to influence supply chains not only in the UK and Europe but right across the world. Today, Parliament can send a clear signal to the world that we will not tolerate human rights abuses and that, if a company wants to do business with the NHS, they must get their house in order. Under this Government, there will be no compromise with the evil of slavery. I ask colleagues from all sides to help us to keep that promise, to back our NHS and its staff and to help us to keep this country’s conscience clean. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 9 September, be approved.